It's no longer scary to me anymore, it's more truth now than just conspiracy. You can find facts to back up 1-7 in history books.

Past is prologue.

Good ole Billy Shakespeare.
I love the qoute, and not just because I'm a history mjr ;)

a few good documentaries on the subject

The Money Masters http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#

The Secret of Oz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g

Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve System http://www.sprword.com/videos/moneybanking/

http://linkedtheory.blogspot.com/2011/02/world-economic-collapse-ahead.html

Love & Peace!

You've been awake a while. Very observant post.

Would you say there is also a plan to reduce world population by the 'elite baker NWO zionist cabal'?

Have these bankers (the Rothchilds) been working on this plan for generations?

Then why did they allow the world population to grow from 2 billion to 7 billion over the last century?

Where is the profit in killing people? Sick people live a long time on drugs that cost a fortune.

Whoops.

The problem is most of the population explosion has taken place in the developing world: Asia, Africa, Central/South America.

No.

Clever preparation of a false argument. If I hadn't just emerged from calling out two other ass-hats, this one might have slipped past me.

Step one: Ask a related question.

Step two: Assume an answer to the question in step one, and ask a subsequent question based upon that assumed answer.

Step three: Ask for an explanation of how their logic got that far off track.

Personally, I'd rather shove a phone up your ass.

Then call him and give him prostate cancer.

If you don't know enough to answer the questions maybe you should leave the discussion to the adults.

Answering the question(s) is very easy (which was my point about this being a false argument).

The answer to the first question is: No.

EDIT:

Additionally, just to prove how asinine this proposal is,...

Assuming the answer to the first question is 'yes', you will need to prove there is a connection between the "NWO" (which you've only vaguely referenced) and the Rothschild bankers, before making the assumption that they are one and the same.

Thus, no matter what the answer to the first question is, there is no path to the third one available. Like I said, it is a very clever presentation. But, it is also a false argument, void of logic. It's three innuendos veiled as questions.

I.e., FAIL, ass-hat.

Ok internet tough guy. lol.

What advantage would the bankers get from a global government?

Bankers thrive on conflict. If they were running a centralized world government, there would be no more conflicts to finance. How could they continue to increase profits by encouraging people and states to finance their goals for dominance?

Do you have an answer for that?

The bankers are the ones who have unofficially "shadow government-ed" various governments around the world for centuries. Prior to Mayer Amschel Rothschild, it wasn't something that was overtly prideful. It was one of those 'seedy facts of life'. It was the Rothschild hubris which advanced this corrupt management of [inter]national affairs to the level of 'in your face-ness' that it has become today.

They get right up in the faces of national leaders and dictate policy, then walk away into the darkness of their powerfully maintained privacy (very rarely, if ever, making any public statements - only dealing 'behind the scenes', so to speak - and, no, I'm not talking about "back room" deals with low lighting - just 'not in public view').

There has been an ever evolving shortcoming in this process which has been ignored, though... and I was in the process of formulating a separate post when you asked this... so, I'll forego the separate post and just plop it in here where it fits.

The recent bank bailouts were an unexpected but necessary side effect of the manipulation they've been doing all this time. Specifically, I suspect they weren't expecting the collapse to be as bad as it was, but... not big deal... they own the damn governments, so they'll just order bailouts to set the wheels of profit back in motion... then defer the cost of the bailouts to the taxpayers which they also own via the IRS. So far, this is pretty basic 'conspiracy 101' stuff.

Now it gets interesting, though.. because, at some point along this charade, the people began to complain... so, the 'patch' has to be expanded to maintain suppression of dissent. And, further, some people who had been promised (via implication - ala, being part of the 'in group')... never got their due... or, worse, got left out in the cold. These people will, inevitably (I project), in the coming years (if not months) start to emerge from the woodwork ... their loyalty to the dollar is being progressively eroded by amounts equal to that which they've been screwed by their money masters.

I think this is the one aspect that the OP (and many others) are overlooking... there will inevitably be growing dissent in the upper ranks (the dissent that has existed at the bottom will begin to feed upward as the middle class is pushed further downward).

The banksters, meanwhile, simply have to maintain their shadow control of various nations at the upper-most levels. The NWO (or one world government, or however you choose to label it) is irrelevant as long as they get their money from the IMF-- one world currency. If they achieve the one world currency, the governments automatically fall in line (and can, for all meaningless intents and purposes, continue to exist - they're meaningless, afterall). As Rothschild said (paraphrase): let me control the money and I don't care who makes the laws.

The NWO/OWG is simply the IMF (banksters) being in control. It doesn't have to be formalized in order to exist... and formalization of it can be postponed indefinitely.

And, now the second big oversight (second to the inevitable overwhelming dissent). What do you do when you get there? When you finally become the guy with the most toys(money), what do you do? There is no plan in all of these various conspiracy documents (ala the Articles of Zionism or whatever) for what to do after world domination (or what to do with it once it's achieved). Nor, for that matter, how to maintain it (prevent the inevitable dissentors from overthrowing - if not killing, via orchestrated assassinations - the dominators).

The banksters will eventually lose, because they didn't have a plan for what to do after they achieve their nefarious plan. I see this as an inevitability. The only thing I regret is that I won't get to live to see it manifest.

I look forward (in vain) to the time after the inevitable revolution.

It's a compelling narrative but it has a few glaring holes, I'll spare you and only ask about two:

(1) There are $4 trillion in currency trades done every day. Do you know how much money is made in arbitrage on those trades?

This is the number one reason why a global currency is highly unlikely.

