What is this new world order they keep talking about?

[hamelekim]

I don't mean the conspiracy theorists, I mean the world leaders at this moment in time.

Obama, Brown, Sarcozy(sp?), etc.. They are all calling for a new world order, and they seem to be pushing for more global integration of economic regulations.

This is exactly what the conspiracy theorists have been harping about for the last few decades. It seems to me that it is coming to pass.

You can argue whether globalism is a good or bad thing but it appears that they are intending to eventually completely incorporate the entire world in a global government.

One look at how corrupt current governments are, and it scares the hell out of me that there could be a global version of that. There is no running away from something that is global.

No New World to escape to, or another sovereign country to hide in.

Scary stuff.

[applecorped]

Yeah, the future is scary. Better hide.

[Thunder]

I
This is exactly what the conspiracy theorists have been harping about for the last few decades. It seems to me that it is coming to pass.

You can argue whether globalism is a good or bad thing but it appears that they are intending to eventually completely incorporate the entire world in a global government. .

I'm sorry...where exactly have you read this???

Prisonplanet?

More global economic, environmental, security, and social cooperation is NOT "one world government".

spare us the lies and deceit.

[Horatius]

Once again, you must clarify what you're talking about. Why does a "New World Order" automatically equal a "One World Government"?

It's possible to re-order the way the world works, without subsuming all current governments under one single World Authority.

[MG1962]

Once again, you must clarify what you're talking about. Why does a "New World Order" automatically equal a "One World Government"?

It's possible to re-order the way the world works, without subsuming all current governments under one single World Authority.

You really only have to look at the well oiled machine that is the UN to see how close we are to a world government. Seriously changing the paper clip supplier for the organisation takes at least 5 ammendments from the general assembly, and 2 votes in the security council, and at least 7 years of evaluation

[The_Animus]

If you are worried about governments wait until you learn about corporations.

[Caustic Logic]

"New World Order," to be precise, is a string of three words.

[hamelekim]

I'm sorry...where exactly have you read this???

Prisonplanet?

More global economic, environmental, security, and social cooperation is NOT "one world government".

spare us the lies and deceit.

I'm sorry, but have you ever bothered to read CFR and other globally oriented organizations papers? That will give you a completely lucid view of everything they are doing right now, because they always write about this stuff long before they ever do it.

But people like you, who are completely parochial in your view of the world cannot see the forest for the trees.

I really worry about people like you, what you will do when you finally come to the realization of what is really going on. I wonder whether you will snap and go insane, or just buy into all the ******** because to do anything else would mean you have to actually think for yourself.

skeptics are so wrapped up in their MEME that they have blinded themselves. It's sad really, but some day you will realize the truth. I hope that day is sooner rather than later.

[hamelekim]

Once again, you must clarify what you're talking about. Why does a "New World Order" automatically equal a "One World Government"?

It's possible to re-order the way the world works, without subsuming all current governments under one single World Authority.

You would have to be an ignoramus to honestly believe we are not headed towards world government. Integration of nations economically and militarily is the first step before you get political integration.

This stuff is right in front of your eyes if you would only do the research.

We won't have true world peace and "prosperity" until there is a global government. Have you not read and listened to the news lately? The words global governance mean anything to you? Because they should. It's said all over the place by world leaders in Europe, and even some in the US.

Let's not play with words here. Global Governance is global government. How can you govern globally without a global government?

Look at the power they are going the IMF with this whole economic collapse. This is one more step towards the eventual political governance that will happen.

You can laugh all you want, and think you are too smart and too critical of a thinker to not notice something like that happening. I'm telling you it's happening and people have blinders on right now.

[LightinDarkness]

Oh my goodness.

For the last time, the "new world order" is a political rhetoric phrase politicians use whenever they are attempting to advocate a change in the prevailing political climate that they favor. It is not an actual organization, thats CT fantasy.

[XxDeadlyNinjaxX]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599188951200

Read that.

It should clear some things up.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But people like you, who are completely parochial in your view of the world cannot see the forest for the trees.


I'm from the United States of America. Do you understand what that string of words represents? That's right. We're a nation of individual state governments united under a single federal government. It seems to have worked out pretty well. It's not perfect, to be sure, but nothing ever is.

So, if I or any other American doesn't get all paranoid at the thought of a one-world government, perhaps it's because it's not such a scary thought afterall...

[Caustic Logic]

LID got just what I was going for. The phrase has been attributed to Hitler, but I never found a source for that. It was used by Wilson, Churchill, and H.G. Welles, meaning slightly different things, by many in ref. to the UN, by Gorbachev (and following him, Bush Sr.) to describe a post-Cold War world (with joint Soviet/US leadership), and as noted here, by others as well.

