baeinu
24-12-2008, 07:20 AM
I have had an interest in conspiracy theories for years, particularly "the New World Order" / global government and alien conspiracies. However, I feel as though the majority of these conspiracies are lacking aim and purpose, and are mostly a way for people to try to make sense of the confusing world that we currently live in. Of course there are conspiracies in the world and information suppressed "for the good of the people," but the majority of the conspiracies in which I have read on this forum and elsewhere seem more fanciful than based in any sort of fact. Although I *DO* believe that major commerce, the media, and the vast majority of political systems are ran by a handful of rich white people, I do NOT believe that the majority of the information provided as being definitive proof for "the New World Order" is fact.
To begin, the term "new world order" is broken down as follows: "new" - of recent origin, "world" - the Earth, and "order" - a direction or instruction in the disposition of things one after another. So, does the term indicate any authoritative regime which would like to cull the world's population to 500,000,000, install a police state, insert implantable microchips, introduce a cashless society, etc.? No. The term implies a new way of ordering things, particularly humans upon the planet Earth. Are we not already living in a "new world order?" Are members of the "Truth" movement seeking to establish a different "new world order?" If not, do they seek to return to an "old world order" of the past? If so, the majority of old world orders were feudal in nature, or had authoritarian leader.
When George Bush Sr. stated that "...it's a new idea, a New World Order," he was NOT referring to ushering in the previous mentioned plans and christen their "evil master plan." Instead, he was speaking at a time when the Soviet Union was collapsing. What does this incur? If one is familiar with the international relations of the time, one would notice that the 2 post WW2 superpowers were the United States and the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union was collapsing at the time. When there are 2 recognized world powers, the world is considered to be bipolar ( the United States and Soviet Union at the time ). So, when the Soviet Union collapsed, we began to live in a largely unipolar world, where the United States is the global hegemon. Thus, Bush Sr. was referring to a "new world order" in the sense that instead of being 2 superpowers, there is now 1, the United States. This makes considerably more sense than what the "New World Order" conspiracy entails.
Another example is Kissinger saying he "...would not be opposed to world government." He is saying this in the context that under a world government, there would theoretically be no war. No war = peace = international relations is carried out with more ease. With the end of the Cold War, many thought that either the United Nations would be able to operate effectively as a world government, or that the United States would act as a benign hegemon and take the world under it's wing. However, this was not the case.
I could go through more, but wish not to for sake of space.
What if you guys are all right about "the New World Order's" master plan for humanity and all of the "horrible" things came true? All of the "useless eaters" are killed off and the elite get to live in a technologically advanced wonder village with plenty of green space to enjoy themselves in? Is this exactly a bad thing? 6+ billion people who consume natural resources at an exceedingly fast pace would mean that in the future, people will not be able to maintain the current lifestyle, in the United States, Europe, China, India, or even in Africa. Such a large number of people is not abiding by basic laws of nature and have been sidestepped through the fetishism the vast majority of people seem to have for life itself. Some of the posts that I have read encourage sustainability, Earth worship, holy plants, etc. would this not be what you also desire? Is not this fetishism for life actually HURTING the Earth as a whole and playing god in a sense?
To avoid a ramble going through each of the various points of the "master plan," I would like to know this. If this "New World Order" was stopped, then what exactly would happen? What are you calling for? Do people think that Joe Blow can run a country? the world? We know that the "New World Order" basically owns politics ( at least in the United States via corporate lobbying, donations, etc. ), owns the vast majority of businesses, owns the vast majority of land, and owns the vast majority of commodities. We also know that they have been able to create a society where people obey laws and conduct themselves in an orderly manner. They have been able to follow through with their long-term planning so to speak. So, if the "New World Order" is defeated, then what is going to become of the United States, Europe, Asia, Africa? Is there any group of people who act in collusion to create an organized plan of how things are going to occur after they fall? Do they have the perseverance to follow through with such plans? Well, the so called "New World Order" obviously has and does. I am unable to have any faith that anyone within the "Truth" movement has the ability or drive to do so. The more and more I read conspiracy oriented texts, the more I feel that they are solely for the purpose of allowing the author to gain notoriety. The more I listen to conspiracy oriented talk radio, the more I feel that they are desperately trying to chase phantoms. The more I see demonstrations and protests against governments, the more I am reminded of Plato's Republic..
