invisible empire

[Spitfire15]

Argue about geo-politics with someone who knows way more than you.

Acquire retardation and pretend like you have no idea whats going on.

[cunt sauce]

Argue about geo-politics with someone who knows way more than you.

Acquire retardation and pretend like you have no idea whats going on.

 

haven't had my coffee yet, so pardon my confusion. is this directed at me? thanxxx

[Fist 666]

i'm pretty sure thats directed at two 'n poo

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I can understand how people could see the "New World Order" as a term referencing a post Cold War world. With 1 dominate super power being the United States.

 

However, I don't believe that is what people like Paul Wolfowitz and George Bush Sr. are referring to, when they use it.

 

Also, how would this New World Order work, if the U.S. were to fail? Would it automatically shift to China being the center?

 

Or would the failure of the U.S. make the transition into this one world order easier. As the strongest opposition to such a world would be gone?

 

 

_____

 

 

As far as twonpoo's post is concerned, I don't think he's that far off. Nothing from the actual movie was even brought up. Except for the fact that the first 20 minutes is "garbage". Not that the history it self isn't relevant, or informative.

 

When all the first 20 minutes is supposed to show, is the fact that the term is used, it has a pretty specific meaning (which I think some of you are taking the text book usage of it not the literal meaning) and their have been very powerful people in our history pushing that agenda along.

 

It also shows how their is opposition to this movement, and legitimate concern for the American public and America as a sovereign nation. From a minority group within our own government. Which should at least show anyone who thinks all of this is fabricated, it isn't.

[El Mamerro]

Christo laid it out very clear, if you don't agree/believe with his explanation for what new world order really means, then there is nothing else to be discussed.

 

I made good use of my time and watched "Guns, Germs, and Steel" instead, which was awesome and not pushing gotcha-edited bullshit within the first 15 minutes.

[angelofdeath]

I think in some more established cases, Alex Jones for example, there is an element of a profit motive, but for the most part I see the creators of these films genuinely believing the message that they are spreading. Unfortunately I see them as having a highly distorted worldview themselves.

 

i just think these lines of reasoning on these documentaries is hilarious.

how much 'profit' do you really think these guys are making off documentaries? i heard alex jones new docs take 300K to make. what do you think he is doing... sending these films to movie theaters or something and bringing in 40 million on opening weekend? he gives the video;s away for free and sells them on dvd on the internet.

 

guys making these docs genuinely believe what they are putting in them, and these guys are typical middle of the road income types. to think that they are making documentaries to make millions is just hilarious. if they were solely looking to make 'profit' they would be much better off working for the NWO in some capacity instead of making underground documentaries that they put on youtube

[Lesbian Fisting]

The quote at 21:25 summarizes Christo's point.

[twonpoo]

It's understood it can mean other things to other people, but personally when the Bush admin is using it I dont see it being the in depth version of what was said above. And again it's way too odd that it's danced around and avoided like the plague. Too much secrecy and avoidance if it was just something simple. The Bildergurg group meeting alone shows me there'smultiple concepts for "NWO"

[Lesbian Fisting]

What about the part where they are all gays but pretend to be Christians and not gays? And they have a bunch of meetings where they all fag out. Then run gay prostitution rings. Surely its the NWO behind it.

 

This is one of those movies that works backwards. They decide what the message is and then show whatever they can to support the message. They like to point out that these corporate elite are trying to run the show and so on, but yet to mention that they already do. Not because of an NWO, but because we have lobbyists, special interest groups and the fact that our nation is built on capitalism. What they try to portray as a secret agenda is just corporations buying their way in, with lobbyists, campaign contributions, etc. A capitalist society where the wealthy are in power doesnt give a shit about "the people." It doesnt mean there is a conspiracy, just greed.

 

If you look at the NWO in the context of what Christo wrote with the knowledge that we are only about 20 years out of the Cold War, then you can see what they are talking about. Everyone of the politicians or businessmen or professor who mentions the New World Order was a part of the Cold War generation. They all either paved the way for Cold War policies, were a part of the Cold War "2 superpower system" or began their careers when that was what was going on. HW Bush was first President after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Our side won. We were the only one left standing, consolidation of power. A New World Order in which having ICBMs pointed at each other was no longer the balance of power.

