Round 1: The Vagabond v Byrd: New World Disorder

The topic for this debate is "The Powers That Be have splintered, and each side holds a part of the world".

The Vagabond will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Byrd will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.


Character limits are no longer in effect- you may use as many characters as a single post allows. It still pays to be clear and concise though.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

Responses should be made within 48 hours. Extensions and extended breaks for the holidays will be permitted.

This is a non-elimination tournament. 2 ranking points are awarded for participation and 2 more for each victory. Each member of the winning team recieves 2 additional points.

The Member-Judging System is in effect. The total number of stars awarded to each member by readers (counted at the time of judging) will be counted to determine a winner.

We have ways of determining when a member has multiple accounts. Any member who attempts to use multiple accounts to influence the outcome of a debate will be barred from the debate forum in perpetuity and will face additional consequences as well, possibly including a permanent ban from ATS.

Thanks to everyone participating in these debates, as well as to the readers who will be juding them by awarding stars. To my distinguished opponent, thank you for the opportunity, and good luck. Also my appologies that I did not post sooner; something went screwy with my internet connection yesterday.

(Clarification: Byrd and I have agreed to treat "The Powers That Be" as meaning "The New World Order".)

My Position in a Nutshell
To put it as simply as possible, the New World Order consisted of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, each being run by a few extremely wealthy and well-connected individuals. The original goal of the United Nations was to combine their power and influence and extend that power globally, so that their power would never again be threatened by fast-rising outsiders or by the ambitions of their own members.

Control of China was crucial to this plan however. The survival of communism in mainland China caused the conspiracy to break into several factions. This in turn shaped the Cold War as well as the global events we have seen since the end of the Cold War, which are in essence a power struggle between five inter-related factions, each seeking to complete the goal of a single global power structure.


The Evidence
You will see that there was a clear motive for such a conspiracy, that the conspirators had the means to undertake such an exercise, that actions were taken which supported such a conspiracy, and that key figures have made statements which affirm many aspects of this conspiracy. Seemingly random, even counter-intuitive or unnatural historical events will be shown to make perfect sense in the context of this conspiracy.

A Brief Overview, with notes on the NWO
Throughout the 18th and 19th Centuries, the monarchies of Europe, particularly in Britain, attempted to preserve their power by using shifting alliances to preserve the status quo. This never worked all that well: it couldn't prevent the Napoleonic wars, the Franco-Prussian War, or World War I. World War I proved once and for all that something had to change. It was a shocking event. Austria-Hungary was virtually wiped off the map, the Ottoman Empire was effectively destroyed, the Russian monarchy fell to communism, France was nearly conquered for the second time in 50 years, and the Europeans found themselves seeking help from outsiders such as America and Japan to help resolve their internal quarrels. In fact the Japanese offered to send an army to help in the European theater in WWI. The idea of empires suddenly collapsing, outsiders demanding favors in return for assistance, and non-European armies being introduced into wars on the continent was unacceptable.

The solution that emerged was a global government that could formalize that status quo and compell the enforcement of that status quo. This was the League of Nations, the first attempt at what would eventually become the United Nations. The idea for this came from Woodrow Wilson, who also founded The War Industries Board under the leadership of Bernard Baruch (a major point of influence for American elitists, and the beginning of the ascent of the Bush clan).

Wilson was aided in forming the idea by Edward M. House. House was a member of the Rhodes-Milner Roundtable, which at the time advocated a global federal government under the lead of Britain and the United States. (This is partially admitted, though claimed to have been limited to the commonwealth [then the British Empire] on the Round Table's History page.) The group is considered a predecessor to the CFR.

Of course congress never allowed America to enter the League of Nations, and as some predicted at the time, The Treaty of Versailles ended up not being a peace so much as an armistice for 20 years. In the aftermath of WWII the United Nations was born.

Had the Five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council endured as allies, the UN would indeed have been able to function as a global federal government. Because the security council has the authority to compell or forbid military action, providing that no permanent member uses the veto, and the five permanent members of the council represented the bulk of all military might on this planet, they were in a position to effectively rule the world.

There was only one major problem facing this plot. That was China. Having already witnessed the meteoric rise of Japan in the late 19th and early 20th century, and the rapid strengthening of unified Germany, not to mention having already failed to assert control over China during the 19th Century, the perpetrators of this Euro-centric conspiracy could not fail to realize that China was a likely candidate to upset the status quo if not brought under their control. As long as the nationalists could be placed in control of China however, it would have worked out. The Soviet Union at the time seemed to lack the resources to be a player outside of Eastern Europe. The odds seemed to indicate that the Soviets would fall under the economic control of the other conspirators before long. Russia did in fact play ball, walking out of the UN but not using its veto to stop UN action in Korea, which ultimately was aimed directly at China.

The Korean War was too little too late though. Nobody had counted on Truman refusing the help the Nationalist Chinese. The UN went into Korea, and by continuing attacks all the way to the Yalu river, baited Communist China into a showdown. When the war ended in a stalemate, everything began to come apart.

