New World Order

[Agent Orange]

The things that may or may not have happened???

 

The Holocaust didn't take place, there is now forensic evidence to suggest the Holocaust couldn't have taken place.

 

Try explaining that to the families of the millions that somehow vanished. Oh, and my grandfather, who helped liberate Bergen-Belsen.

[buck]

Wow. what a well thought-out and reasoned response. Tell me... what makes you so certain the official story is 100% true and factual? Is it that you believe everything that is reported on the news is true? If so then I genuinely pity you.

 

I have read the 911 Commission report, and I have also read a whole lot of evidence, including testimony from researchers involved in the investigation, which basically show that the whole thing was nothing more than a whitewash solely intended to reinforce the story that was originally put forward and cover up the actual truth of what happened.

 

Now I'm not claiming that I do know what happened, because clearly I don't because I am just a regular guy working a 9-5 in Sheffield. But what I do know is that the official story is so full of gaping holes, omissions, and even downright untruths that it beggars belief to me that people actually believe it.

 

You only have to do some basic research on the man who was hand-picked by George Dubya to lead the commission, Philip Zelikow, to make you think 'hang on a second... I thought this was supposed to be an independent investigation'

 

But hey, if it fits your world view to just carry on belittling people who have the insight to question what they are told, and accuse them of being paranoid delusional tinfoil hat-wearing lunatics, then don't let me stop you.

 

Reminds me of this

Thank you for your permission. You humble us all:loopy:

[Smithster]

In all seriousness, I've done some research on the New World Order, not on conspiracy websites, but in other areas (banking, US government, US military etc) to try to determine what people are talking about when they discuss it.

 

It's not good enough to say that it doesn't exist- you can find perfectly serious references to it all over the net- George Bush Snr mentioned it in 1991, a US Major at the Air Command and Staff College wrote about it in 1997, A.M. Slaughter (Professor of Politics at Princeton) and Ginsburg & Rapp have written books about it and it can be referenced in numerous global financial papers.

 

Here are the links to the above mentioned:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA398504

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=WzG5qJM0AekC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=New+world+order&ots=KbsNxAe7eD&sig=BOnLG5-Y6O_3aKoUqvwX_B2DLWA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KiILFy6TKCgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=new+world+order&ots=I9vyMX6ljk&sig=aK0N2ijxtbMFRuBG2OPJc69GEkg#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

So now that we've established that it is an ideological framework (Major Kessler-see paper above- believes it originated within the US Council on Foreign Relations) for organising political and financial matters globally- what can we learn about what it actually means?:

 

In part, the New World Order, relates to global governance- the setting up of global institutional networks that would transcend the old nation state boundaries and operate outside of their old internalised limitations- so courts, regulatory agencies, ministeries and legislatures will become globally networked entities (from being part of the nation state, they will become larger than the state).

 

The New World Order also relates to the financial world- it involves setting up transnational trade agreements, integrating the global banking system and creating laws that will cover the actions of multinational corporations. The New World Order is also based upon neo-liberalism which draws its inspiration from Adam Smith, but whilst there have been strong calls for the deregulation and privatisation that will free the government and corporations from risk (instead laying risk at the feet of individuals) there have been no calls for the greater social equality that Adam Smith advocated (although there have been mutterings that the west is being impoverished in order to rebalance the world).

 

The New World Order also affects the military as the aim is for UN to receive greater powers with regard to international peacekeeping and policing powers.

 

The New World Order is therefore a short hand way of describing a new way of looking at the world (namely through globalisation and the reduced importance of the nation state) and a new method of organising politics, economies and the military.

 

These are important changes in the world, changes that are being implemented ad hoc and with no public consultation, discussion or debate (in fact if you research the Bilderburg Group you will find that the public is purposefully kept away-often violently- from global governance meetings) which is a violation of the democratic values we are supposed to hold in the west.

 

If there is a conspiracy, it is hidden in plain sight and conspiracy theorists (well fed often by anti-Semitic, pseudo-religious or authoritarian right wing propaganda) are doing their job admirably by keeping non-conspiracy theorists switched off and disinterested in the changes that are occurring in the world. It's much easier for governments to implement these plans if 90% of people automatically deny that the plans exist and go even further by stating that they are ridiculous, tin foil hat theories.

