Do you guys believe that there is a new world order/iluminati, or do you think its a whacky conspiracy.
Do you guys believe that there is a new world order/iluminati, or do you think its a whacky conspiracy.
The only New World Order I'm familiar with was the one led by Hulk Hogan and Kevin Nash.
Do you guys believe that there is a new world order/iluminati, or do you think its a whacky conspiracy.
Do you guys believe that there is a new world order/iluminati, or do you think its a whacky conspiracy.
The only New World Order I'm familiar with was the one led by Hulk Hogan and Kevin Nash.
There is definitely a conspiracy of world leaders to uproot Jewish sovereignty in the Jewish homeland, to keep the world addicted to Arab oil, and seemingly to undermine American founding principles as well... But to give them nicknames as if they are prowrestling personalities and scary boogeymen is silly. Also silly is to say they intend things there is no proof for and say they are behind every little thing that goes on...
There is indeed a new world order going on, right in front of us, but do not forget that nasty anti-Semites who are part of the new world order love to invent absurd conspiracies about the NWO, Illuminati, Masons, and ZOG in order to try and bring about a second Shoah.
There is indeed a new world order going on, right in front of us, but do not forget that nasty anti-Semites who are part of the new world order love to invent absurd conspiracies about the NWO, Illuminati, Masons, and ZOG in order to try and bring about a second Shoah.
I have card carrying member of all those institutions. im also a member of the skull and bones, the Rand Corporation, Bildeberg, the Cabal of Jew-Controlled Banks, and the supreme dark overlords of the apocalypse.
LOL, the WN organizations love to say that George Homos is a "Zionist". George Homos is a Zionist like Liberace was straight.
LOL, the WN organizations love to say that George Homos is a "Zionist". George Homos is a Zionist like Liberace was straight.
The "WN" groups have a completely different and warped definition of zionism. To them zionism basically means communism. It's really hard to debate with people who use completely different definitions that don't make any sense. They're really crazy actually.
You guys can laugh all you want but there really are organizations that are evil and individuals that are evil who do want a one world system and such a system won't be good for anybody, especially Jews.
New world order (politics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search
This article is about the use of the term “new world order” in international politics. For its use in conspiracy theory, see New World Order (conspiracy theory). For other uses, see New World Order.
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 global 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.
The first Western usages of the term surrounded Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and call for a League of Nations following the devastation of World War I. The phrase was used sparingly at the end of World War II when describing the plans for the United Nations and Bretton Woods system, in part because of the negative association to the failed League of Nations the phrase would have brought. However, many commentators have applied the term retroactively to the order put in place by the WWII victors as a "new world order."
The most widely discussed application of the phrase of recent times came at the end of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H. W. Bush used the term to try to define the nature of the post Cold War era, and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might materialize. Gorbachev's initial formulation was wide ranging and idealistic, but his ability to press for it was severely limited by the internal crisis of the Soviet system. Bush's vision was, in comparison, much more circumscribed and realistic, perhaps even instrumental at times, and closely linked to the Gulf War.
...
The Gulf War and Bush's formulation
Bush started to take the initiative from Gorbachev during the run-up to the Gulf War, when he began to define the elements of the new world order as he saw it, and link the new order’s success to the international community’s response in Kuwait.
Initial agreement by the Soviets to allow action against Saddam highlighted this linkage in the press. The Washington Post declared that this superpower cooperation demonstrates that the Soviet Union has joined the international community, and that in the new world order Saddam faces not just the U.S. but the international community itself.[14] A New York Times editorial was the first to assert that at stake in the collective response to Saddam was "nothing less than the new world order which [Bush] and other leaders struggle to shape." [15]
In A World Transformed, Scowcroft notes that Bush even offered to have Soviet troops amongst the coalition forces liberating Kuwait. Bush places the fate of the new world order on the ability of the U.S. and the Soviet Union to respond to Hussein’s aggression.[16] The idea that the Gulf War would usher in the new world order began to take shape. Bush notes that the "premise [was] that the United States henceforth would be obligated to lead the world community to an unprecedented degree, as demonstrated by the Iraqi crisis, and that we should attempt to pursue our national interests, wherever possible, within a framework of concert with our friends and the international community."[17]
On March 6, 1991, President Bush addressed Congress in a speech often cited as the Bush administration’s principal policy statement on the new world order in the Middle East, following the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.[18][19] Michael Oren summarizes the speech, saying; “The president proceeded to outline his plan for maintaining a permanent U.S. naval presence in the Gulf, for providing funds for Middle East development, and for instituting safeguards against the spread of unconventional weapons. The centerpiece of his program, however, was the achievement of an Arab-Israeli treaty based on the territory-for-peace principle and the fulfillment of Palestinian rights.” As a first step Bush announced his intention to reconvene the international peace conference in Madrid.[18]
A pivotal point came with Bush’s September 11, 1990 "Toward a New World Order" speech (full text) to a joint session of Congress. This time it was Bush, not Gorbachev, whose idealism was compared to Woodrow Wilson, and to Franklin D. Roosevelt at the creation of the UN. Key points picked up in the press were:
* Commitment to U.S. strength, such that it can lead the world toward rule of law, rather than use of force. The Gulf crisis was seen as a reminder that the U.S. must continue to lead, and that military strength does matter, but that the resulting new world order should make military force less important in the future.
