''Proof'' of the NWO: ''Quotes''

[cafetimes1991]

I often see ''quotes'' like the ones provided below as proof of a global conspiracy, NWO etc. But are these quotes real? Perhaps they were misinterpreted?
Just Google ''NWO+quotes'' and you will find a plethora of links. I need your help debunking this ''proof''.

http://www.preferrednetwork.com/NWO_QUOTES.htm

With thanks,
cafe

[Horatius]

I often see ''quotes'' like the ones provided below as proof of a global conspiracy, NWO etc. But are these quotes real? Perhaps they were misinterpreted?
Just Google ''NWO+quotes'' and you will find a plethora of links. I need your help debunking this ''proof''.

http://www.preferrednetwork.com/NWO_QUOTES.htm

With thanks,
cafe



They are usually either completely made up, or misrepresentations of what the quote intended to say. You'll also note that the CT sites rarely if ever provide citations for where these quotes were originally found, so that it is almost impossible to check their validity.

Were they serious about wanting others to "educate themselves" about the NWO, they would have to provide such citations, as the "CT echo chamber" makes it incredibly difficult to find the original source. Take the first quote listed on that page:

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas." - Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization


I googled that quote, and 10 pages on, all I was seeing was various CT sites posting the exact same quote, without citations. If they know where it came from, it would be trivially easy for them to post the source, and yet, they never do that. That leads me to believe it's either completely made up, or seriously quote mined. Consider what the meaning of this quote would really have been if the following sentence had been, "This is why we will never achieve such a world government, and must content ourselves with the more limited organizations that are pragmatically possible." Without the context, we cannot know for sure what Mr. Adams truly had in mind.

Although, if he really were discussing the elimination of "individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas" as a actual, in-the-works plan of the NWO, don't you think they might have included a few more quotes from that source?

[Horatius]

Here's a good example of why they avoid giving citations. They quote this:



"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."

Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

Now, as it turns out, Time Magazine has their back catalogue in a searchable database, And here's the context in which that quote was made:

The human drama, whether played out in history books or headlines, is often not just a confusing spectacle but a spectacle about confusion. The big question these days is, Which political forces will prevail, those stitching nations together or those tearing them apart?

Here is one optimist's reason for believing unity will prevail over disunity, integration over disintegration. In fact, I'll bet that within the next hundred years (I'm giving the world time for setbacks and myself time to be out of the betting game, just in case I lose this one), nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century -- "citizen of the world" -- will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st.

All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary. Through the ages, there has been an overall trend toward larger units claiming sovereignty and, paradoxically, a gradual diminution of how much true sovereignty any one country actually has.


And then, way down the first page, we find:

From time to time the best minds wondered whether this wasn't a hell of a way to run a planet; perhaps national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all. Dante in the 14th century, Erasmus in the 16th and Grotius in the 17th all envisioned international law as a means of overcoming the natural tendency of states to settle their differences by force.


They've combined two different passages into one, to make it seem as if the thoughts are directed combined, even though one of them is clearly paraphrasing other people. Also, note that in the part about "the next hundred years", they didn't even quote the whole sentence, because it makes it clear that this is nothing more than his guess, and a guess that he admits is "optimistic" and is possibly wrong. The rest of the article is basically a history of history (;)), detailing some of the changes he's seen that leads him to this belief. There is nothing to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan. He then sums up near the end:


They are the disputatious representatives of a larger, basically positive phenomenon: a devolution of power not only upward toward supranational bodies and outward toward commonwealths and common markets but also downward toward freer, more autonomous units of administration that permit distinct societies to preserve their cultural identities and govern themselves as much as possible. That American buzz word empowerment -- and the European one, subsidiarity -- is being defined locally, regionally and globally all at the same time.

Humanity has discovered, through much trial and horrendous error, that differences need not divide. Switzerland is made up of four nationalities crammed into an area considerably smaller than what used to be Yugoslavia. The air in the Alps is no more conducive to comity than the air in the Balkans. Switzerland has thrived, while Yugoslavia has failed because of what Kant realized 200 years ago: to be in peaceful league with one another, people -- and peoples -- must have the benefits of democracy.


Yep, these NWO Thugs sound like a group of right bastards, they do.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,976015-1,00.html


See? How hard was it to provide a cite? Now, go and see if I'm blowing smoke out my ass. Unlike some in this "debate", I'm not afraid of independent confirmation of my quotes.


Now, one must wonder why the provided the cite for this one quote, and not the others. It might be because Wikipedia provides it, and they'd look way too guilty trying to hide it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strobe_Talbott#Quotes

[Chaos]

"I am a greedy bastard ripping off the masses of gullible morons out there."
- Alex Jones


...What? Prove that he didn´t say this! :D

[Tippit]

Consider what the meaning of this quote would really have been if the following sentence had been, "This is why we will never achieve such a world government, and must content ourselves with the more limited organizations that are pragmatically possible." Without the context, we cannot know for sure what Mr. Adams truly had in mind.



Your use of the word "achieve" in that example quote belies your acceptance of the concept that a world government is ideal, or at the very least, the idea that it's ok for powerful people to think it is ideal. Achievement denotes a positive outcome.



Although, if he really were discussing the elimination of "individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas" as a actual, in-the-works plan of the NWO, don't you think they might have included a few more quotes from that source?

