Anti-NWO Theory; Conditions for Attraction, Social and Political impact.

[WORDISM45]

 

there IS a difference however between elitists who are aware of this structure, and those who aren't. certain lineages are very aware, and take advantage of it, and propagate it, and manipulate it for their own personal gain. this delves into the more esoteric areas of the NWO theories, where secret societies have very deep philosophical or even spiritual beliefs which they practice because they believe it is these practices which keep their families, brotherhoods, or societies rich and powerful. a very light hearted example of this would be a skull & bones society, which produces influential elitist figures in politics regularly, who practice such rituals in secret. or a more extreme example would be Hitler's interest in the occult. you don't have to believe in the stuff they believe in, but the fact of the matter is that they do believe it, and they are in fact rich and powerful. so it is of deep concern.

 

.

 

What does Hitler have to do with your concept of the NWO? You are using him as an example of occult practices amongst the elite circles you are speaking about when he was a populist dictator who came to power as a sworn enemy of the same imaginary NWO you are describing. Didn;t that work out nicely too?

[WORDISM45]

Your use of Hitler as an example of occultism in the NWO is actually a perfect example of the way conspiracy theorists take unrelated and irrelevant facts and mesh them together to create unsound arguments.

[Zig]

yum, i don't want to hijack this thread and make it into an argument. i don't really know what your talking about, Hitler being a sworn enemy of the NWO.

 

i really don't want to make every single thread i reply to in this forum an argument, if you can't understand what i was referring to with Hitler being interested in the occult and you disagree, just say so and fall back.

 

The less alarmist parts of last two paragraphs of your post scream out to me “class based analysis”. I am not sure if you read my post in the other thread, and you are aware of the concept of cultural hegemony. For the purpose of this discussion it would be very helpful to me if you demonstrated that you at least have a basic understanding of the thinking of Neo-Marxists and Critical Theorists, as they have built the best set of analytical tools for this kind of discussion.

 

Regarding the occult; I feel it is largely irrelevant what particular political actors believe religiously, as we are talking not only about the US but the international political landscape, which encompasses a myriad of different beliefs. To infer that someone is not trustworthy because they do not adhere to Christian principles is ridiculous.

 

I'm slightly familiar with the concept, but I haven't read Karl Marx, and I have to admit when the discussion becomes about Marxism I tend to listen more then I talk because I simply am not that educated on the subject. My grandfather was a communist, and my father is a socialist, so I've grown up around these concepts and have a basic understanding of them. I know what you're talking about when you refer to cultural hegemony, and I think that this is relevant in todays society because we have policies being set globally that are in large part beneficial to these elite, rather then to the classes beneath them. I have a strong feeling that this has been the way it always has been, even before I was born.

 

In the Ron Paul thread though, I posted an interesting quote from Paul that states a valid reason why capitalism itself shouldn't be condemned. This is a discussion I've had with my father over dinner, or in the living room, several times. It's a bit relevant to this discussion here because, from my understanding, Marxism suggests that capitalism creates the environment for cultural hegemony to take place. However, if we really take a look at Paul's perspective, we hear the idea that capitalism isn't what is actually taking place in America with institutions like the Federal Reserve having control over the issuance of money and monetary policy. Also, if you study NWO theories, you learn that elitists actually prefer communism and socialism due to their collectivist nature. This isn't to say that, what I refer to as the NWO, is communist, or socialist, because just as Ron Paul views what we have today as not actually being capitalism, I'm certain that communists and socialists would condemn what is practiced today in other governments under these same labels.

 

You're also correct that it is irrelevant what political actors believe religiously, and again, if you really study NWO theories, you often run into information that insists it is atheist in nature. Either that, or it is Luciferian. My father is an atheist, and he often brings the point up to me that the NWO movement is largely a Christian movement. It is founded on the concepts of the end-times, and if you actually listen to people within the movement, such as Alex Jones (but he is not the only person), these Christian ideals are often promoted, and preached. I don't necessarily think that there is anything wrong with this, because I don't condemn Christianity simply because it is what it has become today. I do find it interesting though how religion and esoteric concepts play a huge role in these theories, and I believe that itself is relevant to the discussion at hand. We can look at previous genocides throughout history, and really see that there is deeper meaning behind them then just senseless killing. Often, it is encouraged by esoteric beliefs and ideals held by political leadership, so it does concern me if elites within the system are in fact worshiping idols in secrecy. It has even been insinuated that the Iraq war had something to do with Islam and Christianity, and if we look at conflict in that region of the world, it historically has had significant holy wars.

