Jump to content


Photo

New World Order


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 TheLastSayonara

TheLastSayonara

    -chan

  • Kouhais
  • PipPip
  • 132 posts

Posted 01 May 2008 - 05:59 PM

Hey guys. I happen to come across this topic about New World Order or NWO. There are many evidences show this theory might be true. I'm not sure so I would like to ask for everyone's opinion in this forum. Down here are some links that related to the New World Order.

http://en.wikipedia....er_(conspiracy)
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/
http://www.biblebeli....org.au/nv2.htm
http://www.threeworl...world-order.htm

Youtube Videos:



user posted image

From delusion lead me to Truth
From darkness lead me to Light
From death lead me to eternal life.

#2 mamori

mamori

    -sama

  • Sempais
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1353 posts
  • Interests:anime, mythology, writing, geology

Posted 01 May 2008 - 06:31 PM

for there to a be a "New World Order," it would require people smart enough to establish it. and the people who are smart enough to pull it off arn't stupid enough to want to run it.

control oil? screw oil, the oil economy is already dying, all that's happening now is the oil industry getting all it can before having to utilize all the patents they've been buying up for the last 40 years or so of alternative fuel sources and engines. at this point, the only valuable natural resource in the middle east will be mute, and the little income that their countries collect will quite literally dry up.

what most proponents of the whole new world order conspiricy theory fail to relize is the cyclinal path that society follows. the current generation which is posed to take power and become the "next great generation," the millenial (born 1982-2002, woot go us), are hardlyon the large scale ones to allow such a new world order to form. something similar in regards to making strides towards uniting the world and it's different societies and cultures in friendship and understanding? yes, but establishing one super government which controls everything and can have your "money chip" "accidentlally" turned off, not so much. as much as we think people are being dumbed down and made into puppets for the regime, actuall sociological studies have proven t his be quite the contrary for the next generation.

basicly, the people putting this information foreward are no different from fox news, using terrible information to suit their own lonely needs for attention.

in fact, if you want to see how the world is changing, read my sociology papers on my blog about feminism and the shift from a dominator paradigm (which NWO is based upon), to a partnership paradigm (likely rout that millenials will start to take);
http://blog.fansub.t...odern-feminism/
http://blog.fansub.t...gundam-00-2007/


user posted image user posted image user posted image user posted image

COI/Claimed
Kohaku: Tsukihime
Satsuki: Tsukihime
Sakura: Fate/Stay Night
Hanyuu: Higurashi no Naku Koro ni
Suigintou: Rozen Maiden
Tsuruya: The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya
Wilhelmina: Shakugan no Shana
Kuroi-Sensei: Lucky Star
Horo: Spice and Wolf
Fuko Ibuki: Clannad
Maria: Hayate no Gotoku!


#3 monsta

monsta

    -the bee's knees

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England

Posted 01 May 2008 - 09:50 PM

The problem with a lot of conspiracy theories is a bunch of people make a theory and then use evidence to fit their theory. The danger with such a method is you begin "nit picking" facts. Namely you highlight facts that support your theory and ignore others that don't. At the very least less emphasis is put on contradictory facts. It is far better (and more scientific) to gather all the facts and then form a conclusion.

The theory puts a lot of weight in organisation such as the UN and EU assuming they are de facto governments when in reality they are merely de jure bodies. In reality the UN carries little power over individual countries so it would be an ineffective method of controlling the world. Yes the EU has more power over its individual states than the UN but countries still retain their independence. The EU just reduces barriers in certain areas e.g employment/trade etc.

Another fact that is constantly mentioned is that various politicians mention a new world order. Such statements are taken out of context.

There are many benefits to people dominating all nations (unlimited income and power) not to mention they would be in power indefinitely (no election as no one knows of their influence). However such a thing is impossible and would be an administrators nightmare to keep running. The EU is bad enough imagine governing the whole world? On top of this they would have to do it without anyone noticing. As people are not perfect I am fairly certain that such an organisation would quickly be found out.