As an NWO conspiracy theorist, there is no context for that quote that would reassure me. Having said that, I don't think Mr. Adams is party to NWO meetings in smoke filled rooms, with a specific agenda to help take over the world. In fact, I think the vast majority of "conspirators" who utter quotes like that are totally oblivious to the conspiracy itself. Compartmentalization is the beauty of the system, it's the same principle that intelligence agencies are run by. Mr. Adams was selected by a system which values his pre-existing ideology. Mr. Adams already believes world government would be a wonderful thing. He doesn't need to be paid off, coerced, or part of the "loop". He's the ideal conspirator.

[Tippit]

They've combined two different passages into one, to make it seem as if the thoughts are directed combined, even though one of them is clearly paraphrasing other people. Also, note that in the part about "the next hundred years", they didn't even quote the whole sentence, because it makes it clear that this is nothing more than his guess, and a guess that he admits is "optimistic" and is possibly wrong. The rest of the article is basically a history of history (;)), detailing some of the changes he's seen that leads him to this belief. There is nothing to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan. He then sums up near the end:



I have to agree that quote mining is dishonest, reprehensible, and sometimes produces the opposite of the desired effect by destroying credibility.

On the other hand, I'm puzzled as to how you can conclude there is "nothing to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan". Talbott is a former Deputy Secretary of State, a Skull and Bonesman, and president of the Brookings institution, a globalist think tank. Obviously a powerful man with an agenda, his desirability for world government cannot be taken out of context.

While the quote mining denoted a certainty which clearly wasn't offered by the speaker, and while Talbott may waffle on the subject of whether national sovereignty is a great idea, he made it clear what the "best minds" think.

[Juniversal]

I often see ''quotes'' like the ones provided below as proof of a global conspiracy, NWO etc. But are these quotes real? Perhaps they were misinterpreted?
Just Google ''NWO+quotes'' and you will find a plethora of links. I need your help debunking this ''proof''.

http://www.preferrednetwork.com/NWO_QUOTES.htm

With thanks,
cafeI once had CTist message me on youtube asking something to the effect of "if the NWO doesn't exist then why does The New York Times say they do??" And another sent me a message with a link to the first president Bushes speech where he used the term new world order as if it was common knowledge and they don't attempt to hide it lol.

[Horatius]

On the other hand, I'm puzzled as to how you can conclude there is "nothing to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan". Talbott is a former Deputy Secretary of State, a Skull and Bonesman, and president of the Brookings institution, a globalist think tank. Obviously a powerful man with an agenda, his desirability for world government cannot be taken out of context.




Perhaps I should have phrased it, "nothing in this document to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan". Knowing the CT penchant for misrepresenting people's positions, I was really leaving a huge opening there.

Thanks Tippit, for such a good example of the mindset we're dealing with!

Of course, feel free to create a new thread on the full context of Talbott's total belief structure. Perhaps you will be unlike every other CTist I've ever seen, and construct a properly-cited, evidenced based case that he is "a powerful man with an agenda," and showing clearly "his desirability for world government". It would be a nice change from poorly-cited, misrepresented single quotes.

But as I said, that's a subject for another thread.

[Caustic Logic]

Agreed with Horatius, et al. For example, I recently looked up JFK's speech about secrecy being 'reprehensible." It was delievered in April 1961 to a group of newspapermen, and that line was just the caveat in a pro-secrecy speech. Yeah, this speech is why the CIA killed him 2 1/2 years later, he was gonna... somethin!

On "the NWO," there really isn't one, but rather many. It's a stereotyped phrase that's less popular than it might be due to the flavor it's gotten. In 1990-91, the major context Bush was using was first put up by Gorbachev in the last days of the USSR, to describe a bi-polar post-Cold War world with allies US and USSR policing the wolrd together. Bush called the Gulf War the "first test" of this idea he otherwise shunned, probably to get Soviet support in the Security Council.

Of the other presented here, my favorite is:
"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."

David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations

That sounds pretty nuts. Google Search shows belief in this quote from Godlike Productions, Abovetopsecret, Truelightministries, Jesus-is-savior, birdflu666... So far the only attribution I'm seeing attributed back to "The Federal Observer" That (http://www.federalobserver.com/2009/09/07/parr-quotes-comments/) in turn is another list of contextless quotes.

Finally a good link, by just searching for Spangler and title.
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/08/21/spangler-lucifer-the-united-nations-and-the-new-age/comment-page-1/
Appears that a guy who works for a group tangentially-connected to the UN is into some weird New Age stuff and may have said this after all. Again, context, what does Lucifer mean to him, his group, the UN at large, etc. People leap to conclusions based on their own psychosis, that the world is full of satanic forces called "New Age" which are obviously co-odinated (by Satan) to attack God and his followers (the paranoid people). So the meaning to THEM is entirely clear.

[Red3]

It's nice to see a few names from the David Icke forum on here. That's a good sign.

[Tippit]

Perhaps I should have phrased it, "nothing in this document to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan". Knowing the CT penchant for misrepresenting people's positions, I was really leaving a huge opening there.

Thanks Tippit, for such a good example of the mindset we're dealing with!



I fail to see how agreeing with you about how quote mining is dishonest and counter-productive amounts to misrepresenting your "position".

It's pretty obvious that Strobe Talbott is a big fan of world government, and a critic of national sovereignty, merely from reading the Time magazine article that you cited. Genghis Khan would have been proud to have him as a diplomat. Doing a little basic research on who Strobe Talbott is fills in the context as to his agenda.