 

If my arguments on these issues sound alarmist, it is mostly because I do feel a sense of emergency arising in current events. We are at a crossroads within our society, on a global level, where we are beginning to see what has been established for centuries falling apart, and we may be in the process of evolving beyond what we have come to know. So, in my opinion, we are on the verge of some sort of new era, yet, I am skeptical of those who will lead us into it and what type of era it will become. There is a lot of instability in the current establishment of things, so I am also skeptical of the solutions being posed, for the exact reason of the concept of cultural hegemony that you've brought up. Are these solutions actually beneficial to you, or me? Or, do they benefit what we know as the ruling class?

 

as for the capital letters, i attempted to accommodate you in this post but it is a bad habit of mine when it comes to forum posting. i can't promise i'll kick the habit very easily.

[WORDISM45]

No I don't disagree that Hitler was interested in the occult. I disagree that this is in any way relevant to a discussion about ruling elites of today or of the last millenium. Hitler was not part of an established ruling elite. He has the same ideas about the world being run by a cabal of capitalists/jews that you seem to share. You obviously do not know anything about Hitler or the 3rd Reich if you even bring them into a discussion about the 'NWO'. You used Hitler's supposed Occultism as an example of a pattern of behaviour in what you describe as elites running the NWO, this is not an appropriate example because Hitler is in no way related to the ruling elite of today or the past. The End

[Zig]

No I don't disagree that Hitler was interested in the occult. I disagree that this is in any way relevant to a discussion about ruling elites of today or of the last millenium. Hitler was not part of an established ruling elite. He has the same ideas about the world being run by a cabal of capitalists/jews that you seem to share. You obviously do not know anything about Hitler or the 3rd Reich if you even bring them into a discussion about the 'NWO'. You used Hitler's supposed Occultism as an example of a pattern of behaviour in what you describe as elites running the NWO, this is not an appropriate example because Hitler is in no way related to the ruling elite of today or the past. The End

 

Ok, well.. I disagree with you. I believe Hitler's regime has relevance to the NWO through the elites who funded him. I've never once said anything about Jewish people, but I am aware of the theories you're mentioning that deal with Zionists. I tend not to focus on one particular group as being "responsible" for the "conspiracy theories", and just saying "Jews did it." is ignorant. It's like saying, Free Masons did it, or the Rockefellers did it, or the Rothschilds, or the CIA etc. It's a much more complex issue then that, and it's foolish to even approach the discussion with those kind of accusations. Please don't stereotype everyone who follows these issues into a preconceived notion you have already decided upon in your own mind as to what kind of ideas we may or may not have.

[WORDISM45]

Alright it's good to hear you at least don't think the NWO is a Jewish Banker conspiracy, and that you recognise that a lot of people do and feel this is incorrect.

 

On the subject of Hitler if you read Meink Kampf you will realise that he believed the world was run by a cabal of Jewish Bankers along with other powerful capitalists and aristocrats from the western world. His opposition to these perceived enemies is evident both in his writings and in his actions, he was not a part of the organisation that he vowed to destroy in his political manifesto.

 

Hitler received funding from wealthy German industrial interests like Krupp, Siemens, IG Farben etc. for the simple reason that the Nazi Party was more pro business than their main radical opposition, The Communist Party. If you have some proof that the Third Reich was in any meaningful way supported by a group of wealthy international elites I would be very interested to read it.

[christo-f]

I've heard this argument before, that it's scarier to think a small, poorly organized group of unimportant Arabs could carry out an operation like 9/11, rather then a cabal of powerful world leaders and government agencies. I don't know, I mean... let's weigh the two together and I would say that the second would be a lot scarier to me. So, can't really say that I can see where you're coming from on that one.

 

Yea, and I wouldn't say that people who do hold an interest in this sort of information are unintelligent. As a matter of fact, I would say that their ability to think critically is actually exhibited by their possibility to think outside of the box as to what is normal in society to believe about powerful institutions and establishments.

