Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wolf

The New World Order Variety Hour

Recommended Posts

First and foremost, this may be a really bad idea.

However, seeing the inflammation caused by a side-discussion on the Obama thread, I thought that I'd start this train a-running here. I'm genuinely interested in what people variously believe regarding N.W.O. conspiracies/Illuminati conspiracies/Freemason, everything. I've got some thoughts of my own, but to preface this piece, I really have no experience with any of these conspiracy theories aside from playing Deus Ex once every two years and reading the occasional Pynchon novel.

When it comes down to it, there are two big flaws with the NWO issue, or what we can refer to more generally as the Question of Esoteric Governing Societies: one, it strikes me that, given what such a society would have to be capable of--broad-based political, economic, and even cultural action--and also, given that it would have to be conducting these activities whilst leaving behind no physical evidence whatsoever, and barely any mention or reference to, it strikes me that, almost by definition, they cannot exist. No organization could have such influence, or, at least enough influence to qualify as a NWO-class esoteric government, and remain so secret that we would be debating its existence on a thread on FED2k at 2:30 AM. Given that humans are inherently fallable, even high-degree Illuminati masters, eventually someone would slip up--some money would go missing, someone's black helicopter would crash, someone would lock himself out of the bunker. The questions of logistics alone are staggering--it's hard enough to have an army, but to have an army that is a serious threat by U.S. military standards and keep it secret forever seems really infeasible. So, that's (1), such societies are infeasible for these, and other reasons, many of them compelling our use of Occam's Razor as reference by Dante a few posts ago.

The other issue, as far as I can see, is that the very value of a secret, NWO-class esoteric government is seriously in question. Why bother? What's the value? The Bavarian Illuminati itself started out as basically a literary society, and for the most part, the "secret societies" that exist today are largely collegiate and professional social and drinking organizations. Eating societies at Princeton, various literary and eating clubs at Oxford, Skull and Bones at Yale, the fraternity system in general--many of these organizations take their secrecy extremely seriously, but in large part, serve no higher function than as a means of getting recent post-graduates jobs, and giving various classes of men a place to drink at away from their wives. The Freemasons, throughout most of their history in the U.S., served the same function as the American Legion or the Salvation Army--if a brother lost his house or his job, you pitched in and helped him out. But, suppose a group of learned, influential gentlemen committed themselves to creating a secret, world-ruling government. Why? Well, to rule the world, I guess, but there yet remains the important question: why not do it the normal way? What benefit accrues to you by doing it in secret?

This might go over a lot of people's heads, but bear with me--consider the logistics of the situation. Ask yourself how you would go about creating such an organization. The only income that such an organization could have and, yet remain secret, must be the legal accumulation of income and interest from savings of its members. Sort of like how the Westboro Baptist Church operates. This is all money that originates in the public sphere, and you can spend it by creating some front-company or hedge-fund or front-charity, but still, it's all money that you would have had anyway. Suppose that you and others coordinated each other's activities to maximize financial acquisitions and profits. So what? This is basically what Merrill Lynch does, or, rather, used to do, for itself (and we've just seen how questionable a tactic this is in the first place, even in the public sphere), in any case, this is all still an activity that could be conducted publicly. Ultimately, diverting funds away from public projects to your "secret society world" drains away purchasing power and financial influence that you otherwise would have had in the public sphere, i.e., the sphere you're trying to control. In other words, if you created a secret, NWO-style governing organization, you and your fellows would never have as much funding and influence than if you had simply left yourselves to playing the stock market, mergers and acquistions, and all the other things that normal executives do. I just don't see the benefit.

And, if you wanted to do things illegally, say, rackateering, intimidation, occasional murder, bribery of public officials, blackmail, well... I thought we already had a word for this, and it was "mafia?" Illegal activity, by definition, must be kept secret for its perpatrators to avoid experiencing justice. But, for an organization to conduct these sorts of activities, while meeting the high standards demanded by what we expect from an NWO-style society and yet remaining secret, seems even more infeasible than if they were to try to do it legally. Sure, various mafias have a lot of power in Russia and Mexico, but even there, where the rule of law is ruthlessly exploited and circumvented, these organizations do not have as much power or influence over the governments. Furthemore, their affairs largely ignore the activities of the every-day man, as, simply put, there's just no money to be made there.

In light of this, and in conclusion, anyone attempting to rule the world through a shadowy, NWO-style arrangement is basically running a hugely unprofitable, wholly unrecognized, and completely ineffectual charity organization. They get no respect, no love, and no recognition for what must be financial lossess on the order of hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars per annum. Even if they're trying to do it illegally. The only benefit to attempting this, as far as I can see, is to say that you, ahem, "rule the world," but since it's a secret, you'd have no one to say it to. Seems to me, at least.

*EDIT: In order to compel my belief and make me really scared, you're going to have to demonstrate to me the ultimate profitability of a secret world government beyond simply saying "our bases belong to them."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just have to say thank you for the idea. The Obama thread went way off topic of discussing Obama and his admin and I was skipping what everyone was posting because it was boring. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Are my ears supposed to be burning or something?)