That's not to say there's no cause for concern in what the CFR or other groups may be doing or planning, but three words strung together does not mean anything in particular.

[Rogue1stclass]

I think it's inevitable, even desirable, to have some method of legislating, enforcing and interpreting international laws. Such a system, by definition, would be a government, but it wouldn't necessarily infringe on the soveriegnty of the individual nation-states.

But I really think the national leaders are just saying that we should be nicer to each other. In otherwords, it means nothing, but sounds good.

[malcolmxwarrior]

Hamelekim, They have been talking about the New world order for over 60 years!

Now it is happening and people are STILL in the dark. Ok, for you stubborn folks, I might have been on your side if this was 1981! but it's 2009 and the writing is on the walls and your memes no longer hold up, they are old and washed up.

I'm a conspiracy theorist to a degree and I have yet to see any evidence that will squash the coming one world zionist government. Jack Bernstein wrote about it 20 somethin' years ago and now it seems prophetic!

[hamelekim]

I'm from the United States of America. Do you understand what that string of words represents? That's right. We're a nation of individual state governments united under a single federal government. It seems to have worked out pretty well. It's not perfect, to be sure, but nothing ever is.

So, if I or any other American doesn't get all paranoid at the thought of a one-world government, perhaps it's because it's not such a scary thought afterall...

Sign... It's not a problem if you have a benevolent government. But no country has such a thing. We have self serving politicians who are beholden to corporations.

In most cases they switch from the corporate world to the political world and back again.

These people do not have the best interest of the people at mind. They want what's best for themselves and they will do and say whatever they have to to get what they want.

I'm afraid that history has shown that you cannot trust the government to do what is best for the people. This is why you should fear a global government.

You have no place to hide once it goes bad, and it will go bad, and then there will be bloody revolution, and depending on the technological level of control they have, you might or might not be able to overthrow them.

I'm sorry but you are extremely naive or you haven't properly thought through the concept of world government.

[hamelekim]

I think it's inevitable, even desirable, to have some method of legislating, enforcing and interpreting international laws. Such a system, by definition, would be a government, but it wouldn't necessarily infringe on the soveriegnty of the individual nation-states.

But I really think the national leaders are just saying that we should be nicer to each other. In otherwords, it means nothing, but sounds good.

I don't think so, I think that the world leaders, outside of the US, want something much more substantive. There is nothing like a crisis to get your agenda through, which is why they are pushing for this "new world order" so strongly.

I don't know where Obama stands on the whole thing. What he says, and what he does are two different things. He has to play things up for the electorate, but I wouldn't put it past him to let things get worse so that he is "forced" to agree to what the rest of these world leaders want going forward.

Politics is extremely dirty business and people usually get into politics for two reasons, money and power. You also don't become President for the good of the people. It's pure ego and agenda. You want the power prestige and you have an agenda you want to push through.

"You should never waste a good crisis", because it always puts people on edge and easier to manipulate to push your agenda through. Rahm Emanuel was quoted as saying this, although I am paraphrasing. So what are they pushing for right now? Seems to me it's more international banker regulation through the IMF, which is nothing more than a Proxy for the major banks (re: corporations) to push their power and influence more broadly.

The entire thing stinks to high heaven and anyone with half a brain knows that people are absolutely capable of immoral acts that most people would never even consider. Sadly many of these people are in the government, either politicians or military/intelligence.

I'll let you in on a little secret. The only way we will ever have world peace is with a world governing body that has a military force to enforce the peace when some nations do not want to play nice. Until such an organization is in place there will not be peace. These people know it too, and those who want world peace are pushing for such an organization.

Another reason for pushing world government is to strengthen corporate global control. By pushing regulations through a world government to all nations corporations can increase profits.

Force specific fertilizers or drugs to be used on crops and animals, etc... There are numerous benefits from a business perspective to have a unified world, and those corporate leaders are fully supportive of such an organization, and are working hard behind closed doors to make it happen through their economic influence.

If you don't think that is happening then again, you are extremely naive about the way the world works.

[hamelekim]

LID got just what I was going for. The phrase has been attributed to Hitler, but I never found a source for that. It was used by Wilson, Churchill, and H.G. Welles, meaning slightly different things, by many in ref. to the UN, by Gorbachev (and following him, Bush Sr.) to describe a post-Cold War world (with joint Soviet/US leadership), and as noted here, by others as well.

That's not to say there's no cause for concern in what the CFR or other groups may be doing or planning, but three words strung together does not mean anything in particular.

It means whatever the person saying it thinks it means. So what do those who are saying new world order think it means? Go look at what sort of policies they push, what papers they have written, or speeches given. That will give you a good idea of what they mean.