Of course, feel free to create a new thread on the full context of Talbott's total belief structure. Perhaps you will be unlike every other CTist I've ever seen, and construct a properly-cited, evidenced based case that he is "a powerful man with an agenda," and showing clearly "his desirability for world government". It would be a nice change from poorly-cited, misrepresented single quotes.

But as I said, that's a subject for another thread.

The point is, of course, that despite the fact that the quote was completely mined, mangled, and dishonestly taken out of context (as you correctly researched and pointed out), it still more or less summarizes Talbott's views after being taken in full context.

[Red3]

Even if their are proponents of a world government, what does that prove?

[Tippit]

Even if their are proponents of a world government, what does that prove?

Not much, other than the obvious. If on the other hand it can be demonstrated that there are powerful people who are both interested in and have the means to enact world government, then it might warrant more than just raising an eyebrow.

[Nosi]

Here's a good example of why they avoid giving citations. They quote this:



Now, as it turns out, Time Magazine has their back catalogue in a searchable database, And here's the context in which that quote was made:




And then, way down the first page, we find:




They've combined two different passages into one, to make it seem as if the thoughts are directed combined, even though one of them is clearly paraphrasing other people. Also, note that in the part about "the next hundred years", they didn't even quote the whole sentence, because it makes it clear that this is nothing more than his guess, and a guess that he admits is "optimistic" and is possibly wrong. The rest of the article is basically a history of history (;)), detailing some of the changes he's seen that leads him to this belief. There is nothing to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan. He then sums up near the end:





Yep, these NWO Thugs sound like a group of right bastards, they do.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,976015-1,00.html


See? How hard was it to provide a cite? Now, go and see if I'm blowing smoke out my ass. Unlike some in this "debate", I'm not afraid of independent confirmation of my quotes.


Now, one must wonder why the provided the cite for this one quote, and not the others. It might be because Wikipedia provides it, and they'd look way too guilty trying to hide it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strobe_Talbott#Quotes

I find it slightly humorous that this debate of Global Conspiracy Vs Quote Mining is happening in the World Wide Web where any one on the planet can conceivably take part.

:id:

[Horatius]

I fail to see how agreeing with you about how quote mining is dishonest and counter-productive amounts to misrepresenting your "position".



Uh-huh. Ever heard the term "back-handed compliment"?


I have to agree that quote mining is dishonest, reprehensible, and sometimes produces the opposite of the desired effect by destroying credibility.

On the other hand, I'm puzzled as to how you can conclude there is "nothing to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan".


You ostensibly agree with my essential conclusion, but then fallaciously attempt ("on the other hand") to broaden the discussion to other areas that were not a part of my original argument, to somehow show that my original argument was flawed. You were "puzzled" as to how I could conclude "there is "nothing to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan"", when it should have been clear to anyone reading my post (with a mind willing to understand it) that I was only discussing this particular article, and made no such general conclusion.

It is of course the lack of a "mind willing to understand" that allows CTists to read such articles, and completely misrepresent their subject matter. While ostensibly denouncing such behavior, you yourself act in the same, albeit less blatant, manner.

So, again, thank you for illustrating the point, again.

[Horatius]

I find it slightly humorous that this debate of Global Conspiracy Vs Quote Mining is happening in the World Wide Web where any one on the planet can conceivably take part.

:id:


Why would this be humorous? It is possible to take part in a debate without quotemining, even if it is admittedly rare for that to actually happen! ;)

[Tippit]

Uh-huh. Ever heard the term "back-handed compliment"?



You can drop the condescending attitude. I wasn't trying to compliment you, I was pointing out how I agree with you that quote mining is bad. It was irrelevant in this case, because while the quote was mangled, it reflected what Talbott believes anyway.



You ostensibly agree with my essential conclusion, but then fallaciously attempt ("on the other hand") to broaden the discussion to other areas that were not a part of my original argument, to somehow show that my original argument was flawed. You were "puzzled" as to how I could conclude "there is "nothing to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan"", when it should have been clear to anyone reading my post (with a mind willing to understand it) that I was only discussing this particular article, and made no such general conclusion.



I agree that the quote was mangled, spliced, and taken out of context. I've seen it done before with Thomas Jefferson quotes. Then I explained why this is counter-productive for the person who did it, because it destroys their credibility, and any pretense of objectivity.

You're just being obtuse, and contradictory. Whether there was enough information in the Time article to conclude that Talbott is a globalist with an agenda (there was) is irrelevant. If you disagree about how much information the article reveals, that's fine. It's not important. What's important is that we know that Talbott is in favor of world government, and he has an influential position, even an agenda. If it's not evident to you from the article, it should be evident after doing the most basic research on the man.



It is of course the lack of a "mind willing to understand" that allows CTists to read such articles, and completely misrepresent their subject matter. While ostensibly denouncing such behavior, you yourself act in the same, albeit less blatant, manner.

So, again, thank you for illustrating the point, again.

The only misunderstanding is yours. It's quite obvious Talbott is in favor of global government, and there is no quote mining or other deception necessary to establish that fact. In short, while you found a good example of deception, it wasn't necessary because Talbott's position is clear and consistent without taking him out of context.

It's like lying about your age in order to get into a movie theater, when your driver's license already establishes that you're of the legal age. There was absolutely no legitimate reason to splice those quotes together when simply listing them seperately would have sufficed.

[cafetimes1991]

Thanks for the posts so far, everyone.