However, SDRs are a reasonable alternative to continuing to use the dollar, which is less and less tenable as the dollar continues to decline. As you already know SDRs are set through a basket of the dollar, euro, yen and the pound. Once the Yuan/Renminbi is made convertible it will surely be added to the mix and this will make a natural international currency. You'll note that individual states will continue to keep their national currencies.

(2) If the bankers are smart enough to engineer the hugest global conspiracy of all time, how could you possibly believe that they haven't thought what they are going to do after they take over the world? Surely, if these puppet masters exist, they have learned that they are better off in the shadows than on the throne?

You seem like you honestly believe this stuff and are probably a good guy, albeit a little vulgar, but how can you reconcile these two points?

This is yet another clever attempt at a false argument (and this kind of shit really does grow tiresome, once it becomes obvious that you refuse to do anything other than create these imaginary debates - for whatever self-ego-stroking purpose you have).

You're attempting to put forth an argument which asserts that the global banksters would never create an international one-world currency, despite the fact that it's patently obvious that that is, indeed, exactly what they're doing via the Euro and IMF.

So, you're commenting as though you know what you're talking about while simultaneously presenting scenarios which don't conform to reality. Saying (paraphrase example) "the bankers would never do 'such and such' because it's not in their profit-motive interest", while in reality it is exactly what they're doing. Then demanding that someone else defend your false assumptions.

That is the glaring hole in your whole presentation throughout. And, further, I may be a bit vulgar, but I'm perfectly willing to tell every passing reader what a fucking dimwit they are for having upvoted any comment you have ever made in this style of false argumentation. In fact, I've already (more than once) told pretty much everyone in this subreddit to fuck off and die (in pretty much those exact words at one time or other), because they're getting caught up in the irrelevancies of the detailed minutiae ... the distractions... the smoke and mirrors which keep them from focusing on the problem -- these banksters are some sick fuckers and if you haven't at least learned that much, you r eally don't have a place in any of these conversations. We're talking about people who would sell their own brethren out for a buck (take the Rothschild funding of Hitler's brutality against the Jews as an example). So, vulgar or not, I'm not afraid to call you out for being an ass-hat, which is precisely what you're being in this instance. On the one hand, you could be doing it deliberately, on the other you could just be attempting to exercise your intro to economics class experience. Either way, this bullshit attempt at sounding logical by using non-existent hypotheticals which fly in the face of known reality... is rather droll.

The real problem is you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.

You are parroting what you have learned on conspiracy websites and when you are confronted by the reality of the situation you freak out and try personal attacks.

The fact that you don't see that suggests you will do anything to reinforce your beliefs in something you fear but don't really understand.

Grow the fuck up. You are nothing but a pawn for fear-brokers.

I'm guessing you never studied international law or international relations, you don't have any actual experience working with international organizations, you don't really understand how international banking and finance actually work, yet you claim to have all the answers about how the world really works because you watched a few youtube videos with scary music in the background.

You're a fucking hack and it's pathetic that you don't see it.

I'd wish you good luck but you wouldn't know what to do with it.

Ah, now comes the reverse appeal to authority. Because I am not an expert on every topic that I'm passionate about, I'm not qualified to speak, eh?

Cough up some fucking credentials (do an AMA or something) before you start spouting that shit. I see you for what you are, because I'm a realist.

You got called on it and lookie there what happened, you blew a fucking gasket.

Now, you call me "parroting", because I reference things that are so commonly known as to not need link/documentation/citation (ala the infamous Rothschild quote)...

You demand that everyone else refute what you imply (with shitty, easily dismantled logic). Then, when you refute others, you return to the same shitty pseudo-debate-logic -- making up another extended, convoluted, false hypothetical.

And now, after having your M.O. dismantled in public, you go to an all out, 100% ad hominem attack. No substance about the topic or discussion at hand.

Another FAIL, in my book... outed.

You've got nothing. I'm still waiting for you to address my two points from last night. All you've got are accusations that I'm using false-logic rather than addressing the questions that poke holes in your arguments.

Since you can't answer them you cry about not having the credentials. About ad-hominem attacks, when in fact you're trying to hide the fact that you only know enough to get yourself in trouble.

Answer the questions like a man or go cry somewhere else.

I'm waiting...

And please tell me how Europe was better off before it was the EU. I'm really interested in how WW2 is better than the power of the EU as a trading bloc.

If you can...

Same shit.

No content, just BS, followed by an other distraction question.

And please tell me how Europe was better off before it was the EU.

Go away, you've been outed.

You've admitted you don't know enough to answer the questions.

All you know is the story you been told. Scary, scary future.

If you understood how the international system as a whole worked, you'd know that what you are saying is nonsense.

But you don't know anything you haven't seen on youtube.

You're a hack. It's a good thing no one listens to you.

Talk about a wholly fallacious mischaracterization. Your ability to write fiction is misdirected. You should be writing stuff for publication.

You've admitted you don't know enough to answer the questions.

I've admitted nothing except that your questions are all irrelevant, tangential distractions.

If you understood how the international system as a whole worked, you'd know that what you are saying is nonsense.

This is the richest part of your fantasy. The things I've referenced are the current state of reality. The bizarre fantasies you've implied don't even exist. Take, for example, your latest distractionary offering:

please tell me how Europe was better off before it was the EU.

This is bullshit. What does this have to do with anything? It assumes I value any of these institutions as being 'better or worse' - it's your way of forcing me to take a stand that I've not taken. At best, it's a very bad straw man attack. And at worst, it's you just pulling random shit out of your ass and flinging it about like a caged ape.

And when I refuse to play your infantile game of 'chase the random tangents', you fall back on ad hominems again.

You're a hack. It's a good thing no one listens to you.