QUOTE
control oil? screw oil, the oil economy is already dying, all that's happening now is the oil industry getting all it can before having to utilize all the patents they've been buying up for the last 40 years or so of alternative fuel sources and engines. at this point, the only valuable natural resource in the middle east will be mute, and the little income that their countries collect will quite literally dry up.


Oil is still a very profitable business. Yes the price of oil is going up but this isn't so much because the resource is drying up. The demand for oil is going up rapidly as nations like China and India are demanding far more oil than 10 years ago. Then there is the unstable political situation in the middle East. Despite this supply has remained relatively constant. As supply has stayed constant while demand has risen it means prices will rise (its basic supply and demand). Also as demand is inelastic (demand does not respond to price) oil companies are actually making more money. How long will the oil last? Difficult to say as new sources of oil are found all the time.

In any case even when the oil does dry up the countries supplying the oil will change its skill base. Look at countries like Britain, in the 60's they changed from a nation dominate in manufacturing to a country that was services driven. The same is already happening in China and I see little reason why it won't happen in middle East countries.

#4 Dalriada

Dalriada

    -dono

  • Sempais
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts

Posted 01 May 2008 - 09:50 PM

QUOTE

what most proponents of the whole new world order conspiricy theory fail to relize is the cyclinal path that society follows.


And that the conspiracy is completely unsupported by facts (of course, it only proves that the conspiracy is a very good and very secrete one rolleyes.gif ).

Of course, you have some trys at dominating the planet (colonialism, neo-colonialism, neo-imperialism...), but it's not really secrete, and it's not really working.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

#5 Dalriada

Dalriada

    -dono

  • Sempais
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 08:56 AM

QUOTE

who is a one world goverment possible.? by what they can do uniting countries..
example Europe..North america Republic  where in usa canada and mexico become one nation.. blah blah blah


You say that as if the EU was a bad thing.
Although it's not perfect, I'm quite sure Spain, Portugal or Irland would disagree.

Besides, we live now in a globalized world. With global trade, relationships, migrations.
It's quite logical to have some global rules (Geneva conventions, the UN, the WTO) to organize those exchanges.
Now, I'm not saying that those rules or organizations are perfect, they are far from it. But neither are the rules inside one specific country. At least, they are far from satanic.

The rest of the message is funny crap, but crap nonetheless, so there's no need to answer to it in the thoughtful section.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

#6 Gustav1976

Gustav1976

    -sama

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1825 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 10:29 AM

I would advise taking anything a news company or media network with a grain of salt so to speak for at least the following reasons:
You do not know if the sources they use are reliable as you yourself have not spoken to the sources.Also, you should be aware that it is quite possible that a journalist looking for a news story to sell could usefacts to create a fictional consipracy. I'm not saying this is the case but it is actually fairly easy if you have enough time and patience to link a lot of coincidences to support a theory whether that theory is true or not.
I would also have to add that trying to govern a country is bad enough and trying to keep control of just a few is nearly impossible so trying to control the entire globe is likely to be incredibly difficult and almost certainly impossible to do from behind scenes

#7 monsta

monsta

    -the bee's knees

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England

Posted 18 January 2009 - 10:20 PM

For any world government to have any power they must have direct control of all the countries. Sounds simple enough, but to do that they must be able to effect the laws in each country. For that to happen it means the government of all the said countries must lose some of their power. Unsurprisingly this is a very difficult thing to do as people rarely relinquish this power, if ever.

There are two ways a world government could form. One way is through force or the threat of force. Many empires of the past have tried to achieve world domination but they have all failed; mostly by having their resources stretched. In most conspiracy theories various governments are coerced into agreement to some super person. To do this for one country is hard enough, but every country in the world? It is a monumental task. What's more there is a more significant problem. What happens if the said person dies? If the world government is a organisation, what happens if strong factions develop and they have a major disagreement? It is highly unlikely this could be kept a secret.

