How can anyone doubt the NWO is the end goal when..

(I saw a thread from this forum that someone was reading but then it disappeared and I couldn't find it but it got me thinking. The thread was about how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory and how you can just make up something and say it's proof of a NWO... anyways, it got me thinking that I can't even understand how anyone could NOT believe that a NWO is in the process of being formed when no body is even trying to hide it!)

I had seen a great time line of the progression of the NWO before somewhere online but I can't find it now... so I found this on wikipedia of all places just to show what I mean about how blatantly obvious they are in their talk of it and how they are not even trying to hide it. I'm just not sure what ppl think powerful people are talking about when they mention NWO..

Henry Kissinger stated in 1994, "The New World Order cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change its perceptions."[39] Then on January 5, 2009, when asked on television by CNBC anchors about what he suggests Barack Obama focus on during the current Israeli crises he replied that it is a time to reevaluate American foreign policy and that "he can give new impetus to American foreign policy ... I think that his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a ‘new world order’ can be created. It’s a great opportunity. It isn’t such a crisis."
Former British United Kingdom Prime Minister and current British Middle East envoy Tony Blair stated on November 13, 2000 in his Mansion House Speech that "There is a new world order like it or not".[40] He used the term in 2001,[41] November 12, 2001[42] and 2002.[43] On January 7, 2003 he stated that "... the call was for a new world order. But a new order presumes a new consensus. It presumes a shared agenda and a global partnership to do it."[44]
Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on December 17, 2001, stated that "This is not the first time the world has faced this question – so fundamental and far-reaching. In the 1940s, after the greatest of wars, visionaries in America and elsewhere looked ahead to a new world and – in their day and for their times – built a new world order."[45]
Brown also called for a "new world order" in a 2008 speech in New Delhi, to reflect the rise of Asia and growing concerns over global warming and finance. Brown said the new world order should incorporate a better representation of "the biggest shift in the balance of economic power in the world in two centuries." He then went on, "To succeed now, the post-war rules of the game and the post-war international institutions – fit for the Cold War and a world of just 50 states – must be radically reformed to fit our world of globalisation."[46] He also called for the revamping of post-war global institutions including the World Bank, G8 and International Monetary Fund. Other elements of Brown's formulation include spending £100 million a year on setting up a rapid reaction force to intervene in failed states.[47][48]
He has also used the term on the January 14, 2007,[49] March 12, 2007,[50] May 15, 2007,[51] June 20, 2007,[52] April 15, 2008,[53] andon the April 18, 2008,[54] Brown also used the term in his recent speech at the G20 Summit in London on April 2, 2009.[55]
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for a new world order based on new ideas, saying the era of tyranny has come to a dead-end. In an exclusive interview with Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), Ahmadinejad noted that it is time to propose new ideologies for running the world.[56]
Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili, has said "it's time to move from words to action because this is not going to go away. This nation is fighting for its survival, but we are also fighting for world peace and we are also fighting for a Future World Order."[57]
Turkish President, Abdullah Gül, has said "I don't think you can control all the world from one centre, There are big nations. There are huge populations. There is unbelievable economic development in some parts of the world. So what we have to do is, instead of unilateral actions, act all together, make common decisions and have consultations with the world. A new world order, if I can say it, should emerge." [58]
On the Colbert Report, guest John King (of CNN) mentions Obama’s "New World Order" after Stephen Colbert jokes about the media’s role in getting Obama elected.[59

 

problem is, WHICH "new world order" are we talking about. not all of them are a bad thing. nearly everything that is called "new world order" is totally VERY "old world order"

 

its all bad IMO

 

This is true, but until recently like the last decade or so the "1984" technology that allows peple to be spied on has not been there. An example would be your smart phone, which can be made to track your location even if you do not have the tracking featured on. We also have sites like Facebook where everyone just volunteers the personal details of their life. Police have admitted they hack into it when looking for someone.

And now we have a post 9/11 world where everyone has been told they must give up their rights because terrorists will take advantage of them, therefore no one can have them. So everyone just accepts this invasion of privacy. They think they have nothing to hide so they do not mind. It is true if you are buying the lie and going about your business of being a good sheep they will not be interested. But the point of all this is to make you believe you have no privacy, so when you do have a "terrorist" thought you do not act because you fear the government. This is the new world order because the technology to do what they always wanted is new.

 

one can keep exposing themselves to stuff like this over and over and soon see a conspiracy everywhere.
i can keep a secret with a friend or family member for a lifetime, two people that are close have a good chance of keeping an agreement.
add one person. odds cut in half.
most every successful conspiracy involves two or three people. once you get to dozens, hundreds, thousands...
think on it.
eventually all kinds of shit we know about comes out, because someone talks. the only famously successful exception that comes to my mind is Jimmy Hoffa. there had to be several people involved and they still haven't found the dude decades later.
even the damned US president and a handful of top level administration officials couldn't keep Watergate quiet.
Daniel Ellsberg, Bradley Manning, from people with a moral compass that blow whistles, to the very human impulse to share secrets (thats half the fun, right?) and the inability to control everyone and every angle of something as massive as a "NWO"...
i see as highly unlikely thousands of government/corporate people carefully coordinating some vast world takeover all the while keeping everyone not involved in the dark.
oh, except the people that "really know whats going on".
if i was to keep surrounding myself with the ravings of Alan Bell and Rush Limbaugh, it would't be too long before i'd be all fucked in the head.