By 1953, the Soviet Union could no longer be brow-beaten. They had nuclear weapons, and learned from China that the UN could be resisted. They were in a position to start meddling in global affairs against the will of the other conspirators. The result was the Suez Crisis- the death knell for a unified New World Order. In 1956, Israel, France, and Britain moved against Soviet-backed Egypt for control of the Suez Canal, which was being used by Nasser as a bargaining chip to secure funding for the Aswan Dam. Control of the Canal would help isolate China from the assistance of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet in the event of a war, as well as help Europe maintain ties to colonies in the East. The British and French knew that President Eisenhower wasn't coming along for the ride, but they didn't expect him to stand in their way either. But he did. He threatened to sell off American reserves of the British Pound, and refused to fill the energy gap created by Saudi Arabia's oil embargo on Britain and France. With the Soviet Union enabled to act on its own, the United States under a Republican president and beginning to "look out for number one", and China given a more or less free hand in Asia, the world that the UN had hoped to rule with solidarity was now divided into camps.

Since then, there have been repeated attempts to revisit the idea, most notably after the fall of the Soviet Union, which was marked by the Gulf War and George H.W. Bush's famous "New World Order" Speech, given on September 11th, 1990.


Here I will end my first post. In my next several posts I will discuss in greater depth the formation of this plot and the involved characters, the details of the events which shattered the New World Order, and the ongoing efforts to rebuild it.

I would also like to add my thanks to Chissler and everyone participating in these debates, as well as to the readers of these threads. To my distinguised opponent, Vagabond, I look forward to a fun and challenging debate.


My Position in a Nutshell
-------------------------------

I think you've just put yourself in a position that will be difficult to support.

My research on the "New World Order" reveals a number of prominent people in the conspiracy world who that claim they know all about the NWO and its plans. The earliest ones include Cecil Rhodes, Alice Bailey, Lionel Curtis and many others who believed that the NWO was -- or should be -- a Christianized Great Britain and the United States. But prominent anti-Zionist group of that same time period believed that the NWO was controlled by Zionists -- something claimed by NWO researchers like Henry Makow and Douglas Reed. Each group claims irrefutable proof for its beliefs.

Other NWO researchers say that the NWO is run by the Freemasons. David Icke is one of the prominent authors who adds a twist to this, saying the NWO is actually made up of alien shapeshifting Reptillians from the royal House of Windsor and their allied families. Royal families play into other "revelations". Patrick Buchanan fingers the Bilderberg group and the banking industry as the NWO, and many Apocalyptic Christians insist that the NWO is a global organization headed by the AntiChrist.

And all of them claim that their ideas are correct and all others are wrong. Several of these scholars (such as Reed) are also professional journalists and claim to have special access to documents not available to most:
en.wikipedia.org...


So...
-------------------------------

None of the groups mentioned as the NWO has actually come out with a formal statement saying "we are the NWO, here's our organization and here are our goals." So how do you know which scholars and researchers are wrong?


Examining the Security Council
-------------------------------

If we look at the details of the power exchanges in the Security Council since its formation, I can see a number of problems with the "Security Council as NWO" idea. Your proposition --"powers that be have splintered, and each side holds a part of the world", seems to fall apart on two issues:
* The"Powers That Be" who are working toward a common goal
* in the past they worked together and controlled the major political and economic groups in their countries.

You mentioned China specifically, but here your proposed theory works only if you eliminate parts of China's history in the 20th century -- particularly Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai-shek, and Mao Zedong. Chiang was in on the foundation of the United Nations -- but overthrown in 1949, when he fled to Taiwan. Mao's representatives took over the positions held by Chiang's. Leaders since Mao's death have reversed many of his policies, showing that there's no internal consistancy in the government and power structures of that country, and disagreements continue over the status of Taiwan.

So which is the "real" NWO Security Council -- the one with the pre-Chiang China, the one that begins with Chiang's rule, or the one that begins with Mao's sweeping political reforms?


Unity?
-------------------------------

A look at te actual Security Council documents from 1946 onward shows very few cases where there was any agreement (for example, the issue of the Soviet Union withdrawing troops from Iran in 1946 ("the Iranian Question) -- a divisive issue that lasted for a number of years. Similar things happened with "The Spanish Question" and "The Greek Question."
www.un.org...

Wikipedia summarizes the issues and the votes here:
en.wikipedia.org...

The full text list of resolutions is here.
www.un.org...

Examining the tables shows just how divided the power has been ever since the beginning, with no one consistant voting bloc on any issue. Changes in political leadership of the 5 permanent member countries had little impact on agreement. Many resolutions seem fairly trivial, such as Resolution 40 (United Nations Security Council Resolution 40, adopted on February 28, 1948, requested that the Committee of Good Offices watch the political developments in western Java and Madura and to report their findings to the Council frequently.)

And this is another problem with the "Security Council" scenario -- the resolutions that passed do not consolidate power or set up alignments of one nation with any certain voting bloc. There are some resolutions which pass the Security Council without vote are issues like "Keep the flags lowered at half staff to signify mourning for the death of a world leader." Cease-fire proclamations are usually unanimous, but again this gives no power to any particular group, for as far back as you care to trace the documents.


Consolidating power?
-------------------------------

If the goal of the NWO is to control the world, it's pretty easy to see that they have failed to contain "fast-rising outsiders" such as India, Brazil, Japan, and Germany. These nations, the "G4 nations" have become major economic powers and like many other rising countries have started to demand a "piece of the action." And their voices are being heard and supported.

In 2005, the Secretary General of the UN led a strong call for reform, which included admitting the G4 nations to the voting bloc. Great Britain supports this idea. There are two proposals on the table and it only needs a vote of 128 members to pass: en.wikipedia.org...