[Red3]

One thing worth pointing out, is when you get people like David Icke et al. harping on about the nwo, then saying "look around you, look at what they're doing, you see it everywhere" what you're actually seeing is globalization and various systems trying to deal with it. Which is only the same thing as the nwo if you're paranoid, ignorant and scared of change. The problem is globalization does bring problems of it's own, but when you're fighting the nwo, you're fighting an enemy that doesn't exist. The truth movement is hijacking lots of serious issues surrounding ethics in business/politics and turning it into a farce.

The phrase "World Order" has been used for many reasons, and at the moment is used to address how the world is changing, hence the "new" addition. It addresses economic,political,social changes surrounding autonomy and sovereignty and how these entities are dealing with changes in trade, communication, immigration, security...Subjects which most people don't know all that much about.


I think that's one of the main reasons conspiracy theories are so popular; because people see all this change going on and it scares them because they don't understand it.

Anyway, off topic somewhat!

[Sunray Breaker]

This quote is one of the favorites of CT's:

For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
- David Rockefeller's Memoirs, Page 405

Now although I have de"woo"ed myself quite a bit in the last few months...This quote always stuck in my craw...This is the real quote from his memoirs...But again, like you said...It's all about the context....

It sounds like he's more just bragging about being a globalist than he is bragging about working against the best interests of the United States...BUt I'd like to hear other opinions on this one.

[Red3]

It sounds like he's more just bragging about being a globalist than he is bragging about working against the best interests of the United States...

Hit the nail on the head.

[Tippit]

One thing worth pointing out, is when you get people like David Icke et al. harping on about the nwo, then saying "look around you, look at what they're doing, you see it everywhere" what you're actually seeing is globalization and various systems trying to deal with it. Which is only the same thing as the nwo if you're paranoid, ignorant and scared of change. The problem is globalization does bring problems of it's own, but when you're fighting the nwo, you're fighting an enemy that doesn't exist. The truth movement is hijacking lots of serious issues surrounding ethics in business/politics and turning it into a farce.



Yes, the New World Order is synonymous with globalization, but you are the one who is ignorant. The New World Order, in terms of the select few bankers who are ushering it in, does exist. You're just completely and totally oblivious to their motives. Unlike Genghis Khan, and Alexander, this band of would-be world conquerors is using stealth, not force, to attempt to dominate the world, and they are succeeding. They gain control of the money supply, and then they use the practically unlimited funds at their resources to select people with ideologies that unwittingly serve their agenda. They also employ the Hegelian dialectic to create crises for which they provide "solutions" (synthesis) which further cement their agenda.

David Icke is a joke, and he poisons the well with his "shape-shifting" nonsense. It's very effective because lots of otherwise ignorant people associate this nonsense with the very real takeover of international bankers. One only needs to read a few select history books, like Tragedy and Hope to gain credible insight into what is happening.



The phrase "World Order" has been used for many reasons, and at the moment is used to address how the world is changing, hence the "new" addition. It addresses economic,political,social changes surrounding autonomy and sovereignty and how these entities are dealing with changes in trade, communication, immigration, security...Subjects which most people don't know all that much about.



That's funny, because I've personally witnessed the timeline where I was crazy because the New World Order "didn't exist" at all. Now the New World Order exists, but it doesn't mean what I think it means, and I simply don't "understand it". The NWO is about the loss of sovereignty and the accumulation of virtually anonymous global power and control without the attendant political risk that Presidents and Prime Ministers suffer. It's about selling people the illusion of democracy, and political accountability where none exists.



I think that's one of the main reasons conspiracy theories are so popular; because people see all this change going on and it scares them because they don't understand it.



Ahh, if only you understood it.

[dudalb]

All You Sheeple are Blind, and only we Conspiracy Theorists Know The Truth!
How often have we heard that song before?

[Tippit]

This quote is one of the favorites of CT's:



Now although I have de"woo"ed myself quite a bit in the last few months...This quote always stuck in my craw...This is the real quote from his memoirs...But again, like you said...It's all about the context....

It sounds like he's more just bragging about being a globalist than he is bragging about working against the best interests of the United States...BUt I'd like to hear other opinions on this one.

Of course Rockefeller wants a more integrated global political and economic infrastructure. He controls the existing structure and he wants even more power and control. He's at the point now where he can even admit it without fear of reprisal, because people think the Rockefeller and Rothschild banking dynasties have fallen off of the map because they don't appear at the top of Forbes next to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

But which is it? Are the Rockefellers done, or do they wield "inordinate influence"? As someone who employs and understands the very basics of asset protection that they use, the answer is obvious to me.

[dudalb]

Countdown until the name "Rothschild" enters into this discussion......

[Red3]

I'm not arguing with you, I can't be bothered. It's almost impossible to verify or debunk the volume/type of claims you make.

Unless you want to make some specific claims that can be investigated.

[Eyeron]

I also see the quote game with Christians trying to prove that America is a Christian nation.

Isn't argument by quotes a fallacy as well? I know it is one fallacy called argument from authority, but as far as the proper fallacy I don't know.

[Nosi]

Why would this be humorous? It is possible to take part in a debate without quotemining, even if it is admittedly rare for that to actually happen! ;)

The humorous bit to me is the World Wide Web is a global phenomenon, and can be considered a global community, a world community. It's changing how we do many things, including quote mining, research, and debate.
:boxedin:

A NWO. The CT's missed the Global Boat.:duck:

[Red3]

I will read the Quigley book...Seeing as it seems to be some kind of tinfoil holy scripture. I'm curious.