Pffft. Is that the best you've got? I take back what I said in the first paragraph. Don't quit your day job.

You see my questions as tangential because you don't see the connection between (1) the creation of the EU and (2) the use of the Euro.

You see it as a plot for global domination rather than a useful way to improve trade relations between States in close proximity to each other.

Let me give you an example. If every state in the US had a different currency, all with fluctuating values, it would be very difficult to standardize transactions. It would act to discourage interstate trade.

The EU is the same. By standardizing the currency across the EU, it is much easier to trade amongst members.

You see it as a plot for domination by the bankers when in fact it is incredibly useful for small businesses that seek to trade over the equivalent distance of Texas to California.

You continue to spout bile and personal attacks but you don't seem to be able to talk about substantive issues. Why is that?

You think I'm spouting bizarre fantasies? They are bizarre because you don't understand how the world really works beyond what Alex Jones tells you. Go back to school and figure it out.

Lastly, if you are going to talk about the current state of your reality you will have to start referencing evidence because it lacks any merit other than spooky conspiracy theories.

You've done yet another fine job of creating a straw man out of perspectives I've not espoused, in this discussion or possibly anywhere. What I see is crookedness in the creation of central banks - fractional reserve banking, fiat currency backed by income tax slavery. These are the only things that matter. The conspiracy is about ease of control of the money supply, through which all other things are controlled. The rest of the excuses for unified currency are smoke and mirrors.

Here's the thing - this has been going on for centuries... as a progression of events which match perfectly alongside the "conspiracy stories" (if that's what you have to call them in order to have a label you can mock). The OP in this instance presented this progression accurately. And your contribution was to attempt to cloud the issue with twisted counter-arguments praising the wisdom of our moneymasters. You refuse to acknowledge the truth that Bad Things^TM happen when too much power is centralized in too few hands. And money is power.

And, you further refuse to acknowledge the sordid history of the specific moneymasters in question (the Rothschild family).

These are the things of real concern in the world, not whether or not you have to have multi-currency computerized cash registers which still do all the math for the clerks. Sacrificing autonomy for convenience is a very bad trade-off equivalent to surrender to slavery.

I refuse to acknowledge that centralization of power is always bad, it isn't. The truth is that centralization can be taken too far if the power created by that centralization is held in too few hands.

I've seen all of your "MoneyMasters TM" videos on youtube and your "The Rothchilds are the Zionist Devil's your mother always warned you about' collection which are always good anti-semitic viewing.

The link you fail to make is between these Money Masters TM and the creation of a Tyrannical World Government. Nothing. You've made no link. You have failed to show why they would do this. You've even suggested the Rothchilds themselves don't know why they're doing it.

It just makes you look like a fool.

surrender to slavery.

And here we go. We are already all wage slaves, what more could the Rothchilds want with us? Are you concerned they are going to make you clean their toilets? They already have people for that.

What is the purpose of creating a society of billions of slaves ruled by a few hundred people? It makes no sense when they already profit off the current system to an indecent degree?

So, here we are again: Please show me (1) the link between the bankers and the creation of a world government and (2) why they want to enslave billions of people when they already rule the world.

Will you answer in a coherent way or will you accuse me of taking this discussion off on a hypothetical tangent because you don't know how to answer?

Will you answer in a coherent way or will you accuse me of taking this discussion off on a hypothetical tangent because you don't know how to answer?

accuse? You mean "point out the fact that you are doing this"?

Hey man, if I'm forbidden from discussing truth, this conversation is pointless. bye now.

Well, I've won this round but I look forward to the next time we discuss the threat of world government.

Please do some reading in the mean time.

You won in the same way George W. Bush "won" at the UN by pre-emptively excluding any discussion of anything that really matters. It's amazing how many cowards there are lurking about this subreddit.

EDIT: I've exposed you for what you are... why you're here... what your motive is... and how you slither about in this subreddit. If you want to call that "winning", go for it.

Cowards afraid to discuss substantive issues.

Yes, I've been dealing with one for the past day or so.

The sooner you can admit that you don't know anything you haven't learned from youtube, the better.

Hey man, if "I know you are; but what am I?" is the best you can come up with at this point, you really should find a different hobby.

You'd have my respect if you could discuss the issues in a substantive way.

Unfortunately, your ignorance keeps getting in the way.

Please do some reading before we talk again. I'm going to recommend you read books on international law, international relations and international organizations.

Why should I allow you to define the boundaries of discussion? I missed that part.

I'm happy to discuss the points you put forward but that's not how you work.

When you do make a statement of what you believe in, you can't explain why you think your point is valid, only that it's true and everyone knows that.

This is the hallmark of someone who suffers from the 'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing' phenomenon.

You deflect all of my comments and questions because you don't know enough about the issues to get in a discussion.

If you knew enough about the issues to actually discuss them with me, you would also know enough to know that the positions you espouse are horseshit fantasy.

Something tells me you don't have the balls to learn any more about the international order because all you want to do is continue to circle jerk the ideas you've been fed about zionism, bankers, and world government.

It's pathetic. You're pathetic.

I've been discussing the issues, while also exposing you here.

EDIT: idratherusethephone has no clothes.

In the last5 years, I've lost most of my teeth... so, in addition to the general state of oppression, I'm now dealing with a growing state of malnutrition, generalized bone deterioration, and assorted cancers. Occassionally, I can afford to splurge on pain relievers (for the tooth and joint pain) which provides minimal relief for a few days. Usually, though, ... the past few months, anyway... I just suffer... constantly. So,...

I can't remember a single day in the last 3-4 years when I haven't thought "I really am not enjoying anything about life and am fairly certain I do not want to be part of it anymore." But, without money to go to a doctor and get a terminal diagnosis, I just keep stumbling about the face of this planet waiting for my time to end - praying that it will be soon.