The other way is through diplomacy and this has succeeded albeit on a limited level. It could be argued the UN is a world government. All nations must adhere to what the UN says as it maintains various international laws. In reality though the UN is a de jure world government and does not have a huge influence on global events. For it to have a greater influence it would need to have a stronger military have more control over countries constitutions and their economies. That way it could actually govern other countries and would become a de facto world government.

To a lesser extend the EU is getting into this position, at least for European nations. The EU has a direct influence on the laws of various EU nations and can regulate the economies of each country. Then again the EU is only between European nations so it can never be considered a world government.

#8 Gustav1976

Gustav1976

    -sama

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1825 posts

Posted 18 January 2009 - 10:29 PM

Personally I think the immense size of a bureaucracy needed to run so many countries is incredibly impractical as well as unlikely. Most governments in ANY country have enough difficulties maintaining the bureacracy for their own country let alone that of another.
Also as you have said monsta, maintaining power is incredibly difficult too. Consider what happened when the British Empire had to face before it crubled? No matter how powerful a "power" is the lines of communication and supplies needed to enforce rule or discipline or even maintain a bureacracy would be so difficult there is a likeihood it would need a second bureacracy to main them/it.

#9 monsta

monsta

    -the bee's knees

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England

Posted 19 January 2009 - 12:35 AM

QUOTE (Gustav1976 @ Jan 18 2009, 10:29 PM)
Personally I think the immense size of a bureaucracy needed to run so many countries is incredibly impractical as well as unlikely. Most governments in ANY country have enough difficulties maintaining the bureacracy for their own country let alone that of another.

I agree; it is next to impossible for any organisation to run the day to day management of every country. The bureaucracy would be immense and would probably be very inefficient, if it were to happen at all. However just because the organisation does not run the day to day management of each individual country does not mean it cannot have any significant power.

The only thing an organisation needs to gain significant control is to be able to make AND enforce laws that all countries must adhere to. The second part to this is very important as the UN has various international/human right laws but can rarely enforce these laws, particularly against stronger nations. The organisation would also need to have a significant influence on the world economy. If it has the power to influence world trade (creating subsidies, embargoes, affect interest rates etc) this would also be a significant leverage that could be used to influence nations.

I guess a good model to look at is the EU. Each sovereign state in the EU has it own laws and each state (or country) manages itself. However all EU nations must adhere to certain standardised laws and trading policy. If a nation were to break the laws it would be expelled from the EU and would lose all the benefits that the country gained by being a member state. A similar principle could be applied for the UN.

Like the EU, it would be prudent that the UN made certain economic/political conditions a nation must fulfil before they are able to join. This would prevent any rogue nations taking advantage of the organisation.

I guess the problem with this is many of the wealthiest nations would stand to lose more as they would have to support the poorer nations. It's a common argument that older EU members make about newer members; they are a drain to the system. Imagine this on a global scale. Still the benefits will be significant as the movement of goods/services/people would be easier and maybe the world could share a common currency. Then again what are the chances of that happening?

Oh and stop the veto. It is stupid and is not democratic!

#10 Norris

Norris
  • Kouhais
  • 2 posts

Posted 21 January 2009 - 11:06 PM

Even though such theories are without proof I am glad that there are people who are skeptical of our government.

Without skeptics we wouldn't have this wonderful country and without this country democracy wouldn't be widespread as today. True, there are countries with better systems but such countries were based on us to begin with and wouldn't exist without us.

Such things holds politicians in check and in fear.

#11 Gustav1976

Gustav1976

    -sama

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1825 posts

Posted 22 January 2009 - 11:39 AM

Norris personally I'm more thankful to Greece than the U.S. for democracy tongue.gif after all without Greece, democracy wouldnt exist at all wink.gif
But you;re right being skeptical of governments isn;t necessarily a bad thing, people should never just blindly follow a government or any other authority. Every person has a duty to themselves and those around them to consider the consequences of their own actions and inaction.

