Buy our new album “A Brief Crack Of Light” on CD or limited edition vinyl at Amazon.co.uk, or direct from Global Music

The ‘New World Order’ - Discuss.

#

Started by mrs h in Chit-Chat

*Carries on from the university thread*

mr self destruct wrote:

He made an absurd ill-informed statement, I can ask him any question I like!

Of course you can, but it was a really complicated question and he had made it clear he wasn’t going to answer it. Also you were coming across quite aggressive, which I would have thought was counter-productive.

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 13:13

You’re viewing replies 1–30 of 247 by 16 people

·

Page: First | Previous | | Last

#1

g (Does everything start with destruction?) wrote:

In sams defense Tubthumper was showing himself to be a bit sheepish by outright claiming there was no possibility of something he’s unlikely done any research in, mr SD was meerly trying to see if Scott actually knew anything about what he was dismissing as far as I can see which I believe to be fair game.

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 13:16

#2

mrs h wrote:

mr self destruct wrote:

I’m also very surprised mrs h that you are defending someone who makes sweeping proclamations without any thought, reason or evidence behind them…actually, perhaps I’m not that surprised

I wasn’t defending or attacking anyone.

@Gimme - people do that all the time with religion. How much research have you done into looking for evidence of God? Some people are as certain in their knowledge that there is a God as other people are certain in their knowledge that there isn’t. it’s not something that you are ever going to be able to prove or disprove in a debate, and neither is this.

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 13:23

#3

msd wrote:

I object to the inclusion of the word “conspiracy” in the thread title…which is being used in typically derisive and il-informed manner…I am perfectly happy to provide evidence that it is a fact that a group of the elite want to implement a one world government and that they have on many occasions referred to this entity as the “new world order” and “new global order”.

I am not interested in conversing with closed-minded people who say that something doesn’t exist without knowing anything about the subject or even being prepared to look into, as that’s just DUMB.

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 13:23

#4

g (Does everything start with destruction?) wrote:

mrs h wrote:

@Gimme - people do that all the time with religion. How much research have you done into looking for evidence of God? Some people are as certain in their knowledge that there is a God as other people are certain in their knowledge that there isn’t. it’s not something that you are ever going to be able to prove or disprove in a debate, and neither is this.

Thats a sign of how screwed up society is, you shouldnt have to prove that god doesnt exist, people who believe should be the ones proving that the concept does exist.

I mean take scientology people laugh at how stupid their beliefs are, but theyre equally as stupid as christianity in my opinion.

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 13:25 in reply to an earlier post

#5

mrs h wrote:

Good point. But the ‘New World Order’ is predicted in the Bible, does that mean it’s not true?

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 13:29

#6

msd wrote:

Let’s get this right - leaders have used the term “new world order” on many occasions and have also referred to wanting global government, but in your opinion the new world order is a conspiracy and they are not actually talking about a new world order in the sense of meaning a one world government…

I think you need to define New World Order…as far as I can see I’m the only one who’s done it, Tubthumper certainly didn’t even though he is absolutely certain “it” doesn’t exist! Sounds to me like he is simply repeating an opinion he has heard without even knowing what he’s actually denying!

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 13:34

#7

g (Does everything start with destruction?) wrote:

In a way tubthumpers right, ‘it doesnt exist’… yet. but the foundation is there.

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 13:37

#8

Gav wrote:

mrs h wrote:

Some people are as certain in their knowledge that there is a God as other people are certain in their knowledge that there isn’t. it’s not something that you are ever going to be able to prove or disprove in a debate, and neither is this.

On the contrary - If there was a god - people wouldn’t be discussing Limp Fucking Bizkit in a Faith No More thread.

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 13:40 in reply to an earlier post

#9

mrs h wrote:

I haven’t given my opinion, but I did give a brief definition of New World Order in the university thread.