[lord_casek]

What about the part where they are all gays but pretend to be Christians and not gays? And they have a bunch of meetings where they all fag out. Then run gay prostitution rings. Surely its the NWO behind it.

 

This is one of those movies that works backwards. They decide what the message is and then show whatever they can to support the message. They like to point out that these corporate elite are trying to run the show and so on, but yet to mention that they already do. Not because of an NWO, but because we have lobbyists, special interest groups and the fact that our nation is built on capitalism. What they try to portray as a secret agenda is just corporations buying their way in, with lobbyists, campaign contributions, etc. A capitalist society where the wealthy are in power doesnt give a shit about "the people." It doesnt mean there is a conspiracy, just greed.

 

If you look at the NWO in the context of what Christo wrote with the knowledge that we are only about 20 years out of the Cold War, then you can see what they are talking about. Everyone of the politicians or businessmen or professor who mentions the New World Order was a part of the Cold War generation. They all either paved the way for Cold War policies, were a part of the Cold War "2 superpower system" or began their careers when that was what was going on. HW Bush was first President after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Our side won. We were the only one left standing, consolidation of power. A New World Order in which having ICBMs pointed at each other was no longer the balance of power.

 

 

Really?

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=18QNilirKxIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+new+world+order+h.g.+wells&source=bl&ots=SeFQ42YJRr&sig=0uWBNMwl8XWKfxGOjdxKrodlXgw&hl=en&ei=JB3SS57CCJHM8wSimoynDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9169285/Hitler-New-World-Order-1928

[angelofdeath]

"but because we have lobbyists, special interest groups and the fact that our nation is built on capitalism."

 

capitalism has nothing to do with any of that.

corporate fascism/socialism (what the US economy is today) is NOT laissez faire.

 

if we had a government that only secured property rights, like it was more or less originally intended to do, lobbyists, corporations, etc would have NO power over anyone. the only reason a corporation has any coercive power in the economy is by using the government to crush competition, for protectionism, for monopoly privilege subsidies and bailouts. other than a corp using the force of government, they hold no power. even today, walmart cannot tax you, regulate you, send you to war, cancel out your free speech or infringe on your liberties in ANY coercive manner.

 

other than that... carry on with your argument.

[Lesbian Fisting]

Really?

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=18QNilirKxIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+new+world+order+h.g.+wells&source=bl&ots=SeFQ42YJRr&sig=0uWBNMwl8XWKfxGOjdxKrodlXgw&hl=en&ei=JB3SS57CCJHM8wSimoynDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9169285/Hitler-New-World-Order-1928

 

Really?

 

If you look at the time period that Wells wrote the book and what he advocated, you couldnt really connect it to a conspiracy more than you could connect it to someone who lived through the first world war and wrote the book at the beginning of the second and saw horrors the world had never seen before. Was Henry David Thoreau part of a NWO conspiracy because he wrote Walden? Is he part of a eco-terror conspiracy? Is Ralph Waldo Emerson part of a conspiracy because he advocated an utopian society relevant to its time period?

 

Its a situation where if you look for a conspiracy then you can point at certain things and say "here." But if you look at everything in context, you dont jump to that conclusion immediately. Same with the link you posted to Hitler's New World Order. Are the goals of creating a pure race withing the Third Reich the same thing as the NWO conspiracy the film is about?

[lord_casek]

Really?

 

If you look at the time period that Wells wrote the book and what he advocated, you couldnt really connect it to a conspiracy more than you could connect it to someone who lived through the first world war and wrote the book at the beginning of the second and saw horrors the world had never seen before. Was Henry David Thoreau part of a NWO conspiracy because he wrote Walden? Is he part of a eco-terror conspiracy? Is Ralph Waldo Emerson part of a conspiracy because he advocated an utopian society relevant to its time period?

 

Its a situation where if you look for a conspiracy then you can point at certain things and say "here." But if you look at everything in context, you dont jump to that conclusion immediately. Same with the link you posted to Hitler's New World Order. Are the goals of creating a pure race withing the Third Reich the same thing as the NWO conspiracy the film is about?

 

 

Possibly. If you look at who Wells was connected to and talking to you find more relevance to my side than yours.

 

Eugenics has always been a goal of the elite.

[cunt sauce]

 

Is John Lennon a potential Illuminati member?