Any parts I should look out for?

[Horatius]

The humorous bit to me is the World Wide Web is a global phenomenon, and can be considered a global community, a world community. It's changing how we do many things, including quote mining, research, and debate.
:boxedin:

A NWO. The CT's missed the Global Boat.:duck:



Ah, I see. Metahumour.

But you do make a good point, a lot of this globalization stuff that they rant on about actually acts to empower the very people they claim are being enslaved by it. They see quotes like "a devolution of power not only upward toward supranational bodies and outward toward commonwealths and common markets but also downward toward freer, more autonomous units of administration that permit distinct societies to preserve their cultural identities and govern themselves as much as possible", and only focus on the power that moves upwards. They either ignore or dismiss as "the illusion of democracy" anything that appears to contradict their worldview.

[Caustic Logic]

Sometimes "New World Order" is just code for "the real world as it exists."

[Horatius]

Sometimes "New World Order" is just code for "the real world as it exists."



I recall a comic I did on this topic a while back....


http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/horatius/strip/2008/05/31/of-course-it-exists.png

[mythstifieD]

I have to agree that sometimes I'm puzzled as to how there is a powerful man with an agenda, which clearly wasn't offered by the speaker, and while national sovereignty is a great idea, he made it clear what the "best minds" think.

I'm shocked that such a NWO CT is in favor of Talbot :)

[Alareth]

Countdown until the name "Rothschild" enters into this discussion......

-1 post. Tippit got it in the post before yours.

[Elizabeth I]

Not much, other than the obvious. If on the other hand it can be demonstrated that there are powerful people who are both interested in and have the means to enact world government, then it might warrant more than just raising an eyebrow.

Why? Not saying that I'm in favor of a world government, but I fail to understand the almost universal assumption by the conspiracy theorists that it would necessarily be a bad thing.

...It was irrelevant in this case, because while the quote was mangled, it reflected what Talbott believes anyway...

A mind reader, now?

[Tippit]

I'm not arguing with you, I can't be bothered. It's almost impossible to verify or debunk the volume/type of claims you make.

Unless you want to make some specific claims that can be investigated.

It's not impossible to verify or debunk, it's just difficult, and beyond your scope. For instance, the Rockefellers control some of the largest and most influential foundations and think tanks in the country. I can't prove this easily, but what I can do is read history books which document it, and observe accounts made by the Reece Committee. To prove their influence today would require investigative and subpoena power that I don't have. Nevertheless there is plenty of historical evidence of this, and the Rockefellers virtual disappearance from the public eye is a function of their asset protection schemes which disguise their great wealth. JD Rockefeller once said he wishes to own nothing and control everything, and he was right.

[Tippit]

I will read the Quigley book...Seeing as it seems to be some kind of tinfoil holy scripture. I'm curious.

Any parts I should look out for?

The book isn't printed anymore, it's difficult to find a copy, and it's a long dry read, written by Bill Clinton's former history professor at Georgetown. I own it and I have read it. I did annotate it but I don't have the annotations with me, you should be able to find the relevant quotes elsewhere, or just read the book yourself. _The Naked Capitalist_ by Cleon Skousen is a response to Tragedy and Hope.

[Red3]

It's not impossible to verify or debunk, it's just difficult, and beyond your scope. For instance, the Rockefellers control some of the largest and most influential foundations and think tanks in the country. I can't prove this easily, but what I can do is read history books which document it, and observe accounts made by the Reece Committee. To prove their influence today would require investigative and subpoena power that I don't have. Nevertheless there is plenty of historical evidence of this, and the Rockefellers virtual disappearance from the public eye is a function of their asset protection schemes which disguise their great wealth. JD Rockefeller once said he wishes to own nothing and control everything, and he was right.

So what you're saying is (re: bolded text) that they own/run some stuff and you can't prove what that is or what they do?

[Praktik]

One thing worth pointing out, is when you get people like David Icke et al. harping on about the nwo, then saying "look around you, look at what they're doing, you see it everywhere" what you're actually seeing is globalization and various systems trying to deal with it. Which is only the same thing as the nwo if you're paranoid, ignorant and scared of change. The problem is globalization does bring problems of it's own, but when you're fighting the nwo, you're fighting an enemy that doesn't exist. The truth movement is hijacking lots of serious issues surrounding ethics in business/politics and turning it into a farce.

The phrase "World Order" has been used for many reasons, and at the moment is used to address how the world is changing, hence the "new" addition. It addresses economic,political,social changes surrounding autonomy and sovereignty and how these entities are dealing with changes in trade, communication, immigration, security...Subjects which most people don't know all that much about.


I think that's one of the main reasons conspiracy theories are so popular; because people see all this change going on and it scares them because they don't understand it.

Anyway, off topic somewhat!

No no, totally on topic! Good post! I had some related thoughts on this in a NAFTA superhighway thread here. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3801829&postcount=10)

This is definitely an issue where you can see the influence of the far-right in the world of conspiracies. It was the militias and stormfront and their ilk, the fans of The Turner Diaries that were carrying the torch** on the New World Order conspiracies for several decades before AJ, Icke and 9/11 popularized the New World Order conspiracies to a wider audience (that includes people from across the spectrum, including left-wingers now).

I think the wider acceptance of this these days, and the spreading of a right-wing meme to the left has to do with the left's involvement with anti-globalization protests and the laundry list of alphabet soup they highlight, sometimes not without reason, as agents of nefariousness (WTO, IMF, NAFTA, SPP etc etc). So for those steeped in Naomi Klein and Znet there will be a certain percentage that become receptive to the New World Order tropes of AJ - there's a certain compatibility there when rational analysis is forgone in favour of emotional reaction.