I can understand the skeptic view that "new world order" in and of itself means nothing, but it has more meaning than you know. Politicians don't use language in speeches without reason, and using the term "new world order" is pretty substantive, it means major change of the scale of the fall of communism.

that's pretty damn big imo. So I think we should be aware that changes are coming, and they are going to be bigger than a bunch of people holding hands and saying that we should all be a little nicer to each other.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist who studied international relations in university and is a news junkie.

[LightinDarkness]

It means whatever the person saying it thinks it means. So what do those who are saying new world order think it means? Go look at what sort of policies they push, what papers they have written, or speeches given. That will give you a good idea of what they mean.

Because if you LOOK AT THE CONTEXT instead of finding the phrase "new world order" and freaking out you'll see that its never what CTers think it is.

No one is pushing for policies remotely resembling the "new world order" CTers believe in.


I can understand the skeptic view that "new world order" in and of itself means nothing, but it has more meaning than you know. Politicians don't use language in speeches without reason, and using the term "new world order" is pretty substantive, it means major change of the scale of the fall of communism.

No, no it doesn't. Speeches are written based on what sounds nice - you could as equally replace "new world order" with "paradigm shift" or "change" and THEY OFTEN DO. There aren't any speech writers cruising abovetopsecret.com to make sure they don't use language which would cause woos to go nuts. New world order simply sounds nice when advocating for something you want to normal people, the end.


that's pretty damn big imo. So I think we should be aware that changes are coming, and they are going to be bigger than a bunch of people holding hands and saying that we should all be a little nicer to each other.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist who studied international relations in university and is a news junkie.

The use of the phrase "new world order" in political rhetoric doesn't mean anything is coming.

Oh please, you think studying international relations make you a expert on it? Where are your publications? Anyone can get a degree. I should know, I have several - INCLUDING a international relations degree.

[Bobert]

I hope that I get the chance to beat a few hoodlums while in the FEMA camp!

[six7s]

What is this new world order they keep talking about?
I don't mean the conspiracy theorists, I mean the world leaders at this moment in time.

Obama, Brown, Sarcozy(sp?), etc.. They are all calling for a new world order, and they seem to be pushing for more global integration of economic regulations.It's quite simple really...

As of the 1st of June, we all have to drive on the left in French cars running on Kenyan diesel whilst listening to an Argentinian radio station on a Taiwanese stereo playing Canadian music

[1337m4n]

One look at how corrupt current governments are, and it scares the hell out of me that there could be a global version of that. There is no running away from something that is global.

No New World to escape to, or another sovereign country to hide in.

You could always move to Antarctica, which is, incidentally, what I recommend for all conspiracy idiots.

Please keep your remarks civil and polite.

[1337m4n]

I
I really worry about people like you, what you will do when you finally come to the realization of what is really going on. I wonder whether you will snap and go insane, or just buy into all the ******** because to do anything else would mean you have to actually think for yourself.

skeptics are so wrapped up in their MEME that they have blinded themselves. It's sad really, but some day you will realize the truth. I hope that day is sooner rather than later.

"Some day" I will add you to my ever-growing list of failed conspiracy predictions. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125676) Then I will laugh.

[Oliver]

I'm sorry...where exactly have you read this???

Prisonplanet?

More global economic, environmental, security, and social cooperation is NOT "one world government".

spare us the lies and deceit.


It made me chuckle reading all the NWO Headlines in recent days - and all over the News. :D [Not a good week for paranoids, I guess]


Analysis: Crisis may lead to new world order (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/01/oakley.summit/)
CNN International

Barack Obama's New World Order (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1889512,00.html)
TIME - ‎9 hours ago‎

G-20 Shapes New World Order With Lesser Role for US, Markets (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axEnb_LXw5yc&refer=home)
Bloomberg - ‎Apr 2, 2009‎

New world order emerges from chaos (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7979918.stm)
BBC News - ‎19 hours ago‎

New world order hailed after rescue (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5g3nKFaPdy-7cfukcqtB6xgjVWGww)
The Press Association - ‎Apr 2, 2009‎

The first bricks in a new world order (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0ec8101a-1fe6-11de-a1df-00144feabdc0.html)
Financial Times - ‎Apr 2, 2009‎

[jezcoe]

I always wonder, what exactly has come out of the Council on Foreign Relations that points to the coming, overpowering One World Government? I know of "Building a North American Community" which doesn't really say what people says it says. What else out of the secretive cabal of the CFR which posts everything it does online, for free is incredibly objectionable?

[Elizabeth I]

You could always move to Antarctica, which is, incidentally, what I recommend for all conspiracy idiots.

What have the poor penguins done to deserve such a thing?

[Childlike Empress]

I always wonder, what exactly has come out of the Council on Foreign Relations that points to the coming, overpowering One World Government? I know of "Building a North American Community" which doesn't really say what people says it says. What else out of the secretive cabal of the CFR which posts everything it does online, for free is incredibly objectionable?

Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through Generaal Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/18515/remarks_by_national_security_adviser_jones_at_45th _munich_conference_on_security_policy.html

Taking orders from Heinz Kissinger is as objectionable as it gets in my book.

[WildCat]

Oh noes! A private think tank is writing papers! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!11!!1!!11!1!1!

[Childlike Empress]

No, the national security advisor of the US is stating at an international conference in Munich that he takes his daily orders from Heinz Kissinger. Now run, kitty.

[WildCat]

http://www.cfr.org/publication/18515/remarks_by_national_security_adviser_jones_at_45th _munich_conference_on_security_policy.html

Taking orders from Heinz Kissinger is as objectionable as it gets in my book.
And Sandy Berger is a Jew!

[Oliver]

Oh noes! A private think tank is writing papers! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!11!!1!!11!1!1!


Religion isn't a laughing matter :mad: ... in contrast to the New World Order. :D

[tsig]

<snip>Global Governance is global government. How can you govern globally without a global government?<snipped>

How can anyone argue with that? It is perfectly self-explanatory.

[Childlike Empress]

And Sandy Berger is a Jew!


So? He's above criticism for you?

[WildCat]

So? He's above criticism for you?
Nope, but I generally let him be. Mainly because his niece is one of my sister's best friends and I don't feel right criticizing her family. Berger actually once gave my sister and her boyfriend a tour of the White House during the Clinton years, he's a really nice guy from what I understand. But hen, of course, there's those documents stuffed in his socks...

But nobody is taking orders from Kissinger, it was simply a tribute acknowledging his accomplishments.

[Childlike Empress]

Guess what. I trust James Jones' words more than yours.

[jezcoe]

Childlike Empress good try. The link that you posted was a transcript from the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy not the Council on Foreign Relations. They are not affiliated with each other. It is a press release that can also be found here. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/RemarksByNationalSecurityAdviserJonesAt45thMunichC onferenceOnSecurityPolicy/

As far as the context of what was said. I did try to find video of this because I would like to see the crowd reaction. My guess is that it was a joke. The idea that all former National Security Advisers give orders to the current one is laughable at best. If you believe wholly that the statement was not made in jest than you have to believe that Scowcroft and Berger along with Kissinger are holding the National Security reigns. That in context, lacking a sense of humor, is what that statement means to me.

[WildCat]

Guess what. I trust James Jones' words more than yours.
The words don't mean what you think they do. Kissinger is not part of the NSC.

[Childlike Empress]

One or two persons laughed. Here's audio:

http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=de&id=259&

[jezcoe]

Thank you for finding that. I will stand by my interpretation that the beginning remarks of the speech about Kissinger was meant as an icebreaker to get to the meat of the speech.

[Childlike Empress]

Maybe. If so, he has fooled John Pilger in whose article (http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22336.htm) i've read it just before i came here. I'm not a believer in "TEH NWO", btw, but the transatlantic cabals that gather at the "security conference" every year (McCain and Lieberman are regulars, f.e.) are bad enough. No need to thank me for the link, my google skills are at least as good as Kissinger's skills in ordering the slaughter of innocent asians.

[jezcoe]

Read the Pilger Article and wow.... just wow. Pilger has a certain world view that allowed him to look at the speech in an uncritical way. It is not Jones that has fooled Pilger but Pilger who fooled himself.

I personally hove no problem with these councils. As you can see they are nefarious in hiding everything out in the open for everyone with an internet connection to read. How Dastardly.

[Childlike Empress]

Pilger has followed Kissinger's crimes long enough to be allowed to be fooled by these remarks, i think. The content of his article is no laughing matter. If James Jones was really joking, it was extremely distasteful, IMO.

The problems with "all in the open" is that most people never heard of the CFR, the Munich "security conference", or any such interest groups. A good amount of the few that have heard of them may have heard it from Alex Jones and his ilk, adding more confusion instead of democratic concerns to the situation.

[Thunder]

"New" meaning different then before.
"World" meaning taking place on planet Earth, not Vulcan.
"Order" meaning the way things are done.

Its really not that complicated or devious.

[jezcoe]

What you have put out, Childlike Empress is an example of not thinking critically. You seem to admit that the context of the Kissinger remark by Jones was meant in jest and that when viewed in that light the whole idea that something wrong is going on falls apart. You posted the link as an example, i assume, to the challenge of providing proof that the CFR is this horrible cabal bent on world domination, yet the speech didn't even take place on the same continent as the Council. You took, uncritically, the word of a man who I assume you respect and didn't check it out for yourself. Pilger allowed himself to be fooled but you don't have to be fooled with him.