 

 

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world

 

You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one

[cunt sauce]

see the chemtrail in the sky and the fema camp under the statue?? ITS A CONSPIRACY!

[Zig]

cunt: no, not at all. this is a problem i personally have with Alex Jones in the way he presents the New World Order as well. everyone isn't directly involved in a "conspiracy", it is more complex that something as simple as a small group of people trying to control the world. just because Lennon wanted world unity, or someone uses the phrase when referring to the balance of power, or cosmopolitanism; this doesn't mean that a) this is a horrible thing to want to accomplish or b) they are somehow involved in a sinister conspiracy against mankind. just the same way that I see 9/11 as there being more to the story then officially stated, yet i see it as ridiculous if someone is insinuating that George Bush himself was directly involved in a conspiracy to plot it out. these issues are deeper then that. but to be fair to Jones, I believe he understands that but just doesn't do very well presenting the information without making it seem like that.

 

i don't see these films like others here do, in that they are concocting an alternate reality based off of pieces of history and information that otherwise don't relate to each other. i won't take issue with you if you do feel like that, i don't really care to try and convince a bunch of people who have already made up their minds what to believe. you don't necessarily look into the information though, because you are so convinced that you already know better than to even pay attention to the information for more then an hour or even 20 minutes in most of your cases. i've been listening and paying attention to this alternative information for 5-6 years now, and i still have tons of things i don't understand and i learn more all the time. spending such a short amount of time on this information will lead you to the kind of conclusions you've already given, which are basically text-book, one dimensional views of the topic.

 

i mean how many of you even know about men who influenced the creation of institutions like the League of Nations and United Nations, like Nicholas Roerich for example. when you research these kinds of men and you start to read about their more esoteric beliefs you really begin to have a wider understanding of why it is they want to see a united world. when you look into the meanings of symbolism used by free-masonry we get a better understanding of what America means to them.

 

i'm certain the political term New World Order means many different things to different people, especially when used in different contexts. in many of those cases during the first 20 minutes of the film, you are probably correct when you say that they are referring to the balance of power after the cold war. the conspiracy, if there is one, isn't focused on these individuals using the term in those contexts though, it is focused on the history of this term and what it ultimately means if established. you speak about the U.S Empire, which i find to be a contradiction because we can already agree that the U.S should not be an Empire so we have to question why it is and how it came to be that way. the U.S justifies being an empire under the guise of spreading liberal democracy world wide, yet we can clearly see through facts and evidence that it is anything but liberal democracy which is being spread. not to even mention that America itself is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. doing deeper research into the origins of these secret societies brings you to a closer understanding as to why it is, in their minds, that they believe it to be a righteous cause to become an empire under the guise of spreading democracy. i have a hard time believing that George Bush Sr. simply views the New World Order in that literal, text-book definition some of you are presenting, and I happen to think he views it as something much more elaborate than that.

 

i also think that this idea of uniting the world for benevolent purposes is manipulated. i don't hold capitalism responsible for this, but it is definitely a factor within the overall problem because it creates the environment for corruption. someone was talking about how the nwo was a collectivist government, but that just shows even further lack of knowledge on the topic. if you really studied it, you would understand that the the nwo is just tyranny or fascism under the leadership of a world body. some people say it is socialistic or communist in nature, but this would be the same kind of relationship that nazi germany had to socialism, or modern day china has to communism. they aren't really forms of either, it's just tyranny.

 

i mean, believe what you want. i have no qualms with anyone dismissing this movie, i would just say to you to keep the possibility open to further consideration in the back of your mind and continue to watch how things develop over time.

[lord_casek]

 

Is John Lennon a potential Illuminati member?

 

 

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world

 

You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one

 

Socialist yes. Proponent of global governance no.

 

I really like Lennon but didn't understand that song until I was older.

 

Also:

[cunt sauce]

Well someone really needs to fine-tune their sarcasm detector! HA!

[Zig]

Well someone really needs to fine-tune their sarcasm detector! HA!

 

i had a feeling you were being sarcastic :p

 

well, sarcastic or not it still illustrates a good point though

[Removed]

i just think these lines of reasoning on these documentaries is hilarious.

how much 'profit' do you really think these guys are making off documentaries? i heard alex jones new docs take 300K to make. what do you think he is doing... sending these films to movie theaters or something and bringing in 40 million on opening weekend? he gives the video;s away for free and sells them on dvd on the internet.