Playing to Win
-------------------------------

The object of any power play is to win efficiently. Since 1946, the permanent members of the Security Council have lost territories, lost strategic allies, and have been unable to prevent various nations that were their foes from entering the United Nations. They have not been able to stop other nations such as India from developing nuclear weapons or space programs, and they control less territory and economic power than they did in 1946.

Experienced and unified groups with a long term plan know how to grow power and overcome issues like this (remember the history of the Roman Emperors among others) and build stable power structures that last for centuries.

Given all these issues, can you actually conclude that the Security Council represents the NWO and that there was actually a time when they acted unilaterally and effectively on ANY issue other than declaring that flags should be lowered to half mast for a world leader's death and that sports should be promoted as a way to peace?

Post 2: The formation of the NWO
This post will refute several claims my opponent has made and reaffirm a few points on the formation of the NWO.

Rebuttals
My opponent points out that there are many NWO theories, however the term NWO was specifically coined to describe the plot I am describing. link

My opponent goes out of her way to mention that some NWO theories include incredible claims, such as shape-shifting reptilians, however these are wholly unrelated to my argument. This is a blatant attempt to "poison the well". This is an intellectually dishonest tactic that attempts to discredit my position simply because certain outrageous theories have borrowed the term NWO.

My opponent says that no group has said "we are the NWO and here are our goals". In fact, the term New World Order's primary historical use, before being appropriated by assorted conspiracy theories, was in reference to the League of Nations, and later the UN. It circulated relentlessly in newspapers, from the mouths of presidents, advisors, and appointed officials.

Woodrow Wilson
Woodrow Wilson, Adressing the Senate on Jan 22 1917, regarding what would become the League of Nations.

The following additional quotes were found at this link.

International Conciliation January 1919.

From "The Trend of International Affaris Since the War", printed in the Royal Institute of International Affairs' journal, International Affairs, November 1931.

The Philadelphia Enquirer, June 18, 1942.

-Printed in the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs, July 1948.

President Wilson, in his address to the Senate, which I linked earlier, said the following as well: (repeat link)


My opponent claims there was not a consistent Chinese government that could be part of the plot. Despite the civil war, this is untrue. The Republic of China, under Chiang Kai-shek was the only China represented in the UN from day 1 up until October 25, 1971. It was the only Chinese government recognized by ANY of the security council members, including the Soviet Union, for the first 4 years of the security council's official existence.

My opponent claims that the members of the UN Security Council could not have been working to form a cohesive government because they did not always agree with eachother. By my opponent's logic, the delegates to America's Constitutional Convention could not have been working to form a cohesive government either.

Last but not least, my opponent seems to think that the failure of the conspirators to achieve their final goal of consolidating power over the world through the UN iis evidence against my position. On the contrary, this supports the second half of my position: "The Powers That Be have splintered, and each side holds a part of the world". The fact that the conspirators began to work against eachother, and as a product have been reduced to spheres of influence, rather than the global influence they originally sought, supports my argument.


The Formation of the New World Order
In my opening post, I explained the motives for creating such a New World Order. It had been made quite clear that the balance of power system which dominated strategic thought under the Concert of Europe was not sufficient to safeguard the power of nations and their rulers. I call your attention back to the words of President Wilson, "There must be not a balance of power, but a community of power".

I also raised the work of President Woodrow Wilson and his advisor "Colonel" House, as well as that of Cecil Rhodes, the CFR, and The Royal Institute of International Affairs in promoting the idea.

None of this has been challenged by my opponent. In fact, if I may quote my opponent,


The operative phrase is "should be". Those are not the names of conspiracy theorists who claimed to know what the NWO was. Those are the very people I've been telling you about, and they were publically discussing their plans for the NWO when they expressed the beliefs that my opponent refers to. My opponent plainly admitted this, just three paragraphs before making the contradictory claim:


Having established that much, and having been a bit lengthy in rebutting my opponent's arguments, I will close here, and continue in my next post with evidence of cooperation that was not merely self-serving, but indicative of an effort at joint rule, as well as the particulars of how the plan came apart.

My opponent has made a very interesting counter by trying to say that the UN Security Council is the one and only NWO by dismissing other claims out of hand. Now, any good scholar wants to read supporting research that may give extra details and flesh out the argument... yet we have none. Just the statement that my question is "a blatant attempt to 'poison the well'."

Au contraire-- it's a valid question, and one you haven't answered other than by saying "well, those are just silly." That's not a response -- that's just dodging the question.

How do you know this is the true NWO? Consider the following:


The Game of Power
There have been a number of attempts to dominate the "known world", and a few of them have been fairly successful from the points of Western Civilization. Structures such as the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, the British Empire, and the Chinese empire lasted for thousands of years.

In each case, the "dominator" (group, family, or individual) moves quickly during the first part of the campaign. Individuals and groups that present a threat are quickly taken care of either by a political marriage (Julius Caesar's daughter to Pompey is a good example) or by military overthrow (as Tokugawa did by aligning himself with Nobunaga and becoming his successor, giving him resources and power to rise to become the first ruler (shogun) of a united Japan), or by placing allies and family members (sometimes unwilling ones) in key positions (such as the de Medicis controlling the papacy.)