* Soviet–American partnership in cooperation toward making the world safe for democracy, making possible the goals of the UN for the first time since its inception. Some countered that this was unlikely, and that ideological tensions would remain, such that the two superpowers could be partners of convenience for specific and limited goals only. The inability of the USSR to project force abroad was another factor in skepticism toward such a partnership.
* Another caveat raised was that the new world order was based not on U.S.-Soviet cooperation, but really on Bush-Gorbachev cooperation, and that the personal diplomacy made the entire concept exceedingly fragile.
* Future cleavages were to be economic, not ideological, with the First and Second world cooperating to contain regional instability in the Third World. Russia could become an ally against economic assaults from Asia, Islamic terrorism, and drugs from Latin America.
* Soviet integration into world economic institutions, such as the G7, and establishment of ties with the European Community.
* Restoration of German sovereignty and Cambodia’s acceptance of the UN Security Council’s peace plan on the day previous to the speech were seen as signs of what to expect in the new world order
* The reemergence of Germany and Japan as members of the great powers, and concomitant reform of the UN Security Council was seen as necessary for great power cooperation and reinvigorated UN leadership
* Europe was seen as taking the lead on building their own world order, while the U.S. was relegated to the sidelines. The rationale for U.S. presence on the continent was vanishing, and the Gulf crisis was seen as incapable of rallying Europe. Instead Europe was discussing the European Community, the CSCE, and relations with the USSR. Gorbachev even proposed an all-European security council to replace the CSCE, in effect superseding the increasingly irrelevant NATO.
* A very few postulated a bi-polar new order of U.S. power and UN moral authority, the first as global policeman, the second as global judge and jury. The order would be collectivist, in which decisions and responsibility would be shared.
These were the common themes that emerged from reporting about Bush’s speech and its implications.[20] Critics held that Bush and Baker remained too vague about what exactly the order entailed.
“ Does it mean a strengthened U.N.? And new regional security arrangements in the gulf and elsewhere? Will the U.S. be willing to put its own military under international leadership? In the Gulf, Mr. Bush has rejected a UN command outright. Sometimes, when Administration officials describe their goals, they say the U.S. must reduce its military burden and commitment. Other times, they appear determined to seek new arrangements to preserve U.S. military supremacy and to justify new expenditures. ”
The New York Times observed that the American left was calling the new world order a "rationalization for imperial ambitions" in the Middle East, while the right rejected new security arrangements altogether and fulminated about any possibility of UN revival.[21] Pat Buchanan predicted that the Gulf War would in fact be the demise of the new world order, the concept of UN peacekeeping, and the U.S.'s role as global policeman.[22]
The groups that were jokingly mentioned in this thread such as CFR, Trilateral commission, etc. are not jokes. They have real power and influence and that's not a good thing.
Why are all the presidents members of those types of organizations? Why do the so called left and the so called right seem to have the same agenda?
I'm not against international cooperation and trade either, but there comes a point where sovereignty begins to be eroded, and these groups want that to happen. They are gaining ground right now and we are losing.
I'm not saying they will be ultimately successful, (I do think G-d will win in the end) but I think there are some very powerful people who are on their side of things, George Soros included.
They don't even want your family to be all the same Muman, they consider the family to be what they want to destroy next, by making it a mish mash of nationalities:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/politics/21family.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&hp
Why are all the presidents members of those types of organizations?
Why are all the presidents members of those types of organizations?
People often ask this, but it could just be that people of high standing in the upper echelons of society and with political connections can become members of these groups. Similarly, only a person with this background and these qualities can become president or bigname politician. So it makes sense that the two positions go hand in hand. Both have similar "qualifications."
The "WN" groups have a completely different and warped definition of zionism. To them zionism basically means communism. It's really hard to debate with people who use completely different definitions that don't make any sense. They're really crazy actually.They do claim though that people such as Soros, Spielberg, Rahm Emanuel, etc. put Israel over the United States in terms of loyalty. If only that were true maybe Israel wouldn't be constantly struggling to survive.
Why are all the presidents members of those types of organizations?
People often ask this, but it could just be that people of high standing in the upper echelons of society and with political connections can become members of these groups. Similarly, only a person with this background and these qualities can become president or bigname politician. So it makes sense that the two positions go hand in hand. Both have similar "qualifications."
That might explain a correlation of sorts, but not why all of them are.
Why are all the presidents members of those types of organizations?
People often ask this, but it could just be that people of high standing in the upper echelons of society and with political connections can become members of these groups. Similarly, only a person with this background and these qualities can become president or bigname politician. So it makes sense that the two positions go hand in hand. Both have similar "qualifications."
That might explain a correlation of sorts, but not why all of them are.
It could be that it's a very elitist group, and "somebody who's somebody" in the world of politics has to earn a place in one of these things. It's a resume builder. It would make sense that a guy who never made it into "American Cancer Researcher Society" (I'm making this up as a hypothetical) for his research credentials won't get a job in a cancer lab over a guy who did.