#12 Dalriada

Dalriada

    -dono

  • Sempais
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 686 posts

Posted 22 January 2009 - 12:41 PM

QUOTE
Norris personally I'm more thankful to Greece than the U.S. for democracy tongue.gif after all without Greece, democracy wouldnt exist at all wink.gif


Or to the Roman republic, with the Senate. Or to England, with the habeas corpus and constitutionnal monarchy. Or to France with the Revolution.

The creation of democracy is a long, long story.

QUOTE

But you;re right being skeptical of governments isn;t necessarily a bad thing, people should never just blindly follow a government or any other authority. Every person has a duty to themselves and those around them to consider the consequences of their own actions and inaction.


However, there an enormous gap between being a skeptical and informed (which is a good thing in my opinion) and being a conspirationist, like the first message (which is stupid).

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

#13 Gustav1976

Gustav1976

    -sama

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1825 posts

Posted 22 January 2009 - 12:51 PM

I feel like I've been hijacked by you now Dalraida laugh.gif

#14 snorky2k

snorky2k

    -san

  • Kouhais
  • PipPipPip
  • 218 posts

Posted 22 January 2009 - 06:09 PM

The US also had a substantial influence from the Iroquis. I believe that the Iroquis passport is still honored.

#15 Gustav1976

Gustav1976

    -sama

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1825 posts

Posted 22 January 2009 - 07:47 PM

weren't the iroqui the native american tribe that taught the U.S. army about wind-speak? I would hope their passports would still be honoured under the circumstances as if I'm right the Iroquis were a pivotal in helping the U.S. army during WWII

Anyway this is offtopic so let's try get back on topic guys tongue.gif

#16 snorky2k

snorky2k

    -san

  • Kouhais
  • PipPipPip
  • 218 posts

Posted 22 January 2009 - 09:22 PM

The Navajo were the windtalkers. The surviving Iriquois now are heavy hitters in New York metal structure erections. They probably have a lot to say about new worlders coming in with conspiracies.


#17 Gustav1976

Gustav1976

    -sama

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1825 posts

Posted 22 January 2009 - 09:44 PM

k well at least I was half right smile.gif let's get back on topic now tongue.gif

#18 ApathyCompleX

ApathyCompleX

    -chi

  • Kouhais
  • Pip
  • 27 posts
  • Interests:Thoughtfulness & thoughtlessness.

Posted 23 April 2011 - 07:45 PM

From delusion lead me to Truth
From darkness lead me to Light
From death lead me to eternal life.

These are your words, right ? NWO is there, but the sources of your NWO investigation, or NWO education, are truly useless. If you really want to know, and real NWO knowledge is no joke, then inform me; I'll let you know what to seek.

By the way guys none of your discussions are truly related to NWO, not that I'm speaking out of obsession, but you really should know that being skeptical doesn't help when the problem is about rotten hidden secrets, unless you can read minds that is...

user posted image

#19 monsta

monsta

    -the bee's knees

  • Retired
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England

Posted 24 April 2011 - 06:17 PM

QUOTE (ApathyCompleX @ Apr 23 2011, 08:45 PM)
From delusion lead me to Truth
From darkness lead me to Light
From death lead me to eternal life.

These are your words, right ? NWO is there, but the sources of your NWO investigation, or NWO education, are truly useless. If you really want to know, and real NWO knowledge is no joke, then inform me; I'll let you know what to seek.

By the way guys none of your discussions are truly related to NWO, not that I'm speaking out of obsession, but you really should know that being skeptical doesn't help when the problem is about rotten hidden secrets, unless you can read minds that is... 