 

guys making these docs genuinely believe what they are putting in them, and these guys are typical middle of the road income types. to think that they are making documentaries to make millions is just hilarious. if they were solely looking to make 'profit' they would be much better off working for the NWO in some capacity instead of making underground documentaries that they put on youtube

 

Ahh... I'm pretty sure we just agreed on something.

To clarify; I am saying that for the most part I think the film makers ARE making the films because they genuinely believe in the message they are projecting. Lets call this an altruistic motive. However, I think there are probably indirect ways to make money from these films, and so in the case of more organised people ,like Alex Jones who has a slick website and other media outlets, there may be a profit motive that I am unaware of.

[cunt sauce]

Socialist yes. Proponent of global governance no.

 

I really like Lennon but didn't understand that song until I was older.

 

Also:

 

i don't know much about lennon, but that song almost seems to suggest anarcho-primitivism not socialism.

 

no country to die for, no religion, all the people living for the day.

 

sounds like the way things were before agricultural sustenance.

 

check out the wiki page for anarcho-primitivism casek, you might find it interesting.

[Removed]

i'm certain the political term New World Order means many different things to different people, especially when used in different contexts. in many of those cases during the first 20 minutes of the film, you are probably correct when you say that they are referring to the balance of power after the cold war. the conspiracy, if there is one, isn't focused on these individuals using the term in those contexts though, it is focused on the history of this term and what it ultimately means if established. you speak about the U.S Empire, which i find to be a contradiction because we can already agree that the U.S should not be an Empire so we have to question why it is and how it came to be that way. the U.S justifies being an empire under the guise of spreading liberal democracy world wide, yet we can clearly see through facts and evidence that it is anything but liberal democracy which is being spread. not to even mention that America itself is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. doing deeper research into the origins of these secret societies brings you to a closer understanding as to why it is, in their minds, that they believe it to be a righteous cause to become an empire under the guise of spreading democracy. i have a hard time believing that George Bush Sr. simply views the New World Order in that literal, text-book definition some of you are presenting, and I happen to think he views it as something much more elaborate than that.

 

i also think that this idea of uniting the world for benevolent purposes is manipulated. i don't hold capitalism responsible for this, but it is definitely a factor within the overall problem because it creates the environment for corruption. someone was talking about how the nwo was a collectivist government, but that just shows even further lack of knowledge on the topic. if you really studied it, you would understand that the the nwo is just tyranny or fascism under the leadership of a world body. some people say it is socialistic or communist in nature, but this would be the same kind of relationship that nazi germany had to socialism, or modern day china has to communism. they aren't really forms of either, it's just tyranny.

 

Now you are actually giving us something that we can work with! If you are interested in motives and the thinking behind international institutions or even the concept of a world government you can read about Cosmopolitianism (as stated before). There are also many thinkers who refute the legitmacy or practicality of Cosmopolitan ideas, who are generally known as Communitarian's. Christo pointed out that the phrase 'End of History' was coined by Fukuyama in reference to the fall of the Soviet Empire. Amongst political theorists concept is still hotly debated, you will be able to find a lot of information critical of Fukuyama. Just of the top of my head Chomsky and Pilger are two vocal critics. It might also be helpfull to understand a concept of a pragmatic power based approach to international relations called Realpolitik.

 

Another thing that has been pointed out (by Crooked and possibly others) is that all of these films have strong Marxist undertones. This does not mean the film makers are nasty commies haha.. It means that they are in line with a marxist (or class based) critique of the current paradigm. If you are interested in following this up, you could read about Gramsci with particular reference to his concept of Hegemony. You could also read about Foucault and his comment on how the state has taught us all to self regulate our behaviour, illustrated by his work on the panopticon. You could also read into the history of the Frankfurt School, or more generally about Critical Theorists. Following on from these neo-marxists or critical theorists are theories of how international relations are ordered in the favour of the powerful, for example a theory of New International Political Economy.