So the rules are as old as mankind itself: establish the base, compromise or eliminate or secure the opponents, expand, and arrange for a line of successors.


Security Council and Power

Let's look at the scorecard of the Security Council.

Establishing the Base
We have 5 permanent members plus 10 other members (elected by the UN, not by the Security Council). Of the 5 permanent members, two have been replaced by successor states: en.wikipedia.org...

Of the 10 elected members, there is no barrier on who can be admitted to the Security Council. The 5 permanent members can't deny membership to the Security Council (unlike, say, the Roman emperors who controlled family by marriage, murder, and forced suicides.)

So it can't control who becomes a part of the SC, and it can't control who becomes part of the UN, and it can't override the UN vote itself.

* Ability to dominate -- nonexistant.


Compromising/eliminating/securing opponents

Given their long history of vetoing each others' actions in the Security Council (from Wikipedia: "Since the Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used its veto six times; France 18 times; Russia/USSR 122 times; the United Kingdom 32 times; and the United States 81 times" en.wikipedia.org... ), it's no surprise that most of what they've done is "recommend" actions.

Roman emperors secured political power by assassination and murder, as did the de Medicis and the Tokugawas and many other empires. The Security Council has not been able to make its own membership secure from internal overthrow of the government. They have applied political and economic pressure to countries to force them to enter negotiations but they have not been able to use that same pressure to swiftly end conflicts. One of many prominent examples of this is the Palestine/Israel confict, which they've been trying to settle for nearly 60 years.

Contrast that effort with the efforts of Rome to resolve the very same issue. Rome (under Pompey, who was married to Caesar's daughter and acting under his orders) simply settled THAT question in 64 BC by invading the whole area and declaring everyone to be Roman citizens. The issue is "resolved" by that swift move and stays resolved until the Muslims invade in 614 AD.

* Ability to control opponents -- moderate.


Expansion

The UN membership has grown, but not through the efforts of the Security Council.

Individual members of the Security Council have not expanded their territorial ranges through any move of the SC. In fact, their territorial control has lessened (example: the fragmentation of the USSR into a dozen and more little states.)

* expansion ability for the benefit of the SC members -- nonexistant.


Lineage of Successors With The Same Ideology

The five permanent members have seen constant changes in their leadership and the ideological polarity of the leaders.

The five permanent members don't control who is voted into the non-permanent seats on the council -- and as a result we get a real hodge-podge of members, with the ones who have been there the longest getting the most slots as members of the Security Council: en.wikipedia.org...

Very few of those countries have a permanent line of succession, and even governments of the permanent members can be overthrown.

* lineage of succession - none

Scorecard of World Domination

Three scores of "no power" and one of "moderate power" -- and the US under Bush and other Republicans has been threatening to leave the UN. They haven't been able to make the US pay its membership dues.

Verdict: The Security council has none of the traits of the proposed New World order.


A Return To Previous Points

To answer some previous points that you felt were inadequately addressed:



If you'll check ORIGINAL sources, you'll find this is a somewhat overblown statement.

It doesn't appear in the charter for the League of Nations (full text is here: www.rmc.ca... ) and if you'll do some additional research in ORIGINAL sources, you'll find that there's little or no mention of the phrase, "new world order". Fourteen citations over a 20 year period hardly counts as "endlessly circulating." I think your sources are not going back to any original documents and may be misinterpreting things.

In debates it's essential to look at the original sources.


Woodrow Wilson

Your source was cherrypicking sentences out of context. The full text of the ORIGINAL Wilson speech is here: wwi.lib.byu.edu...

He never says "new world order" and is in fact talking to Congress only -- he is not addressing other world leaders. Although he mentions other peace conferences and makes supportive noises about world peace in many other speeches, the resulting League of Nations is accounted a failure.

Wilson was a Democrat. His short-lived successor, Harding, was a Repulican who ran on a campaign of isolationism and he was followed by two-termer Calvin Coolidge who was reluctant to enter foreign alliances and saw that his election meant the people of the US rejected the idea of the League of Nations. Hoover also refused to get involved in other nations. They're rejecting group manipulation of the world, not forming the power bloc of the future Security Council.

The identification of Sumner Welles is interesting because he actually had no power base and ended up being ousted after only a few years on the grounds that he was homosexual. The concept of him as a major power broker really doesn't hold up, and his later writings are not about the need to form a world-controlling organization. It looks like the only reason he was included is because he wrote the phrase "new world order" one time. That's not convincing.

Further points

My opponent said:


...which was not actually supported by any of his successors. Had he been forming a New World Order, the successors (manipulated by the power structure from within) would have been quick to move and control the League of Nations.




And, as you conceded in your initial post, this was not implemented or supported by the governments.

Final point
You still haven't established that the members of the Security council (I'm assuming you mean the five permanent members) have been working together from the beginning, that the Security Council has dominated and eliminated dissenters, that the Security Council controls vast power blocs in many nations, that the Security Council has a lineage of successors within each state and controls who sits on the non-permanent states, and makes moves that cannot be blocked by the United Nations itself.




[edit on 10-1-2008 by chissler]

I am sorry for keeping my opponent and the readers waiting. I will forfeit this reply. My opponent may continue her argument and I will make my next post promptly.
(stars awarded to this post will not be counted)

To continue, then...