And how do <b>you</b> feel about the income tax? ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, Hwi--If I thought the topic utterly worthless, I wouldn't have started the thread, now, would I?

As for the Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission/Bilderberg Group, I'd have to say that if there is any sort of "secret" organization attempting to influence global affairs, these would be it. Furthermore, I'd certainly acknowledge that no small number of our world leaders have been involved in these, and similar, organizations, and no small number of our world leaders have been members of others, perhaps not as influential, but equally as cabalistic organizations--George W. Bush and John Kerry both being members of Skull & Bones at Yale.

My issue here is merely that these organizations, as large, influential, and secretive as they are, still do not qualify as a "NWO" or "Secret World Government." At best these organizations are mere collections of a number of wealthy individuals' personal incomes, and, perhaps, coordinated national policy. But we've seen that the latter isn't even always a given--George Bush and Jacques Chirac wrangled invitations to the annual Bilderberg retreat in '03, but that still didn't stop the French from frustrating U.S. foreign policy. The CFR sort of behaves the same way, only, this drama is played out with internal U.S. politics. However, I'd note that the CFR is by far the most legitimate of these organizations, in the sense that they are committed--even largely in the public sphere--to coming up with creative solutions to world problems.

And as for the Trilateral Commission... well... it's no secret that John D. Rockefeller hated the United States Federal Government with all his little black heart. He was among the first, and certainly among the greatest Robber Barons, and among that community of individuals, say, circa 1920-40, you had the profound, intellectual notion that "the wealthy" had higher duties to preserve and to pursue various principles. Among them were things like, in John D.'s case, a world government where he couldn't be held accountable to U.S. Federal law, that he could have a hand in controlling. Far less noble (relatively speaking), the other "notions" these individuals pursued were things like scientific racism and various anti-immigration policies. It wasn't uncommon for the wealthy to come up with ridiculous ideas and attempt to execute them. It doesn't strike me as odd, then, that David--John D.'s only surviving grandchild--would inherit, if not similar views, then at least a similar methodology. However, the Rockefeller fortune isn't exactly what it used to be, and since the Carter years, I doubt the TC has had such a high level of influence in U.S. politics. Even then, just because a group of individuals all share membership in a certain club, it does not necessarily follow that it is the club that caused the influence--often, the other way around. For example, all but two signatories of the Declaration of Independence were involved in various orders of Freemasonry. Secret societies are a proud American tradition.

And besides, what influence do they have now? It seems to me that Warren Buffet probably has more money than all the current Trilateral Commission members combined, and Warren Buffet alone had a lot more of a hand in getting a President elected than the TC apparently did. Ultimately, Hwi, I don't disagree that these organizations are (1) secret, (2) committed to an agenda, and (3) made up of influential members or otherwise possessing influence, but I do disagree that these factors necessarily qualify them to be a coherent, effective and significant NWO-style organization or Full-Blown World Government. Consider that there are hundreds of thousands of these individuals, many of them more wealthy--such as Warren Buffet--who are not involved in these activities. If anything, these organizations are just a few of many influences that, when combined, make up the policies and activities we see conducted by governments and multinational corporations. That's chaotic, that's impossible to predict, and certainly impossible to control. If anything, I'd say these organizations help to make it impossible for a NWO-type organization to exist, as opposed to the other way around.

*EDIT: Also, seeing how that membership in the CFR and Trilaterial Commission is public knowledge, and, apparently, almost everyone in the upper echelons of power are in them, then I'd even go so far as to say that these organizations are less secretive and clandestine than you give them credit for. I mean, it's not en elite club if everyone is in it! And it's not a secret club if everyone knows who's in it! If I can find it out on the Internet, then it's not responsible for secretly running the world. I'm sorry, call me a "psuedo-intellectual" or a "snob" all you want, but you'll have to do better to convince me that it isn't my place to criticize these hallowed and majestic organizations' influence.

*EDIT #2: Though, this is some cool stuff:

"In his 1970 piece Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, Brzezinski argued that a coordinated policy among developed nations was necessary in order to counter global instability erupting from increasing economic inequality. Out of this thesis, Brzezinski co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, serving as director from 1973 to 1976. The Trilateral Commission is a group of prominent political and business leaders and academics primarily from the United States, Western Europe and Japan. Its purpose is to strengthen relations among the three most industrially advanced regions of the free world."

Yeah, if anything, these organizations only promote increased cooperation and collusion between Western Powers... and, if that's the case, then I'm going to point the finger more at NATO (which predates the Trilaterial Commission) or the EU, or the World War Two Anglo-American Alliance (which predates the Council on Foreign Relations). These organizations potentially are symptoms, not causes. Though, by now, probably a little bit of both. Still, far and away from Deus Ex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all good stuff, and I'm itching to address it all.

