Talk:New World Order conspiracy theory and User talk:68.228.8.2: Difference between pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
test3 message
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to [[:Dragon Ball (TV series)]]. It is considered [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]. If you would like to experiment, use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. <!-- Template:Test2-n (Second level warning) --> [[User:Zephyr2k|<font color="FF69B4"><b>zephyr2k</b></font>]] 14:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
==New World Order (Novus Ordo Mundi)==


Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to [[:Singapore]], you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. <!-- Template:Test3-n (Third level warning) --> [[User:Joshua Chiew|<font color="navy">Joshua</font>]] [[User:Joshua Chiew/Concordia|<font color="black">C</font>]][[User Talk:Joshua Chiew|<font color="blue">'''hi'''</font>]][[User:Joshua Chiew/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[WP:RFW|w]] 15:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
:While ''Novus Ordo Mundi'' does translate New World Order, the expression actually derives from the motto on the reverse of the One Dollar Bill, under the pyramid: ''Novus Ordo Seclorum'', literally ''a new order of the ages'' (meaning that the Iron Age has been succeeded by a second Golden), although in the sense of the word ''secular'', it can be interpreted as ''a new order of the world''. The motto is generally and traditionally attributed to Ben Franklin, though not as far as I am aware with any canonical provenance.
:[[User:Nuttyskin|Nuttyskin]] 19:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should include the theories of the anti-Semitic wing of the NWO conspiracy and it's proponents like Michael Collins Piper, Daryl Bradford Smith, Texe Marrs and others.
[[User:Afafj4749724|Afafj4749724]] 17:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Normally, I would be hastily removing the multiple links to extremely POV sites. In this article, however, they seem weirdly appropriate. I'm torn between removing them and leaving them. Anyone? --[[User:SWAdair|SWAdair]] | [[User talk:SWAdair|Talk ]] 04:13, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Paul Keating frequently refers to the 1990s as the 'New World Order' in ''Engagement''?
--[[User:Khuxan|Khuxan]] 11:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

== I'm checking the references.... ==

In my opinion this article is a good start on the subject.

Keep it imo.

peace
Chris

I think the article provides a good overview to what would generally be considered a fringe cultural phenomenon. The external links might be very POV, but I think you're right that they're appropriate in this context, and the article makes it clear that this is a heavily POV subject. Any reasonably critical eye should be able to discern this. I think the article strikes a good balance between the extremes of completely marginalizing the cultural context and giving it credulous coverage. Definitely a good start. --[[User:SamClayton|SamClayton]] 09:35, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have been speaking to some fenatics on both sides of the fence on this issue, and the documentation here, appears to be of balance between the two. Well fenced. I say keep the article. It appears appropriate in context to the volatility of the issue.

Rigel


I think overall the article does an adequate job of presenting both sides, but I would like to see sources for (or removal of) the article linking N.W.O. conspiracy theories to nationalism. That seems like POV to me, and I would like to see a source in writing that shows that there is a psychological link between believing in a N.W.O. conspiracy theory and being a nationalist/isolationist.
--Anonymous


I added some non absoulte mays and might's as abosoute statements are easy to argue with first. And NOT ALL conspirists are real conspirists. Some may be in it for the money selling tapes and are sensationaling certain events and do not believe their own B.S.
To call this a finge phenomenon is to ignor all the pollsters results that show for instance, spikes in those that do not believe the official version of Sept. 11 2001 events.
How many hours of Discovery channel presentations constitute conspiacy theory? The MEN who killed Kennedy to name one example
[[Conspiracy of Silence]] a suppessed documentry to name another.
Carl Cameron's suppresed 5 part Fox News piece on the "Weehawkin Five" and Israeli spys associated with the events of 911.
then there is the whole body of stuff at: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proven_conspiracies

== perequation? ==

does anyone know what that word is supposed to be? -[[User:Lethe/sig|Lethe]] | [[User talk:Lethe/sig|Talk]] 09:04, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

== perequation? ==

Perequation, from the line: "world-wide perequation under UN control".

In french I think it means 'equalization'.

I wonder what it is supposed to mean in this article? The word does not seem to have much, if any, english usage.

Does anyone know how credible the information is on the external link Popaganda Matrix?