Thoughts?
To begin, the term "new world order" is broken down as follows: "new" - of recent origin, "world" - the Earth, and "order" - a direction or instruction in the disposition of things one after another. So, does the term indicate any authoritative regime which would like to cull the world's population to 500,000,000, install a police state, insert implantable microchips, introduce a cashless society, etc.? No. The term implies a new way of ordering things, particularly humans upon the planet Earth. Are we not already living in a "new world order?" Are members of the "Truth" movement seeking to establish a different "new world order?" If not, do they seek to return to an "old world order" of the past? If so, the majority of old world orders were feudal in nature, or had authoritarian leader.
When George Bush Sr. stated that "...it's a new idea, a New World Order," he was NOT referring to ushering in the previous mentioned plans and christen their "evil master plan." Instead, he was speaking at a time when the Soviet Union was collapsing. What does this incur? If one is familiar with the international relations of the time, one would notice that the 2 post WW2 superpowers were the United States and the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union was collapsing at the time. When there are 2 recognized world powers, the world is considered to be bipolar ( the United States and Soviet Union at the time ). So, when the Soviet Union collapsed, we began to live in a largely unipolar world, where the United States is the global hegemon. Thus, Bush Sr. was referring to a "new world order" in the sense that instead of being 2 superpowers, there is now 1, the United States. This makes considerably more sense than what the "New World Order" conspiracy entails.
Another example is Kissinger saying he "...would not be opposed to world government." He is saying this in the context that under a world government, there would theoretically be no war. No war = peace = international relations is carried out with more ease. With the end of the Cold War, many thought that either the United Nations would be able to operate effectively as a world government, or that the United States would act as a benign hegemon and take the world under it's wing. However, this was not the case.
I could go through more, but wish not to for sake of space.
What if you guys are all right about "the New World Order's" master plan for humanity and all of the "horrible" things came true? All of the "useless eaters" are killed off and the elite get to live in a technologically advanced wonder village with plenty of green space to enjoy themselves in? Is this exactly a bad thing? 6+ billion people who consume natural resources at an exceedingly fast pace would mean that in the future, people will not be able to maintain the current lifestyle, in the United States, Europe, China, India, or even in Africa. Such a large number of people is not abiding by basic laws of nature and have been sidestepped through the fetishism the vast majority of people seem to have for life itself. Some of the posts that I have read encourage sustainability, Earth worship, holy plants, etc. would this not be what you also desire? Is not this fetishism for life actually HURTING the Earth as a whole and playing god in a sense?
To avoid a ramble going through each of the various points of the "master plan," I would like to know this. If this "New World Order" was stopped, then what exactly would happen? What are you calling for? Do people think that Joe Blow can run a country? the world? We know that the "New World Order" basically owns politics ( at least in the United States via corporate lobbying, donations, etc. ), owns the vast majority of businesses, owns the vast majority of land, and owns the vast majority of commodities. We also know that they have been able to create a society where people obey laws and conduct themselves in an orderly manner. They have been able to follow through with their long-term planning so to speak. So, if the "New World Order" is defeated, then what is going to become of the United States, Europe, Asia, Africa? Is there any group of people who act in collusion to create an organized plan of how things are going to occur after they fall? Do they have the perseverance to follow through with such plans? Well, the so called "New World Order" obviously has and does. I am unable to have any faith that anyone within the "Truth" movement has the ability or drive to do so. The more and more I read conspiracy oriented texts, the more I feel that they are solely for the purpose of allowing the author to gain notoriety. The more I listen to conspiracy oriented talk radio, the more I feel that they are desperately trying to chase phantoms. The more I see demonstrations and protests against governments, the more I am reminded of Plato's Republic..
Thoughts?