First and foremost--I could read through your last post and replace "Trilateral Commission," "Bilderberg Group" or "Council on Foreign Relations" with "NATO" or "The West" or "The United States and the European Union," and the meaning contained would be virtually identical. If there is an NWO, I think you've hit it right on the head Hwi, it is less a New World Order, and more a New Western Order. In other words, these three organizations (which I've known about for quite some time, incidentally, I recall seeing a documentary on the Bilderbergs or something to that effect on the History Channel when I was a young'n), have less to do with controlling the world and more to do with leading the West. I think that's a point you and I can both agree on--since you proved it, all I did was synthesize it. In any case, I think that, even without these organizations, there would still be massive amounts of collusion between Western leaders simply because... all their interests are aligned. As I said before, the organizations may not be the cause, but merely a symptom that's emblematic of the cause. That already partially debunks the NWO question I posed in starting this, but leads on to something far more interesting, if we are allowed to make such a departure.

And that more interesting thing is what you pointed out: the China Issue and the emergence of the BRIC (Brazil Russia India China, for the uninitiated) powers. What the hell happens with them? Well, there's a few things I want to point out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Combined, the United States and the European Union (this is excluding Canada, Australia and Japan, which are all top-10 and top-20 economies themselves), possess a combined annual GDP of over 30 trillion USD. That's quite a lot. How much? China recently surpassed Germany's GDP this year, who weighed in at around 3.32 trillion USD, China's anywhere between 3.2 and 3.3 T. Now, sure, China's growth in the last 10 years has been unprecedented, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that China will "surpass" the United States in as wee bit of time as a decade. Far from it, in fact, as the U.S. economy is still 5 times the size of the Chinese economy, and if we are to frame this as an East vs. West debate, China's economy is out-ranked a full 10 times by the Western Powers--excluding Japan (whose economy is nearly twice the size of China's), Australia, Canada, What Have You. Perhaps China will surpass the United States, economically, in 100 years, or perhaps as early as 50 years, but certainly not a decade, not unless things go terribly, terribly wrong. Furthermore, while job losses in the U.S. have been staggering as a result of the recession--somewhere on the order of 2-3 million lost--China has lost an unimaginable 20 million jobs solely as a result of the loss of U.S. manufacturing demand. They're hurting--bad.

So, don't sell yourself short, Hwi! You may not have debunked yourself just yet, you could very well argue that the entire current financial crisis was designed to widen the divide between the Haves and Have Nots (for the record, 1/3 of the world's millionaires are American, and the vast majority of the remainder are Europeans), and destroy some of the emerging BRIC countries.

But, dealing with the BRICs now... Brazil would probably side with the United States. There's a lot of value to regional alliances, and between Brazil, Mexico and Colombia--all very strong U.S. allies, and between them and the United States, house the vast majority of the population of the Americas--there probably will be some sort of Pan-American version of the EU formed in the next 50 years. Just my guess. But as for your far more interesting question, Hwi, of what happens between India and China... there, I'm actually predicting World War Three. India and China are far from natural allies, in fact, they've fought at least one major war since World War Two, and furthermore, they are competing for the exact same socioeconomic niche--they are both trying to be the manufacturing base of the West. Rather than seeing some sort of broad, Starlancer-style, Eastern Coalition form between the two, I actually think we may see the bloodest, most violent and lethal conflict in human history play out--and no Western Power will even be involved. Imagine that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody amazing, isn't it?

Dealing with the NWO specifically: it's bunk, it's claptrap, it's utter cock and bull. And in the interests of demonstrating why, I'm going to take one quote from each page of their website and discredit it to the extent that I am able and willing. Or at least, I'm going to do that until I get bored.

From the opening page:

There is a worldwide conspiracy being orchestrated by an extremely powerful and influential group of genetically-related individuals (at least at the highest echelons) which include many of the world's wealthiest people, top political leaders, and corporate elite, as well as members of the so-called Black Nobility of Europe (dominated by the British Crown) whose goal is to create a One World (fascist) Government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to their agenda. Their intention is to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by 5.5 Billion people. While the name New World Order is a term frequently used today when referring to this group, it's more useful to identify the principal organizations, institutions, and individuals who make up this vast interlocking spiderweb of elite conspirators.

The Illuminati is the oldest term commonly used to refer to the 13 bloodline families (and their offshoots) that make up a major portion of this controlling elite. Most members of the Illuminati are also members in the highest ranks of numerous secretive and occult societies which in many cases extend straight back into the ancient world. The upper levels of the tightly compartmentalized (need-to-know-basis) Illuminati structural pyramid include planning committees and organizations that the public has little or no knowledge of. The upper levels of the Illuminati pyramid include secretive committees with names such as: the Council of 3, the Council of 5, the Council of 7, the Council of 9, the Council of 13, the Council of 33, the Grand Druid Council, the Committee of 300 (also called the "Olympians") and the Committee of 500 among others.

Whee, off to a good start. Right, 'genetically related.' How closely are we talking here? Because if you go far enough, everyone is related to everybody. Sarah Palin can trace herself back to an ancestor of Princess Diana, and as was famously reported, Dick Cheney is distantly related to President Obama.

As I mentioned in my previous post (which you should read, if you haven't already), the Illuminat was a Bavarian society. According to that article, they were disbanded some time ago. Even if we accept the possibility that the society simply went underground, why would blood relations play a part? Why thirteen families? If the original society operated in cells that reported to a superior that they did not know, wouldn't blood relations harm this veil of secrecy? Most importantly, why would the British Royal Family play such a leading role if the society was founded by an anti-monarchist university professor?