 

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist".

 

An excellent post Cavegirl, which highlights perfectly the willingness of people to just go with the majority view and ridicule those who don't.

 

 

Edit: As if perfectly on cue, while I was typing that, buck pops up and reinforces the point... Can't actually offer anything meaningful so resorts to ridicule.

[Anna B]

In all seriousness, I've done some research on the New World Order, not on conspiracy websites, but in other areas (banking, US government, US military etc) to try to determine what people are talking about when they discuss it.

 

It's not good enough to say that it doesn't exist- you can find perfectly serious references to it all over the net- George Bush Snr mentioned it in 1991, a US Major at the Air Command and Staff College wrote about it in 1997, A.M. Slaughter (Professor of Politics at Princeton) and Ginsburg & Rapp have written books about it and it can be referenced in numerous global financial papers.

 

Here are the links to the above mentioned:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA398504

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=WzG5qJM0AekC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=New+world+order&ots=KbsNxAe7eD&sig=BOnLG5-Y6O_3aKoUqvwX_B2DLWA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KiILFy6TKCgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=new+world+order&ots=I9vyMX6ljk&sig=aK0N2ijxtbMFRuBG2OPJc69GEkg#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

So now that we've established that it is an ideological framework (Major Kessler-see paper above- believes it originated within the US Council on Foreign Relations) for organising political and financial matters globally- what can we learn about what it actually means?:

 

In part, the New World Order, relates to global governance- the setting up of global institutional networks that would transcend the old nation state boundaries and operate outside of their old internalised limitations- so courts, regulatory agencies, ministeries and legislatures will become globally networked entities (from being part of the nation state, they will become larger than the state).

 

The New World Order also relates to the financial world- it involves setting up transnational trade agreements, integrating the global banking system and creating laws that will cover the actions of multinational corporations. The New World Order is also based upon neo-liberalism which draws its inspiration from Adam Smith, but whilst there have been strong calls for the deregulation and privatisation that will free the government and corporations from risk (instead laying risk at the feet of individuals) there have been no calls for the greater social equality that Adam Smith advocated (although there have been mutterings that the west is being impoverished in order to rebalance the world).

 

The New World Order also affects the military as the aim is for UN to receive greater powers with regard to international peacekeeping and policing powers.

 

The New World Order is therefore a short hand way of describing a new way of looking at the world (namely through globalisation and the reduced importance of the nation state) and a new method of organising politics, economies and the military.

 

These are important changes in the world, changes that are being implemented ad hoc and with no public consultation, discussion or debate (in fact if you research the Bilderburg Group you will find that the public is purposefully kept away-often violently- from global governance meetings) which is a violation of the democratic values we are supposed to hold in the west.

 

If there is a conspiracy, it is hidden in plain sight and conspiracy theorists (well fed often by anti-Semitic, pseudo-religious or authoritarian right wing propaganda) are doing their job admirably by keeping non-conspiracy theorists switched off and disinterested in the changes that are occurring in the world. It's much easier for governments to implement these plans if 90% of people automatically deny that the plans exist and go even further by stating that they are ridiculous, tin foil hat theories.

 

An interesting and balanced view.

A post worth reading.

[dosxuk]

Edit: As if perfectly on cue, while I was typing that, buck pops up and reinforces the point... Can't actually offer anything meaningful so resorts to ridicule.

 

I'm sure it was you posting the picture of a sheep dog...

[Smithster]

I'm sure it was you posting the picture of a sheep dog...

 

But that picture just reinforces my point even further. If you even mention the word conspiracy, most people will be so convinced that the majority view is correct that they will automatically label that person a nutter (or in the case of Sheffield forum accuse them of wearing a tin-foil hat) without even doing the slightest bit of research into it for themselves.

 

It is lazy populism to just go with what most other people think so as not to be seen to be different from the rest of the crowd and it is, unfortunately, an inherent trait in human psychology.

[dosxuk]

It is lazy populism to just go with what most other people think so as not to be seen to be different from the rest of the crowd and it is, unfortunately, an inherent trait in human psychology.

