If we look at even just half of these quotes as correct...it's enough.
No, it is not enough. Only a credible verifiable source for each quote is enough, for without a credible source, how can your 'OP' be treated
seriously? You have done a disservice to yourself without checking the facts behind each quote, and for neglecting each quote's context. You weaken
your position right from the start, and leave yourself open to justified criticism.
If you'd have checked the source for each quote, you would have seen how weak it stands out of context, and perhaps then, you may not have used it?
I requoted the H.G. Wells quote as you included it, but I also quoted it as it appears in the book, and then I gave a link to the whole book online.
You should always treat your intended audience to accuracy of your claims, honesty in your zeal, and a truthfulness of content...on that score, you
I am no more certain of the actual existence of a NWO than I am of a man-in-the-moon, but the concept that is attributed to NWO plans is something I
can speak out against. Not simply because of what it is alleged it hopes to achieve, but more in the machinations by which it is said to seek its
ambitions and agendas...that is to say, the implementation of its ideological goals.
Whether it is a fabrication or not, it is important to understand what the NWO is or isn't? New World Order is a concept, not an organisation. It is a
vision that may or may not have been taken up by certain organisations that seek to implement and bring about their particular interpretation of it?
To some degree, the vision contains some elements I can agree with: one world government, one world military force, one world currency, etc, and the
implications of a finally united species it suggests. My concern is in the way such a vision might be implemented?
The nations of the world cannot be forced together, there are too many cultural differences, too many historical and ideological faultlines along
which cultures clash. Cultures need to find their own alliances (fraught with the dangers of conflict), they each need time to adjust to the presence
of another, to adapt to one another, and to create a history of co-operation and co-operative endeavour...that is how you repair the faultlines.
There is no doubt that our communications technology is helping to bring about a correspondence between disparate cultures. The internet is a global
forum, with almost instantaneous communications, it is where we all rub shoulders with each other. Firstly, with suspicion and distrust as each
culture seeks to maintain its own historical and cultural identity, but overtime, the one over-riding realisation that will arise from such
correspondence is the fact that we are all human, and that together, we all represent humanity. If we are to survive as a species, we have to
globalise our humanity as being the only true identity any of us possess. All other categories are faultlines.
We've only just begun this journey, its end may lie centuries into the future. The alternative is that we may very well squabble ourselves into
extinction (a very real possibility). If a NWO is to be realised, then let it be realised for the right reasons, with the benefits for all, equally
and fairly. We are not the 'playthings' of the 'few', nor are we 'cogs' in their machines, but equal partners deserving equally of the
edit on 12/12/12 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)