My esteemed opponent hasn't actually made the case that "the powers that be" (i.e., the Security Council which is actually the New World Order) have ever acted in agreement over issues of substance (such as who owns what territory) and have not even had governments with a consistent ideology ruling them during the time that the UN has been in existence. Laws and social systems change constantly, and no real progress has or can be made toward "owning the world" with that kind of inconsistent power base.

Two of the permanent members of the council and a number of the elected members of the council have had their governments overthrown by rebel groups. Political and ideological views of the leaders swing from liberal (Democrat/Whig/Labour) to conservative (Tory/Republican) and back again, with no "line of rulership."

Let's look what the NWO is

en.wikipedia.org...(conspiracy)

None of them (permanent or temporary) have managed to social engineer anything into their own people. People do not behave as though they're mind controlled (thought control can be found in rigidly structured societies with complicated systems of taboo and an extreme distrust of other people -- like a cult.) While we might say that our recent news is full of fear based propaganda, one only has to look at news from other sources to see that much of the sensationalist fear-mongering news is a product of the American taste in news and not necessarily a global one.

As for the Security Council and its members, they never actually held the power required for a NWO.

In the past there were some good candidates that could have been labeled the "NWO" of that time. This includes the Catholic Church (which could manipulate rulers and marriages in many countries until the Protestant Reformation and King Henry broke away from their grip), the Roman empire, the Ottoman empire -- Wikipedia has a list of the largest ones here, and it makes interesting reading: en.wikipedia.org...

Several contenders on that list which COULD have, under the right conditions, actually become a global government that controlled the world as it was known to them at the time.

Many of the others on that list were the product of one or two great warlords (like Charlemagne, Temujin, or Alexander) and fell apart within 100 years of the great leader's death. There was a quick land grab, a system of communication, but no strong lineage of succession and the subchiefs and subcommanders often disagreed about who should be in power. Essentially, they were overextended with their resources and internal squabbling destroyed the leadership.

Long lasting empires had different strategies. They didn't overextend themselves with conquests, and they established a line of rulers (by marriage or adoption.) The conquered people became citizens of the empire and started training them in the culture of the empire -- learning to farm and weave and raise things that the Empire found important.

The Spanish had a very successful variation of that, where native peoples were enslaved -- as indentured servants. Once they had been reeducated to speak Spanish and learned the culture, learned to farm the way the Spanish did and to raise European crops and animals, and had worked for the missions for a number of years, they could then become freed men and take their place in Spanish society. This is why the Spanish were able to almost completely eradicate the culture of the Native Americans throughout the Americas and why they didn't have the extreme revolts and military actions that the United States (with its policy of sending "little brown brother" off to the reservation because he wasn't fit to associate with civilization) had.

Forcing culture and religion on a people was the most successful way of establishing a stable and functioning and long-lasting empire. If you have a rigid class system and limit education and promote an "official" national religion, you have a fairly controllable population in your hands. Allow them to move around freely from city to city, allow them to transition to other classes (without a rigid caste system), allow them freedom of religion and from religion, and allow them to become highly educated and you have a people who can be governed by their own consent but who can't be controlled by government.

We see this today in many areas of the world where people become educated to the idea of voting for governments and reforms and when the voice of the people is ignored then you have riots and civil unrest and wars. As the world becomes more educated and local solutions are demanded by peoples and cultures, the ability of one group to dominate the world becomes far less possible.

So the SC (and the UN, for that matter), in emphasizing education and economic growth and communication and the rights of groups to determine their own leaders is actually acting against any possible NWO. An NWO would need a single "slave" culture with a very rigid and uncrossable caste system where only the elite could be educated and where the government defined what was acceptable in music and art and culture and religion and any variants are destroyed and anyone who didn't belong to the state religion was executed or reeducated. The Communists tried this (and in the case of China, combined it with executing or imprisoning and reeducating the intellectuals) and it simply doesn't work.

So my opponent's point isn't proven (the burden of proof is on him), and I maintain that in fact the SC and UN's actions make it less possible for any NWO to exist.


------------------------------------

On a scholarly note, people interested in world cooperation or domination might enjoy reading up on some of the studies that have been done. Wikipedia gives a review of some of the proposed global domination strategies (en.wikipedia.org...), but game theory in respect to social models shows these ideas to be fairly naive and unworkable. A good place to begin reading about game theory is here: en.wikipedia.org... The links will take you to pages that will also discuss some of the core theory behind political studies, studies of power, and the like.



[edit on 10-1-2008 by chissler]

Now that the unfortunate lull in this debate has passed, let's put this question to bed.

Relevant Points So far

What is the New World Order?

I have shown you that the term New World Order was coined to describe the effort at a World governing body which became the League of Nations and later the UN. My opponent's only challenge to this is that it doesn't appear in the official documents. She does not cite a different origin, and in fact, in her first post, she has attributed discussion of what the New World Order should be to people I had already pointed out as members of the conspiracy I am describing. It is a response without a rebuttal- a feeble attempt to appear to be arguing while being careful not to explicitly contradict the truth which I have laid out.
My opponent has even gone so far as to claim that it is unscholarly to discount the idea that shape-shifting reptilians, rather than humans who have built an international governing body and openly spoken about the New World Order, might be the architects of the true New World Order. There is no serious argument here.

• So, if there is ANY New World Order, it is the United Nations.

