Call me a hipster if you must be I like plain old regular World Order, any attempt at new-ing it up makes me uncomfortable.

I clearly remember being overtaken by a strong sense of dread, aversion, and foreboding the very first time I heard George Bush (Jr.) utter this phrase.

Had a very similar reaction to the name "Patriot Act."

Both of these felt very Orwellian to me and still do. Worse was that no one else seemed to have this reaction, which was even MORE chilling.

andy_name wrote:So, in Russia people usually use "New World Order" as criticism of American politics. They think, that USA wants to be a empire and dominate under the world, create a one world government, put here and there his missile defense system, insert RFID chips(they call this "number of the Beast") and humanity will be under control of influential people(bankers, president's families, secret groups). What do you think about it? Can you explain me, where it theory comes from and what is truth in it? If you want, send me some links on information about it.

NWO conspiracy theorists posit that The New World Order or NWO is claimed to be an emerging clandestine totalitarian world government.

The New World Order or NWO is claimed to be an emerging clandestine totalitarian world government by various conspiracy theorists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World ... acy_theory)

Now whilst we do attribute the NWO claim, to a group of paranoid tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists, the N.W.O claim actually has legitimate mainstream Political roots. So it is not exclusively a conspiracy theory, but a political concern, which may be exagerated or misrepresented by conspiracy theorists, that attribute all types of propaganda and religious delusions to the subject.

The term "new world order" has been used to refer to any new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. Despite various interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of world governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)

An example of a developing one world government could be the UN machine, and Agenda 21

Agenda 21[1] is a non-binding action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.[2] It is a product of the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is an action agenda for the UN, other multilateral organizations, and individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

Now whilst the UN, and agenda 21, may be good policy, others may believe the UN to have ulterior motives, or that giving one organisation too much power over local governments, might not be a good idea. Particularly politicians. Though conspiracy theorists may latch on to their local politicians concerns, and perhaps include some Satanic cult, or illuminati freemasonic construct, to the concerns.

Now there is also a thing called "Strawman sockpuppetry". It is when a group actually create a fasle pseudonym, claiming to be a conspiracy theorist, and they publicise conspiracy theories "about themselves" and their "own organisation", in order to discredit the legitimate political concerns, by saying "oh yeah, and we are eating babies during satanic ritual masses lol", as a reply to a politician coming along and saying, hey, i think decentralization will result in less Capita wealth for citizens.

A strawman sockpuppet (sometimes abbreviated as strawpuppet) is a false flag pseudonym created to make a particular point of view look foolish or unwholesome in order to generate negative sentiment against it. Strawman sockpuppets typically behave in an unintelligent, uninformed, or bigoted manner and advance "straw man" arguments that their puppeteers can easily refute. The intended effect is to discredit more rational arguments made for the same position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Strawman_sockpuppet

So you cannot always trust, conspiracy theories. But you perhaps look for the real political concerns, the theories are either exagerating, or the "real issues" being purposefully discredited.

Then the next step after that, is to form the best political opinion you can, on the subject.

Nevets, you've resurrected a thread from 6 years ago!

#1 Post by andy_name » Jun 20, 2014 6:09 pm

Andy_name hasn't even visited this website in 5 years!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/member/andy_name/

Last visited: Jan 11, 2015 5:04 pm

Trolls gotta troll.

RS

Don't you agree it is better to add to an already existing thread on a topic you wish to say something about rather than start a new one?

What you think of the newly added post itself is a separate matter.

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Trolls gotta troll.

nevets is not a troll.

Hermit wrote:Don't you agree it is better to add to an already existing thread on a topic you wish to say something about rather than start a new one?

From a practicality perspective, of course - if one were interested in creating a topic of discussion and found an existing thread, then that would be a practical reason for tacking those ideas onto an existing thread - but there's nothing practical about answering questions raised 5 or 6 years ago by a person who hasn't even been to the website for 5 years.

Spearthrower wrote:...there's nothing practical about answering questions raised 5 or 6 years ago by a person who hasn't even been to the website for 5 years.

I doubt nevets meant andy_name to reply. The post he quoted was just a hook to hang his coat on, so to speak. He need not have done that, but I find nothing particularly objectionable about the fact that he did.

Hermit wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:...there's nothing practical about answering questions raised 5 or 6 years ago by a person who hasn't even been to the website for 5 years.

I doubt nevets meant andy_name to reply. The post he quoted was just a hook to hang his coat on, so to speak. He need not have done that, but I find nothing particularly objectionable about the fact that he did.

He's talking directly to andy_name in his post.

I didn't suggest it was 'objectionable' - I didn't say anything except inform him that this was a 6 year old thread by a guy who's not been here for 5 years, so there's not going to be any discussion with him on this topic.

Hermit wrote:

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Trolls gotta troll.

nevets is not a troll.

While you are entitled to your opinion on the matter I hold a different one, and mine is based on interactions where my position was given to me twice, dry ice bombs are somehow related to the origin of matter, and Bible verses are offered as evidence of something. If the member isn’t a troll he is delusional, obtuse and unable to form rational prose. So, I’m being kind when I call him a troll. The alternative is not as nice.

RS

NWO

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:

Hermit wrote:

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Trolls gotta troll.

nevets is not a troll.

While you are entitled to your opinion on the matter I hold a different one, and mine is based on interactions where my position was given to me twice, dry ice bombs are somehow related to the origin of matter, and Bible verses are offered as evidence of something. If the member isn’t a troll he is delusional, obtuse and unable to form rational prose.

I regard people who post shit in order to inflame individuals or groups as trolls. If nevets is one of those he disguises his motivation so well that he has me fooled. Until someone convinces me that I am mistaken, I regard him as someone who is sincerely trying to learn stuff by participating in this forum's discussions. Yes, he makes many missteps, sometimes makes the same missteps more than once, he can be a little slow on the uptake and some of his opinions are somewhat off the planet, but if his intention is to troll it is flying straight under my radar.

I regard your alternative appraisal of him as closer to the mark, although I would not express it in quite the uncharitable way you did. At the risk of sounding insufferably condescending I suggest we encourage nevets. In terms of K.R.Popper's paraphrase of J.A.Wheeler, "Our whole problem is to make the mistakes as fast as possible", nevets is doing just fine.

Who doesn’t like New Order?