russell jones Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 sure it is, u no.., its not over are heads! relax.. we coo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 dude.. i concede. im just going to back down respectfully. you're still asking me to define what the nwo is, and I'm like way past that already. so... it's whatever man. it really is. With all due respect... I am not way past it. If one cannot define terms, then one will not be understood, or perhaps more importantly, one will not be able to convince intelligent people of the merits of their argument. NWO seems to be a nebulous concept to me, but all of the believers seem to know what it is. So tell me. Like I said, it's no skin off my back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 russell: i understand, it's just that there has already been so much material that should explain it to you posted here. you could also do some of your own research on the matter, but it is nebulous and difficult to explain. that's why i don't want to continue trying. weirdone: yea my bad, you're right actually. i apologize and you make good points about the nitpicking and all that. gg /ragequit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 russell: i understand, it's just that there has already been so much material that should explain it to you posted here. you could also do some of your own research on the matter, but it is nebulous and difficult to explain. that's why i don't want to continue trying. /ragequit I do not see anything posted on here that clearly explains what the NWO is, except christo's definition of it. I believe that he mentioned that when politicians were using the term NWO, they were referring to the change in the balance of power in the post-Cold War world and how the United States' role has changed now that they are the only existing superpower. If you cannot define your term in just a few sentences, then you do not know what you are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Straight up: In conspiracy theory, the term New World Order or NWO refers to the emergence of a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government. The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a powerful and secretive elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through a totalitarian world government, which would replace sovereign nation-states and put an end to international power struggles. Significant occurrences in politics and finance are speculated to be orchestrated by an extremely influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Numerous historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to achieve world domination through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes. Orrrrr, it's what christo described. I think we can all assume which definition Zig subscribes to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/06/27/156-the-invisible-government-3/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 russell: i understand, it's just that there has already been so much material that should explain it to you posted here. you could also do some of your own research on the matter, but it is nebulous and difficult to explain. that's why i don't want to continue trying. You have all these strong opinions that even when put up against fairly strong argument for the contrary you still stick to. Yet when asked for your own definition or take on things (such as refusing to identify a non-oppressive, honest state straight after you identified dishonest and oppressive states) you back off and refuse to be held to anything at all and just copy paste other people's arguments as if that's all you have to do to make a coherent argument. It looks like you either don't have the confidence in your own analysis/theories and you don't want to define them because you don't want to be held responsible for them. Or you just simply can't because you don't know what you are talking about. I expect you to say "yeah whatever" and tell us that this is all going over our heads and that we just refuse to listen to your argument. But that fact is that you can't even make one. If you can't even define something, which should take all of about two lines (hell, I could even define the "NWO" as you see it and I don't even believe it!) then how on earth do you even understand it, let alone make an argument for it? Don't even bother trying to make out that we don't understand or are refusing to accept what is put forward to us. You try pulling that shit in the real world and you will be out on your arse quicker than you can say Goodbye! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 I'm copy and pasting other peoples arguments? really christo? haha ok. yea i'm done here... "yea whatever" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 http://12ozprophet.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7390149&postcount=57 exactly what you said to casek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 I'm copy and pasting other peoples arguments? really christo? haha ok. yea i'm done here... "yea whatever" Translation = Can't define the issue, can't make coherent argument to support it, retreat and act like other people are being irrational. Disregard clear definition and clarity of argument Acquire ambiguity and accuse others of refusing to grasp the concept. Hahaha, good on you mate, you've at least ended this thread by giving us all a good laugh, and that I can appreciate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 You have all these strong opinions that even when put up against fairly strong argument for the contrary you still stick to. I do have strong opinions, and my personal opinions do get put up against fairly strong arguments, especially from you. I don't deny that. The reason I continue to stick to my opinions, is because for the most part you haven't responded to anything I've said by taking into account the position I'm coming from. You simply dismiss my arguments from an unbiased neutral perspective, which you commit NO personal emotions, opinions, or convictions to share of your own. You just debate MY personal opinions and convictions rather than contributing to the debate with your own. Yet when asked for your own definition or take on things (such as refusing to identify a non-oppressive, honest state straight after you identified dishonest and oppressive states) you back off and refuse to be held to anything at all and just copy paste other people's arguments as if that's all you have to do to make a coherent argument. You sit here and you tell me that I'm not qualified to talk about these topics, dismiss me, and yet when I go and gather information from other sources who are loosely in common with my own views you dismiss that as well. You play the professor role, like I'm in a classroom, judging everything I'm saying and mediating the direction of the thread like you are some kind of authoritarian of 12oz Crossfire. It looks like you either don't have the confidence in your own analysis/theories and you don't want to define them because you don't want to be held responsible for them. Or you just simply can't because you don't know what you are talking about. Dude, there is 5 pages of me giving you my opinions confidently, and there is 5 pages of you simply saying no, or you're dumb just to discredit me. I expect you to say "yeah whatever" and tell us that this is all going over our heads and that we just refuse to listen to your argument. But that fact is that you can't even make one. If you can't even define something, which should take all of about two lines (hell, I could even define the "NWO" as you see it and I don't even believe it!) then how on earth do you even understand it, let alone make an argument for it? Why do I even need to define this for you? Why are you even fronting, like you don't understand exactly what I'm referring to when I bring up the NWO? You know exactly what I mean, you're simply just trying to get me to post something that you can pick apart with colorful text. This is your comfort zone on this forum so that you can have the advantage and be able to say things that sound intelligent. But, when you happen to post things without that advantage you say silly things like America is more powerful than ever. Don't even bother trying to make out that we don't understand or are refusing to accept what is put forward to us. You try pulling that shit in the real world and you will be out on your arse quicker than you can say Goodbye! You're correct, and this was another point I was trying to make when I referred to our education system. I would be out on my ass quicker than I could say Goodbye, because for the most part people in society who bring up these topics do lose their careers. reputations, and are shunned and backed into corners. Why? If this was simply just crazy talk, and irrelevant, then why does this occur? If you really want a definition of the NWO, there have been links posted to information several times throughout this thread that would give you a clear idea of the term. AOD and LOTS just posted the link twice on the last page alone. I don't need to give you the definition, and the definition isn't even something that could be defined on an internet forum or something as simple as this form of communication. It needs intensive discussion, debate, and research by many individuals in society to be able to accurately paint a picture of what the NWO is. Which you'd probably just ignore anyway, and which nobody is ready to start discussing obviously. This post was dedicated to breast cancer awareness. shout out to ILOTS thats my dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 All I'm trying to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 I tell myself no but I cannot resist... I do have strong opinions, and my personal opinions do get put up against fairly strong arguments, especially from you. I don't deny that. The reason I continue to stick to my opinions, is because for the most part you haven't responded to anything I've said by taking into account the position I'm coming from. You simply dismiss my arguments from an unbiased neutral perspective, which you commit NO personal emotions, opinions, or convictions to share of your own. You just debate MY personal opinions and convictions rather than contributing to the debate with your own. You're making the claim of an NWO, you must be prepared for it to be challenged. If you don't want to be questioned, don't talk. As for being unbiased and neutral, I would argue that this is required for anyone to credibly analyse anything in the world other than love. I can't believe that are putting shit on an unbiased and unemotional view point..... You sit here and you tell me that I'm not qualified to talk about these topics, dismiss me, and yet when I go and gather information from other sources who are loosely in common with my own views you dismiss that as well. You play the professor role, like I'm in a classroom, judging everything I'm saying and mediating the direction of the thread like you are some kind of authoritarian of 12oz Crossfire. Never said you were unqualified, just said that it is best to have an education of complex issues before you form strong opinions on them. I don't dismiss the views of much of the stuff that you post, I dismiss your erroneous interpretation of their meaning. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of, well most things. You misinterpret meanings in articles, you don't seem to grasp that an unbiased and neutral approach is the way to come to a credible conclusion on politics/sociology and you totally misread what people are posting here. Dude, there is 5 pages of me giving you my opinions confidently, and there is 5 pages of you simply saying no, or you're dumb just to discredit me. No, there are pages of you saying stuff and then when asked for clarification and definition there is only retreat and indignation from you. You can't even define the core issue yourself. Other people posted the definition and you still then couldn't do it yourself. There is very little coherent and defined argument from you. there is a lot of emotional ranting and raving and articles written by others but NOTHING definitive from you. Why do I even need to define this for you? To indicate that you understand it because it is clear to myself and some others here that you don't. If you did, you could define it. Why are you even fronting, like you don't understand exactly what I'm referring to when I bring up the NWO? You know exactly what I mean, you're simply just trying to get me to post something that you can pick apart with colorful text. Welcome to a discussion...., as opposed to you ranting, raving and posting other people's work. This is your comfort zone on this forum so that you can have the advantage and be able to say things that sound intelligent. But, when you happen to post things without that advantage you say silly things like America is more powerful than ever. I've quantified my argument concerning that. You've said silly things like "the doesn't even produce anything any more". Which completely disregards things like finance, service economy, computer technology, steel, agricultural produce, etc. etc. However when you have been asked to qualify your claims, you retreat and get indignant. It's all there, dude, go back and check. You're correct, and this was another point I was trying to make when I referred to our education system. I would be out on my ass quicker than I could say Goodbye, because for the most part people in society who bring up these topics do lose their careers. reputations, and are shunned and backed into corners. Why? If this was simply just crazy talk, and irrelevant, then why does this occur? No, no, no. Once again you misinterpret what some one is saying to suit yourself. I'm saying that if you try and make an argument about something, ANYTHING without the ability to even define the thing you are arguing for then expect to be thrown out due to lack of credibility. If you can't define what you are talking about, people will not take you seriously. The issue has been defined by many people, including El Mam who doesn't buy in to it yet you are still unable to do it yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 I can't define it here in my own words, I'm not ashamed to say that. There is a large variety of individuals who devote their lives 24/7 in an attempt to expose and define the criminality of the NWO. How do you expect me to define that here? If I could define it so elegantly, and definitively, why wouldn't I be attempting to expose it myself? My interpretation of the world is what you have a problem with. I think that's what a lot of people have a problem with when they first start hearing all of this. From your perspective I'm misunderstanding, or misinterpreting what you see as reality, but really I am interpreting it from my world view which you happen not to share. Possibly because you live in a different environment, because of the field you happen to be occupied in, maybe due to the education you've received, or the life you've lead. When I speak with other people who share this world view, the conversation is much different. Are we all simply misinterpreting? There is a lot of this kind of mockery occurring towards those who present this alternative information. If it's an Alex Jones, or William Cooper movie it's just that "conspiracy theory" shit. People who don't even take seriously or consider alternative 9/11 theories backed by tons of research and documentation because it isn't "credible". You get called a tinfoil hatter for wearing an Investigate 9/11 T-shirt, or posting a youtube link to WTC 7 free falling. People laugh like the shit is a joke. The facts are ignored, the information is ignored. Hey, you tell me though. This thread started out as what's wrong with the New World Order. So all of you who think I'm fuckin stupid, you tell me do you want this "Global Governance"? You think it's just not possible? You tell me your definition of the NWO. Tell me MY definition of the NWO if you want. Let's say it were possible tomorrow, no question... would you want the current establishment of order to create this international system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clizclean Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 i want the world to be ruled by a single government i don't want it to be totalitarian, the people should run the state i'm all for communism before socialism or capitalism.. but fat chance i'm all about salary capping every occupation blaH blAH BLAH, none of it will ever be allowed to happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Hahaha, and thank god for that too!! No dis to you bro, each to their own ideology. I live in a post-communist state and its just a fucking joke. Would hate to have been here during the actual communist era!! Would hate to have been anywhere in their communist eras..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clizclean Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 totalitarian communist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Can't say I know communism enough to say. But being that the Commies here defeated the nationalists in a civil war and implemented communism totally throughout the country, I'd say yes! (In case you hadn't read elsewhere, I'm in China) Has there ever been any other kind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clizclean Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 i guess not, it's sad that it has to be that way.. 1 person or military putting control on the people to do what needs done. ideally, everyone should just want to contribute to a functional society, but instead we'd rather be freeloaders in a disfunctional one. that's part of why i say it'll never happen, the other part being fat cats wanting to stay fat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 i guess not, it's sad that it has to be that way.. 1 person or military putting control on the people to do what needs done. ideally, everyone should just want to contribute to a functional society, but instead we'd rather be freeloaders in a disfunctional one. that's part of why i say it'll never happen, the other part being fat cats wanting to stay fat A fucking idiot I work with said a really intelligent thing to me just the other day: "Yeah, I try and be a little careful with 'shoulds'....". Asshole had a point, the world doesn't work on 'should', it works on 'is'. Push against that and you're going to get sore. Better off spending your time and efforts benefiting off the structures that exist as they are the natural way of things. If they weren't, they wouldn't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clizclean Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 but at the same time, revolutions have changed the world. sure it might have ended up turning into the same thing it was fighting against (and worse) but i don't think that has to be the case. it's impossible to revolt now anyways though, as long as the fat cats hold the technology they keep the power.. 'resistance is futile' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Oohhhh, I wouldn't be too sure about that. Kyrgyzstan had a revolt in Q1 this year and that replaced a guy who came in through revolution himself. Georgia had the Rose Revolution, Ukraine had the Orange revolution and it all kicked off with Milosovic regime being kicked out and taken before the courts by university students. Egypt and China have to work hard in keeping their shit together too and Myanmar has bombings and insurgencies attempting to over-throw them. Revolutions away from communism seem to have been the norm since the 1980s, though. The more oppressive a regime is the more at risk of revolt they are. If there was no risk of power being over-thrown there would be no need for oppression. Nothing futile or wrong with resisting illegitimate power, you just got to make sure that you actually understand what is going on otherwise you end up jumping at shadows and wasting your efforts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clizclean Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 i'm an unedumacated fuck... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 It's all nice and stuff that you want a single world government ruled by communism, and I'm assuming you mean actual communism not the totalitarian communism that is in existence today. You probably fall along the lines of my father, who is a socialist, or my grandfather who was a communist and was a marxist-leninist. Here's my problem with it... If there is a government like this in place, and let's say it was communist or socialist in nature (which is funny that you suggest that, because that is actually what is being suggested and attempted) do you honestly believe it would be run by the people? I don't believe resistance is futile, but I do believe fat cats want to stay fat and even if this kind of one world order were possible and claimed to be benevolent, honest, run by the people, constituted, etc. do you really think it wouldn't be corrupt? but yea, that's pretty funny though that the first person responds with exactly that. you do realize that is exactly the kind of system being set up right? except minus the non-totalitarian part? If you can't even define something, which should take all of about two lines (hell, I could even define the "NWO" as you see it and I don't even believe it!) then how on earth do you even understand it, let alone make an argument for it? I'm really interested to see you give my definition of the NWO in 2 lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clizclean Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 do you really think it wouldn't be corrupt? . that's why i call for salary caps. with out too much loot available, there's no need to be corrupt. and with the people running the state, corruption could be easier to dismiss from power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 ok maybe, but if you cap the salary on individuals in society who are attempting to make a fortune, and the people who already have fortunes are in control of the society that is now a one world government underneath a socialist/communist system... don't you see something wrong with that picture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Not for nothing but politicians who are corrupt and steal, make annual salaries. The benefits and kick backs they take, have absolutely nothing to do with their "salary". You could put a cap to it. It would do nothing, but perhaps make people who could actually want the job, to not want it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Not for nothing but politicians who are corrupt and steal, make annual salaries. The benefits and kick backs they take, have absolutely nothing to do with their "salary". You could put a cap to it. It would do nothing, but perhaps make people who could actually want the job, to not want it. Another way to look at it is that the more you restrict a person's capability for personal gain the more motivation they have to be corrupt. The argument can be made that the more you pay them the less reason they will have to be corrupt. Corruption isn't only a financial matter either. It can also take form of power/control, ego, sex, violence, ideology, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 ok maybe, but if you cap the salary on individuals in society who are attempting to make a fortune, and the people who already have fortunes are in control of the society that is now a one world government underneath a socialist/communist system... don't you see something wrong with that picture? Not trying to pick on you but that doesn't make any sense, as in the way you have written it. You might have a good point here but I can't work out what it is. You are mixing three points together or making one point in an overly convoluted way. Try making three points or structuring it for clarity. As I said, not trying to sound like your teacher or some shit, just trying to work out what it is that you're saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 nah you're right that sentence is badly structured. uhmm... The point I was trying to make is that he is claiming that a salary cap would deter corruption. But, a salary cap would only affect individuals in society that are attempting to create a fortune for themselves and their families. Those families, lineages, and elitists who already have fortunes wouldn't be concerned with something such as a salary cap because it wouldn't effect them. They would already be in control of the technology and the means to control a society underneath a one world government, so they would actually prefer a collectivist system such as communism or socialism since it would allow consolidation of private property and economic regulation that they would be in charge of. This is actually the groundwork for the international system of global governance that is being established, and there are many marxist-leninists pushing this agenda. I'm not even saying marxism is bad or anything like that either, but the point I'm trying to make is that this wouldn't have any effect on the current establishment of order and wouldn't deter corruption because those who are already in power over the current establishment would remain in power over a so called communist/socialist one world government. It would become a totalitarian communist global government, and probably naturally deteriorate into a global fascism or despotism. I personally don't believe though that a NWO would ever be able to accomplish or establish a single one world government, unless there were a major catastrophic crises or massive political event like a World War III. Until then, only international cooperation and global governance is possible for the globalist agenda, due to the amount of backlash against their movement which the world has become conscious of as Brzeziniski pointed out. However, I do believe personally that if it weren't for all of the crazy "conspiracy theorists" like Alex Jones and the like, a lot of these globalist agendas would be much further along the path of completion and we would be much deeper in the woods then we are currently, because people just simply wouldn't be aware of these issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.