Reading an Infowars account on North American Integration you come away with the idea that any integration is always a bad thing, that it will always result in a loss of hallowed "sovereignty". To take one small example, look at this article (http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/nau_dear_deluded_mass_media_nau_exists.htm) on Infowars that spends a lot of time on the fabled "superhighway", as if re-orienting our transportation networks in a north-south manner is somehow a negative thing.

I'm a Canadian. Over 75% of our imports and exports are with America. CN Rail used to be largely east-west, but as trade with America picked up over the course of the 20th century, they re-oriented to a north-south focus on their railways. The west had been developed and things needed to go south to the largest consumer market in the world. What's bad about that? Really. Tell me. I don't recall anyone pointing to this reorientation as a harbinger of the End of Canada, and if I did come across that, I would have laughed out loud.

They also have a very narrow view of "sovereignty". The communication and transportation revolutions have resulted in a deeper mixing of humanity. Populations are more inter-mixed, more aware of what's going in other countries and with more relations that cross borders. States that withdraw from the community of nations, that pursue an out-moded view of "sovereignty" that sees formalized agreements with neighbours and others as anethema to the control of their countries - well they end up having far less control over things. Voluntary abstention from trade agreements means voluntary absentention from economic influence. Smaller states would become the flotsam and jetsum whirling around under the influence of the currents driven by stronger nations. Trade agreements give them an architecture to pursue redress with unfair trade practises and pry open markets of the larger countries whom they need to buy their products.

Security, environmental and health issues transcend borders. How is an isolated nation to deal with security threats from neighbours, the transmission of disease and the border-defying nature of environmental degradation? It can't. So in the pursuit of maximum sovereignty, such nations actually end up losing sovereignty.

In this sense, membership in international organizations actually is a double edged sword. Sure, nations subject themselves to rules and regulations that, on the face of it, limit their sovereignty. But membership also enhances sovereignty. For larger nations this is especially true. The US has managed to use the mechanics of international organizations like the IMF, the WTO and the UN to serve its interest. So when AJ talks about an end of American "sovereignty" with the NAU - it's an even more ridiculous assertion than it would be with say, Belgium. America has given itself more levers of influence, more methods of cajoling by participating in international orgs. Even smaller nations, without the capacity to "write the rules" and decide who's leading what organization have enhancements of sovereignty that coincide with the curtailment of sovereignty that comes with agreeing to a set of rules. Isolation means less trade, less power over your borders, less ability to deal with trans-national security threats and less ability to deal with disease and shared environmental issues.

I can't find a link right now but I remember reading an infowars article on integration and essentially their position is that matters of environment, security and disease are just "trojan horses" to sell a gullible public on their nefarious plans. Seriously.

And if you believe that, then you really are living in an alternate universe - to deny that these are serious matters for nations that require a certain amount of formalized cooperation is to deny that the sky is blue.

Now I don't deny that sometimes these agreements will come out with negative impacts on certain segments of the population, or that nations won't insert language for selfish reasons, or use the agreements as bludgeons on weaker countries. International cooperation is not a panacea.

But there are very important reasons for it, and if the law of the jungle is still operative and the strong are still preying on the weak under these contexts I'll say, "so, what else is new?"

-----------
** If you want to go further back the history of these ideas can be traced through fears of a Communist World Order during the red scare days, and in the age-old debate in American politics - that over central banking vs decentralized banking, and in the fear of "English Bankers" influencing the events of the day (The "Free Silver" movement, the "bank wars", etc).

[Nosi]

I think that's one of the main reasons conspiracy theories are so popular; because people see all this change going on and it scares them because they don't understand it.

Anyway, off topic somewhat!

You nailed it. Some people don't do change, and when it happens, they see :rule10 hitting fans. Some people see more fans getting hit than others, but mental issues is another thread altogether...:D

[uk_dave]

For instance, the Rockefellers control some of the largest and most influential foundations and think tanks in the country. I can't prove this easily, but what I can do is read history books which document it, and observe accounts made by the Reece Committee.

Whooa there sparky.

You make a claim for which you have no proof but you read some history books which document it.

Crikey

Why (not how) did you become convinced of the truth of your beliefs when you even admit that you cannot provide proof to support those beliefs?

When did you first gain this insight into the world the rest of us mere mortals lack?

[Tippit]

Whooa there sparky.

You make a claim for which you have no proof but you read some history books which document it.

Crikey

Why (not how) did you become convinced of the truth of your beliefs when you even admit that you cannot provide proof to support those beliefs?

When did you first gain this insight into the world the rest of us mere mortals lack?

Apparently you did not understand what I wrote. First of all, some things are provable, but not easy to prove without subpoena, and investigative power. Second, there is proof of the Rockefeller influence throughout history, but they have all but disappeared from the public scene. This is carefully cultivated. As someone said about the Rothschild dynasty "they are perfectly content to let legend be their public relations". So given my understanding of their great historical power, my recognition that there has been no fundamental changes in their position other than their public image, and my understanding of how asset protection can be used to divest themselves of wealth only to maintain surreptitious control of it, I have enough proof.

The insight comes after taking the time to truly understand how our monetary and banking system works.