Please elaborate on your post because at the moment the post adds nothing to the discussion. If what is said is wrong - which is quite plausible - then please state which areas are wrong and explain in at least general terms why it is wrong. A simple statement saying the discussion is not related to NWO is not really helpful. A more precise answer is needed, remember this is the thoughtful section where people are suppose to support their points with some proof or logical reasoning. Please refer to the rules of the this section before posting again:

THOUGHTFUL SECTION RULES

Further posts of this nature will be deleted.

#20 ApathyCompleX

ApathyCompleX

    -chi

  • Kouhais
  • Pip
  • 27 posts
  • Interests:Thoughtfulness & thoughtlessness.

Posted 25 April 2011 - 06:23 AM

Well, NWO is by no means "N", or "new". A glance at your dollar bill will show you an all-seeing eye which meaning has nothing to do with the foundation of the US. So, why an all-seeing shiny eye on your dollar bill ?The eye refers to something some secret societies worship, the secret societies that happen to own all the biggest banks in the world, "coincidentally"

Another glance at your dollar bill will show you a Latin phrase "Novus Ordo Mundi" this phrase would divide scholars into 2 groups.

The first group would say that the phrase means the hopeful "New Order of the Ages", nothing more, nothing less.
The second group would say that "Novus Ordo Mundi" means "New World Order". However, there is something to observe about the 2 interpretations :
A most important note is that, with the incomplete pyramid and the all seeing eye associated with the phrase "Novus Ordo Mundi", it is obviously too related to the Free-Masons, and other secret societies, that it's foolish to consider the 1st interpretation.

Then, "New World Order" as a phrase in English, since the Us government announced it in English, can still be read in 2 ways.

First is : New World-order, that is, a new order brought to the world. That's how his term is understood in this thread ( in your discussions )

The second reading is "New-world order", that is, to found a very genuine order to this world, to edit this world, in a away that aims to establish a "New World", which is my reading.

The project of a New World Order as formally declared by the Us government after 9-11. So it was made to seem as a reaction. However, the phrase "Novus Ordo Mundi" as printed on the dollar would prove a different argument. Remember, the reason why we're sure that "Novus Ordo Mundi" means "New World Order" is because of the pictures of occultism associated with it, that have nothing to do with the foundation of the US : The eye and pyramid.

Anyways, the project of a New World Order as formally declared by the Us government after 9-11. So it was made to seem as a reaction. But the depth of the occultism printed on the dollar bill do well to support that New World Order was "desired". Which means that declaring NWO after 9 11 was not a reaction, but a fake reaction. That's why I insist that 9-11 was an inside job.

Now, the phrase "inside job" is not so significant. Anyone, any mafia, could easily blow a couple of buildings, and there are many of those "capable people" in the US. However, the way the incident of 9-11 was done, and how the place of the incident was decorated after the incident, ARE SO RELATED TO CERTAIN CULTS AND SECRET SOCIETY RITUALS. Which is why the phrase "Inside Job" is now a rather significant note.

Truly, there's a relation between 9-11 as an incident, a way of occurrence, and even a date, on the one hand, and specific secret-society rituals on the other hand. However, it requires great knowledge of secret cults to discover the surprisingly accurate relation. It'd be a pain to explain the whole thing, even remembering them gives me a headache, though I may still show you if you'd go as far as to call me a liar. ( This is no attempt to offend your politeness ).

Listen, some things are only believed when discovered by one's own efforts; but NWO is not something you can discover by your own efforts. So subjective researching of NWO will only lead you to disbelief, at least that's what so I think.

To know the truth behind NWO, is no joke. It requires knowledge in History, Ancient History, Hidden History, Myths, Religion, Occultism, and Arab books that still cannot be decoded by most people, like Al Jifr. Though you can always try to find a stupid secret society member and test your 2-faced manipulations on him/her.
Nothing of the required arguments were present, and your discussion of NWO is identical with countless NWO discussions I sumbled upon in the Net, you can feel free to check them out, you have all the net before you, just pic a discussion, and observe the similarities.


user posted image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users