This doesn't excuse your ignorance but at least I can better understand your personality.

I hope our exchange has been a good outlet for your anger. I've also had fun mocking you but now that I see you as a broken human being I can't in good conscience continue.

Good day.

You can't in good conscience continue making ad hominem attacks... except this one last parting shot, of course.

Message received. You truly are an ass, and this post - this out of context pot-shot - proves it.

I don't know how to quote and I need to be quick. You earlier stated the volume of currency trading being a barrier to the bankers creating a world currency as this would mean less profit through currency trading. You later implied both that the Euro is beneficial as it promotes [goods/services] trading and that the EU prevents another WW2 lol. Surely this is slightly contradictory as the creation of the Euro stopped European Currencies being traded. I realise that the Euro is traded instead of the previous basket of EU currencies but still, something to think about :)

If you believe in the NWO premise, WW2 was 'set-up' and the EU grew from WW2 as a cog in the elite's evil machine :)

I'm very impressed that you have studied international law/relations etc, maybe you could use your intellect to debase the NWO premise with research/facts rather than expecting random contributors who may not be as well informed to prove it to you.

To be honest though, I'm not really sure why you're even arguing in this subreddit as you obviously don't believe in any of this nonsense :)

And to answer one of your earlier questions..... a lot of NWO believers think that this NWO is the 'prophesised spiritual wickedness in high places' from the Bible. I don't think people like to admit it as it sounds completely mental but that's what it comes down to. A matter of faith lol :)

I'm not really sure why you're even arguing in this subreddit as you obviously don't believe in any of this nonsense :)

Thank you for your comment. You are the reason I post on these NWO threads. The possibility of actually having a discussion about why people believe what they do about the NWO. My impression is that for most people someone has weaved a compelling narrative about jews, powerful bankers, and global domination and they have related it to the fact that their small town bank charges them too much to use the atm, or the Fed and Goldman Sachs is controlled by jews and is stealing from the American tax payer through credit default swaps (or other derivatives they don't understand).

You are correct to point out those two earlier contradictory perspectives. Nevertheless, I would argue that the Euro zone is equivalent to the US in size and scope. So in the same way the US dollar is beneficial to the US states, and it clearly is, the Euro is also beneficial to the countries of the Euro zone. This may be shown to be folly as the PIGS work out their unfortunate debt ratios.

Also, there is considerable evidence that the Euro has made trade from/to the Euro zone easier for those outside the zone. This has encouraged trade and economic growth.

Also, the fact that there wasn't a third world war over Europe in the 20th century is no coincidence. The EC worked.

Regarding SDRs, the US as the global hegemon since the start of the Bretton Woods system, first as a bi-polar leader then a uni-polar leader, has disproportionately benefitted from having the US dollar be the exchange currency of the international trade system. As the power of the US wanes it seems as though many States would prefer to use another currency. Why? Because fuck the US, that's why. The IMF SDRs fills the gap pretty nicely as it is less volatile and benefits the US less. We'll see how all this plays out with the announcement by the BRICS the other day. My point, however, is that this isn't a jewish conspiracy. It's an anti-imperialist conspiracy.

Regarding your comment that WW2 was set up by the forces behind the NWO, this is an interesting idea. It is almost irrefutably plausible that the powerful banking interests financed all sides in the lead up to the war. There is much money to be made on war. However, this also plays into my questions about why the NWO bankers would want to create a global government? Not only would they lose the profit they could accrue financing conflicts, but they would lose their fortune defending their tyrannical order.

Regarding my role as a teacher of facts to those in here not as well educated as I am, these wouldn't be the most receptive students. What I enjoy doing is calling people out on their beliefs and getting them to try to show me why they believe what they do. I keep hoping that one day people will admit they might be the victim of a propaganda campaign. Which in turn might encourage them to do their own research. Something, no one has yet been interested in doing.

As an aside, the reason for my tete-a-tete with contheory_spiracist is pretty simple: I respond badly when ignorant people are rude to me. I had fun challenging him to a debate where he flailed around yelling at and cursing me, while he tried to avoid talking about issues. It was fun at first but I honestly feel bad for the guy, he's had a tough life (I later found out) so, I won't be fucking with him anymore.

Finally, I enjoy the idea of conspiracy theories. I enjoy questioning the official story on many subjects and it's pretty clear we are being lied to by the media and the government at every turn. However, many people who like conspiracies get lazy with their skepticism. They are fed a narrative and accept it the same way the sheep sitting in front of fox news accept that message. The persistent use of jews as the scapegoat for all of the world's problems is also a troubling side of this community.

So, why do I post? This sub-reddit shouldn't be a circle jerk. It should include some debate and I try to bring that to discussions when I have some contradictory knowledge. Believing in conspiracies shouldn't mean I have to believe them all. And criticizing tenuous causal connections should be welcomed here rather than discouraged.

Again, thank you for your comment.

Endnote: I don't believe people in here are following a literal interpretation of the bible.

Wow, a very comprehensive response lol :) I'm actually in work so can't dedicate as much time to my answer as you deserve. I realise there is no way that it (NWO) can be proved to you.

1. The term "Conspiracy Theory" (CT) reeks of paranoia/mental health issues lol. It's very difficult to write anything plausible supporting CTs when the term itself has become so negatively loaded.

2. There are so many CTs that by probability only a tiny percentage are likely to be grounded in fact.

3. CTs are used to support people's aims or subjective views, i.e racialists, religous zealots, nutcases (all kinds), people trying to make money from the CT industry etc. These people try to drive forward their own view of the overall conspiracy which creates the huge problem of seeing the wood for the trees.