 

No one's gonna talk because it is a Global Oligarchy; they're not gonna give up their power for publicity. The only people who will talk is waiters and serves that do stuff for them at their top secret parties...

And they have been talking at #Occupy Bilderberg!!!

 

ah. so that explains Bradley Manning. i see now. eace:

 

Bradley Manning wasn't part of the NWO; If anything he was probably more of a serve in their eyes. Until he became a "whistle blower," he was an employee of the Military-industrial Complex.atriot:oliceman::army::bobby:

 

and so what part are you debating for?

the stuff that he dropped came out.

it always does.

 

Part? I think the Globalist have a lot of Liberals believing that their ideas are for the "greater good" and that worries me! I.E Population Control Legislation like "partial" birth abortions and, "assisted suicide."

I also don't like the idea of some Globalists at the UN, having say over America's policy, and locally we have NO SAY at all with regards to our laws. The UN has proven that it's intentions are 1: to lower our population, (Agenda 21) and to disarm our people, (UN Small Arms Treaty) probably to bring about Martial Law, when the people revolt.

But A LOT of Liberals feed into these Globalists Ideas and it scares me; the LAST thing we need to do is disarm the people and form a One World Bully Government which imposes it's will on all the little countries who can't defend themselves from these Highly financed Armies.

 

That's all true. ^^^

I mean, me personally, I'm pretty liberal/progressive on social issues but really I'm more libertarian as I just think gov should stay out of people's lives and if someone wants to marry someone of the same sex, who cares... if someone wants to smoke weed, or hell, shoot dope, who cares, etc...
The prob is that I notice that when I start watching a lot of msnbc I can see myself really starting to think "us" and "them" (faux as "them") and seeing all these ideas as great (on the liberal side) annnd on surface...a lot or even most of them are-until I start to really think. For ex- I think the whole political drama and stagnation-two sides in washington is really just to keep ppl focused on THAT and not what really is going on (having an enemy already...as opposed to really thinking about who the real enemy is... a distraction...)...

 

That's all it is! Our government has been sending bombs and military all around the world for the better part of 100 years. We're bound to have some enemies. I used to be a Liberal,but I woke up to the fact that a lot of Liberal ideas (IE gun control,) are only made to help the people in charge. Even more taxes, is paying more money, to buy more bad government; Taxes don't really "help" the little guy get a job or anything.

"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for life."

 

Liberals believe the state serves to micromanage everything, including people's personal lives.

 

Exactly! This is what scared me away from Liberalism, and why I'd NEVER go back!!!

 

It's A New World Order..........How much $ for your daughter?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvZgwtpPmLY"]blues brothers - sell me your children - YouTube

 

lol.

And yea, well, those reasons are why I hesitate to call myself a liberal. And I wouldn't call myself a conservative either. Neither. It's all bad.

 

Well, I believe in the Constitution and the Right to Bear Arms. But, I want to end the drug war and get the federal government almost entirely out of our personal lives/ decisions like gay marriage. Therefore, I'm closer to Libertarian than Conservative.

 

I am not liberal or conservative, either. In theory, I am an anarchist, though I don't advocate it, nor believe it would work at this stage. However, when it comes to the liberal vs. conservative dialectic, I feel that the former is much worse. There are no remotely conservative governments in the entire world, because governments like centralized authoritarian control, and you cannot have that with a limited, constitutional form of government, where the powers the government has are kept in check.

 

(re-stp's post-)
Yea me too. On the libertarian thing... I'm kinda confused right now about the gun thing however. Because..I def. see that disarming the people (trying to) would be a step in setting up martial law and the N.W.O. - however though, I do think something should be done like psychos like Adam Lanza (I blame the me being hung up on this elementary school shooting on the fact that I have a two yr old)... I'm just not sure what can or should be done on that issue... or by who... and I really go back and forth in what I think..
It almost does make me start to think there may be a sandy hook conspiracy because what better way to get people to agree...WANT... to be disarmed then effect people's emotions about a bunch of kindergarten kids?!
But anyways...

(PR's post)-I would consider myself more of an anarchist also if I had any feeling it would actually work... hence why I usually just go w libertarian. I do think because people are fucking nuts though that there needs to be rules against like, murder, rape... violence... but I do wish people could just behave themselves and be adults and not have to be Told what to do. It's kinda ridiculous being told what to do... but yea... it would be a crazy mess.