As for the public not knowing what the CFR or the Security Conference does, that is not their fault. The information is there for those who want it. Having an informed society is not their responsibility, it lies within the individual to learn for his/her self. I agree with you that Alex Jones adds nothing to the conversation. Alex Jones frustrates me though. I do feel that he has legitimate concerns for the well being of the U.S. but he gets bogged down all in the crazy and blows up his own position. If he could only use his powers for good.

[Childlike Empress]

What would we do without you, parky? :rolleyes: :)

[Childlike Empress]

What you have put out, Childlike Empress is an example of not thinking critically. You seem to admit that the context of the Kissinger remark by Jones was meant in jest and that when viewed in that light the whole idea that something wrong is going on falls apart. You posted the link as an example, i assume, to the challenge of providing proof that the CFR is this horrible cabal bent on world domination, yet the speech didn't even take place on the same continent as the Council. You took, uncritically, the word of a man who I assume you respect and didn't check it out for yourself. Pilger allowed himself to be fooled but you don't have to be fooled with him.


No, i came here after reading Pilger's article and thought it was fitting in this thread after i've read your post. I am not sure if Jones joked, and that indicates that i think it is possible that establishment figures like Kissinger (or Brzezinzki) call the shots behind the scenes decades after they ceased to have official posts. I don't need a fancy label for it, i call it ruling class. Nothing new at all.

As for the public not knowing what the CFR or the Security Conference does, that is not their fault. The information is there for those who want it. Having an informed society is not their responsibility, it lies within the individual to learn for his/her self. I agree with you that Alex Jones adds nothing to the conversation. Alex Jones frustrates me though. I do feel that he has legitimate concerns for the well being of the U.S. but he gets bogged down all in the crazy and blows up his own position. If he could only use his powers for good.


When the media that reaches the average person doesn't do the job it is supposed to do in a democratic society, people like Jones will fill the gap.

[Thunder]

What would we do without you, parky? :rolleyes: :)

be less entertained?

[jezcoe]

No, i came here after reading Pilger's article and thought it was fitting in this thread after i've read your post. I am not sure if Jones joked, and that indicates that i think it is possible that establishment figures like Kissinger (or Brzezinzki) call the shots behind the scenes decades after they ceased to have official posts. I don't need a fancy label for it, i call it ruling class. Nothing new at all.

What is your proof for such things? It is plausible to me that Kissinger or Brzezinki would fill an advisory role but "call the shots" seems a little extreme. What you see as a ruling class I see as a small group of people who are interested enough in foreign policy to actually make it their life's work. One of the reasons that you see the same people over and over is that most people would rather not immerse themselves in the task, and one that must be as horribly frustrating as herding cats.

When the media that reaches the average person doesn't do the job it is supposed to do in a democratic society, people like Jones will fill the gap.

The media is invited to the Council all the time, as proven by the chopped up soundbite by Geithner last week, that when taken out of context he seems to be saying that the dollar needs to be replaced as the World reserve Currency, but when you read the entire transcript he says no such thing. He misunderstood the question and was talking about "increasing the IMF's special drawing rights". The only thing he says in context of the dollar and world reserve currency was

"It is very important just to underscore that the future evolution of the dollar's role in the system depends really primarily on how effective we are in the United States in getting not just recovery back on track, our financial system repaired, but we get our fiscal position back to the point where people will judge it as sustainable over time. "

You shouldn't trust the media when the source material is there for anyone to see for themselves and make their own judgement calls. The media cannot be blamed for ignorance anymore, in this day when more information is at your fingertips than ever before in history. Too bad not all the information is useful.

[WildCat]

Maybe. If so, he has fooled John Pilger in whose article (http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22336.htm) i've read it just before i came here. I'm not a believer in "TEH NWO", btw, but the transatlantic cabals that gather at the "security conference" every year (McCain and Lieberman are regulars, f.e.) are bad enough. No need to thank me for the link, my google skills are at least as good as Kissinger's skills in ordering the slaughter of innocent asians.
Kissinger ordered the slaughter of millions of Asians? I had no idea the US SoS had such power! :rolleyes:

[Childlike Empress]

What you see as a ruling class I see as a small group of people who are interested enough in foreign policy to actually make it their life's work.


Come on, that's nothing but naive. I'm very interested in foreign policy, geopolitics to be more precise, and i've spend a huge amount of time following it and the people involved in it over the last decades. I would be happy if the gathered knowledge would make me a living, but unfortunately, nobody cares.

[Childlike Empress]

Kissinger ordered the slaughter of millions of Asians? I had no idea the US SoS had such power! :rolleyes:


You have no idea anyway.