However...

a) There are 'immoral' conspiracies of various scales that have been proven to have happened. Some of these have been on a large scale run by people in which the public have put their trust.

b) There have been some ridiculously evil people who have been responsible for the deaths of millions.

I make these two points to show that it is possible that the core NWO CT could be correct, however small the probability, a+b= standard NWO CT possibility lol.

It's almost impossible for you to try to disprove this leviathan conspiracy. It may be almost impossible for someone to prove it to you. I'm not really sure why you'd bother trying to introduce debate (however good that may be). CT believers trying to convert you is more understandable than you trying to convert them back into 'straight heads' lol. Why waste your time?

To my surprise I am probably more open to CTs than you are, although it is more down to my definition of CTs. It's a poorly hidden fact that most the information available to us through the media and from the government, has an inordinate amount of spin to it. Which is to say there is a lot of pure fabrication on grains of truth and some mostly truthful stories where crucial information is removed, leaving only at best half-truths.

There is invariably an agenda attached to this misinformation. And it's the agenda I'm interested in. This is what I equate with conspiracy theories.

Naturally some are more plausible than others. For me, there is much truth to the NWO leviathan but all of the many truths don't add up to the same conclusion as it does for many in this sub-reddit.

Regarding your points (a) the more complicated the conspiracy the less likely it will work. Generally, well executed misdirection of the greed motive is all that's needed. (b) are there evil people in the world who would gladly profit on the deaths of others? Yes, no question.

The CTs I am convinced by on this sub-reddit, or at least the ones that pique my interest, I will almost never post a comment. Why? Because the comments are all too often a circle-jerk of people congratulating each other for being in on the 'truth' when the rest of the world is being fed lies. Don't get me wrong, I prefer to be enlightened than be wowed by the shadows on the cave wall but the more that we congratulate ourselves the less open we are to new perspectives.

I get a kick out of conversing with the diehard NWOers in the same way an atheist gets a kick out of arguing with holy rollers. I'm not exactly trolling but rather showing the diehards that they don't have as complete an understanding of the reality of the theory as they've been fed.

From this two things happen. (1) I get to chat with skeptical people about the logic/plausibility of the NWO theory, or (2) I get to fuck with people that, unable to defend their position, go on a cognitive dissonance blowout trying to accuse me of being a jew-loving member of the illuminati.

I really enjoy the former, because not everyone I know can discuss these ideas freely, but I also get a sick sort of pleasure out of the latter. As I've mentioned, I am easily trolled by rude ignorant people and I end up engaging them in a condescending argument about how stupid they are. Not surprisingly, there is also a limited remit for this sort of human interaction in my ivory tower life.

But enough about me, I'm entirely open to you convincing me that the NWO theory is airtight.

If you do, please include some cui bono to help me along.

I'm really impressed with your response :) However I can't supply you with the prima facie evidence I think you ultimately require.

Intuitively I think that the NWO CT may be correct but I recognise that this intuition is based on the interpolation of data to which I've attributed importance. That data is freely available and I'd imagine that either you haven't found it or your interpretation of it differs from mine. With all due respect, I don't have the time or inclination to try to convince you of my world view, especially when I don't even know if my opinion is correct. A logician with enough skill and dedication can appear to destroy almost any argument, even when their opposition is objectively correct. Battling with you on this issue is not my idea of fun.

I certainly suffer with some cognitive dissonance on these matters and I don't usually get involved in net discussions. In this day and age, I just prefer to sleep with one eye open ;)

fair enough.

clap clap clap, that was some Grade A, superbly well-done rhetoric with absolutely no content or tangible references!

Would read again! Seriously, you guys got my heart racing there!

This Internet thread has left me with no verifiable evidence... please allow me posit the following:

This is exactly why it is so important for the business dealings and the doings of public entities to be transparent! That way you don't have any developments of baseless ideology like this. The psychological phenomenon that you encountered in your debate is INEVITABLE when anything in a human's environment changes significantly and the human brain and has no facts to build from. That is what EVERY single religion is based off! And real or not, the Thomas Theorem states "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." and if enough people follow a movement, you have shit on your hands. The antidote for this phenomenon is FEEDBACK, i.e. the scientific method, i.e. OPEN INFORMATION FLOW! I recognize the importance of certain atomic processes to remain secret for operational purposes, but the levels of secrecy used today are far too high.

Hi there,

It was fun to reread that whole exchange.

3 months? Time sure flies. So...

clap clap clap, that was some Grade A, superbly well-done rhetoric with absolutely no content or tangible references! Would read again! Seriously, you guys got my heart racing there! This Internet thread has left me with no verifiable evidence...

My sarcasm meter tells me this discussion left you flat. Care to expand on your comments?

This is exactly why it is so important for the business dealings and the doings of public entities to be transparent! That way you don't have any developments of baseless ideology like this. The psychological phenomenon that you encountered in your debate is INEVITABLE when anything in a human's environment changes significantly and the human brain and has no facts to build from. That is what EVERY single religion is based off! And real or not, the Thomas Theorem states "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." and if enough people follow a movement, you have shit on your hands. The antidote for this phenomenon is FEEDBACK, i.e. the scientific method, i.e. OPEN INFORMATION FLOW! I recognize the importance of certain atomic processes to remain secret for operational purposes, but the levels of secrecy used today are far too high.

I think you are agreeing with me that the NWO Conspiracy guys treat it like a religion, and are therefore losing the plot.

You seem to also be suggesting that the best way to prevent a NWO Conspiracy from succeeding is to ensure transparency of institutions like the Fed and the IMF.

Am I on track?