 

Personally I find that the critical theorists provide an strong explanation of the current paradigm. You might find otherwise, but I think if you want to have a discussion about the kinds of issues raised by this film(or others) it might help a lot to have some background understanding of the historical and contemporary arguments that relate. Otherwise (unfortunately) you are relegated to only discussing these issues with other conspiracy subscribers. Which I see as being counter-productive to having a reasonable understanding of these issues since this perspective is highly steeped in paranoia. However you might disagree with me and cite Honeth's theory of recognition (this is apparently too new to have a wiki page) to explain our polarised positions.

 

If you already knew most of this stuff then forgive me. I am just trying to provide a solid basis for discussion, also I am trying to illustrate that these kinds of issues have already been thoroughly debated in an arena that is recognised as legitimate by the majority of society.

 

BTW I apologise if the wiki articles aren't very good. I haven't read them, I just wanted to provide avenues for further reading, how far you take it is up to you.

[Removed]

wait, did you just watch an hour of a movie, and then talk about some tribes and ottoman empires for 5 paragraphs?

 

 

wait, wut?

 

what the fuck is going on in here, a bunch of arrogent people complaining, then getting called out to ACTUALLY watch a film, frankenflaver dropped the reality hammer on everyone, the arrogant guys tippy toed out the room and didnt watch shit, and this guy comes in and decides to recite book reviews instead of talking about the films content?

 

sorry guy, Im not convinced you've even payed attention for the hour you "watched".

 

My man, no one is engaging with you because multiple explanations have been provided as to why this is but you refuse to listen to them, instead you stubbornly insist on making the same kind of statement over and over. You might be find a better approach would be to make a more detailed summary of what exactly is said in the film that 'everyone' has missed and why this is important.

[Zig]

If you already knew most of this stuff then forgive me. I am just trying to provide a solid basis for discussion, also I am trying to illustrate that these kinds of issues have already been thoroughly debated in an arena that is recognised as legitimate by the majority of society.

 

no, i haven't but i am familiar with cosmopolitanism, and i understand what your referencing. although these theories may have been thoroughly debated in the mainstream arena, there are elements of the topic we are discussing which refuse to be debated because no one wants to admit or even play at the suggestion that 9/11 was a false flag event, or delve into the more esoteric beliefs of these secret societies, or even acknowledge the fact that these types of societies and round tables exist. the criminality of the nwo is what isn't discussed, but these philosophies you reference are indeed part of the discussion as well.

 

your statement about paranoia is most definitely true. i have a family friend who listens to Alex Jones and is completely bat-shit insane paranoid to the point where she doesn't want to talk on the phone about these issues. but, at the same time the paranoia isn't that unjustifiable, when you have fluoride in the drinking water, depopulation agendas in the interest of saving the planet, and elitists obsessed with the occult, people are going to be paranoid. especially when they grow up believing most of the information they receive, and they begin to become aware of this sort of alternative information all at once it's like a whole other world just revealed itself. but it also isn't like mainstream information is doing anything different. if it isn't these issues we are discussing which people have to be paranoid about, then it's terrorism, muslim extremists, natural disasters, or whatever other kind of topic you want to choose from mainstream news to be paranoid over. look at the popularity of programs like Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh in the U.S and their programs which aren't far off from the message that Alex Jones is delivering except they are a bit more tied to the establishment, yet it still generates a massive amount of interest from the people. we unfortunately live in an irrational, paranoid period of time.

[lord_casek]

i don't know much about lennon, but that song almost seems to suggest anarcho-primitivism not socialism.

 

no country to die for, no religion, all the people living for the day.

 

sounds like the way things were before agricultural sustenance.

 

check out the wiki page for anarcho-primitivism casek, you might find it interesting.

 

 

Thanks, I will.

 

BTW: I was speaking of the hippie culture socialism. Brotherhood of man, sharing, everybody is wealthy, etc.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

i don't know much about lennon, but that song almost seems to suggest anarcho-primitivism not socialism.

 

no country to die for, no religion, all the people living for the day.

 

sounds like the way things were before agricultural sustenance.

 

check out the wiki page for anarcho-primitivism casek, you might find it interesting.

 

 

The Beatles loved Aleister Crowley, if that means anything.

[Zig]

Ok I've watched the first hour of it. IT was painful and I'd really prefer not to waste any more time with it.

 

The first 20 mins may as well be cut out, it is totally off point. Listen to the Bad Religion song, "Fertile Crescent", that's what it is about.