[WildCat]

Come on, that's nothing but naive. I'm very interested in foreign policy, geopolitics to be more precise, and i've spend a huge amount of time following it and the people involved in it over the last decades. I would be happy if the gathered knowledge would make me a living, but unfortunately, nobody cares.
You're right, nobody cares what you've "learned" reading the blatherings of conspiracy asshats. Too bad you aen't interested in actual real-life foreign policy and politics.

[WildCat]

You have no idea anyway.
I bet you have as much evidence for it as you do that 9/11 was an inside jobby-job. Meaning you have zero evidence. Do I win a prize?

[Childlike Empress]

I bet you have as much evidence for it as you do that 9/11 was an inside jobby-job. Meaning you have zero evidence. Do I win a prize?


Unfortunately not. It's all in the open. Roughly 20k documents. Evident.

[jezcoe]

Come on, that's nothing but naive. I'm very interested in foreign policy, geopolitics to be more precise, and i've spend a huge amount of time following it and the people involved in it over the last decades. I would be happy if the gathered knowledge would make me a living, but unfortunately, nobody cares.
http://www.cfr.org/about/career_opportunities/
Give it a shot. Bring it down from the inside.

[WildCat]

Unfortunately not. It's all in the open. Roughly 20k documents. Evident.
Oh, do tell. You can start off by linking to the document where he orders the deaths of millions of Asians.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I would be happy if the gathered knowledge would make me a living, but unfortunately, nobody cares.


You're Doing It Wrong™

[Childlike Empress]

http://www.cfr.org/about/career_opportunities/
Give it a shot. Bring it down from the inside.


Haha, good idea. I've thought about signing up at the BND. They have puzzles. :)

[Childlike Empress]

Oh, do tell. You can start off by linking to the document where he orders the deaths of millions of Asians.


The word i'd used is "innocent", not "millions". The idea (did i debunk myself right now) that mass murder only gets relevant if it involves millions comes out of your sick brain.

[WildCat]

The word i'd used is "innocent", not "millions". The idea (did i debunk myself right now) that mass murder only gets relevant if it involves millions comes out of your sick brain.
Then just link to the document where Kissinger orders the deaths of innocent Asians.

I don't think for a second that you will, but hey that's why this part of the forum exists. So people like you can make claims they couldn't back up if their lives depended on it.

[Childlike Empress]

Nope. I'm not playing your games.

[Pardalis]

I don't mean the conspiracy theorists, I mean the world leaders at this moment in time.

Obama, Brown, Sarcozy(sp?), etc.. They are all calling for a new world order, and they seem to be pushing for more global integration of economic regulations.

This is exactly what the conspiracy theorists have been harping about for the last few decades. It seems to me that it is coming to pass.

You can argue whether globalism is a good or bad thing but it appears that they are intending to eventually completely incorporate the entire world in a global government.

One look at how corrupt current governments are, and it scares the hell out of me that there could be a global version of that. There is no running away from something that is global.

No New World to escape to, or another sovereign country to hide in.

Scary stuff.

Aren't you the "politics expert" that predicted that Bush wouldn't leave office and a police state would ensue?

No, I'm afraid I'm not naive when it comes to politics. I studied it in University, I know what goes on. I think you are wrong, and only time will tell if it happens or not.

I think it's naive to think that Bush will go quietly when the neo-cons are so close to implementing their ideas fully. Go read up on the history of neo-conservativism. It traces back to nazi Germany and carries similar ideas on power politics.


Right...

What about the other thread you started?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139111

Would it be a world currency? World government? Concentration camps? You can potentially rationalize and explain away anything that happens. At one point do you go from rational "thinker" to irrational apologist?

You never answered my question, have any of these things happened yet (in recent history of course, we're not talking about the Holocaust)?

[Pardalis]

Maybe. If so, he has fooled John Pilger in whose article (http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22336.htm) i've read it just before i came here. I'm not a believer in "TEH NWO", btw, but the transatlantic cabals

"Transatlantic cabals", yeah, that sounds much more believable... :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

The entire thing stinks to high heaven and anyone with half a brain knows that people are absolutely capable of immoral acts that most people would never even consider. Sadly many of these people are in the government, either politicians or military/intelligence.

Maybe conspiracy theorists have an agenda too?

I'll let you in on a little secret. The only way we will ever have world peace is with a world governing body that has a military force to enforce the peace when some nations do not want to play nice.

What, so you want this one world government to come true? I thought you sad it was "scary stuff"?

But hey, what do I know? I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist who studied international relations in university and is a news junkie.

Did you pass BTW?

[WildCat]

Nope. I'm not playing your games.
I will never be wrong in predicting that conspiracy theorists won't back up their claims!

[Pardalis]

It's sad really, but some day you will realize the truth. I hope that day is sooner rather than later.

What will happen then?

[six7s]

What will happen then?Post counts in all online forums will be used at apportion the weight of individual votes in elections

[Pardalis]

It's funny, whenever I read NWO conspiracy theorists I'm always reminded of Bill Paxton in Aliens.

HNCLc13zk1E

[ysabella]

And Sandy Berger is a Jew!

Hsst! You're supposed to say "is a member of an international consortium of bankers."

[Thunder]

Game over man...game over!!!!

[David Rothscum]

Once again, you must clarify what you're talking about. Why does a "New World Order" automatically equal a "One World Government"?

It's possible to re-order the way the world works, without subsuming all current governments under one single World Authority.
Because that's what the people who created the term mean with it.
Read what Fabian Socialist H. G. Wells has to say:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14800532/The-New-World-Order-H-G-Wells
Nor does it alter the fact that even when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people, from maharajas to millionaires and from pukkha sahibs to pretty ladies, will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it.
When modern Fabian Socialist Gordon Brown talks about the need for a New World Order due to Global Warming:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070314190411/http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070312/wl_uk_afp/britainpolitics_070312082025
Don't you think the man knows what he is talking about?
He is talking about the further destruction of our political sovereignty and control over our own lives by supra-national unions and undemocratic non-governmental organizations.

[Red3]

Wherever you see someone mention "NWO" or "new world order" in CT circles it means "I'm living in a changing world and I'm scared and xenophobic".

[LightinDarkness]

Because that's what the people who created the term mean with it.

Problem. Those who created the term certainly didn't mean it that way. The term is simply used as political rhetoric to emphasize some sort of shift in political culture (perceived or real)


When modern Fabian Socialist Gordon Brown talks about the need for a New World Order due to Global Warming:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070314190411/http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070312/wl_uk_afp/britainpolitics_070312082025
Don't you think the man knows what he is talking about?
He is talking about the further destruction of our political sovereignty and control over our own lives by supra-national unions and undemocratic non-governmental organizations.

An excellent example - he is not talking at all about some sort of supra-national union. Its just political rhetoric.

[Red3]

The phrase "New World Order" pretty much just means a new global plan of action for a particular problem. CTrs though, have got so wrapped up in their version of what it means, they've lost sight of the real meaning of it.

I think they've got globalization mixed up with this nwo/world government thing; everywhere they see globalization, they see the evil nwo tightening their grip.

[David Rothscum]

Problem. Those who created the term certainly didn't mean it that way.
They refer to the idea of a world government as a New World Order. This is what H. G. Wells did in his book, 'the New World Order'. Did he talk about a new political climate? No, he talked about a global government. Every change in the political status quo is towards the centralization of power into the hands of these unaccountable organizations based in Europe and North America.
An excellent example - he is not talking at all about some sort of supra-national union. Its just political rhetoric.
Continue reading:
According to excerpts released by the finance ministry, Chancellor of the Exchequer Brown will also say the
United Nations should make the fight against global warming a core "pillar" of its international mission.
A New World Order will be needed in which the United Nations handles the fight against Global Warming. Do you see a pattern there?

[HawksFan]

Geez, don't these people realize that a New World Order is the first logical step towards the United Federation of Planets? I mean how are we supposed to govern multiple worlds unless we start with one? Sheesh, people. :D

[Red3]

Geez, don't these people realize that a New World Order is the first logical step towards the United Federation of Planets? I mean how are we supposed to govern multiple worlds unless we start with one? Sheesh, people. :D

I know you're joking but I agree in a roundabout way. If there was a world government and a more homogeneous world outlook with less wars, disputes etc. there would quite possibly be more money and more time spent on things like space exploration.

[LightinDarkness]

They refer to the idea of a world government as a New World Order. This is what H. G. Wells did in his book, 'the New World Order'. Did he talk about a new political climate? No, he talked about a global government. Every change in the political status quo is towards the centralization of power into the hands of these unaccountable organizations based in Europe and North America.

And this is the mind of the conspiracy theorist at its core. They cannot comprehend that it is quite possible for the same words to be used and have different meanings.

The term short in everyday language and short in the financial markets means two entirely different things. Using the woo logic, we must boggle at how this can be: it is the same word after all! But the truth is that this is how the world works. And in the real world, politicians using the term "new world order" are using it only to refer to a change in the political climate. None of them is suggesting a global government, although if they did its really not a bad thing to begin with. Its just a concept that CTs have been conditioned to be afraid of based on fear mongering.

The origin of the term "new world order" is not global government. Its a political rhetoric term. Just like "change" and "hope" and "yes we can".

Frankly, if politicans knew how many CTers get hysterical and run around screaming "SEE! SEE! This is proof that global government is nigh!" they would probably drop the language. But its just not an interpretation a normal person would give the term.


Continue reading:

No thanks, debunked already.


A New World Order will be needed in which the United Nations handles the fight against Global Warming. Do you see a pattern there?

Nope. Same old political jargon meaning the same old stuff: Now that the political climate has changed toward global warming being a hot topic, individual national efforts will be coordinated by the UN. Just like we do with global aid and everything else that has become a global hot topic. No global government.

Try again.

[theprestige]

So New Order hasn't announced a World Tour, then?

[se7ensnakes]

Hamelikim
I Agree with you and I have been reading and studying this for sometime. Most of this people in this website really do not know what is happening, dont mind them. I can tell you that the basic problem of this entire thing rest on one thing, their (bank cartel) ability to create money of thin air. Private financial corporations ability to create money out of thin air. Imagine if you and I have to work for money but someone comes along and is able to make a legal system where they can create money by just a few computer keystrokes, what happens to our freedom? With your great wealth you can stay under the radar when it comes to media exposure, you can donate 200 million dollars to campaign contributions for congressmen. You can twist the educational system by not teaching anyone in high school how money comes into existence. You will have a whole population not knowing that a federal reserve note is or how it differs from a United States Note. What more you could buy confusion in colleges and universities. John Kenneth Galbraith wrote a book in 1975 entitled Money: Whence it came, where it went. In this book, he wrote: “The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.”
If you want a precursory knowledge of how money is created read "modern money mechanics". http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf
You will see that this method of money creation, fractional reserve banking is not really hidden, it is just not generally discussed. Pay close attention to the part that states that certain private companies can create money with just a few computer keystrokes. Money comes into existence with just few keystrokes.
Who Creates Money?
Changes in the quantity of money may originate with actions of the Federal Reserve
System (the central bank), depository institutions (principally commercial banks), or the
Public.
They admit that the major portion of th money creation takes place in private banks.


given volume of transactions.
Who Creates Money?
Changes in the quantity of money may originate with actions of the Federal Reserve
System (the central bank), depository institutions (principally commercial banks), or the
public.
Hamelikim take care though that some of the people here will argue that money creation does not really mean money creation. To some of these people it means something totally different.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Because that's what the people who created the term mean with it.


There is no officially recognized definition of the phrase. Some groups assign one meaning to the phrase, while others assign yet another meaning.

The traditional usage of the phrase by politicians is of the "not scary" variety.

Wikipedia: New world order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order)

In international relations theory, the term "new world order" has been used to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. Despite various interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the notion of global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual states to solve.


The mind-boggling irony is that most (I would venture) conspiracy theorists espouse this idea that humanity must put aside its prejudices and hatreds and work together toward a common goal, for a better future.

We have politicians saying pretty much the same thing, but somehow it's a very evil thing when it comes from their mouths. :confused:

[six7s]

The mind-boggling irony is that most (I would venture) conspiracy theorists espouse this idea that humanity must put aside its prejudices and hatreds and work together toward a common goal, for a better future.

We have politicians saying pretty much the same thing, but somehow it's a very evil thing when it comes from their mouths. :confused:Its only 'evil' for conspiracy theorists because they eschew thinking in favour of promoting their own need/want to believe that there is an amorphous, malignant force called the 'they' - as in 'they' are controlling the world's [insert resource here]

[JoeyDonuts]

Am I the only one that thinks a single unified government for all citizens on the earth is the natural evolution of politics? Not any time soon, mind you. I think things should be moving in that direction. A decentralized government, to be sure. But think about if there was an authoritative body above the elected leaders of all of our respective countries that could hold them to a certain standard. Kim Jong Il could just be fired. Same with Saddam Hussein. I realize this is a great deal idealistic, and would present its own unique set of problems/challenges with the consolidation of power, but I don't see us being able to reach out towards the stars without having done this first.

[JimBenArm]

But... but... NWO is evil! Don't ask why, it just is! Because it scares me! Evil!

[JoeyDonuts]

But... but... NOW is evil! Don't ask why, they just are! Because they scare me! Evil!

[Mikister]

So of all the meaningless dramatic rhetoric that politicians constantly spew, you choose one vague phrase to suggest a conspiracy, as if saying "New World Order" automatically makes you complicit in enacting the Jewish/Masonic/Satanic/Communist/Socialist/Fascist/Nazi/Reptilian plot?

[Zorglub]

So of all the meaningless dramatic rhetoric that politicians constantly spew, you choose one vague phrase to suggest a conspiracy, as if saying "New World Order" automatically makes you complicit in enacting the Jewish/Masonic/Satanic/Communist/Socialist/Fascist/Nazi/Reptilian plot?

Not just politicians. Anyone who publicly says "new world order" is "in the know" about the upcoming rapture. H.G Wells, Aldos Huxley, any movie where the plot is about bad guys aiming for world domination (not James Bond-bad guys though, don´t know why) a s o is considered proof.