Now you may think that the aforesaid founder has a connection to the royal family, and you're right. Ernest II of Saxe Gotha Altenburg granted asylum of sorts to Adam Weishaupt when the Illuminati were banned in Bavaria. Ernest (or Ernst) happens to be the great great great great great grandfather of Queen Elizabeth II. Not a direct line, I should point out. Ernest's granddaughter Louise married Ernst I of Saxe Coburg Saalfeld (yes, he was relatively distantly related to her) and their son Albert married his cousin, Queen Victoria. Victoria, as anyone with a basic grounding in European monarchy will know, was the matriarch of a huge family that spread to a great many royal circles. She was followed by King Edward VII, then George V, Edward VIII (abdicated), and George VI, the present queen's father.

So I suppose all that would be required would be for Ernest II to have been granted some sort of leadership role by the founder (which he supposedly was, Supervisor of Abessinien, which is odd for a revolutionary society, no?), which was then inherited by his son, his brother, his daughter, her son, his son, his son, his son, his brother, and his daughter. Through the Industrial Revolution, two world wars, a period when Ernest II's descendents were at war with each other, the destruction of the Russian branch of Victoria's family, not to mention the ending of Ernest II's direct line when Frederick IV died in 1885... etc. If this is blood loyalty, they're not doing a very good job of it.

I don't think I'm even going to make it to a second quote, you know. Ah well, we'll see. Now, I'll just skip to the obvious point and say that lack of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of something hidden. There is no credible evidence (in a quick google search) that Ernest passed on his role (and the evidence that he had it at all seems to be sketchy), that the Illuminati even survived to see the invention of the light bulb, that thirteen families control the world (if anyone does, it's either a lot more or a lot less), or that the royal family have anything to do with it. If they do, then their future looks bleak.

The Black Nobility then. Who are they? Apparantly, they're nobles of a certain extraction who were particularly mean to each other.

Gilles de Rais? Nope, John Paul II and Prince Charles.

Now seriously, as I said earlier, if you go back far enough, everyone is related to each other. If Sarah Palin can trace herself back to the line of Princess Diana, I'm reasonably sure that a few hundred other people can, if not many times more. We're talking about a series of families keeping power and secrecy within themselves for more than two hundred years. Consider how much Ernest's family alone branched, lost itself, fought, realigned, and you begin to get a sense of the logisitcal impossibilities.

Happily, I don't need to make generalisations like that. There is no evidence. Yay. Council of 300? What is this, Sparta?

From the page 'Orgone Generators':

The combination of organic material (cured fiberglass resin-a hydrocarbon compound) and metal chips provides a matrix which has the capacity to attract and capture orgone energy as Wilhelm Reich's research demonstrated in the 1930's/40's and discussed in Reich's book, The Cancer Biopathy.  Adding a crystal intensifies that process and allows you the opportunity to 'program' the crystal with your mind (and intentions) to direct that energy towards a specific task or goal. A developer of Radionic devices found that combining fiberglass resin with metal particles produced the orgone attractive-repulsive effect described by Wilhelm Reich and he dubbed this mixture "orgonite". I prefer to use the term "metal/resin matrix" to define the material more concisely. Carol Croft noticed that the human aura expanded when in close proximity to the metal/resin matrix and this led to the idea of adding this matrix to a Hulda Clark type zapper circuit which was termed the Terminator. I found that replacing the copper penny electrodes in the original Terminator  with pure silver discs would produce much less irritation and reddening of the skin. I call my spin-off variation The Mini Silver Terminator.

Do I really need to debunk this? I do? Well, lets go for the simple route.

- 'Hydrocarbon' is simply a substance that contains only hydrogen and carbon. Various additional molecules make this family extremely diverse and it possesses many branches. Examples include methane, benzene, ether, ethanol ('alcohol'), and a whole host of other derivatives and similar. There's nothing special about hydrocarbons, with the possible exception of their chemical diversity.

- 'Crystal' is any solid substance where the molecules are arranged in a uniform manner. This includes diamonds, emeralds, calcite, quartz, ice, silica... When you say 'a crystal' you might as well say 'an ice cube.' Even replacing the term with 'a precious stone' is useless, because they're all different. Suspending the disbelief in the magical properties of crystals for a moment, even believers (never say I don't do my research) say that different kinds will have different effects. And 'a crystal' is supposed to work, any old precious stone? Rubies are very different from tourmalines.

- Programming crystals with your mind? Find me a single reputable paper that proves that this is even possible.

- See point about crystals, but for metal chips. Seriously, there's alkaline metals, transition metals, alloys...

- Auras. Seriously. This is kind of a grey area for some people, but until it's widely accepted scientific fact, it ain't worth the paper that I'm not writing it on.

A 'home run' letter to the Editor:

Hi--I happened on to your page because of a link from RMN. I had never heard of Sylphs before, but strongly believe in the Elementals.