Do you want to chat about all this?

Note: By the way, if you read my last reply I thought I was responding to a much more recent thread. I've since deleted it. It was in relation to the Fed's secret loans of $16 trillion to foreign banks.

There was no sarcasm, I truly enjoyed reading the debate far more than any television show!

I just wanted to note that, from my perspective (i.e. not having the luxury of a social network that runs deep into the international business and finance realm), that there was a lot of good talk but no substance in either argument. I was really excited to get some links to some international business or finance videos or knowledge base and arrived here at the end with nothing. Just hearsay.

In that case, I'm glad to hear you're interested in learning a little more.

I've got good news and bad news.

The good news is that if you go to your local university library, and do some reading on international law, international relations, and global governance you'll get a clearer and clearer idea about how the international system works (or more to the point doesn't work).

States are the primary actors, and the rich ones have the most power.

The UN is an experiment in bringing States together to try to create multilateral solutions to global problems. No one State can solve world hunger, human rights abuses, or climate change. The only way to do that is to work together to find common solutions. There is some corruption in the UN and plenty of horse trading over important issues (vote buying and strong arm negotiations). That said, it is mostly staffed by people who want to make the world a better place and try to make decisions not based on national self interest but with consideration for all of the people of the world (this is why many american conservatives think the UN is communist).

The problem is that the UN and most of its international organizations are quite weak by themselves and have limited power beyond facilitating interactions between States.

The exception to this trend in international organizations are the Bretton Woods/Washington Consensus organizations: The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.

The WTO is powerful because trade is important. That and it has been structured to have a binding dispute settlement mechanism (a rarity in the international system).

The WB is described as a bank but really what it is is a development fund. The reason people dislike the WB so much is that in the 1980's it started adding condition to loans. The conditions demand structural changes to how the recipient country runs it's government. They started to require privatization of public companies, reductions of social services, debt reductions, the movement of the economy to an export focus (often cash crops like coffee or soybeans). The end result is the WB has successfully created a rich/upper middle class in the developing world and hasn't done too much for the poorest of the poor. There is some trickle down but not much.

The IMF is more of a bank than a fund. It is considered a lender of last resort. Which means that when a country can no longer borrow from private banks to keep the country afloat (Greece) the IMF steps in and lends them money. The loans they give are very short term (1-2 years) (whereas the WB does 10-15 year loans) but because of the shortness of the term, they demand even stricter structural adjustment policies than the WB. Their goal is to dramatically turn countries around in a short period of time. The results are often harshest for the poor. Read the Shock Doctrine and complaints by Joseph Stiglitz about how this process does more harm than good.

Keep in mind however, the countries in question approach the IMF and the WB, not the other way around. Even with a mixed track record they're goal is not to make the world a worse place but to try to bring a chaotic world back from the brink. The IMF and the WB are powerful because they have lots of money to throw around.

None of these organizations are powerful without the support of the great powers (the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan) who fund and thus control them. This gives you an indication of the power of States over international organizations, particularly the power of the US to make or break the UN.

There is far more to learn but I've got you started. Dig through some textbooks (it's the best way to learn). I've spend years at this, my first degree was in political science, then I got a law degree, and I'm currently doing a master's degree in IR. All I can tell you is there are no real shortcuts to understanding the international legal system.

Now the bad news.

If you go to youtube, and search for NWO you will learn that the Jews (the Rothchild's) are trying to create a tyrannical world government and their primary tool of enslavement is the IMF.

It's a simple narrative with a clear villain: The Jewish Bankers.

If you want to take the shortcut to understanding the world, follow contheory_spiracist down the youtube rabbit hole. It will give you clear answers to complicated problems. What it won't do is explain how to fix those problems other than 'hate Jews'.

In closing, you have rightly surmised that I don't give a lot of evidence to support my arguments (I don't back up my points with scholarly articles, web links or youtube clips). I don't do this mainly because the conspiracy true believers won't be swayed by it. So why should I bother? What I do is ask them to defend their arguments and generally all they can do is provide links to youtube videos with scary music or conspiracy websites like Alex Jones. In effect I mock them for being sold a bunch of propaganda the exact same way they mock the general public for being brainwashed by the mainstream media. I realize it's petty, but I just hate closed minded racists.

There are no shortcuts to knowledge but I'll give you a bibliography to get you started. Good luck in your search for truth.

Paul F. Diehl & Brian Frederking, The Politics of Global Governance: International Organizations in an Interdependent World (4th Ed.) (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2010).

Antonio Cassese, International Law (2nd Ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2005).

Peter Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (London, Routledge, 2008).

http://www.amazon.com/International-Law-Relations-Organization-Reader/dp/0521679915/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311690654&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Globalization-Its-Discontents-Joseph-Stiglitz/dp/0393324397/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311690731&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311690779&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/New-World-Order-Anne-Marie-Slaughter/dp/0691123977/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311690931&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/United-Nations-Changing-World-Politics/dp/0813344352/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311691012&sr=1-1

Thank you, that was EXACTLY what the doctor ordered! And yea I totally agree with you, even if there were a conspiracy... the best laid plans of mice and men haha!

If you haven't seen it yet you may want to check out Argentina's Economic Collapse which shows these and other dirty tricks used to place entire populations under the control of these masters of deception.

Thanks for this link. Schiff says that the US is more likely to collapse the same way argentina did than japan in the 90s.

[deleted]

Bots. The reddit admin team has studied this long enough to know which voting patterns need to have offset padding, so... some of those downvotes are offset by an equal number of upvotes, making the net total accurate. (Just one example: If you up/downvote someone's post or comment from their user overview page, it is balanced by an offsetting vote - because you're voting out of context).

