The New World Order

Discussion in 'U.K.' started by Paul, May 29, 2004.

  1. Paul

    Paul Cheap and Cheerful

    Have you heard of it?

    Do you believe in it or is it just another conspiracy theory born out of paranoia?

    For those of you who don't know what it is:

    The NWO conspiracy claims that all of the worlds superpowers are governed by members of a secret society known as the Illuminati. (similar to the freemasons).

    It claims that most modern political catastophes have been manufactured in order for the governments to crack down on civil liberties and slowly push the world closer to becoming one huge 1984 style fascist superstate.

    That's it in a nutshell but it goes much deeper than a couple of paragraphs

    http://conspiracy.freewebspace.com/index.htm#new_world_order

    http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/

    http://theinsider.org/news/new_world_order.asp
     
  2. DoktorAtomik

    DoktorAtomik Closed For Business

    Conspiracy theory.

    The thing is, you don't actually need conspiracies in order to explain world events. Once you have enough organisations and governments working towards the same ends and with common interests, it will to all intents and purposes look like a conspiracy anyway. I don't believe anyone ever sits around a table and palns these things - just that the common desires of the economic and political elites ultimately move towards the same goal.
     
  3. Paul

    Paul Cheap and Cheerful

    I think there is more to it than meets the eye.

    It's strange how GW Bush is a member of a secret society called 'Skull and Bones' who have links to the German 'Thule Society' to which Hitler was a member.

    Geroge Bush's grandfather was also prosecuted for 'trading with the enemy' after WW2 for investing in concentration camp labour.

    The Bin Laden family had shares in the same texas oilfields as the Bush family, and before he was president, Bush had talks with the Taliban to try to negotiate an oil pipeline accross Afghanistan, the negotiations broke down due to the Taliban not accepting the US terms.
    ~​
    Apart from anything there is a lot of corruption involved around the 'War on Terror' There has been no official enquiry into September 11th. Alquieda have never claimed responisiblity for the attacks, (they have praised the people who did it but they have never claimed direct responsibility themselves, not normal behaviour for terrorists)

    I still think it looked more like a controlled demolition. (I know I'm gonna get called crazy for this but check this link out and make your own minds up: http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm, there are definitely some unanswered questions)
     
  4. What if its true? I mean as we speak the ammendments of the constitution are being re-written taking away our rights, civil liberties, and privacy. Everything is run by organizations, and we're being monitored over the net. It's not all far-fetched.

    I think the whole beheading thing was a task to fuel our rage for the Iraqis, the whole Janet Jackson boob thing was a task to create an excuse to take away our rights and censor us, we can't say anything wrong about Bush lest we be investigated as "un-american". There was even those two kids who playfully suggested Bush be killed and they were snitched on by their teacher and interrogated by secret service.

    It's happening.
     
  5. baby-boy

    baby-boy Member

    the real insidiousness in the world today is creeping conformity in the guise of compartmentalizing through beaucratic mandating of every endeavour mankind undertakes. Just how many policies are there - "...it is our policy to only do that this way." Everything is being regulated - for our own good and protection of those that need our protection!! The problem is it is a conspiracy of like mindedness. John Ashcroft is champion of the cause. He is their Joan of Arc. trampling states rights, individual freedoms and civil liberties. The far right and far left have become morally bankrupt. The ends justify the means. Any weakness will be attacked and exploited. NAFTA and all free trade has delivered on alot of its promise to lift all boats on the tide properity. What ir also brought was regulation of conformity (ISO) and intrusiveness by foreign trade groups. What it has failed to do is level the playing field by not requiring environmental standards, workers rights and elimination of corruption. Giant global conglonmerates are reaping vast fortunes for little or no additional efforts and laying a foundation that will ensure their growth and prosperity and leverage on power which will ensure their growth and prosperity.... With the social engineering (behavior modifying drugs and planned entertainment and shopping activities - we are not heading towards 1984 but a Brave New World. We will all be classified, weighed and measured and assigned a bit of life. Nothing will be denied us - it's just that we will culled into placidness and live out our lives without any quiet desperation - they call that sheep. and we won't care.

    With the lights out it's less dangerous
    Here we are now, entertain us
    I feel stupid and contagious
    Here we are now, entertain us
    A mulatto
    An albino
    A mosquito
    My Libido
    Yay
     
  6. DoktorAtomik

    DoktorAtomik Closed For Business

    There's dozens of such groups. The very fact that there are so many (each subject to its own conspiracy theory) would suggest that there's no all-powerful group governing our affairs. The thing is, conspiracies just aren't needed. We have many powerful governments and multinational corporations all working to the same agenda. What's to conspire about? They all have a common interest.

    It's common for people to see a collision of interests as a conspiracy. If you look at it from the other side, governments often believe that far-left organisations and political parties are involved in covert conspiracies to overthrow the state, when in reality, they're usually just a bunch of political idealists with common-ish goals.

    You also need to define what a conspiracy actually is. It's all very well believing in such things, but if a group of me and my mates get together and agree to all vote green, that's a conspiracy. We're conspiring together towards a common goal. You could argue that politicians are all conspiring to support democracy. The idea of conspiracy theories suggests something more esoteric and effective at controlling us.

    Again, you need to question why a conspiracy would actually be required. The world is run by the rich and powerful. They've well and truly got the upper hand. Conspiracy is not essential.
     