 

I think you are mischaractorisrng what thinking critically is.

 

The essence of critical thought is to take what you believe and play devil's advocate trying to disprove it or find ways in which it is not supported (which includes assertions, implications and other non-supported conclusions).

 

Then also act accordingly to every piece of information that you come across. This then also kills away confirmation bias, which as I have said before seems to be a common thread with many people who believe in the generic theories such as NWO, 9/11, etc.

[the.crooked]

I haven't had time to pay full attention to every post, but I want to propose something for consideration:

 

I think this phenomenon of social aggregation based on a shared belief of conspiracy theories is tied to a sense of personal arrogance. Most generations have a fatalism about them where at least one group or school of thought believes that the world will end on their watch.

 

The tendency for people to believe these outlandish tales of centralized power and shadowy actions is an expression of their own self importance; THEY are the ones with "truth," and that knowledge actually provides them more "power" than the hidden factors they cry out are controlling things. It's a matter of assuring one's self that they are not having the wool pulled over their eyes. It's a defensive reaction to information that does not fit within the world view they have constructed. It's like when someone has some sort of breakdown revelation that "god doesn't exist" or some other equally intense overturning of a tenant in their overall model of the world.

 

Someone earlier mentioned the idea that it's more comforting to believe in a centralized power that can make these things happen rather than a couple people taking advantages in security systems of an overly bureaucratic structure.

 

Another matter is that most people are horrible at understanding complexity and large systems. Either they convolute their view of the system and make it way too complex (i.e. NWO) or they incorrectly weight certain variables and completely misunderstand which variable effect which outcomes.

 

Lastly, the ability to share these "privileged" views with other like minded people is seen as affirming to their world view regarldess of not actually holding any empirical weight at all. Correlation, coincidence and an inability to understand how information actually effects the validity of an argument all play into why this phenomenon has spread so quickly.

 

Just some thoughts from a quick view of the thread.

[FACTORY_MADE]

this really seems to be a thread about bashing people with an alternative perspective on the world around them rather than whatever impact they are having on society, sprinkled with a few articles for legitamacy.

 

There are loose videos with selective facts and things of the sort floating around on youtube.

 

There are also well organized, and researched arguments.

 

that the world is run by an evil jew banker elite is debateable.

 

That there are global financiers with a huge level of influence in the world that they do exert is true.

 

Only acknowledging the less credible aspects of this surge of information and opinion is bieng as selective as the people you are criticizing.

[FACTORY_MADE]

seriously tho the mans guna getcha watch out!

[lord_casek]

Alright it's good to hear you at least don't think the NWO is a Jewish Banker conspiracy, and that you recognise that a lot of people do and feel this is incorrect.

 

On the subject of Hitler if you read Meink Kampf you will realise that he believed the world was run by a cabal of Jewish Bankers along with other powerful capitalists and aristocrats from the western world. His opposition to these perceived enemies is evident both in his writings and in his actions, he was not a part of the organisation that he vowed to destroy in his political manifesto.

 

Hitler received funding from wealthy German industrial interests like Krupp, Siemens, IG Farben etc. for the simple reason that the Nazi Party was more pro business than their main radical opposition, The Communist Party. If you have some proof that the Third Reich was in any meaningful way supported by a group of wealthy international elites I would be very interested to read it.

 

 

Bayer/Mann

http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_990611bayer.html

 

Prescott Bush/Hitler

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

 

War is a Racket

By Major General Schmedley Butler

 

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

 

 

The Whitehouse Coup

 

That enough for you?

[Zig]

The tendency for people to believe these outlandish tales of centralized power and shadowy actions is an expression of their own self importance; THEY are the ones with "truth," and that knowledge actually provides them more "power" than the hidden factors they cry out are controlling things. It's a matter of assuring one's self that they are not having the wool pulled over their eyes. It's a defensive reaction to information that does not fit within the world view they have constructed. It's like when someone has some sort of breakdown revelation that "god doesn't exist" or some other equally intense overturning of a tenant in their overall model of the world.

