Really how the hell does anyone know there will be an NWO or there wont? Can you see into the future? If you tell me you can...ill call you a liar, and crazy.

The question isn't when, but if they exist at all.

Originally posted by Plasmamembrane
Thanks for your comments. I find them, however, rather idealistic and wraught with misconceptions.

Funny last time I checked "Idealistic" denotes something as it should be, but never will be because of course not even the Universe is "Ideal".

Also, last time I checked, what I was talking about is REALLY happening as opposed to "idealist".

This thread has become a table for argument between baboons. None of you really have a clue about world politics, you are all nationalists wondering why the hell your nation does not blow certain other nations out of the water.

I guess maybe those of us who think the NWO rules see the glass as half full compared to those who think not. It is interesting that in my city, there is a beautiful building downtown devoted to Freemasonary. It is weird, right in the middle of downtown on main street. Also, in China town there is a Freemasonary building. I had never noticed these before, but I assume this is where the people high up in our Government (canadian) go, because I know some people and I also know that they are free masons. I think the Free masons are evil, but that is my opinion.

Most Nazis were Christians too. Most Soviet officers were too. Does that make Christianity evil? Just because bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are Muslims, does that give us right to trash down on Islam?

I say no. Why do the Masons have to control everything, why not the Christian Church? Why not Islam?

Originally posted by RX84
"Most Nazis were Christians too. Most Soviet officers were too. Does that make Christianity evil?"

OK, why I am answering this is questionable. Let's play with the logic, which I am sure at some conscious level you are aware of, but you insist on asking rhetorical questions. Obviously, it does not make "Christianity" evil, since that would be a logical mistake, most notably, a hasty generalization, not to mention a cateogorical mistake of sorts. It does, however, make SOME Christians evil. If you don't think Nazi's were evil, then this discussion is over.

"Just because bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are Muslims, does that give us right to trash down on Islam?"

Your jumping around with your logical blunders and rhetorical questions again. From Canada's point of view, NO, since we did not support the war in Iraq when Jean was in office. Also, you know that things are much more complex over there. Muslims aside, Saddam was a Powerful man, Bin Laden had a collapsed relationship with the US, etc. Futhermore, if you know anything about the rules of war (i.e. the Geneva and Houge Conventions), there are conditions for when a force may pre-emptively strike. However, a detailed discussion about this is difficult, since there are various reasons why I think the US struck first, but hard to prove. Most notably for money and power, but here we go with my glass half full perspective.

"I say no. Why do the Masons have to control everything, why not the Christian Church? Why not Islam?"

The way I understand it, the Masons, the Christian Church, Islam, etc. are intertwined with the NWO, among others, but since our opinions on the NWO differ, the discussion can go not further.

I highly reccommend a book titled "The Arms of Krupp". It will make it apparent that the same world order that has always controled the world is still in control of the world. This is a hefty book and not an easy read, but well worth reading if you want to understand how it all works rather than accepting the sound bites of the internet. It leads you to the truth by following the money.

Obviously, it does not make "Christianity" evil, since that would be a logical mistake, most notably, a hasty generalization, not to mention a cateogorical mistake of sorts. It does, however, make SOME Christians evil. If you don't think Nazi's were evil, then this discussion is over.

The question I tried to ask you was: Why are the Masons evil? Have they done evil things to you, somebody you know? Just because Masons are doing their "rituals" in secret, and that some powerful men are members, does that make them evil? That's what I'm trying to ask.

What I'm trying to do is to ask people these questions to make them think. Obviously, what made Nazism evil was that they were racists, they killed millions of people, and that the German history was trashed and innocent children at that time brainwashed. What made the Soviets evil? They enslaved their own people, killed them, sent them to consentration camps to work, restricting free speach and other things.

People should be open minded and ask themselves "why?" Just because an internet site don't like them?

I'm not encouraging everyone to come out happy and love all Masons. Sure, they could very well be evil. But so can the Church and Islam too. People have right to distance themselves from something they don't know anything about. But it don't give them the right to talk BS about it.

What I was asking in this thread, or pointing out rather, is that the NWO is imaginary.

It is no different than the concept of a "Personified God". There is no actual evidence of a "Personified God". No one has seen him walking around, or smiting non-believers.

Neither has anyone seen any evidence of the NWO.

It is like saying that the sky is up above because Atlas holds it there.

In reality it is just "natural".

Lightning does not strike because Zeus hurls it at you.

Lightning is natural.

The World today was not constructed by a 300 year old cult of "super powerful smart people" who somehow make no mistakes and are hell bent on enslaving you.

It was created by natural processes to eliminate wars between the Great Powers.

Your most recent post makes a fair point, and I broadly agree with you, as I thought that I made clear earlier. The problem was in your first post where you stated

Originally posted by FreeMason
Our world today is what is called an "anarchic system of soveriegn states".

Well what does that mean?

Basically it means, each state is soveriegn and there is no higher authority

and this simply is not true. Organisations like the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation and the IMF all stand over sovereign nations, determining their economic interactions. For example, the WTO has recently declared that the US is in violation of international law for subsidising its Cotton industry. HOw much effect this will have on the US I could not say, but the WTO has enforced its decisions in Europe previoulsy. The UK was forced to break its trade links with the West Indies after a WTO decision on the banana trade, which was brought about by Latin American nations at the instigation of US fruit companies.
But you are right, there really is no NWO, but rather a system of interlocking economic organisations which have various powers over various terrirories. I feel that this is a better way of describing the situation, as it includes nations, which hold large powers over their territorial borders, and NGOs such as the IMF which holds little power over the western world, but dominates the economic policies of developing nations.

And there are not just those organizations, but international corporations too.

Originally posted by RX84
And there are not just those organizations, but international corporations too.

indeed. AND...... they are all ruled by the same little group of circle yerking meglomaniacs.
there are no countries. there are no organisations. there is just 'the corporation'(which, incidentally is as close to a real world satan as it gets).
there is most definitely a NWO, and it is no different than the OWO, as someone pointed out earlier. NWO is just a name to induce fear. fear is the mind killer. and who is behind the NWO? the freemasons? and 'freemason' says there is no NWO?

freemason, you is blind or is trying to blind everyone else. good luck, either way. god loves those who help themselves.

p.s. pattern recognition is a side effect of information overload. did the hidden hand plan that, freemason?

...... they are all ruled by the same little group of circle yerking meglomaniacs.

Then what is the point of having many corporations? All corporations have their own agenda. There are not just the Red Cross, there are also UNICEF, some other well-doing organization. There are many software writer corporations, game corporations etc. What is the reason of having all these if you can have just one? Wouldn't the supposed NWO gain more on this?

Each corporation has it's leaders, that's true. MicroSoft, EA, Eidos etc. But they have their own goals. Why would they give away money for something they won't even experience in their lives? Why should Bill Gates give away billions of dollars to a group, when he himself can't be there and rule the world among them?

there are no countries.

Yes, indeed. Not completely, but I believe we soon will live under open corporate states.

there are no organisations. there is just 'the corporation'(which, incidentally is as close to a real world satan as it gets).

What is this 'corporation'?

there is most definitely a NWO, and it is no different than the OWO, as someone pointed out earlier. NWO is just a name to induce fear. fear is the mind killer. and who is behind the NWO? the freemasons?

Oooh, the New World Order. What fear is this? What scares us the most?
Who is making all these conspiracy theories? The government? Who came up with the idea of MJ-12? The Illuminati? FEMA being a shadow government? The Masonic "signs wich you can find everywhere"? We did. People interested in new, amazing theories, not just the usual oil-making things, not just the usual corrupted president stuff, but secret organizations, aliens among us, doomsday, well just about everything.

They're making money out of your fear. They're making themselves famous because people believe their theories. Take Michael Moore brought up fear, and made his famous Bowling for Columbine documentary. He isn't just a normal person, trying to get the word out. It's already known that he disinformed with his documentary, some facts are wrong, and even that he himself are pretty rich, have a house and two cars. Does he seem to actually do something about the problems he spoke of in his documentary? I don't think so.