  7. DoktorAtomik

    DoktorAtomik Closed For Business

    This is why I advised that a clearer definition was needed. As I also mentioned, 'conspiracy theory' (in its popular usage) suggests (a) something slightly esoteric and (b) something widespread and working towards a very specific goal.


    Of course 'conspiracies' exist. Like I said, sitting round with your mates and planning to vote green is a conspiracy, so it comes back to the same point that you need a working definition of the context in which you're using the term.

    I agree entirely. Like I said, conspiracies obviously exist, but the term 'conspiracy theory' suggests something slightly more than a covert political action.

    There's still some confusion over the word. In one usage, 'conspiracy' suggests a group of people working towards the same goal, presumably covertly. These sorts of conspiracies obviously exist. However the wider use of the term in hippy culture suggests conspiracies on a global scale, with many disparate social, political and economic bodies working with deliberation towards a particular goal. This is the sort of conspiracy to which I refer when I say conspiracy is not required. For example, Blair and Bush share the same goals in the Middle East. They don't need to sit around and talk about it and form a conspiracy, because they're both working towards the same ends anyway. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Blair and Bush had never discussed their strategic oil interests. They simply don't need to. Common goals lead to common action without a need to actively conspire.

    I'd go along with that to a point. The flip side though is that they frequently obscure the issues. There are so many bizarre and unlikely (not to mention factually inaccurate) conspiracy theories floating about, that there's a danger of the baby being thrown out with that bath water. The trouble is, all the information is third hand. As third parties, we usually have no way of verifying the facts that are served up to us as part of a conspiracy theory. For example, if someone was to say "there's no way that man could have gone to the moon because the radiation levels would kill him", I have no easy way of verifying that without a great deal of research. Furthermore, if someone were to say "the film used by Nasa was incapable of surviving cosmic radiation, therefore the pictures couldn't have been taken on the moon", then I have virtually no way of verifying this information. So at the end of the day, it comes down to who I choose to believe - the conspiracy theorist, or NASA. Therefore, my interpretation of events is built on a subjective judgement - not factual information. And therein lies the problem with conspiracy theories. Frequently, hippies choose to believe them, because hippies are fundamentally anti-establishment. We choose to believe the facts that suit our agenda.

    Now this isn't to say that there aren't theories that should be taken seriously and be given more consideration. For example, you could say that the Falklands War was a war about oil, and it's pretty easy to back that up with factual information. It's not widely accepted, and so could be considered a conspiracy theory. But the information is available to demonstrate that there's a good case to be made.

    You say that conspiracy theories are a good way to open discussion, but they can equally lead to closed-mindedness. People accepting radical ideas not because they think there's a good body of evidence to support them, but rather because it suits their ideology to do so.

    Like in all things in life, balance is the thing. Be open minded, consider all ideas, and weigh them on their merits.
     
  8. pandiebeer

    pandiebeer Member

    I don't believe there's a NWO because shit is so fucked up. I'm certain that there are no higher ups who caused it, no secret meetings, no special council.

    I think the only problem with the world right now in so far as leaders go would be our president Bush. I'm not sure if anyone is currrently stirring up so much controversy.

    And you know what, fuck that. Peoipel are out to get him and they are taking it out on me and you. This guy has screwed up and put lives on the line and now as a nation, as poeple who had no choice but to be born and raised here are one big fat target of terrorism. What the hell did I do!?

    So I was thinking recently that there should be a World Order. Fuck Bush and all these other politicians and countries who think they can just do whatever they want and walk all over 'their people' because they are elected government officials.

    I want someone who's in charge of the world, of the earth, of global existance, of my actual life as a human being. Someone who tells all these government officials to shut up and pay attention to their own freaking countries and politics because they are not anywhere near qualified to be poking around in other ones.

    How can America go over to another country to wipe out poverty and hunger when it hasn't even fixed it's own problem. No wonder people think we're hypocrits and liars. It's because some dumb ass is saying that they represent America and everyone living there and this is what they stand for. Fuck that. I live here but I don't stand for half of this shit that goes on. I just want to enjoy life. If there was a NWO I hope they start taking over to make the earth a better place to live.
     
  9. DoktorAtomik

    DoktorAtomik Closed For Business

    I've gotta lot of respect for Mark Thomas and the way he goes about things. I like the fact that he's able to find humour in dark situations without allowing it to undermine the message that he's trying to put across.

    Absolutely. In some ways, I think Blair gets too hard a time over the Iraq war. Politicians only have so much control over events, and many's the time that I feel they have no real choice. Having said that, I think Blair dug his own grave by aligning us too closely with the American position from the start. Had he been more cautious, he may have left us more room for manoeuvre and made it difficult for the Americans to act in isolation. The other side of the argument, maybe he believed that America would have invaded Iraq anyway, and the British involvement could at least serve as a moderating influence on American extremism.


    My own opinion is increasingly moving towards the belief that Blair is actually ideologically committed to what he's doing. When he stands up and defends the morality of his actions, I think that's his genuine opinion. He's really convinced that he's doing the right thing. I actually find that scarier than the thought of him acting for purely political goals. At least the latter explanation would still involve an iota of intelligence and not just blind fanaticism.


    Partly. But sometimes the challenge is learning to accept our own limitations, and realising that we'll never have all the answers. It's only the modern age of communications that leads us to the belief that we can always find answers. Sometimes the important thing is to just live your life the best you can. Asking the questions is always important because it makes us challenge our own assumptions and knowledge, but the question is often more important than the answer.


     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice