The New World Order

[atrasicarius]

Than you must not really understand history.

There's been texts and many other things, some that were Freemasons, and were killed for being whistleblowers, that's happened for more than 50 years. What could be so secretive that you'd have to lose your life over it, especially if world leaders are apart of such society?

You wouldn't happen to have any proof of any of that, would you? And random people talking about how they saw Henry Kissinger turn into a lizard and eat someone doesn't fall under the category of proof.

 

[sephiroth2009]

You wouldn't happen to have any proof of any of that, would you? And random people talking about how they saw Henry Kissinger turn into a lizard and eat someone doesn't fall under the category of proof.

I'm not a lizard conspiracy theorist. Infact I might have to edit my signature so that people don't mistake me for those crazies who follow Icke.

 

[atrasicarius]

I'm not a lizard conspiracy theorist. Infact I might have to edit my signature so that people don't mistake me for those crazies who follow Icke.

Sure. I'm saying that one of Icke's main source of "evidence" is from "eye witnesses," so don't expect me to take your eye witnesses all that seriously either. And I'm still waiting on that proof.

 

[_Markum_]

Inasmuch as a "world order" is perceived to exist, a "new world order" would represent an improvement or rectification of the existing world order. The "world order" is the organizing principle of the world, that which governs it. But the banker may see fincance as the organizing principle of the world, while a soldier sees military force as the organizing principle, and a politician, government. Their perceptions of the world order are narrowed by their experience of it. If their experience has been good, they'll see the order as good; otherwise, not so. Those who benefit from the order will defend it, while those who feel vicitimized by it will seek its improvement, rectification, or dissolution. This latter group is a threat to the order's persistence, but likely also an integral part of the order's structure, or even the basis of the order's prosperity.

Control structures are almost invariably hierarchical, with the control influence propagating from the few at the top to the many at the bottom. The character of this influence is the nature of the order. The more strict the order the more oppressive the influence is perceived to be, engendering the greater resistance, since the hierarchy is easily identifiable, and, therefore, targetable. This relatively high degree of exposure is a liability to the order's viability and persistence, in the absence of an insufficiently pervasive control mechanism by which to exercise the requisite influence. A less strictly defined hierarchy, exercising a more subtle, less direct influence would provide a beneficial obscurity, albeit at the price of precision of control at the bottom of the order.

Certainly, a control structure that harnesses the energies of human self-interest would find the majority of mankind willing to participate. Could such an order arise spontaneously and without knowing direction--evolve, as it were? I tend to think so, though this would not preclude the development of certain aspects of the control mechanism akin to "secret societies". As the hierarchy coalesces, or condenses, groupings become necessarily more distinct, in order to be functional. Inasmuch as extremes of self-interest exemplify the sinister side of human nature, I would expect any world order--especially the new ones--to be sociopathic and conspiratorial, self-interested parties aligning for their mutual benefit without special regard for the well-being of anyone else.

 

[sephiroth2009]

Sure. I'm saying that one of Icke's main source of "evidence" is from "eye witnesses," so don't expect me to take your eye witnesses all that seriously either. And I'm still waiting on that proof.

I don't do that either so don't worry.

As for proof, I'll make separate threads for certain things. And explain in those threads for what topic they may contain.

 

[usda select]

Acknowledging that the Freemasons exist isn't quite the same thing as saying they're an ancient global conspiracy bent on world domination. The Illuminati also existed. That doesn't mean they've been secretly manipulating global events for the past 200 years.

Would it not occur to those who feel there is some bizarre conspiracy involving these ancient sects that, if the membership is so bent on domination, they would move during their own lifetimes? We're looking at what, 8 generations of supposed plottong and manipulation yet they are still not there?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Would it not occur to those who feel there is some bizarre conspiracy involving these ancient sects that, if the membership is so bent on domination, they would move during their own lifetimes? We're looking at what, 8 generations of supposed plottong and manipulation yet they are still not there?

Well I dunno about that. What do you mean "move?" Anyone intending to rule the world would probably want to do it covertly. If they stood atop the mountain and declared themselves rulers of all mankind that'd sort of put a target on their backs and you'd expect a lot more political unrest, don't you think?

"Give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes her laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

 

[atrasicarius]

Well I dunno about that. What do you mean "move?" Anyone intending to rule the world would probably want to do it covertly. If they stood atop the mountain and declared themselves rulers of all mankind that'd sort of put a target on their backs and you'd expect a lot more political unrest, don't you think?

"Give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes her laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Yeah, but that's what he's suggesting. He's suggesting that there's a conspiracy with the eventual goal of making an actual, visible worldwide dictatorship.

 

[sephiroth2009]

Yeah, but that's what he's suggesting. He's suggesting that there's a conspiracy with the eventual goal of making an actual, visible worldwide dictatorship.

Actually no I'm not. Where have you seen that at?

However, it would have to come out eventually right? You can't rule the world effectivly being in secret. Even though the rich people are exempt from paying taxes, but yet they join meatings with world leaders and IMPOSE taxes, its just not right. That in itself its tyranny.

 

[Thunder]

...Even though the rich people are exempt from paying taxes, but yet they join meatings with world leaders and IMPOSE taxes, its just not right...

I just don't understand. Rich people don't pay taxes?

what are you talking about? do you have any evidence for this??

 

[sephiroth2009]

I just don't understand. Rich people don't pay taxes?

what are you talking about? do you have any evidence for this??

When I say rich, I mean the families who are in Bilderberg and things like that.

 

[Thunder]

When I say rich, I mean the families who are in Bilderberg and things like that.

if they are American citizens, they pay taxes.

 

[Demon of Light]

You wouldn't happen to have any proof of any of that, would you? And random people talking about how they saw Henry Kissinger turn into a lizard and eat someone doesn't fall under the category of proof.

Henry Kissinger is actually a good argument against the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. Look at this:



His human skin suit is terribly obvious. Anyone could tell he is a Reptillian in disguise. Lizard people es muy estupido. We got this in the bag.

 

[Surtr]

I would like to see what people think of or about the phrase "New World Order" and how it affects us and could or would affect us in the future. And possibly is the future now at hand.

It means absolutely nothing. References to these three words go back to a quote from George Bush Sr. Problem with that is, if you read that speech, you will see that he's talking about new alliances forming after the Gulf War. Yes, there is a new world order; the USSR has fallen, we have new allies, and new enemies. China is now on its way to becoming a superpower, both economically, and industrially. The Middle East is also changing drastically, as is the US herself. That isn't proof of a malevolent, authoritarian world government. Man is a social animal, it's in our nature to group together in order to survive, but that will never override a nations responsibility to its people.

What do you think? Does it exist already? Is it a plan by powerful people? Is it feasible?

Yes, it's called the UN, and it's not at all what people like Alex Jones espouse.

 

[sephiroth2009]

It means absolutely nothing. References to these three words go back to a quote from George Bush Sr. Problem with that is, if you read that speech, you will see that he's talking about new alliances forming after the Gulf War. Yes, there is a new world order; the USSR has fallen, we have new allies, and new enemies. China is now on its way to becoming a superpower, both economically, and industrially. The Middle East is also changing drastically, as is the US herself. That isn't proof of a malevolent, authoritarian world government. Man is a social animal, it's in our nature to group together in order to survive, but that will never override a nations responsibility to its people.


Yes, it's called the UN, and it's not at all what people like Alex Jones espouse.

However, Mr.Jones back up his points, and have his team work around the clock, probably doing more work than him, to write articles and do research, always leading up to official sources. So call it what you will, however don't deprive the truth for what it is.

(I pity people who call Alex Jones their savior or God, it's hilarious)

 

[Surtr]

Would it not occur to those who feel there is some bizarre conspiracy involving these ancient sects that, if the membership is so bent on domination, they would move during their own lifetimes? We're looking at what, 8 generations of supposed plottong and manipulation yet they are still not there?

That's all fine n' dandy, but neither group was "bent on domination". The Illuminati was a group of Bavarian intellectuals that formed during the Enlightenment era. Weishaupt's stated goal was to abolish monarchies and state religions in favor of secular democracy, because it was a system that favored human rights.

The Freemasons were formed as a way for skilled workers to be identified. Each "degree" that exists now, once represented a persons skill, and level of expertise. The symbols and handshakes were a way of authenticating ones claims. It has since evolved into a mostly useless boys club for men, with empty ceremony, though many of them do benefit their communities. That said, I'm no friend of the freemasons. I've been under quite a few of them in my last duty station, and I can't say anything favorable about them, from my personal experiences.

 

[sephiroth2009]

That's all fine n' dandy, but neither group was "bent on domination". The Illuminati was a group of Bavarian intellectuals that formed during the Enlightenment era. Weishaupt's stated goal was to abolish monarchies and state religions in favor of secular democracy, because it was a system that favored human rights.

The Freemasons were formed as a way for skilled workers to be identified. Each "degree" that exists now, once represented a persons skill, and level of expertise. The symbols and handshakes were a way of authenticating ones claims. It has since evolved into a mostly useless boys club for men, with empty ceremony, though many of them do benefit their communities. That said, I'm no friend of the freemasons. I've been under quite a few of them in my last duty station, and I can't say anything favorable about them, from my personal experiences.

But sure enough you can't say that there would never be or couldn't be a secret organization out there that wants to control things. Sure it sounds like something from a cartoon/anime but the thought of it alone should make it possible.

 

[_Markum_]

Would it not occur to those who feel there is some bizarre conspiracy involving these ancient sects that, if the membership is so bent on domination, they would move during their own lifetimes? We're looking at what, 8 generations of supposed plottong and manipulation yet they are still not there?

There is nothing the least bit "bizarre" about human beings acting together out of self-interest to maximize their opportunities for survival. Doubting that such action would tend toward "domination" would be unrealistic; and "plotting and manipulation" actions would logically be part and parcel of such action. Surely you would not doubt that "plotting and manipulation" are well within the range of human nature! As I've already expained, it is not necessary for such efforts to be deliberately orchestrated, as human nature ensures the general direction, though specific direction arises, again, naturally out of self-interest, in the form of groups of people seeking to maximize their opportunities for survival. Whether groups, councils, foundations, or secret societies, I don't find their existence to be at all incredible, but, rather, natural, expected, and normal, given the condition of human nature.

The assertion that "they are still not there" supposes a degree of "domination" approaching near to "total" as the qualification for "there". The use of a general term without qualification cannot logically be interpreted in that term's specific sense. So the assertion is without merit.

 

[usda select]

There is nothing the least bit "bizarre" about human beings acting together out of self-interest to maximize their opportunities for survival. Doubting that such action would tend toward "domination" would be unrealistic; and "plotting and manipulation" actions would logically be part and parcel of such action. Surely you would not doubt that "plotting and manipulation" are well within the range of human nature! As I've already expained, it is not necessary for such efforts to be deliberately orchestrated, as human nature ensures the general direction, though specific direction arises, again, naturally out of self-interest, in the form of groups of people seeking to maximize their opportunities for survival. Whether groups, councils, foundations, or secret societies, I don't find their existence to be at all incredible, but, rather, natural, expected, and normal, given the condition of human nature.

The assertion that "they are still not there" supposes a degree of "domination" approaching near to "total" as the qualification for "there". The use of a general term without qualification cannot logically be interpreted in that term's specific sense. So the assertion is without merit.

In terms of even limited domination over my life, I see no Illuminati/Freemason/Knight of Columbus/Shriners/etc.... effect. I'll put it that way when I describe "there".

Next question, of course, will be, "Its there, you don't recognize it."

Answer: Really? In that case I'm fine with it except for some minor tweaking that needs to be done.

Next comment, "So your fine with the domination of your life?"

Answer: No life isn't being dominated; it's called our system of government for better or for worse.

It can go on like this for a while Finally we get to the base cause of all argument from you guys; "Government=Bad".

 

[Councilman]

Be aware that groups believed to be part of the Elite NWO such as the Bilderberg Group, they want to reduce the world population to numbers that most likely don't include anyone who posts on this Forum site unless you are very productive farmer, or have some very essential position that can keep the Elite living at the level they belive they alone deserve.

A few years back Henry Kissinger made a speech about it at a Bilderberg Group meeting and it hit the news.

 

[_Markum_]

Man is a social animal, it's in our nature to group together in order to survive, but that will never override a nations responsibility to its people.

"A nation's responsibility to its people" sounds like "government". And people, grouping together in order to survive, have overriden government before, and likely will again.

Yes, it's called the UN, and it's not at all what people like Alex Jones espouse.

"Not at all", eh? Do you realize that this little phrase falsifies your assertion by its absolute quality, as it is not believable that anyone who undertakes to talk about the UN has absolutely no knowledge of what it is?

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

But sure enough you can't say that there would never be or couldn't be a secret organization out there that wants to control things. Sure it sounds like something from a cartoon/anime but the thought of it alone should make it possible.

OK, I give up. I confess, I'm the head of the Illuminati, the evil Satanist Jewish Zionist World-conquering Bankers, and all the cults and secret societies out there. My cover is blown, and I confess that you were/are/is right and that there really is a secret, giant, banking, Jewish, Satanist society trying to take over the world

 

[_Markum_]

In terms of even limited domination over my life, I see no Illuminati/Freemason/Knight of Columbus/Shriners/etc.... effect. I'll put it that way when I describe "there".

Next question, of course, will be, "Its there, you don't recognize it."

Answer: Really? In that case I'm fine with it except for some minor tweaking that needs to be done.

Next comment, "So your fine with the domination of your life?"

Answer: No life isn't being dominated; it's called our system of government for better or for worse.

It can go on like this for a while Finally we get to the base cause of all argument from you guys; "Government=Bad".

"Domination" is "the exercise of preponderant, governing, or controlling influence". Whether "new" or "old", the world order is a hierarchical structure of control systems. It originates in human nature itself, and, so, is not inherently good or bad. It is a template within which individuals operate out of self-interest to secure, foremostly, survival needs; but it also presents opportunities to secure secondary values, such as power, glory, and wealth in excess of that required merely for survival.

World order is natural. Individual human beings acting out of self-interest (i.e. "illuminati", etc.) are a natural source of subversion of the order whose corrupting influence is held natually in check by the natual limits on the pervasiveness of the various control mechanisms. The perceived danger of the so-called "NWO" lies in the total dissolution of these limits, especially as the capabilities of technology advance. It is only natural for the subversive elements of the order to want this, so they act in whatever ways they can to encourage it.

Put most simply, the world order requires submission, while the ideals of "freedom", or "liberty", are inimical to those of "submission". Therefore, the ideals of liberty are inimical to the world order. This is the ultimate check on the order's subversive elements. Completely pervasive control mechanisms would remove this check, and finally enable a utopia of perfect peace and tranquility, where none need be concerned for their survival in comfort. Finally, the inspiring vision of the first human societies realized!

But standing in the way of this culmination of the natural world order are its subversive elements, having spread the influence of their perverse sociopathology throughout the order's contol systems, the control mechanisms of which are now, in this projected scenario, for the first time in human history, pervasive enough to suppress all resistance. The visions of "1984" and "Brave New World" realized! Freedom was just a pain in the ass anyway...

 

[Thunder]

OK, I give up. I confess, I'm the head of the Illuminati, the evil Satanist Jewish Zionist World-conquering Bankers, and all the cults and secret societies out there....

dude....me too!!!!

 

[Demon of Light]

That's all fine n' dandy, but neither group was "bent on domination". The Illuminati was a group of Bavarian intellectuals that formed during the Enlightenment era. Weishaupt's stated goal was to abolish monarchies and state religions in favor of secular democracy, because it was a system that favored human rights.

The Freemasons were formed as a way for skilled workers to be identified. Each "degree" that exists now, once represented a persons skill, and level of expertise. The symbols and handshakes were a way of authenticating ones claims. It has since evolved into a mostly useless boys club for men, with empty ceremony, though many of them do benefit their communities. That said, I'm no friend of the freemasons. I've been under quite a few of them in my last duty station, and I can't say anything favorable about them, from my personal experiences.

What amazes me is how we can have one side going for the extreme characterization of Freemasonry as an institution seeking to dominate the world, and the other side insisting the bizarre notion these organizations are of little to no importance at all. For one, the Bavarian Illuminati did not limit itself to Bavarian intellectuals and included many who were born and lived outside of Bavaria. Among the notable members was Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick, who most notably sat at the head of a major Freemason rite that had branches all over Europe. That fact alone means you should take talk about the Illuminati more seriously.

As for the Freemasons, the notion that a group of wealthy and influential individuals meeting in secret is "useless" and was only ever about identifying skilled workers is nonsense. That is like saying the Council on Foreign Relations is just a useless forum where people chatter about world events.

Were it really so useless I imagine far fewer people would join and it would not be such an attractive meeting place for people of influence.