 

the context they are using it here is summed up by Francis Fukyama's theory of the End Of History. When they refer to order here, they are talking about the balance of power in the world. Since nomadic tribes started planting crops and then staying in place to defend those crops against other tribes civilisation (loosely defined) started. From here on in the balance of power, or the order can be seen.

 

The balance/order may be that the Smith tribe over the hill has 15% more people and they come down and raid the crops and livestock of the Jones clan, the Davis Tribe and the Brown crew once every month using their superior numbers to overcome resistance. In this order the Smith family has the balance of power (balance does not imply equilibrium). This is a unipolar balance/order, there is one group/pole that has power over the rest. If the Brown crew has more babies and in 15 years time grows by 12%, they start battling it out with the Smiths and taking what they want from the Jones and the Davis clans. This is a bipolar order/balance of power. More than two powers in a system and it's called multipower order/balance of power.

 

All through history we see this repeated regionally (During the Assyrian empire in the Middle East, the Peloponnesian/Greek and Warring states/China periods) where you had multiple powers battling it out in contained regions and poles of power shifted, some internally balanced by building up armies and technology whilst others externally balanced by joining forces with other city states, etc.

 

You also see it carried out globally or trans-regionally such as with the Ottoman empire, the PErsian empire, the Roman empire, the Mongolian empire, the British empire, the Soviet empire and the US empire. At the end of the Second World war the British empire had reduced as a power along with the Ottoman empire, all that was left was the Soviet Empire and the new American power. They battled it out in a bipolar order of power until the USSR lost and the US remained as a sole super power meaning that the bipolar order was replaced by the unipolar order.

 

That's what the first 20 minutes was referring to, the order of the most powerful or balance of power in the world between nation states. One of the differences between the USSR and the US was economic and social systems/ideologies. The US won that battle meaning that their system was the only one remaining, the capitalist/market/democratic system. Francis Fukiyama made the argument (he said that the victory began with one of Napolean's battles and that the Cold War was just the final victory) that now the whole world was going to move over to the democratic market system. The theory then flows that countries would eventually become so interconnected and interdependent through supply and market chains that no one would ever go to war again (neo-liberalism and democratic peace theory crosing over). That's why he called it end of history, there would be nothing left to talk about because the world would move in to a new world order of massive markets competing for dominance and military competition would be a thing of the past. The new world order being referred to there was solely referring to the global balance of power being won by the US. It had no reference whatsoever to a hidden controlling elite.

 

Go to the library, look up End of History by Francis Fukiyama and see for yourself. Dig back and read the transcripts of those interviews and public speeches in full and see for yourself. I'm old enough that I watched them all when they actually occurred.

 

 

 

 

 

That's the first element of the film that I take issue with, there are more claims that are just totally wrong and and easily disproved and I'll hit them up later.

 

I just think your short analysis of this film and your argument against it is weak. you speak of the order being referred to in the quotes from the film when referencing the term "new world order" as a balance of power. when you delve into the "conspiracy theories" (quoted since I personally don't believe they are theories) of the nwo, it's clear that there is no balance of power by any conventional definition. if there is a power balance it is at the top of the pyramid scheme between those elitists who manage the system. it's true that these elitist round tables, institutions, secret societies, etc. all fight for control of the overall mechanism, yet at the same time they are consistently progressing towards the same goals and continuously centralizing power towards themselves. that's why throughout this film you hear quotes and references to the nwo as "disorder" in actuality.

 

a unipolar order, with the US remaining as the sole super power isn't necessarily true either. today we can already see that the US is, or may have already fallen from that role as the dominant super power. you speak of how the US economic system and ideologies prevailed over the USSR, yet today our capitalist/free market/democratic system is questionable and collapsing as well. it can be argued that we aren't even living in a real democracy, or underneath real free-market capitalism. yet this is the system that we justify spreading world-wide through the barrel of an m16 rifle.

 

the reality of what we were spreading world-wide underneath the U.S unipolar balance of power after the cold war was in fact corporatism. Benito Mussolini said "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." (questionable as to the source of this quote, i'll admit). it would be of no concern to me if the U.S unipolar balance of power was in fact spreading the ideals you speak of, but it's very clear that those ideals are simply rhetoric to enforce a different agenda for the world. now, as we see people across the globe becoming aware of these concepts, and rebelling against them, suddenly we see the tanking of the U.S dollar, economy, ideals, and public perception under the Bush administration. it has always been about using the ideals of our nation to spread their elitist, corporatist agenda across the globe while in the mean time eroding our constitution, civil liberties, and values here at home.