My understanding is that it is about acknowledging that we don’t have the same presence in the world as we did when there was a British Empire, and that the USA isn’t going to be the no 1 superpower, that’s going to be China very soon, and that the whole world has a responsibility to look at political issues such as third world poverty and climate change. We cannot carry on in the way we are going - we (Britain) don’t have the same authority that we have had throughout history and if we don’t persuade China to take on the ideas of democracy, liberty and freedom of speech right now then we are going to be up shit creek without a paddle when we don’t have any credibility or influence anymore, as they are perfectly capable of destroying the planet and the economy on their own. If we don’t look at how we are going to look after Africa and deal with North Korea and so on and so on then soon it will be none of our business and China will do it however it likes. And with their track record on human rights and civil liberties I don’t fancy that much.

Anyhow - back to work :(

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 13:47

#10

mrs h wrote:

deadsetgav wrote:

On the contrary - If there was a god - people wouldn’t be discussing Limp Fucking Bizkit in a Faith No More thread.

Maybe there is a God but he just doesn’t like you? :p

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 13:48 in reply to an earlier post

#11

Gav wrote:

I’d be suprised if he did - He doesn’t strike me as someone who likes a bit of healthy competition (with all that charlton heston commandments shit) ;)

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 13:50

#12

msd wrote:

mrs h wrote:

I haven’t given my opinion, but I did give a brief definition of New World Order in the university thread.

My understanding is that it is about acknowledging that we don’t have the same presence in the world as we did when there was a British Empire, and that the USA isn’t going to be the no 1 superpower, that’s going to be China very soon, and that the whole world has a responsibility to look at political issues such as third world poverty and climate change. We cannot carry on in the way we are going - we (Britain) don’t have the same authority that we have had throughout history and if we don’t persuade China to take on the ideas of democracy, liberty and freedom of speech right now then we are going to be up shit creek without a paddle when we don’t have any credibility or influence anymore, as they are perfectly capable of destroying the planet and the economy on their own. If we don’t look at how we are going to look after Africa and deal with North Korea and so on and so on then soon it will be none of our business and China will do it however it likes. And with their track record on human rights and civil liberties I don’t fancy that much.

Anyhow - back to work :(

If you think the New World Order agenda (which doesn’t exist of course) is about spreading civil liberties, human rights, and freedom of speech and not about power and control of resources then you are either having a laugh or being wildly naive!

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 13:55 in reply to an earlier post

#13

g (Does everything start with destruction?) wrote:

anyone ever seen joss whedons tv show firefly (later a movie called serenity was releasd to tie up loose ends) the premise of that is that china and the usa are the only power left in the world and they combine into one ‘alliance’ which presents itself as doing good for the people but has very sinister underlyings to it, well worth checking out

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 14:04

#14

msd wrote:

And can you not even see the absurdity of what you are saying? Human rights? Torturing people like the US and being complicit in torture like the UK, you mean? Freedom of speech? Ultra limited designated “free speech” zones, censorship and being branded a dissident if you dare to speak out against government corruption? Civil liberties? Monitored by cameras everywhere you go, all communications monitored, RFID chipped ID card coming soon? What a joke.

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 14:06

#15

zipless wrote:

And all in the name of God!

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 14:10

#16

zipless wrote:

PS: Did ya get my message, SD?

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 14:10

#17

Gav wrote:

On the subject of torture - I think it was in Brookers column, he hinted that the producers of the tv show 24 had some strong right wing political views, so much so, the story line for the show has been engineered to make torture of ‘terrorists/prisoners’ seem more acceptable and almost necessary, so they public are more sympathetic when their/our government are caught with their dirty little hands in it.

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 14:11

#18

Gav wrote:

Tortures bad, but hey, JackBaur has to do it sometimes, just to get the job done yeah? and he’s a good guy, he’s doing it for the right reasons yeah? And we are the good guys right? so it must be ok if, as a nation, we do it…

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 14:14

#19

Dennis (Dudley Less) wrote:

*wades into a debate he knows nothing about*

OK, so here is my take on the subject as an outsider who hasn’t read up on the politics of the matter.