But if there are these organizations, and if there are people, ordinary people, trying to find out about the truth, then we won't hear about it. Because they won't make books, they won't make homepages, screaming about that they speak the truth and that you should buy their books for more info. Why? Because I believe when people find out about this stuff, they actually try to do something about it. And when their search is over, the world will hear about it. I guarantee you. It won't matter where you are, or what you are doing, because the truth, if it is what I think it may be, is enormous - gigantic. And that's how it is going to be like - a global revolution.

The problem is already there when you stand in a book store. $20 for a book who speak the truth. Yeah, wow, you may think. Now we can know what the world is all about, won't we? Wrong. The author obviously thinks that money is more important than the truth. How? Because you can't find out about anything if you don't buy the book. No money? Too bad! No truth for you!

Also, a thing you might know. What is the truth? Who OWNS it? You do. I do. Everyone in the world OWNS the truth. Our children do too. Our ancestors would too. Because that's public information. It's public info to know if humanity have ever recovered any alien spacecraft, if we have ever communicated with any being not from this world. We have the right to know what this and that organization does, who's involved, who's supporting it, where the money comes from, what it's going to be used on - because it is our money.

So next time you see a conspiracy book about anything - don't buy. You're buying something that belongs to you already.

and 'freemason' says there is no NWO?

We all have our opinions. There can be an "Illuminati-NWO" (one organization controlling everything", and there can also be the "corporate NWO", the one in wich many different organizations with different goals controls in one or another way.

freemason, you is blind or is trying to blind everyone else. good luck, either way. god loves those who help themselves.

What can you see that we can't? Examples?

*gets on soapbox*

The NWO isn't about shady people in the nation, it's about corporations. I can't even begin to tell you how much I dread the cyberpunk future we seem to be drifting towards, inch by inch.

Corporate power is astounding, especially in third world countries. in other places, corporation and organized crime are virtually indistingusihable. However bad it may appear here, look at both Russia and Japan. The yakuza and Vory have their hands way deep in the economy there. Rumors persist of a certain major electonics concern having the better part of its starting capital 'loaned' to it by the Yakuza.

That point aside, corporations already have far, far too much power. rights such as extraterritoriality, teh right to maintain an armed security force, etc. are turning mega/multinational corporations into nations unto themselves...without borders.

DE

Yog simply put you are wrong.

There is NO higher organization than the State. Israel is a great example, it does what it feels best to protect itself, not what the companies that make money in that region feel is best. Not what the World Bank feels is best and so forth.

The organizations you mentioned have a measure of power, but like anything, it is not the "only power". There is no higher authority than a State, in some cases that State is the supreme power in its territory.

Depends which State. The UK WAS obliged to break its trade links with the WEst Indies, which had been maintained due to common membership of the Commonwealth, by a WTO decision. However, I did concede that I was unsure about the WTOs ability to enforce any judgement against the US.
Looking at the 3rd world, the situation is much worse. Developing nations routinely have their internal economic policy dictated to them by the IMF. They do not have autonomy in these areas, if they wish to recieve the aid they require in order to continue to service their existing debt. And the attitude to the IMF in the developing world reflects this.
You may state that nations are autonomous as a matter of principle, and firmly believe it to be true, but that does not alter the fact that supra-national organisations like the WTO, the IMF and the World BAnk have previously flexed their muscle and required 'autonous' nations to get in line.
What I am willing to accept is that the capacity of nations to stand up to these organisations depends on their relative economic strength.

Also, I never said that any group was the 'only power' but rather that our current political and economic system was constituted by 'a system of interlocking economic organisations which have various powers over various terrirories.'

[edit on 29-6-2004 by Yog the Sloth]

The thing is also that some ordinary people prefer corporations, instead of their governments. This is because corporations don't have the same national rules, they don't have to obey any country's rules, wich is why they move around the world. Corporations thrive in a rich and successful country. A country with low taxes and cheap labour.