[christo-f]

I just think your short analysis of this film and your argument against it is weak. you speak of the order being referred to in the quotes from the film when referencing the term "new world order" as a balance of power. when you delve into the "conspiracy theories" (quoted since I personally don't believe they are theories) of the nwo, it's clear that there is no balance of power by any conventional definition. if there is a power balance it is at the top of the pyramid scheme between those elitists who manage the system. it's true that these elitist round tables, institutions, secret societies, etc. all fight for control of the overall mechanism, yet at the same time they are consistently progressing towards the same goals and continuously centralizing power towards themselves. that's why throughout this film you hear quotes and references to the nwo as "disorder" in actuality.

 

a unipolar order, with the US remaining as the sole super power isn't necessarily true either. today we can already see that the US is, or may have already fallen from that role as the dominant super power. you speak of how the US economic system and ideologies prevailed over the USSR, yet today our capitalist/free market/democratic system is questionable and collapsing as well. it can be argued that we aren't even living in a real democracy, or underneath real free-market capitalism. yet this is the system that we justify spreading world-wide through the barrel of an m16 rifle.

 

the reality of what we were spreading world-wide underneath the U.S unipolar balance of power after the cold war was in fact corporatism. Benito Mussolini said "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." (questionable as to the source of this quote, i'll admit). it would be of no concern to me if the U.S unipolar balance of power was in fact spreading the ideals you speak of, but it's very clear that those ideals are simply rhetoric to enforce a different agenda for the world. now, as we see people across the globe becoming aware of these concepts, and rebelling against them, suddenly we see the tanking of the U.S dollar, economy, ideals, and public perception under the Bush administration. it has always been about using the ideals of our nation to spread their elitist, corporatist agenda across the globe while in the mean time eroding our constitution, civil liberties, and values here at home.

 

 

 

So many leaps of logic here along with claims that have no argument to back them that I really don't know how to approach this.

 

Market system/capitalism failing? No. Please explain how.

 

US not the sole super power anymore? So, who are the other super-powers?

 

BTW, I only mentioned the first 20 mins of the film when it was quoting all the politicians and talk show hosts in the early 90s, just after the USSR fell.

 

 

 

I do intend to address some other ridiculous untrue claims in the film like quotes being taken waaaay out of context and crap about US arms exports, etc. But you have to understand how far my list of priorities this is.

[Zig]

So many leaps of logic here along with claims that have no argument to back them that I really don't know how to approach this.

 

Market system/capitalism failing? No. Please explain how.

 

US not the sole super power anymore? So, who are the other super-powers?

 

BTW, I only mentioned the first 20 mins of the film when it was quoting all the politicians and talk show hosts in the early 90s, just after the USSR fell.

 

 

 

I do intend to address some other ridiculous untrue claims in the film like quotes being taken waaaay out of context and crap about US arms exports, etc. But you have to understand how far my list of priorities this is.

 

i'm somewhat attempting to get this thread revived in that aspect.

 

leaps of logic? ok...

 

yea post the quotes, let's hear some more of your argument against this film.

[Removed]

i'm somewhat attempting to get this thread revived in that aspect.

 

leaps of logic? ok...

 

yea post the quotes, let's hear some more of your argument against this film.

 

 

Ok one quote that I have seen banded around a lot in conspiracy films, I assume it is in this one too, is JFK talking about a “monolithic and ruthless conspiracy”. Well here is Chomsky talking about that quote in reference to the communist threat (surprise surprise) !

 

Which reminds me of something else I have been thinking about; How can you nwo guys discount leading critical theorists like Foucault or Chomsky? They are both radicals, are leading political minds of the 20th (and 21st) century, and are hugely critical of the state. So assuming you are aware of these two and have some understanding of their work. Then how is it that you can suggest that although they both have made a career out of being critical of state power, they fail to see this overarching organisation of shadowy figures attempting to dominate the world (that everyone on the internet happens to know about)? I mean do you think you are more politically aware than Chomsky? Or are you perhaps suggesting that he is in on the deal? haha

Seriously, I am honestly baffled!