I think that it is pretty obvious to anyone with half an ounce of “cynicism” (aka realism) in their being that the governments of super-powers have one motivational force, not the spreading of democracy or enforcement of the Human Rights Declaration or any such “let’s hold hands and make the world a better place” kind of thinking. It is all about Looking After Number One, meaning mostly to Get More Money. Of course, sometimes to Look After Number One you have to get into bed with the enemy or appear to be friends with other folk who have their eyes on the same dollar that you are chasing, but it is still motivated by selfishness.
I don’t believe that any structured group or conscious framework exists to deliberately cheat, lie and misinform their way into control, I believe instead that that’s what governments do anyway, only in a more haphazard way.
It’s very exciting to think that there are active, conspiring forcing driving underground cogs to manipulate the world at large, but I think the fact of the matter is that life is way less interesting than that and governments are just bigger, more powerful, richer fat cats at the top of bigger, more powerful, richer companies, and that what we see IS what we get, and that’s bad enough anyway, thank you very much.

But, like I say, maybe I am missing the point somewhat.

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 14:17

#20

marja (sinner) wrote:

I agree with dennis, just on one point I think it’s the other way around : the companies are the ones on top of the governments.

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 14:55

#21

msd wrote:

I agree with both of you, but you have to remember that there are people at the top of those corporations, therefore there are a relatively small number of people controlling the direction of the Western world. That IS the New World Order…

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 15:17

#22

Dennis (Dudley Less) wrote:

Yes I take your points, both of you.
I guess the people at the heads of the huge corporations ARE the ones in control, although I wouldn’t call it an “order” so much as a free-for-all amongst them all.

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 15:20

#23

Dennis (Dudley Less) wrote:

..although I admit there may be something slightly naive about this point of view of mine.

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 15:21

#24

msd wrote:

Do the research and you’ll find out it’s actually a small number of banking dynasties who control most of everything…the Rockefellers, the Rothchilds, the Warburgs, the Morgans to name four.

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 15:23

#25

hoochalobster (Sarah) Super Moderator wrote:

@Gav - recent Kiefer Sutherland interview about 24/ use of torture here that you might be interested in.

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 15:32

#26

Misanthropologist (d) wrote:

mr self destruct wrote:

I object to the inclusion of the word “conspiracy” in the thread title…which is being used in typically derisive and il-informed manner…I am perfectly happy to provide evidence that it is a fact that a group of the elite want to implement a one world government and that they have on many occasions referred to this entity as the “new world order” and “new global order”.

Then surely the word you should be objecting to is ‘theory’, which isn’t used in the title of the thread. If the elite you mention is actually made up of the people you say they are, and they want a NWO for the reasons you say they do, then how is it not a conspiracy?

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 16:10 in reply to an earlier post

Last edited by hoochalobster on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 20:50 (Corrected use of quotes)

#27

Misanthropologist’s post on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 16:10 was deleted by hoochalobster (Message to moderator)

#28

msd wrote:

That’s not what she meant, and you know it full well ;-)

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 16:17

#29

mrs h wrote:

It’s exactly what I meant. You are the one telling everyone there is a conspiracy so I don’t understand your objection. You have said a few times that you don’t like the phrase ‘conspiracy theory’ so I deliberately didn’t use it.

mr self destruct wrote:

If you think the New World Order agenda (which doesn’t exist of course) is about spreading civil liberties, human rights, and freedom of speech and not about power and control of resources then you are either having a laugh or being wildly naive!

I don’t think anything about “The New World Order Agenda’. I was simply answering your original question which was “why do you think various world leaders used the phrase ‘new world order’ ?”.

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 17:05

#30

msd wrote:

Wow, that’s a coincidence, because your daughter used the thread title first…did she mean the same as you as well?

Posted on Fri, 6 February 2009 at 17:15

You’re viewing replies 1–30 of 247 by 16 people

·

Page: First | Previous | | Last

and become a member of the message boards. Sign in if you’re already a member.