[Red3]

So what if they have influence? And how do you link them to the NWO? They're extremely rich, they're gonna have some sway in what goes on. Most people with money will try to use if to further their own agenda on occasion, but that doesn't prove they're part of some evil scheme. Looking at JD Rockefeller, I'd say the opposite.

[Thunder]

Not only do I not fear the New World Order, but I welcome their control over my country, my family, and my life.

[therival58]

here's a whole bunch of them, this should be considered the "index" of NWO quotes.

http://globalistagenda.org/quotes.htm

Notable ones are from Edward Bernays in his book Propaganda and Brezinski

I think it's fun because it sets up a challenge to find the original context and see if it matches the nefarious NWO agenda or if its much more benign.

In any case, I believe that "Elite" quotes, fabricated or otherwise, form the basis for most CTs, because the quote is used as a sort of "forewarning" of events to come, so when the event happens, the quote is used to support the agenda. Eg. some people become sterilized, from a vaccine or other source - 'LOOK, this quote from an elite said that people should be sterilized. He has power and influence so he must have influenced it.' ZING.

[Scott Sommers]

Have you ever seen someone use quotes about Hitler to show he was a real person? Or about China to show that it's a real place? How about the Jolly Green Giant? Does that mean if I can find a quote about him that he's a real person?

[abaddon]

Have you ever seen someone use quotes about Hitler to show he was a real person? Or about China to show that it's a real place? How about the Jolly Green Giant? Does that mean if I can find a quote about him that he's a real person?

Of course the Jolly Green Giant is real, I saw him on TV.

[The Charnel Expanse]

This line of reasoning that somehow a series of quotes from 'elite' figures is revelatory of some devious conspiracy to enslave mankind is truly laughable.

Think about it, if you were part of a cabal meeting in a smoke-filled room to plan world domination, wouldn't it be in your best interest to offer no hint of your schemes to the general public, whatsoever? Better yet, why appear in public at all? Most of the quotes appearing on the site linked above are from well-known public figures, who could be called on to answer for what they've said by any enterprising journalist [provided, of course, that the quotes appear equally nefarious in context, and most of them do not].
What kind of diabolical criminal mastermind leaves such an obvious and damning paper trail? Hmm?

Or did they all simply forget the first rule of Fight Club?

[Nosi]

Have you ever seen someone use quotes about Hitler to show he was a real person? Or about China to show that it's a real place? How about the Jolly Green Giant? Does that mean if I can find a quote about him that he's a real person?

How about all the real estate it takes up?

:dl:

[Horatius]

This line of reasoning that somehow a series of quotes from 'elite' figures is revelatory of some devious conspiracy to enslave mankind is truly laughable.

Think about it, if you were part of a cabal meeting in a smoke-filled room to plan world domination, wouldn't it be in your best interest to offer no hint of your schemes to the general public, whatsoever? Better yet, why appear in public at all? Most of the quotes appearing on the site linked above are from well-known public figures, who could be called on to answer for what they've said by any enterprising journalist [provided, of course, that the quotes appear equally nefarious in context, and most of them do not].
What kind of diabolical criminal mastermind leaves such an obvious and damning paper trail? Hmm?

Or did they all simply forget the first rule of Fight Club?



I've seen lots of CTists answer this by essentially saying, "They're just that evil!" The notion is, The Elites don't just want to take over the world, they want you to know they're doing it, but be unable to stop them. When cornered, the CTists will often make some reference to "rituals" that the elite believe gives then their power, that requires such public admissions.

[dafydd]

Not only do I not fear the New World Order, but I welcome their control over my country, my family, and my life.

Me too. The NWO pays me handsomely for spying on my neighbours.

[The Charnel Expanse]

I've seen lots of CTists answer this by essentially saying, "They're just that evil!" The notion is, The Elites don't just want to take over the world, they want you to know they're doing it, but be unable to stop them. When cornered, the CTists will often make some reference to "rituals" that the elite believe gives then their power, that requires such public admissions.

Wouldn't it then follow that they'd just openly gloat about how they blew up the WTC and Pentagon, and faked the Moon Landing/JFK Assassination/Holocaust? Or is there some moral event horizon for stuff they won't claim credit for? :boggled:

[Chaos]

I've seen lots of CTists answer this by essentially saying, "They're just that evil!" The notion is, The Elites don't just want to take over the world, they want you to know they're doing it, but be unable to stop them. When cornered, the CTists will often make some reference to "rituals" that the elite believe gives then their power, that requires such public admissions.

They gain their power by making their super-secret plans public... Whatever happened to sacrificing a virgin to the dark gods?

[Horatius]

Wouldn't it then follow that they'd just openly gloat about how they blew up the WTC and Pentagon, and faked the Moon Landing/JFK Assassination/Holocaust? Or is there some moral event horizon for stuff they won't claim credit for? :boggled:


It's a mystical thing, of course. You've got to walk the fine line of "obvious enough to enhance your Evil, but not so obvious the Good Guys can use it against you".

[The Charnel Expanse]

It's a mystical thing, of course. You've got to walk the fine line of "obvious enough to enhance your Evil, but not so obvious the Good Guys can use it against you".

Ah yes, the James Bond theory of villainous self-incrimination.

[The Charnel Expanse]

Have you ever seen someone use quotes about Hitler to show he was a real person? Or about China to show that it's a real place? How about the Jolly Green Giant? Does that mean if I can find a quote about him that he's a real person?

How about all the real estate it takes up?