About a year ago--I was looking up at a heavy laying down of Chemtrails--I live in So. Oregon and I was just sad and started to cry. At that moment I heard (in my head) the thought--we can help you, but you have to ask--free-will we can't interfere. So I asked for this presence's help in clearing the sky of Chemtrails. Then I heard the voice say--we can help you (meaning all human "you") clear the chemtrails.

Although serious self doubt set in (and still does a year later even though it's confirmed time and time again) I tried what the voice suggested. I asked for guidance and help from The Mother/Father God/Goddess, Elementals and all Light Beings (or whatever it is a person believes in). I asked that the trails be broken up and cleared and that the negative biologicals and energy be transmuted and dissipated.

Voices in the head. You know, there's a reason why that's associated with insanity. The voices don't have an identity ("whatever it is a person believes in"), they are simply voices. In someone's head. I suppose I can't really disprove that, since the poor woman might actually be hearing voices, but without solid evidence, she can't prove that they aren't just figments.

Project Blue Beam:

The Big Space Show in the Sky

The second step in the NASA Blue Beam Project involves a gigantic 'space show' with three-dimensional optical holograms and sounds, laser projection of multiple holographic images to different parts of the world, each receiving a different image according to predominating regional national religious faith. This new 'god's' voice will be speaking in all languages. In order to understand that, we must study various secret services' research done in the last 25 years. The Soviet's have perfected an advanced computer, even exported them, and fed them with the minute physio-psychological particulars based on their studies of the anatomy and electromechanical composition of the human body, and the studies of the electrical, chemical and biological properties of the human brain. These computers were fed, as well, with the languages of all human cultures and their meanings. The dialects of all cultures have been fed into the computers from satellite transmissions. The Soviets began to feed the computers with objective programs like the ones of the new messiah. It also seems that the Soviets - the new world order people - have resorted to suicidal methods with the human society by allocating electronic wavelengths for every person and every society and culture to induce suicidal thoughts if the person doesn't comply with the dictates of the new world order.

So first it's the monarchists, then the soviets. Alrighty then.

I'm actually rather hoping that Nema will step in here and say something really authorative about language structure.

Seriously, this is the first quote that I've actually felt is just stupid. It's dumb, written by dumb people who don't have the foggiest fucking idea what they're talking about.

A computer that talks every language, presumably at the same time. Too much information, a brain can only process so much data at once. That's why noises drown each other out, and most people can't do more than a few conscious tasks at once.

'An advanced computer.' Presumably more advanced than the best current computers, which themselves are having difficulty improving after a certain point due to miniturisation problems: While manufacturing technology continues to improve, reducing the size of single gates, physical limits of semiconductor-based microelectronics have become a major design concern. Some effects of these physical limitations can cause significant heat dissipation and data synchronization problems.

'Particulars,' 'biology,' 'properties,' these words are too general to be even slightly useful. You might as well say "we fed the computer some things related to the brain and how it works, also a bit of stuff and some characteristics." Seriously, I can't do anything with that. We don't even understand how the brain really works, if anyone can feed everything there is to know about the brain into a computer then they might as well just take over now, their technology is that far advanced.

Person, society, culture. Wavelengths. So apparantly, a certain culture can be reached by a certain wavelength and cause it to want to kill itself.

These people do not. Understand. Brains.

Which is fair enough I suppose, since none of them seem to have come into contact with one.

Brains are... like jelly. Yes, lets use that metaphor. And we'll say that women's brains are blackcurrent flavour, men's brains are apple flavour, black people have strawberry flavouring, Asian people raspberry flavouring, people from the West are banana flavoured, and people from developing countries are orange flavoured. So, you've got millions of different jellies wobbling along, probably moulded into something interesting.

Or we could take a personal example. Sam's brain is banana, Judith's is strawberry, Alfred's is orange, Merlin's is blackcurrent. Yes, he's a bit confused. But the thing is that all of these brains, jellies sorry, are the same colour. They all look the same.

Now someone comes up to you and says, "we just discovered that flavour X is no good for us, the customers don't like it. So I want you to throw out all of the X flavour jelly."

What do you do? Here's the important bit: you need a tool that affects the flavour without harming the jelly.

Is that possible? Of course not. Even assuming that everyone of a particular culture/race/nationality/gender/sexuality/occupation/ancestry has a similar "brain pattern" (hey, when talking about pseudoscience, use pseudoscientific terms), which is absurd in itself, you would need a tool that can effect the workings of the brain extremely specifically. Not to mention beam it onto a particular target. And wait for them to kill themself. And assume they don't overrule it. And that this level of delicate control is even possible. We can't do that in labs, let alone out in the street.

In short, this is biologically absurd and as far as modern computers are concerned, not even realistic. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, feel free to state it.

I've been working on this for far too long now. I mean really, it was a fun jab at first but now it's just boring. Like arguing with Gunwounds or emprworm, I just get tired whacking my head against a brick wall of idiocy.

One last thing.

(P.S., in case you're curious, Dante and I are practically sworn enemies, believe me, it isn't good that he and I are on the same side on this one.)

We are? :(

I wasn't aware of that.

Briefly, where do we disagree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My views on all of this are a lot more concise, partly because Dante's a lot more patient than I am when it comes to rebuking arguments point-for-point, but mostly because it's all a load of shite.