Is the United Nations Acting like a New World Order?
*Sub Question 1: What does a New World Order Act Like?
I showed you a speech from Woodrow Wilson in which he explained the motives this "Community of Power" as he put it. President Wilson said that My opponent claims that I accessed a bad version of Wilson's speech, and the he never said these things. As proof she offers the text of Wilson's speech to Congress on January 8th 1918. My opponent must not have known that Wilson gave more than one speech to congress while he was president. I clearly cited in my second post that the speech I was quoting was given on January 22nd, 1917. Again my opponent presents no direct contradiction. She skirts the issue, offering unrelated comments as a faux defense. There is no actual conflict between my statement and her challenge to it.

• The Goal of the New World Order is to establish a permanent and stable world-wide power structure, to avoid the disturbances which plagued the previous ballance of power system.
  
  *Sub Question 2: Did the UN attempt to establish a permanent and stable world-wide power structure?
  My opponent has generously provided us with criteria by which to determine whether or not the UN has done this. Let us apply it:
  
  In each case, the "dominator" (group, family, or individual) moves quickly during the first part of the campaign. Individuals and groups that present a threat are quickly taken care of
  
  
  The predecessor the UN, the League of Nations, was formed as a result of WWI, in which the Entente powers virtually wiped two major empires off of the map (The Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary) and cut the third (Germany) off at the knees. The UN, the second attempt at a New World Order, was brought about by WWII, in which Germany was again laid low and Japan, formerly an ally and fast-rising formidable nation, was demilitarized and placed under occupation.
  
  
  placing allies and family members (sometimes unwilling ones) in key positions (such as the de Medicis controlling the papacy.)
  
  
  Ah, there's an interesting requirement. Let's see if either one of the attempts at a New World Order made changes to who held key positions:
  Before After
  Look at all those new countries with all those new rulers. And let's not forget about the Middle East and the later ressurection of Israel after more than a millenium of extinction.
  
  My opponent says they failed to build a base of power in their organization, but I see the number of European nations being grossly inflated to ensure a euro-centric organization.
  My opponent also fails to mention that originally there were only 6 non-permanent members of the security council, meaning that the permanent members only needed the approval of 1 other nation to go ahead with their plans. Originally 1 of the elected non-permanent members was always a member of the British Commonwealth, making the non-elected members a rubber-stamp link.
  
  • Ability to dominate: Strong
    
  • Ability to eliminate opponents: Very Strong
  
  
  
• Sub Question 3: Did the UN use its power to the benefit of the permanent members of the Security Council?
  1. It's predecessor, the League of Nations, gave Britain and France control of the Middle East.
  2. It gave America and The Republic of China the ability to send not only their own forces but international forces into Korea. This preserved South Korea, which was built into a lucrative exporter for America's benefit and also served as an opportunity to undermine the upstart PRC without engaging in a land war on the main part of the Asian continent. Even Russia, supposedly a disagreeable member and evidence of a lack of unity, bit its tongue and allowed this to happen rather than using the veto. (My opponent drastically overstates the relevant number of vetoes by including all vetoes up to present, but the majority of those vetoes took place during the cold war, after the splintering of the NWO conspirators, which, my opponent still feels to realize, is a part of my position.
  3. My opponent claims that it obviously did not benefit the permanent members becuause there was no line of succession. My opponent completely ignored my earlier rebuttal of this argument, in which I pointed out that despite the civil war in China, the Nationalist Chinese were the only Chinese government in the UN, were the only one recognized by the majority of nations, and were under the leadership of ONE MAN for about the first thirty years. She claims that none of Wilson's successors used the "community of power"- maybe my opponent thinks that Wilson was still president during the Korean War.
  4. My opponent even ridiculously claims that the fact that we elect new leaders periodically means that there isn't a line of succession. I am curious how my opponent explains the fact that 2008 is the first time in 80 years that the US has had an election without an incumbent, and even then, one of the leading candidates is someone who has already spent 8 years in the White House. I would also encourage my opponent to have a look at ATS Government Revolving Door Research Project
  
  • Ability to Benefit: Medium (due to the weaknesses that began to emerge as the group splintered)
    
  • Line of Succession: Strong
  
  
  Final Answer: The UN indeed began working as a New World Order.
  
  
  I will not belabor the point which my opponent has not argued against, that point being that the group splintered and fell into regional division of power. I explained that in my 1st post and my opponent never raised an argument with it. The failure of the Korean War and the persistence of communism in China emboldened the Russians and brought them out of submission to the other conspirators, triggering the Cold War, which resulted in splits between the other members as well such as in the Suez Crisis. That has resulted in some weakening of the structure (the eventual loss of the Commonwealth seat on the security council, the recognition of the Peoples Republic of China rather than the Republic of China by the UN, etc.) Whatever the failures however, the origins are the most relevant portion because they are what determine the intent and nature of the UN. The later events support the second part of my position: the splintering.

Rebuttals and challenges



In your original thesis, you stated that the Security Council was THE New World Order; the world powers who are conspiring to rule the world autonomously and strip every country of their leadership while removing checks and balances on their own power. When challenged to prove that they are THE one and only NWO, you simply dismiss other claims as "not serious."

But we haven't seen a chain of evidence that leads conclusively to "The Security Council is conspiring to rule the world autonomously." While the history of the UN and League of Nations is interesting, it's the actions of the Security Council as NWO that we are presumably focusing on. You seem to consider the "Security Council" to be the five permanent members, but any study of the history of this body shows how much influence the elected members can have.