:dl:


That reminds me of something from Fallout 3

http://i53.tinypic.com/28r19u8.jpg

[Johny2x4]

Ah, I see. Metahumour.

But you do make a good point, a lot of this globalization stuff that they rant on about actually acts to empower the very people they claim are being enslaved by it. They see quotes like "a devolution of power not only upward toward supranational bodies and outward toward commonwealths and common markets but also downward toward freer, more autonomous units of administration that permit distinct societies to preserve their cultural identities and govern themselves as much as possible", and only focus on the power that moves upwards. They either ignore or dismiss as "the illusion of democracy" anything that appears to contradict their worldview.

I see that expression "ilusion of democracy" a lot. Mind elaborate on that?

[Horatius]

I see that expression "ilusion of democracy" a lot. Mind elaborate on that?



Basically, they believe that democracy is a sham. We're only being offered a choice between two NWO pre-approved candidates. So it doesn't matter who you vote for, the NWO still wins.

And of course, they'll say that no matter who wins, or what party the winner is a member of.

This leads them to completely abandon any chance of actually affecting the real world, via political action. If the NWO controls everything, there's no point in even trying to run for office, or supporting an "outsider" candidate.

[Johny2x4]

Basically, they believe that democracy is a sham. We're only being offered a choice between two NWO pre-approved candidates. So it doesn't matter who you vote for, the NWO still wins.

And of course, they'll say that no matter who wins, or what party the winner is a member of.

This leads them to completely abandon any chance of actually affecting the real world, via political action. If the NWO controls everything, there's no point in even trying to run for office, or supporting an "outsider" candidate.

So what? What do they expect to gain? At most someone will go "meh as long as they don´t drag me off into the night".

[Travis]

Ultimately what this comes down to is that those that fear the NWO are those that want to surround the country with a wall staffed with armed men to keep everyone that's already outside the country "where they belong." And, at the same time, make sure that the country inside the wall never ever changes.

They fear the rest of the world because they ultimately fear the changing of culture.

[LordXenu]

I often see ''quotes'' like the ones provided below as proof of a global conspiracy, NWO etc. But are these quotes real? Perhaps they were misinterpreted?
Just Google ''NWO+quotes'' and you will find a plethora of links. I need your help debunking this ''proof''.

http://www.preferrednetwork.com/NWO_QUOTES.htm

With thanks,
cafe

In many cases the quotes aren't real. In many other they were misinterpreted. To a conspiracy theorist any use of the phrase "new world order" by a politician or high level business person is evidence of a conspiracy. If you look at the context the phrase, "new world order", is used, it is used to mean a major change in the blanace of power in global politics. This is the standard definition of that phrase. Conspiracy theorists speak their own language so someone can innocently use the phrase, "new world order", and the conspiracy theorists will go insane believing they have found "proof".

[Nosi]

Ultimately what this comes down to is that those that fear the NWO are those that want to surround the country with a wall staffed with armed men to keep everyone that's already outside the country "where they belong." And, at the same time, make sure that the country inside the wall never ever changes.

They fear the rest of the world because they ultimately fear the changing of culture.

God forbid DADT ever gets turned on its head...oh wait... :p

[Halcyon Dayz]

If you look at the context the phrase, "new world order", is used, it is used to mean a major change in the balance of power in global politics. This is the standard definition of that phrase.
IIRC new world order was first used by the Allied governments during the latter days of WWII when discussing how they expected or hoped the world would be after the war.
You know, the uhm..., new way the world would be ordered.

[Red3]

One quote that's extremely popular and used way out of context in CTist circles is the Kennedy one on secret societies. Try telling a tin foiler what that's really about.

[The Charnel Expanse]

One quote that's extremely popular and used way out of context in CTist circles is the Kennedy one on secret societies. Try telling a tin foiler what that's really about.

I've never really given it much thought, but what was the context of that?

[therival58]

Here's a famous one attributed to Rockefeller, originally cited in this thread, apparently it was documented until it was "quashed"
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139257&page=2

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination [read as 'democracy'] practiced in past centuries."

--June 5, 1991, Bilderberger meeting in Baden Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton)

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/rockefeller.htm

This quote apparently was also reported in the french media for a short time before it was quashed. I've found that it was also supposedly reported by Hilaire duBerrier in his HDub Reports, transcripts of which I have not been able to locate.

From wikiquote:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller
Purported remarks at a Bilderberg Group meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany in June 1991. The remarks were printed in several right-wing French publications shortly thereafter. Skepticism is in order for the accuracy or attribution of alleged remarks from these exclusive meetings, particularly those which could be manifestations of either satire, sarcasm — or both.


For more discussion..
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:David_Rockefeller#Bilderberg

[Red3]

I've never really given it much thought, but what was the context of that?

It's essentially a speech about the government not stifling the press/controlling information in the name of national security, and giving them free reign over what they print as long as they use their discretion. He (JFK) mentions secret societies/secrecy, saying

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings

And of course, that bit is taken out of the speech, literally and contextually to appear as though he is explicitly talking about secret societies, when in actual fact it's about concealment of information (from the press) by government agencies, which is blatantly apparent even on the next few lines.

We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.

The speech is 20 mins long and nowhere else does he mention any secret society stuff. It's obviously not about that.

For anyone who cares, here's the full Transcript and audio (http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Speeches/The-President-and-the-Press-Address-before-the-American-Newspaper-Publishers-Association.aspx)

[Travis]

What's funny is that it is possible to have a plan for the world that isn't in any way sinister.