Seriously, who in their right mind would buy into any of this?  Conspiracy theories need to be at least somewhat credible before they even warrant my attention, but this seems to have latched onto FED2k like some horrible leech, and it won't let go.  Even Loose Change sounded remotely plausible - it even had pictures and quoted "facts" that appeared real!

This?  This is just stupid.  If you believe any of this, you're paranoid, pure and simple.  Even if any of this was taking place, what the hell could you do about it?  What would your opposition to this unstoppable, centuries-old force achieve?  Nothing.  There'd be bugger-all you could do, so you shouldn't worry about it.

My solution to this stupidity is to post something even more ludicrous, to detract attention away from the topic at hand, and turn it into a thread that pokes fun at the idiots who come up with this crap.

BEHOLD THE TIMECUBE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Dante:

Not in a bad way, don't worry. And while I can't exactly quote off the top of my head, I have the vague recollection of thinking, "Oh, that's Dante, he always disagrees with me." In any case, that also might have been a bit of hyperbole on my part in dealing with Spaze. That, for the record, was ridiculous. (*EDIT: On second thought, this might be a shortlist--God, taxes, capitalism, American hegemony, and that's all I can think of for now.) We're not actually out to get each other or anything, you know, I was just trying to make it a point that you and I, often, can respectfully disagree. Emphasis on respectfully.

But, as for people who believe in NWO whatnot, I think this is a fairly plausible explanation:

"Some argue that even if the cabal conspiring to create a New World Order is almost always perceived as hostile there is, often, still an element of reassurance in it in part because it is more consoling to think that complications and upheaveals in human affairs, at least, are created by human beings rather than factors beyond human control. Belief in such a cabal is a device for reassuring oneself that certain occurences are not random, but ordered by a human intelligence. This renders such occurences comprehensible and potentially controllable. If a cabal can implicated in a sequence of events, there is always the hope, however tenuous, of being able to break the cabal's power - or joining it and execising some of that power oneself. Finally, belief in the power of such a cabal is an implicit assertion of human dignity - an often unconscious but necessary affirmation that man is not totally helpless, but is responsible, at least in some measure, for his own destiny."

From the page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory). Bam. Well done Wiki.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the NWO, my conclusion is that yes, secretive organizations do exist(CFR/TC/BG) and are comprised of the wealthiest and most influential people, but no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Brazil:

A country doesn't have to be in "lock-step" with the United States for there to be broad-based, pan-American cooperation. Though there has been talk of a North American (USA, Canada, Mexico) conglomeration, I also think that, eventually, you'll see North and South halves work very closely together. Hugo Chavez aside--who, for the record, no one really likes, just ask the Peruvians or Colombians--I think countries like Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, what have you, would prefer to enter into some sort of multilateral agreement with the United States concerning governance of the Americas rather than enter into opposition with it. The reasons for this are multifold: you have a broad commonalities concerning culture and religion, all American, North and South, civilizations are products of colonial experiences, furthermore, the vast majority of the continents' populations are Christian. I refer you to the Council of the Americas, on the business side of things, and the Pan-American Union, later, Organization of American States for the political side of things. We don't talk about it, and I don't know why, but I think the Americas are already a lot more integrated and becoming more so than you readily admit, Hwi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_American_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_Americas

My only goal here is to illustrate that, if we're talking about an "East" vs. "West" distinction, then we'd have to classify the other American states as "Western," regardless of how developed they are or aren't.

However, regarding India and China, I feel you may be right. Though they have struggled in the past, it's possible that India and China are both specializing in enough different industries to prevent outright economic conflict. However, I think the reason that India and China wouldn't enter into a Eurasian World War Three might have more to do with the fact that a large-scale, world war may no longer be possible. This might be fuel for another thread's fire, but I wonder if the modern economy prevents large-scale warfare between broad coalitions? I mean, they made the same argument before World War One: Norman Angell wrote The Great Illusion claiming that "new economic factors clearly prove the inanity of aggressive wars" and any powers engaging in such would experience "commercial disaster, financial ruin and individual suffering." Viscount Esher even went so far as to argue that Germany herself was also convinced that worldwide economic globalization made large-scale war ineffective, and, therefore, there was no need for Britain to gear up for war prior to 1914. Clearly, they were wrong as hell, so, I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought: China's position in 2009 is that of an up-and-coming superpower that everyone assumes will challenge the global domination of the United States sooner or later. Germany's position in 1909 was that of an up-and-coming superpower that everyone assumed would challenge the global domination of the British Empire sooner or later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And thank goodness Germany never caused any major upheaval or posed any kind of serious threat to the world in the last century! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China has caused instability already with much international manufacturing (capital) moving there and then they sell it back to rest of world.

Even non traditional manufacturing stuff like vitamins etc is made there. I've heard lots of stories of companies moving there to make everything because either the competition has already moved, so cutting costs, or the company wants to increase profits.

It's quite sad seeing small manufacturing businesses even choosing to outsource so they can make huge profit margins on manufactured goods. Will be interesting to see what happens when China no longer becomes the place to manufacture goods. Will they undergo a revolution or will the gov keep control forever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And thank goodness Germany never caused any major upheaval or posed any kind of serious threat to the world in the last century!