Wow RX84, you completely understand nothing about World Politics.

Companies don't have to adhere to a nation's rules? Sure they do, in the age of Empires it was Britain's law, now it is a mix.

Also Companies can be "nationalized".

No one in their right mind supports a company over a nation, at least not with our current world set-up.

Thank you... it's about time.

I've been waiting for someone from this section of the board to start acting like a normal human on this site ever since I joined back in January.

The NWO, is a bunch of bullcrap. It really is. I'm sorry to those of you who have put all of your time into it, but it's NOT real.

[edit on 2-7-2004 by Shugo]

Companies don't have to adhere to a nation's rules? Sure they do, in the age of Empires it was Britain's law, now it is a mix.

Yes, each nation has rules that must be followed. But if you have money, many things can be done to avoid and bend those rules. I'm not saying corporations are free to do exactly everything, but most things are open to them. Like the big oil companies... which have traces to the war in Iraq.

No one in their right mind supports a company over a nation, at least not with our current world set-up.

But the companies have all jobs, the states are loosing them.

Originally posted by RX84

Companies don't have to adhere to a nation's rules? Sure they do, in the age of Empires it was Britain's law, now it is a mix.

Yes, each nation has rules that must be followed. But if you have money, many things can be done to avoid and bend those rules.

Again, its a matter of relative economic power. BP has signed a deal with Turkey, over a pipeline which BP will be operating, which states that BP has no liability over spills. Instead, Turkey will have to foot the bill for any ecological disasters which might occur. BP have been able to bully or bribe Turkey into letting them off the hook.
Which does not mean I believe in the NWO.
I do however believe that there is some truth in some of the discussions around it.

Originally posted by RX84
And there are not just those organizations, but international corporations too.

Originally posted by Billybob indeed. AND...... they are all ruled by the same little group of circle yerking meglomaniacs.

There is a grain of truth behind this idea in C. Wright Mills idea of the Power Elite. In the '50s he did research into the backgrounds of the political, economic and military elites, who ran national government, large corporations, and were likely to be generals, and found that they all had a lot in common. They all went to the same schools, the same universities, were members of the same clubs (im talking gentlemen's clubs. NOt a dig at the masons). The marjority did, anyway, and there was actually very little chance of someone from outside this group, who had,say risen in the ranks of a large corporation to become a director. These individuals did exist, but they were very uncommon. Also, these individuals moved about from one company to the other, one insitution from the other.
This latter certainly remains true. Bush Jr., came from oil, to politics, and where d'you think he'll go when his time is up. Bush Sr., NOw works for the Carlyle Group. But then he sold so many weapons while in office, where else could he go. John Major found his way there as well. Cheney, Halliburton, and he still didnt sell the shares who's value he's been building all the time in office. Clintons Treasury minister, from Goldman Sachs to politics, to Citygroup. This is just the way it works. That does not mean that they are all conspiring, but it is a political and economic reality.
Also, the media are used against us, to try to direct the flow of our opinions. This was advocated by Walter Lippman, in the early 20th century, who at that stage had suggested that the media were good enough that it was possible to relegate the public to their appropriate role in society. They were to be spectators, who were provided with a false sense of involvement, by a concerted effort to persuade them to believe what the elite wanted them to believe. This remains a problematic effort, because the media is not yet entirely monolithic, and nor are the groups attempting to affect our opinions, but this has been a part of the political process through most of the last century, and it has been intensifying all the time.
Also, ostensibly public bodies such as the IMF and the Wrold Bank and WTO have arisen, which are totally opaque in their operation, and totally free from public scrutiny or involvement.
All of these aspects of contemporary society are things which taken together might easily produce the fear of the NWO. However, they are also true in and of themselves. They do not require a tiny cabal running the world to be true, they do however represent the disenfrachisement of the public in a quite intentional way by certain sections of the population.
The problem with the idea of the NWO is that it serves to distract from dealing with the real problems, except in so far as certain groups and practices are identified as being related to the NWO.