 

That is only partly true. If people were only interested in thinking the same as everyone else, gossip, rumour and secrecy wouldn't be such important aspects of human life. On top of that, there is the pressing need for humans to share anything that they know which others don't, something which the millions of people involved in all of the main conspiracies have suddenly lost.

 

I see two more important traits in human psychology which have caused the modern prevalence in conspiracy theories:

 

1) The ability, nay, requirement, for the human mind to find connections and patterns in random data. And once a pattern has been decided on, it's very difficult to remove that from the mind.

 

2) The need to understand everything - even if we don't have the required background knowledge needed to take an event from appearing to be based on magic to being based on a simple and repeatable model.

 

I'm sorry, but the logistics required for all of the main conspiracies makes them all but impossible. I asked on a previous thread about 9/11 "why couldn't the US Government / NWO / Bilderberg / whoever was in charge, recruit some muslims to actually hijack and fly planes into the towers? After all, there are enough people out there who would do it given the chance, and it'd be far easier than to fake it.". None of the proponents could (or would) answer. The other thing lacking from most of the conspiracies is a coherent timeline and story for the events - 7/7, we're told the bombers went to Canary Wharf and were shot by Police in the street, yet there's no reasoning behind why they went there, where they'd been in the meantime, why they didn't just try and get out of London, why the police would shoot them in the street (as opposed to bundling them into a van and shooting them in a warehouse), or why out of the tens of thousands of people who work there, only one person's friend's brother's co-worker ever saw this happen. I've been told though, that we don't need no story or timeline, because all the conspiracy theorists are trying to do is prove to us sheep that the official story is wrong, what actually happened is not a concern.

[Longcol]

In part, the New World Order, relates to global governance- the setting up of global institutional networks that would transcend the old nation state boundaries and operate outside of their old internalised limitations- so courts, regulatory agencies, ministeries and legislatures will become globally networked entities (from being part of the nation state, they will become larger than the state).

 

The New World Order also relates to the financial world- it involves setting up transnational trade agreements, integrating the global banking system and creating laws that will cover the actions of multinational corporations. The New World Order is also based upon neo-liberalism which draws its inspiration from Adam Smith, but whilst there have been strong calls for the deregulation and privatisation that will free the government and corporations from risk (instead laying risk at the feet of individuals) there have been no calls for the greater social equality that Adam Smith advocated (although there have been mutterings that the west is being impoverished in order to rebalance the world).

 

The New World Order also affects the military as the aim is for UN to receive greater powers with regard to international peacekeeping and policing powers.

 

The New World Order is therefore a short hand way of describing a new way of looking at the world (namely through globalisation and the reduced importance of the nation state) and a new method of organising politics, economies and the military.

 

 

You talk as if globalisation is something new and the "natural" way of organising things is individual nation states.

 

We have seen long periods of history where empires have been common.

[Cavegirl]

You talk as if globalisation is something new and the "natural" way of organising things is individual nation states.

 

We have seen long periods of history where empires have been common.

 

The idea of globalisation is extremely new if you're used to dealing with social historical timescales of millenia like I am, perhaps that's why I've come across that way. Still it was originally dreamt up in the 1940's post-war era and was announced as a solid plan by Bush Snr in 1991 so whether you see that as recent or old news is pretty relative to how you view history and current events.

 

I certainly don't advocate the idea that national states are the 'natural' order of things, nor would I suggest that global governance is, quite the opposite in fact, but that's a different matter! I was simply stating what the concept of the 'New World Order' actually entails becasue very few others on here actually seem to know about or understand it (Smithster and Anna B being the rare exceptions).

 

Empires have been common place in the past, but they have been ruled either through hegemony or domination, global governance (that is multinational- although US led- cooperative governance through institutions rather than states) is a relatively new social phenomenon.

[andyofborg]

Without 9/11, there would be no war in Iraq; no stealing of resources from said country; no strategic positioning by Washington (which were the primary goals).

 

 

There probably would have been, the case might have taken a bit longer to make but it would have been made.

 

Without 9/11, there would be no war in Afghanistan; no stealing of resources from said country (billions of tonnes of lithium and massive gas reserves), no building and securing the trans-Afghan pipeline that will run through Asia, bypassing Russia, China, and India (so the US can maintain it's grip in the area, without any potential superpower interfering)...

 

what do you want billions of tonnes of lithium for?