 

I respectfully disagree with this statement. This is a stereotype in my opinion, because how can you say that someone who holds an interest in these concepts behaves in this manner towards the rest of society? On the contrary, I see a majority of those interested in these issues reaching out to others in attempts to debate and inform, rather than holding onto this "truth" as some sort of power over other people. If anything, this expression of self-importance you speak of is exhibited more by detractors of these concepts, and the elite themselves, which we speak of in this thread, who hold onto knowledge as power over the rest of society. But, I believe both sides of the argument can have the possibility of expressing what you speak of. I would say that this is just a poor reason to detract from the information these concepts present.

 

Hitler received funding from wealthy German industrial interests like Krupp, Siemens, IG Farben etc. for the simple reason that the Nazi Party was more pro business than their main radical opposition, The Communist Party. If you have some proof that the Third Reich was in any meaningful way supported by a group of wealthy international elites I would be very interested to read it.

 

I don't think this thread is really meant for this type of debate, but in the interest of responding to you I would refer you to a book written by Jim Marrs related to this issue:

 

The Rise of the Fourth Reich: The Secret Societies That Threaten to Take Over America

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0061245585

 

This concept may seem absurd to those who cannot see past the rose-colored spin, hype, and disinformation poured out daily by the media conglomerates—most of which are owned by the very same families and corporations who supported the Nazis before World War II. But as Marrs precisely explains, National Socialism never died, but rather its hideous philosophy is alive and active in modern America. Unfortunately, most people cannot understand the shadowy links between fascism and corporate power, the military, and our elected leaders.

 

While the United States helped defeat the Germans in World War II, we failed to defeat the Nazis. At the end of the war, ranking Nazis, along with their young and fanatical protégés, used the loot of Europe to create corporate front companies in many countries, including the United States of America. Utilizing their stolen wealth, men with Nazi backgrounds and mentalities wormed their way into corporate America, slowly buying up and consolidating companies into giant multinational conglomerates. Many thousands of other Nazis came to the United States under classified programs such as Project Paperclip. They brought with them miraculous weapon technology that helped win the space race but they also brought their insidious Nazi philosophy within our borders. This ideology based on the authoritarian premise that the end justifies the means—including unprovoked wars of aggression and curtailment of individual liberties—has gained an iron hold in the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

 

It's a book written by what you refer to as a conspiracy theorist. A quick wikipedia entry about Marrs reads:

 

Jim Marrs (born 5 December 1943) is an American former newspaper journalist and author of books and articles on a wide range of alleged cover ups and conspiracies.[1] Marrs is a prominent figure in the JFK conspiracy press and his book Crossfire was a source for Oliver Stone's film JFK. He has also written books asserting the existence of government conspiracies regarding aliens, 9/11, telepathy, and secret societies. He was once a news reporter in the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex and has taught a class on the Kennedy Assassination at University of Texas at Arlington. Marrs is a member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

 

I think it addresses the issue you were speaking of, but I'm sure you won't find it to be very credible. At the very least, this book would be an entertaining read for you, and would give you further insight into the world view of conspiracy theorists for ammunition if you ever decide to debate or argue with one in the near future.

 

this really seems to be a thread about bashing people with an alternative perspective on the world around them rather than whatever impact they are having on society, sprinkled with a few articles for legitamacy.

 

There are loose videos with selective facts and things of the sort floating around on youtube.

 

There are also well organized, and researched arguments.

 

that the world is run by an evil jew banker elite is debateable.

 

That there are global financiers with a huge level of influence in the world that they do exert is true.

 

Only acknowledging the less credible aspects of this surge of information and opinion is bieng as selective as the people you are criticizing.

 

And, yes I absolutely agree with this. The Invisible Empire thread is humorous to me in the fact in which someone argued that whatever doesn't fit the agenda is ignored, yet in the same breathe they are selectively choosing the less credible aspects of the information presented and ignoring a majority of the rest. It is a bit hypocritical.

[Removed]

this really seems to be a thread about bashing people with an alternative perspective on the world around them rather than whatever impact they are having on society, sprinkled with a few articles for legitamacy.

 

There are loose videos with selective facts and things of the sort floating around on youtube.

 

There are also well organized, and researched arguments.

 

that the world is run by an evil jew banker elite is debateable.

 

That there are global financiers with a huge level of influence in the world that they do exert is true.

 

Only acknowledging the less credible aspects of this surge of information and opinion is bieng as selective as the people you are criticizing.

 

My intention for this thread was, as the title suggests, to discuss why these theories are so popular, and what possible socio-political impact they could have. Personally I find this subject quite interesting. As all of the academic articles that I have read about NWO, or conspiracy theories more generally, tend to list similar factors as reasons for attraction these themes (lack of informed understanding, circular arguments, etc) are represented in this thread.

 

I agree that there are global financiers with a huge level of influence, but it is important to recognise that their power is qualified by other powerful groups with other interests. It is also farcical to suggest that these global financiers will operate with perfectly unwavering unison over generations and generations to achieve their stated aim of global domination, which is a common theme in anti-NWO theory.

[Zig]

I agree that there are global financiers with a huge level of influence, but it is important to recognise that their power is qualified by other powerful groups with other interests. It is also farcical to suggest that these global financiers will operate with perfectly unwavering unison over generations and generations to achieve their stated aim of global domination, which is a common theme in anti-NWO theory.

 

That's not necessarily true. Contributing to your thread, since I follow these theories, I've come to understand that they actually insinuate that at the highest levels of this power structure it is actually quite chaotic. You have elites who are all vying for control of the overall mechanism, or pyramid structure, as it is often described, and at times these elites even compete amongst each other. There isn't necessarily any unison, yet there is a continued progression of concentration and centralization of power. A good example of this would be, and this isn't a literal example, how Republicans and Democrats are competing, yet progressively centralize power in America, and institute globalist or draconian policies, regardless of the morals of either political party. Not a very great example, but it was the best I could come up with off the top of my head.

 

If you have this idea in your mind that, there is one singular entity in control of what is referred to as the NWO, and that over centuries, through lineages, this single entity has operated in the shadows to unleash their ultimate plan for world domination... then you have a very one dimensional view of the topic.

 

This is for yum as well, if he doesn't want to order the book I suggested, I also have this:

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/index.html

 

It was written by Antony C. Sutton, and here are his credentials:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton

 

It also has an extensive bibliography if you need to fact check.

[WORDISM45]

I think the point at which our opinions differ is whether big business invested in the Third Reich for the purposes of making money or whether they did it out of ideological support of Hitler. Like ANY other country in the world at the time, Nazi Germany was heavily involved in business with American and other international firms. I think businesses are unscrupulous in their pursuit of capital, and I think fascism is good for big business. I do not however think, nor have I ever seen it proved, that a group of international financial and political leaders (the 'NWO') ever showed support for the Nazi regime beyond the same level at which they do business with any state, for the sole purpose of making money. Big business dealings with the 3rd Reich were opportunistic rather than coordinated for the purposes of supporting the regime.

 

I'm not saying this makes it excusable but at the same time it in no way implies a concerted conspiracy amongst global elites in support of the 3rd Reich.

[Zig]

I think the point at which our opinions differ is whether big business invested in the Third Reich for the purposes of making money or whether they did it out of ideological support of Hitler. Like ANY other country in the world at the time, Nazi Germany was heavily involved in business with American and other international firms. I think businesses are unscrupulous in their pursuit of capital, and I think fascism is good for big business. I do not however think, nor have I ever seen it proved, that a group of international financial and political leaders (the 'NWO') ever showed support for the Nazi regime beyond the same level at which they do business with any state, for the sole purpose of making money. Big business dealings with the 3rd Reich were opportunistic rather than coordinated for the purposes of supporting the regime.

 

I'm not saying this makes it excusable but at the same time it in no way implies a concerted conspiracy amongst global elites in support of the 3rd Reich.

 

Yes, I agree. You make valid points.

[Removed]

That's not necessarily true. Contributing to your thread, since I follow these theories, I've come to understand that they actually insinuate that at the highest levels of this power structure it is actually quite chaotic. You have elites who are all vying for control of the overall mechanism, or pyramid structure, as it is often described, and at times these elites even compete amongst each other. There isn't necessarily any unison, yet there is a continued progression of concentration and centralization of power. A good example of this would be, and this isn't a literal example, how Republicans and Democrats are competing, yet progressively centralize power in America, and institute globalist or draconian policies, regardless of the morals of either political party. Not a very great example, but it was the best I could come up with off the top of my head.

 

If you have this idea in your mind that, there is one singular entity in control of what is referred to as the NWO, and that over centuries, through lineages, this single entity has operated in the shadows to unleash their ultimate plan for world domination... then you have a very one dimensional view of the topic.