The speech he gave on January 22nd ( www.presidency.ucsb.edu... ) isn't a very solid prop for the claim that the Security Council is the NWO. At this point in history, America is NOT involved in WW I so he is speaking as a neutral negotiating party who wants to get the opposing sides to sit and talk instead of fight. He turns to the theme that in order for there to be lasting world peace there must be equality between nations -- a theme that he returns to again and again in his speeches.

Equality between nations is not a trait of the NWO. The NWO's purpose (to reprise Orwell's "1984" is "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others."



Sub Question 2


We have a saying in Texas: "Dance with the one what brung ya." Your thesis statement is that the Security Council is the NWO -- not the UN. While your points about the UN are interesting and thoughtful, they don't apply to the body that you've identified as the NWO: the Security Council.



I believe that if you go back and look at what happens as nations join the UN and apply for terms on the Security Council that you will find it is increasingly less dominated by the European viewpoint... as is the whole of the UN.

While you state that this is a very strong and powerful move on their part, I think that more detailed studies show that this very move strips power from the original member states.

Your argument about the League of Nations as a predecessor for the Security Council members is a weak one, given that their equivalent of the Security Council had four members -- who went to war against each other. At the end of WWII, only 2 of those were placed into the Security Council and they had to share power with 4 other members.

This is not acquisition and control of power.

For the remainder of the argument, you switch between actions of "the UN as NWO" and "the Security Council as NWO" without ever establishing that the Security Council controls and overrides the UN. You haven't addressed the bulk of the Security Council's actions which are usually calls for investigations and calls for the battling forces to sit down and talk peace. Nor do you prove that the SC compels groups to make permanent peace even when the recommendation is unanimous.


Correlations


"Dance with the one what brung ya," please.

If you intends to support the idea of the Security Council as the NWO, then the question needs to be restated: "Did the SC compel the UN to vote to benefit them." One selected example doesn't prove your point. You needs to show a larger pattern of the SC acting consistently and unilaterally and then compelling the UN to force nations to bow to their will.



My esteemed opponent seems to forget that the Security Council is not made up of one country. One member's lock on its government does not mean that all the members (including non-permanent members) of the Security council had a single ruler for the entire time.



My opponent seems to argue from the standpoint that the US is the sole member of the Security Council and that the Republicans never ever overturned any laws or acts put forth by the Democrats. This stance isn't supported by the evidence and ignores the governments of the other members of the Security Council.





While this may my opponent's final answer, it wasn't his theme statement. The Security council is NOT the UN -- just as the Joint Chiefs of Staff are NOT the US government.

He has not proven his opening statement, much less his opening argument.

Some animals were more equal than others in Animal Farm, not 1984. I bring this up because it really captures the essence of my opponent's position. My opponent's entire argument is based on half-accurate history and a poor understanding of politics, taken out of context and used to shore up the shallow facade that governments present to the general public.

The UN Security Council is the only organ of the UN which can undertake the use of force, but my opponent wants to ignore that and talk about the General Assembly and the petty bureaucracies instead.

At its inception, the Security Council could be directed by the agreement of the 5 permanent members and a single Common Wealth nation, but my opponent wants to talk about the later enlargement of the elected portion of the council.

The security council took the UN in Korea and fought against the People's Republic of China for years, but my opponent wants to talk about minor border disputes.

A group of wealthy and politically powerful men who said they wanted to create a global federation were behind the foundation of the Round Table, the CFR, the League of Nations, and its successor, the United Nations, within which the Security Council is the most powerful organ, but my opponent wants to talk about shape-shifting reptilian aliens (And my opponent is right: I'm not taking that possibility seriously. Here in California we don't dance with intergalactic evil lizards just because an old saying tells us to).


So let's recap :
There's this bunch of imperialist weasels pondering how to bring glory and stability to their precious empires. People like Cecil Rhodes, Alice Bailey, Lionel Curtis, Edward House, et al.

And what do they get to talking about? They get to talking about this glorious global government that's going to end war, bring order and unity, and christianize the heathens.

What do they do about it? They start the Rhodes Milner Round Table, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Royal Institute of International Affairs- which unlike political parties, never get voted out of power, but are constant influences in the US and UK.

What comes next, but lo and behold, Queen Victoria's grandkids get together to play war... with real soldiers. And when the smoke clears in the "war to end all wars" what have we got but the worlds first attempt at an governing authority- and as my opponent points out, the defeated nation gets to be on that organizations equivalent to the Security Council (According to my opponent that's evidence against a conspiracy???). Note that this makes the House of Windsor conspiracy theory not an alternative that I must contend against but part of the very same conspiracy I've been talking about.

And the very same US Administration that pushed that idea is also behind The Federal Reserve and the income tax, not to mention the manifestation of the Military Industrial Complex as an actual government agency: the War Industries Board (where the Bush dynasty began its rise to the top, I might add). What a remarkable coincidence.

What does that organization do? It gives the Middle East to France and Britain. Britain, pledges part of it's cut to the zionists (oh look, again one of those "alternate theories" turns out to be just another part of this conspiracy).

But the US is kept out of the league by isolationists and the first organization isn't quite powerful enough, and the communists, although they are playing ball, are a bit of a nuissance. By happy coincidence, our shiney new Fed fails to protect us from a fortuitously timed economic collapse, which precipitates another war.