Erm, the fact that the world was engulfed by the mother of all wars (up to that point) a mere five years after 1909 - and the fact that Germany had a lot to do with it - was kind of my whole point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, the fact that the world was engulfed by the mother of all wars (up to that point) a mere five years after 1909 - and the fact that Germany had a lot to do with it - was kind of my whole point.

Actually, I compared it with pre-World War ONE Germany, which is a very different thing. Germany was immensely stupid to get involved in WW1 (or the Third Balkan War, as it would have been known had Germany not gotten involved). Yes, staying out would have meant breaking a promise to Austria, but who still took Austria seriously by that time?

I don't think Germany even had a promise to Austria-Hungarian Empire. The original statement about Balkans was that they were not worth the life of a single Bohemian grenadier.

Germany was slowly catching up to the British Empire in economic terms, as China is now catching up to the United States. They could have chosen the slow, peaceful route to world domination. But they got impatient, and tried war instead. And so they got smacked down, hard. And then again 20 years later, after a binge of collective insanity. Had Germany played its cards better in 1914, it might have even become the global hegemon (what the US is today). Hopefully China will learn from Germany's mistakes.

Don't worry US is not sitting idly by as Britain did, recently US has been helping India way too much. The point is to raise the power of India higher and so China that doesn't posses the security of the seas that US enjoys would have to get worried about India and Russia on its borders that diverting its focus in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I have a confession to make.

I'm not afraid of China. Not really.

Sure, they've made great strides in the last half-century, but, I have to dispute Edric's notion that 2009 China is the equivalent of 1909 Germany. For the record, German industrial output in 1909 was already twice that of Britain's (and, as a sidenote, the industrial output of the US in 1909 was already four times that of Britain). In this situation, China's GDP is something around a fifth of the United States' GDP. That's not sufficient if it wants to challenge "the world power." But, as I've said earlier, China won't be challenging the United States. China will be challenging the West. The United States isn't actually a superpower all on its own, actually, its a superpower because it is effectively the Military Wing of the West. The European Union, rapidly becoming the United States of Europe, is the financial wing. The EU's combined GDP is already greater than the American GDP. Combined, there's almost no way China could ever pose a serious threat to Western hegemony, which is really what we're all talking about here. Perhaps, we perceive China to be in an analagous position to Wilhelmite or Hitlerite Germany--a totalitarian regime, national pride issues, aggressive politicking--but, to be fair, Germany was in a lot better position then than China is now, or may ever be.

But, also, China's got tons of problems. If global warming patterns continue, then China could stand to lose up to a third of its domestic food production as Himalayan glacial melt elimintes the water supply for a good deal of central farmland. Exacerbating these issues, China's total fertility rate is about equal to that of the United States'--they aren't producing any more babies--due to the one child policy. In 40 years, China will have the greatest ratio of pensioners to workers in the world, and that's with the Europe we currently know and love. Let's also not forget that the current generation of Chinese children being raised utterly lacks females. Also, China's economy and industrial output is highly petroleum-based, and China is far behind the West in developing greener sustainability. Even if they do, or could, it would substantially decrease their rate of economic growth--which, as I've said, needs to icnrease five-fold or more before it can pose an even-handed threat to the US. Around 2000, about half the global supply of oil had been consumed, and it is projected, at current rates, to be completely extinguished by about mid-century. China's economy literally runs out of gas.

And this is ignoring completely China's massive internal political and social problems. Free Tibeters, Falun Gong, left and right, there are dozens of groups (including the 5% or about 50-70 million people who aren't Han Chinese), that make a lot of trouble for the PRC. In fact, China goes to great lengths to convince the world that it's a stable, happy country, but we ought not to be fooled by that behavior. If China were so stable and happy, why have the massive police state apparatus? Why crack down, and crack down hard, on anyone that questions the government? Oh no, China has serious, serious issues. I would even go so far as to say that they're "crippling."

Anyway, the US is much more far-sighted than Britain was. Yes, we do bolster India to counterbalance China, but I question the value of that approach. Let me tell you a story to illustrate: my mother complained of horseflies in her house. I suggested that she buy a certain wasp that feeds exclusively on horseflies. She then replied, "well, what do I buy to kill the wasps?" India may be easier to get along with than China, but buying one pest to kill another pest still leaves you with at least one pest to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I have a confession to make.

I'm not afraid of China. Not really.

Oh, no, don't get me wrong - not only am I not afraid of China, but I'm actually hoping China will become powerful enough to seriously challenge the West in some big non-military way. Why? Because I'm an enemy of the status quo, and frankly, at this point, anything that destabilizes the status quo without causing too much suffering is a good thing in my book. Especially something that casts doubt on the West's economic prowess. But I really hope China drops the whole "communist" pretense soon - quietly and without fanfare - because it's an embarrassment and a liability to all real communists. At least the Soviet Union gave aid to communist movements abroad, and provided a good case study in planned economics (albeit in an undemocratic environment). China doesn't even do that.