 

To suggest I have a one dimensional understanding of the NWO is paradoxical. It is similar to accusing someone of having a simplistic understanding of a cartoon character. I reject this claim flatly.

 

The idea of a historical family lineage working towards global control is one of the suggestions of Alex Jones and the like. If you have an alternate theory than him and his counterparts and you wish to discuss it with us then you need to lay it on the table for dissection. A game of intellectual moving target is not beneficial for anyone involved.

 

A historical trend of gravitation towards the centralisation of power is much more a theme of human existence than any one group’s agenda. As a general rule, this process has been advantageous to us which explains why it has been embraced. How do you think we arrived at the arrangement of having a nation state? Humanity wasn't just born into this condition. Throughout history we have centralised incrementally both physically; through the expansion of chieftains, warlords, kings, dictators, and empire builders. As well as mentally; through the acceptance of notions such as nationality, attraction to stronger cultures, religion, technology, and language. However this trend is hardly set in stone, you only have to look at the fall of the colonial empires after WW2, the collapse of the USSR, or the collapse of Yugoslavia for recent evidence of this.

 

It is also worth mentioning that the increasing occurrence of free trade agreements internationally may lead to a situation where it is no longer as advantageous to be a member of a larger nation state. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see an increase in separatist movements in the near future for this reason.

 

The growing centralisation of power in federated democratic states is a slightly different issue. It is possible to say generally this is happening for two different reasons; the first is that there are strong arguments for the benefits of a unified approach to certain issues that are unable to be dealt with by smaller fragmented states. The second is that whichever political body controls the majority of the country’s wealth, will tend towards consolidating their power whenever the opportunity allows. In Australia this is also occurring, although as stated, it has very little to do with the "NWO" and a lot more to do with the legal and constitutional framework, as well as the issues of the day.

 

It is clear to me, and a few others, that in order to try and understand a lot of genuine issues you have adopted an assumption, and from this point you work to retrofit evidence to support it. Interestingly, it seems that in some cases you are struggling to deal with the very same kinds of debates that contemporary political actors are interested in (centralised power, the role of elites in democracy, etc). The problem is, due to your previous assumption, you are approaching these debates from a distorted perspective, which is actually leading you further away from a reasonable understanding of the political world than towards one. I highly recommend you get off the internet, go to a library and ask the librarian to help you compile a list of 5-10 influential political writers, then read some of their books. I think you will be amazed at the insight that you will gain into the current state of affairs.

[Zig]

To suggest I have a one dimensional understanding of the NWO is paradoxical. It is similar to accusing someone of having a simplistic understanding of a cartoon character. I reject this claim flatly.

 

The idea of a historical family lineage working towards global control is one of the suggestions of Alex Jones and the like. If you have an alternate theory than him and his counterparts and you wish to discuss it with us then you need to lay it on the table for dissection. A game of intellectual moving target is not beneficial for anyone involved.

 

A historical trend of gravitation towards the centralisation of power is much more a theme of human existence than any one group’s agenda. As a general rule, this process has been advantageous to us which explains why it has been embraced. How do you think we arrived at the arrangement of having a nation state? Humanity wasn't just born into this condition. Throughout history we have centralised incrementally both physically; through the expansion of chieftains, warlords, kings, dictators, and empire builders. As well as mentally; through the acceptance of notions such as nationality, attraction to stronger cultures, religion, technology, and language. However this trend is hardly set in stone, you only have to look at the fall of the colonial empires after WW2, the collapse of the USSR, or the collapse of Yugoslavia for recent evidence of this.

 

It is also worth mentioning that the increasing occurrence of free trade agreements internationally may lead to a situation where it is no longer as advantageous to be a member of a larger nation state. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see an increase in separatist movements in the near future for this reason.

 

The growing centralisation of power in federated democratic states is a slightly different issue. It is possible to say generally this is happening for two different reasons; the first is that there are strong arguments for the benefits of a unified approach to certain issues that are unable to be dealt with by smaller fragmented states. The second is that whichever political body controls the majority of the country’s wealth, will tend towards consolidating their power whenever the opportunity allows. In Australia this is also occurring, although as stated, it has very little to do with the "NWO" and a lot more to do with the legal and constitutional framework, as well as the issues of the day.