When the war is over, we've got a new international organization, with a security council that can go to war as long as America, Russia, Britain, France, Nationalist China, and one Common Wealth nation can agree on it. This organization gets right to the business of making the world safe for the chosen empires, creating the state of Israel, and dividing up the global economy among themselves.

It goes according to plan for about 8 years, until the Communist Chinese prove that the body can be defied, and that leads Russia to begin testing its ability to fulfill its own ambitions. The subsequent escalation of the cold war fractures the organization, leading to the current division which my opponent has made so much mention of.

If a group of men say they want a duck, and they do what is necessary to obtain a duck, and soon after they are seen with an animal that has webbed feet and a bill. Then the animal dies.

Are you gonna come along and say, "well that dead animal there can't be a duck, because it doesn't quack anymore", and besides, I just saw a duck somewhere else, and there can't be more than one manifestation of the duck species"?

They said they wanted a New World Order, they described what it would be, they founded an organization and said that was going to be there new world order, it acted like a New World Order for a few years, and then it broke down. Now you come along and say, "that can't be a new world order because it doesn't act like one anymore, and besides, isn't something else the New World Order- there can't be more than one representation of the NWO".

While the argument that the Security Council acts as the "New World Order" is interesting, it simply isn't supportable unless you cherry pick over the evidence, choosing some actions and some statements and a few links and ignoring everything else. The idea of the Security Council as a tail that wags the dog is overturned by simply looking at the actions taken by the council and then by the UN and what happens in the world as a consequence.

It also ignores the real attempts at bringing about the "New World Order" and the last and strongest attempt -- the British Empire. Unlike Great Britain, the Security Council members don't act for each others' benefit in any significant way and in fact have frequently vetoed actions by other members. Unlike the British Empire, the Security Council hasn't compelled a single set of laws for the member countries and for the United Nations, or even forced a single set of language and political standards on any other countries. To date, they can't even force each other to obey international copyright laws or cooperate in matters of international crime -- unlike the British Empire, which could and did enforce rules and regulation on its captured states.

From the very beginning, the members of the Security Council have spied on each other, have created incidents against each other, and have individuallly manipulated other leaders and countries to act against other members of the council and their allies. No true "NWO" would play such games against its power blocs, because that forces them to waste resources and people on one another. What we see in the struggles of the Security Council against itself mirrors the struggles of the superpowers of the Age of Exploration, when England challenged Spain and France for control of new lands and the ocean -- those three superpowers didn't act together, but rather fought and spied and plotted against each other until two of them were weakened to the point where the third could start to take over.

Playing "pin the tail on the NWO" and fingering multiple nation organizations tends to blind the observer to the rise of real single-nation threats and economic superpowers. Different nations with different languages and different laws will always have separate agendas. Those who are new to studies of the NWO should take time to read the histories of the superpowers of earlier ages to see how they grabbed power and established it. Power arises from power, not from internal bickering. The chances of the Security Council becoming a monolithic world ruling government are about as likely as my dear state of Texas taking over the United States and forcing all the other states to send their revenue to Texas while forcing western drawls, boot-scootin', yee-haws, and Texas style politics on rest of the United States.

Wow...

This debate has closed and I have counted the stars (several times) and it would appear that we have a tie.

I've counted the number of stars as follows:

The Vagabond: 59 stars

Byrd: 59 stars



Edit: I've counted four more times, and it is definitely 59-59.

(If someone comes along and counts afterwards, the total may be different as a member can star a post in the meantime. But at this point, 4:02pm EST 01/29/08, it is 59-59.)


[edit on 29-1-2008 by chissler]

reply to post by chissler

---

coincidence or set-up?

This debate was a tossup for me as well....I'm happy to see the current star count reflect it....though I do have a few more...

In my opinion, the debate strayed from the actual topic...

...more later...I'm at work...

I saw it slightly in TheVagabond's favor throughout however Byrd managed to rally a few times....

I kind of agree with memoryshock about straying off topic, but I think it was more like my debate with TheVagabond... A lot of time was spent defining and arguing the various NWO definitions and who was applicable.

Interesting read....

Sorry Byrd, but I had TheVagabond the winner at the end...

Semper

Wow, my last two debates have ended up with tied star counts. Talk about a great field of competition we've got around here these days.

I suppose that means we split the 2 point victory award, 1 each?

I had each of you ahead, at different points, but those differences evened out in the end.

Great work you two. Now, can you both move your brains over some, so I can get back out of the debate room doorway?

Question:

I usually wait for 'post and rebuttal' before voting on either. Just wondering how others do it.

Second Question:

Tom , do you ever sleep??

[edit on 29-1-2008 by Jbird]

reply to post by Jbird

---

Kind of. I don't like to.

reply to post by The Vagabond

---

Personally, I think you both should walk away from this with 2 points.

I can see why you would only take 1 a piece, but I would have no objections to both of you taking what I feel you both have earned.

This sums it up for me. Vagabond had a tough road to prove his position and, ultimately, despite the brilliant counterarguements I would have to give it slightly to Bryd....



Byrd was arguing that the NWO hadn't splintered...and seeing as how the dispute centered on whether or not there was an NWO, Byrd was closer to her original position...

Just my two cents...it was a great debate on both sides...



[edit on 29-1-2008 by MemoryShock]