For the record, German industrial output in 1909 was already twice that of Britain's (and, as a sidenote, the industrial output of the US in 1909 was already four times that of Britain). In this situation, China's GDP is something around a fifth of the United States' GDP.

Are you sure you're not comparing apples and oranges? Modern notions of GDP were not around in 1909, so it's likely that the "industrial output" you're talking about measured something else entirely.

Anyway, the US is much more far-sighted than Britain was. Yes, we do bolster India to counterbalance China, but I question the value of that approach. Let me tell you a story to illustrate: my mother complained of horseflies in her house. I suggested that she buy a certain wasp that feeds exclusively on horseflies. She then replied, "well, what do I buy to kill the wasps?" India may be easier to get along with than China, but buying one pest to kill another pest still leaves you with at least one pest to deal with.

It is a mistake to talk about geopolitical issues, especially future ones, as if nation-states will still be the main entities running the show. I'm sure they will continue to exist for many more centuries, but their power is slowly slipping away to corporations on the one hand and complex international institutions on the other (the EU is an obvious example, but remember also that the IMF has long been able to dictate the domestic policies of many countries, and will likely emerge stronger from this crisis).

I predict that nation-states will become largely irrelevant in the second half of the 21st century, replaced by an intricate and almost feudal-like web of institutions and organizations owing various kinds of loyalty, payments and favours to one another. National governments will eventually become something like what the British monarchy is today - and no doubt the weaker national governments will simply be swept away.

So whatever China or the US do, it probably won't matter for more than five decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China has serious, serious issues. I would even go so far as to say that they're "crippling."

You are quite right. The point however is you are right considering western standards.

China simply has different standards.

Different politic standards, different rights standards, demographic standards, working standards, different hygienic and security standards and so on...

So what we consider crippling signs is not necessarily something that will severely affect the nation as a rising power. With so much human ressources at hand devious politics can always find a way to sustain the nation growth, even if that means even worse working conditions for millions of people. China has an unfair politic and demographic conjonction, they just leverage the number and exploit the people in a way that no western democracy would tolerate.

My guess is, now that China has entered the world market, whatever happens, at any cost, it wants a growth that tops US growth by a wide margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, the US is much more far-sighted than Britain was. Yes, we do bolster India to counterbalance China, but I question the value of that approach. Let me tell you a story to illustrate: my mother complained of horseflies in her house. I suggested that she buy a certain wasp that feeds exclusively on horseflies. She then replied, "well, what do I buy to kill the wasps?" India may be easier to get along with than China, but buying one pest to kill another pest still leaves you with at least one pest to deal with.

True that with growing India now the problem of the India's rise is coming up, however here is the fun part of it Indian and China would become auto-balancers, each other perceiving the other as threat to their influence in the region and reading the defensive moves as offensive moves. But you hit the problem on the head of the no perfect solution ever existing.

Britain was also far sighted it missed the danger Prussia was as it started to unite the lose German Confederacy.

It is a mistake to talk about geopolitical issues, especially future ones, as if nation-states will still be the main entities running the show. I'm sure they will continue to exist for many more centuries, but their power is slowly slipping away to corporations on the one hand and complex international institutions on the other (the EU is an obvious example, but remember also that the IMF has long been able to dictate the domestic policies of many countries, and will likely emerge stronger from this crisis).

I predict that nation-states will become largely irrelevant in the second half of the 21st century, replaced by an intricate and almost feudal-like web of institutions and organizations owing various kinds of loyalty, payments and favours to one another. National governments will eventually become something like what the British monarchy is today - and no doubt the weaker national governments will simply be swept away.

EU is unique right now and so far has formed due to the similarity of the countries in Europe. uS encouraged EU in earlier stages to create a stronger defense against Communist bloc, and French dream to return as political dominant power on the Continent (De Gaul tried that more than others), however EU is hardly a completely join entity. Not all members are equal due to their participation in some institutions and not in other. They lack an integrated armed forces. US from the sidelines is also discouraging further upgrades to EU. A good example is that for a while US did exploit the fact that EU represent the united European Continent that Britain always feared. Finally EU is unification undertaken by European for the purpose of playing a greater role as a bigger weight in the geopolitics. US, China, India, Russia do not suffer from the problem of being small.

EU also was able to form because economically the powers of Britain, France and West Germany were more evenly matched and so they could balance each other. The problem is lack of such balance in other parts of the world. For this Reason the so called North American Union would never happen as Canada and Mexico are both smart enough to understand that US will dominate such union.

In Asia, the Asian countries are also smart enough to understand that such unions will put them into satellite status to India or China.

As for corporations getting powers I do not think so. Back in the day there were West India Companies and East India Companies that had their own private military fleets and armies, powers to declare war and sign treaties. I do not see them around anymore. The modern day multinationals are not even close to those giants that even issued their own pseudo-currency. And quite often the lack power to defend themselves as they really on shaky international law, the resolve of the country their HQ is at and hope that local leaders of the third world country will support them.

Last time Exxon got  a kick from Venezuela it came away empty handed, US government did not do anything to help them, the noise they made also resulted in nothing. So where is this power of the corporations that will outstrip the powers of the governments of the countries of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...