"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause."

Great summary, now WTF can we do to stop it?

Stop paying taxes. EVER.

Then stop driving on roads, stop expecting electricity, clean water or emergency services amongst many other things. Whist there is certainly wastage, taxes pay for a huge amount of society that you almost certainly rely on every day.

The truth about the world though is that it's a beautiful place when we work together, and THAT is how those things happen. Roads aren't built by money per-se, they're built by teamwork. Electricity isn't brought to my house because some politician OK's it - a trained electrician comes and puts it in or repairs it or whatever.

We do not need taxes at this point. There is enough knowledge available and enough technology available, that taxes and money and the like can be a thing of the past. But Utopia doesn't work for everyone. In fact, a lot of people seem to desperately cling to consumerism because it's all they've ever known, and it's the only ideology that has ever truly conquered the world.

I'm not some dreamy hippie, I'm just pointing out that there are conflicting views on how society can run, including wonderful infrastructure.

edit, somes grammars

So then why don't poor countries have adequate infrastructure?

Because there are mad men running around drugging children and using them to chop people's heads off. Because Christian missions, the CIA, IMF, UN and warlords, ex soldiers and on and on all meddle in those countries. I didn't say anything about perfection being easily attained.

So we're fucked no mater what we do. Got it.

I unfortunately agree with your point about consumerism conquering the world, sad as it makes me to admit it. But short of some massive sustained global societal change, the majority of people will not give up on their lust for money and trinkets any time soon. Without that change, all that not paying taxes does is turn you into a sponge of other peoples hard earned tax dollars and decrease money for infrastructure, education etc. I am a dreamy hippy, but I can still see that taxes have enabled or created most of the important manmade parts of the countries we see around us

I don't really see the problem with a world government.

[deleted]

we should be very skeptical of any attempts to further consolidate power.

... in the hands of the banksters who have caused and funded both sides of every major war/military action in the past 200 years.

It is my belief that we should strive for the decentralization of power in all spheres of influence.

Local rule with appellate counsel. It is the ideal on which the current US governments (from local all the way up to federal) is based. The problem comes from money-power. What we need is a new economic model which doesn't allow accumulation of money-power.

Does decentralization really solve problems that require multilateral cooperation?

No.

The world we live in requires that states work together to solve problems decentralizing the institutions that help address these problems only makes them worse.

Does centralization really solve problems that require multilateral cooperation?

No.

Conceptually, it seems more efficient to pool all your resources into a single governing body, but historically this is not the case. A world government would be one thing to consider if the national governments weren't already corrupt, but that isn't the case.

Ahh, but this is the false dichotomy you've been sold.

Centralization does not mean a totalitarian world government. No one wants that, even the bankers.

Some centralization is a good thing because it provides a more effective way of tackling complicated problems. But it needn't swing to a fascist world government.

A world government would be one thing to consider if the national governments weren't already corrupt, but that isn't the case.

This is going to stop you from thinking about any possible solutions to global problems. What are you doing to tackle corruption in your country?

I didn't make any claim about a fascist world government, and my very point was that it was you who were making the false dichotomy. Individual issues need to be taken on separately, and I assert that forming a world government is not a solution that will fix all of our problems, and that giving them the power to attempt it would only result in more problems.

Sorry, I don't mean to put words in your mouth.

Anarchy won't solve the worlds problems and the opposite extreme (fascist world government) won't work either.

So the solution is somewhere in between, right?

The question is how centralized should we go before the benefits are outweighed by the dangers.

The very essence of our disagreement, though I suspect we are closer than this exchange would have us think, is what do we mean by a global government?

The one that some people in the international community have put forward is something between what the UN is now and the totalitarian extreme you will hear referenced in the NWO youtube conspiracies.

The reason this idea is put forward is that the current international order (the UN) can't effectively deal with the scope of the global problems it attempts to address. Keep in mind, of course, that the UN agencies tackle issues separately. There's one for development, one for shipping, one for climate change, one for world health, one for nuclear energy oversight, etc...etc...

I'll be careful here, but I think you would argue that we would be better off without a UN or at least we could scale it back without a second thought. Am I right?

I've inferred this from your talk against centralization, please correct me if I'm wrong.

The question I have for you then is how to you get completely independent States to work together on these massive global issues without a centralizing institution like the UN?

How would we have less problems if we slid more towards global anarchy?

There are definitely some useful applications of the UN and other international developments (I'm thinking the international space station, the LHC, certain peace-keeping efforts), but the fundamental problem with these agencies is that they are formed by first world nations that have become rich from imperialism. They take the same philosophies as their leaders, and now you have institutions like the IMF that are created to soak up even more national debts and to manage the economies of less wealthy nations, often doing things like privatizing their water supplies. When we form institutions on the principles of capitalism, you get more of the same problems you see at the national level. I would be more inclined to support international cooperation if the people had any say in the matter (i.e. if the participating nations ahered to the tenants of democracy and their labour practice and wealth distribution were socially oriented). Historically, "bringing civilization" to poorer nations has been code for exploitation.

You might be interested in discussions for a UNPA (Parliamentary Assembly) which seeks to bring a representative democracy to the UN system. I'm not suggesting this is a perfect model but I think you'll agree that elected officials at the UN would probably be better than the appointed ones there presently.

Regarding the capitalism=exploitation point, I agree that certain of international organizations seem to benefit the North at the expense of the South. The problem is that those asking for money always view the terms as unreasonable, and the lenders never want to give away money without some terms attached (IMF-structural readjustments) or (World Bank conditionality). You've managed to forget about hundreds of billions in debt forgiveness programs however.