 

It is clear to me, and a few others, that in order to try and understand a lot of genuine issues you have adopted an assumption, and from this point you work to retrofit evidence to support it. Interestingly, it seems that in some cases you are struggling to deal with the very same kinds of debates that contemporary political actors are interested in (centralised power, the role of elites in democracy, etc). The problem is, due to your previous assumption, you are approaching these debates from a distorted perspective, which is actually leading you further away from a reasonable understanding of the political world than towards one. I highly recommend you get off the internet, go to a library and ask the librarian to help you compile a list of 5-10 influential political writers, then read some of their books. I think you will be amazed at the insight that you will gain into the current state of affairs.

 

No frankie, I apologize. When I said "you" in my reference to the one dimensional view of the NWO, I honestly was not referring to you specifically. I tend to do this a lot, and it's my mistake. I meant people in general.

 

You're argument however, seems to be that this is something which is beneficial to society. It isn't a surprising argument, as it always seems that this debate boils down to that. I have to disagree, based entirely on my belief in personal liberty and freedom. I think the American Constitution is a clear example of how advantageous individual liberty can be to society, rather than centralization, globalization, mob rule, or collectivism is. These are just my personal opinions, and I don't think this debate really has anything to do with your topic, and not to mention your tone has become pretty condescending. I really don't feel like arguing, I was only contributing to the thread.

 

You're statement about Alex Jones though is false. I've been listening to Alex regularly for over 6 years now, and I know his perspective on the NWO is much more sophisticated then what you are stating. He doesn't believe what you've said, but I can't speak for him, and I don't really have any interest in defending a man I don't even know.

[WORDISM45]

I heard about this just now and immediately thought of this thread.

 

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[3][2]

 

Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

[Zig]

I heard about this just now and immediately thought of this thread.

 

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[3][2]

 

Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

 

It's just one aspect of the topic of discussion yum, I'm not trying to make comparisons. FF made a thread about the anti-NWO movement, but I'm certain through my following of it that the general understanding here of this movement is distorted and misinformed. I'm only attempting to contribute to the thread by informing you. That's why I posted the book, and the essay which was written about Hitler's connections to financial institutions which are still in existence today. You personally made some good points, and FF made an argument, but I'm not here to argue. I don't believe this thread was about debating, it was more of an analytical process. You can't analyze something if you misunderstand it.

[WORDISM45]

Sorry man I didn't post that intending it to be an attack on you, I just heard about it on a tv show today and as this was the last forum discussion I had been involved in before I heard about the concept I thought it was ironic and amusing. I am actually very happy with where our discussion ended it struck me as a constructive exchange of ideas.

[Removed]

No frankie, I apologize. When I said "you" in my reference to the one dimensional view of the NWO, I honestly was not referring to you specifically. I tend to do this a lot, and it's my mistake. I meant people in general.

 

 

Ok that's fair. I apologise for being condescending also.

I have a question for anyone who wants to answer, but it is more likely to be informative from the 'pro' camp.

 

Do you think the strong presence of conspiratorial information on the internet is reflective of mass beliefs? Or is it a case of over representation of a smaller highly active group?

[lord_casek]

Ok that's fair. I apologise for being condescending also.

I have a question for anyone who wants to answer, but it is more likely to be informative from the 'pro' camp.

 

Do you think the strong presence of conspiratorial information on the internet is reflective of mass beliefs? Or is it a case of over representation of a smaller highly active group?

 

Mass beliefs. Definitely.

 

I know you're not in the U.S. but have you ever heard Coast to Coast AM? Art Bell?

2nd highest rated radio program in the nation. 1st is Rush Limbaugh.

[Fist 666]

 

to lighten the mood...

[Zig]

sounds like christo in panel 2

[christo-f]

I thought the same thing.

[El Mamerro]

Sounds like Zig in panel 3.

[Zig]

haha, nah... I believe we landed on the moon bro. :rolleyes:

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

So the guy in panel 2 is telling God his plan is wrong.

 

I like that.

 

Fuck you God. I make the rules around this mother fucker. You need to clean your shit up.

[Zig]

I like how the guy in panel 2 says 9/11 theories have been proved to be complete fictions. riiiiiiiiighhhht...............