Interestingly, did you know why the US broke away from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea? Socialism. It was decided, that 50% of the profits from any minerals (particularly manganese or oil) that were mined in international waters would be payed into a global fund to be shared with all the countries of the world. The global commons shared between all.

The thing you may be overlooking is the UNDP, UNICEF, the WHO, UNEP and a myriad of other agencies work tirelessly to improve the lives of people in the developing world every day. Human Rights is a difficult normative concept at the best of times but do you really think that the human rights record of the 20th Century would have been better without the work of the UN? I doubt it.

So the question you have to ask yourself is are you giving the UN (and all of its agencies) the benefit of the doubt when you say they are merely tools of imperialism? Or might it be more complicated than that?

I thought I conveyed clearly that I recognize the good that has come from many of the political and private international efforts. All I've been trying to say is that giving a small group of delegates the means to substantially shape the global economic climate will likely lead to corruption, because the leaders of big industries will have a clear incentive for controlling the decisions of the group. If we lived in a socialist society, the big industries would be transparent and accountable to their workers, so it would give better hope for democracy on a global scale.

To put it simply, I hope the government of the United States is not repeated at the global level, and I have no reason to be confident the contrary would occur.

You continue to think I'm attacking you. I'm not. I'm just trying to expand your outlook.

I don't know if you are aware of how the IMF works. Essentially, states contribute to the fund and the amount they contribute gives them weighted voting. So, the US with roughly 17% of the donated capital (down from closer to 30%) is able to control the way that the money is delegated.

What the IMF does is that when poor countries ask for loans, they receive them only on the condition that they adjust the structure of their economy in such a away that it ensures the loans are paid back. This has caused lots of problems, no question, but the real problem is with poor countries needing the money in the first place.

Also, the IMF is really the creditor of last resort. Requests to private banks, and the development help from the World Bank tend to happen first.

Do you have a better solution to the problem? I really would like to hear what you think would be more equitable for the developing world, while still not just funneling money to the global South with no strings attached.

I don't think you're attacking me, just missing my point... and maybe being a bit ostentatious.

Anyway, I'm no expert in third world economics, but I don't agree with treating governments as budding businesses ready for investment. If I were the hypothetical supreme dictator of the world, I'd deal only with the specific hurdles of developing countries, and send targeted aid for sanitation/healthcare/education/sustainable development, hopefully in such a way that it leads to the spread of knowledge and not competition. So more-or-less focusing on UNDP-type development.

Isn't that what the UN was supposed to be for?

Technically, the agencies of the UN but yes, the UN is working with people all over the world to try to tackle global problems.

The UN is a form of global government, albeit a rather weak one. What the UN provides is a number of specialized institutions which provide global governance.

What you have to consider when these sort of discussions come up is that the current international order should be seen as being somewhere between a fully anarchic order and a totalitarian global government.

The New World Order seeks to move things closer to the totalitarian extreme than the anarchic one because a stronger centralized system is more effective at solving complicated problems. However, anyone who has studied international relations will tell you a totalitarian system would be a disaster to run, and therefore is not an attractive option for anyone, including the bankers.

/s

Just like every other tool, it's the human behind it that decides if it is good or evil.

But first WW3, winner take all.

All those who oppose the NWO will all die trying.

Does world government mean open borders everywhere with full autonomy for everyone? Will this include the poorest nations of Africa? If you're talking about a global currency, will the poorest countries of the world get included? The currency would have to be affordable to everyone. To do that, quality of life would have to be lowered in rich countries and raised in poor countries so it balances out everywhere.

Saving this to read later

Im not sure why people are so afraid of the World Canadian Government.

There is a conspiracy by the international banking cartel to bring about a world government.

How do you know this?

Funny thing about hindsight...it tends to be fairly accurate. You could also make a "whoops shit happens, what do we do now?" argument for all this. People are idiots...

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't possible that this is all a huge conspiracy by the lizard people to achieve world domination, becasue anything is possible...but what I am saying it's just as probable that people are fucking stupid and we got here because of incompetance.

Because there are mad men running around drugging children and using them to chop people's heads off. Because Christian missions, the CIA, IMF, UN and warlords, ex soldiers and on and on all meddle in those countries. I didn't say anything about perfection being easily attained.

Hi there,

It was fun to reread that whole exchange.

3 months? Time sure flies. So...

clap clap clap, that was some Grade A, superbly well-done rhetoric with absolutely no content or tangible references! Would read again! Seriously, you guys got my heart racing there! This Internet thread has left me with no verifiable evidence...

My sarcasm meter tells me this discussion left you flat. Care to expand on your comments?

This is exactly why it is so important for the business dealings and the doings of public entities to be transparent! That way you don't have any developments of baseless ideology like this. The psychological phenomenon that you encountered in your debate is INEVITABLE when anything in a human's environment changes significantly and the human brain and has no facts to build from. That is what EVERY single religion is based off! And real or not, the Thomas Theorem states "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." and if enough people follow a movement, you have shit on your hands. The antidote for this phenomenon is FEEDBACK, i.e. the scientific method, i.e. OPEN INFORMATION FLOW! I recognize the importance of certain atomic processes to remain secret for operational purposes, but the levels of secrecy used today are far too high.

I think you are agreeing with me that the NWO Conspiracy guys treat it like a religion, and are therefore losing the plot.

You seem to also be suggesting that the best way to prevent a NWO Conspiracy from succeeding is to ensure transparency of institutions like the Fed and the IMF.

Am I on track?

Do you want to chat about all this?

Note: By the way, if you read my last reply I thought I was responding to a much more recent thread. I've since deleted it. It was in relation to the Fed's secret loans of $16 trillion to foreign banks.