If you knew anything about international politics, you would thewn understand that the U.N is a very "useless group". The international community would have to laugh in the U.N's face if they ever tried to go outside of their place and actually do something. Also the day that the U.S constitution is changed to resemble anyhting like the U.N charter is the day I leave on a shuttle.

* The UN is a "very useless group", is it? Who else is going to protect global interests? A single state? Ever hear of colonialism? It's generally not that popular... An international body is far preferable! By the way, it would be bloody difficult to rewrite the US constitution on UN lines. Grow up. [[User:Rusty2005|Rusty2005]] 17:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

** Dont fergit the U.S. SupCt (or The Supreme Court Of the United States) ruled that that they would not interfere with presidential trade agreement activity, during the Clinton years ( [[FTAA]], [[NAFTA]], [[WTO]] ) allowing a workaround to the treaty process that has resulted in a growing commericial takeover along with the concept of [[Home Rule]] and Eminent Domain enhancements, privatization of highways and on and on. It may be a true statement whether or not G W. Bush said it according to Capitol Hill Blue's unnamed sources; the constitution is just a g**Damb piece of paper.
The IMF and World Banque may have more relivance than the UN
[[Reinventing Governmnent]] [[Al Gore]] style not withstanding.

== there is one mistake here ! ==

I read this article and I find it largely acurate but i found one minor mistake in it.

It is written here, quoting loosely:
" Emperor Nero burned Rome and blamed religious minoritys for it. He overthrew the roman republic and founded the roman empire. "
The exact founding of the roman empire is debatable ( Ceasar and Octavian were both blamed )but Nero suceeded after Claudius, who suceeded after Caligula, who in his turn suceeded Tiberius, who suceeded Octavian (Octavian disguesed that reality largely sucessfully in his time ) . I assure you that the reality of the empire was allready in place before Nero, who was the 5th Emperor (as well as 6th Ceasar ). I will delete this mistake.

== another possible mistake? ==

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that recent historical opinion is re-evaluating whether or not Hitler had the Reichstag burned, with some now claiming that it might have actually been Socialist terrorists. I can't remember the source though. Does anyone else know about this? He doubtlessly used the event for political leverage either way, but it seems like a relevant distinction for the topic at hand.

== Fiction? ==

Is it clear enough now? Can the fiction tag be removed? --[[User:Brendansa|Brendan Hide]] 15:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

What parts were in violation of the fact/fiction rule? Well, not including that the entire theory is a work of fiction made up by some paranoid a while back...There are a few parts that are still bad. From the article(article quotes in itallics): ''The New World Order is yet another theiory based on fact.'' Besides the mispelling, there's no factual basis for the theory I know of. If there is, it should be mentioned. And here: ''It is generally believed that the most powerful figures of the conspiracy are the owners of the world's largest banks, partnered with others who are among the world's wealthiest people. Beneath this level are the people in the highest levels of various governments, military and intelligence bureaus, and the major media.'' Generally believed by who? Another: ''Evidence of this was claimed in the form of secret internment camps in remote parts of the country, to which the population would be taken for processing before being released as "work-units"; the dispersal of chemicals into the atmosphere via aircraft ("Chemtrail"); and semi-famous CIA mind control experiments performed under the code name MK-ULTRA.'' I can't begin to point out the errors in that. Nothing in that sentance is true. The ''Connections between theory and nationalism'' section is useless.. The ''Possible Socio-Political Changes'' section has no cites to anybody.The ''A revival of interest'' section is a single quote, and the writer of Left Behind is not a good representive of anything. And ''External Links'' is just a large section of conspiracy theory links with nothing critical about the 'theory' (I use the term loosely). This entire article needs to be re-done or deleted. Really, I see no need for conspiracy theories to have pages in a serious encyclopedia, especially ones as widely debunked as this one of the JFK conspiracy theories....[[User:RPGLand2000|RPGLand2000]] 21:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

:: I think the article fails because it doesn't really deal with many facts but rather starts from the outset to paint a concept of a NWO as potty bunkum and this is an enormous failing of Wikipedia across the board. In a sense you might actually be right it shouldn't be here, but not because it isn't a valid topic but because the entire doctrine of Wikipedia is all about recreating a BBC view of the world. I would add that there is an etymological aspect to the term 'New World Order' too, which is not covered adequately by the article either. The term is often used to describe a trend or end result rather than a plot hatched in the shadows by a tiny Illuminati etc. There is another interesting issue as well, in that the political usage is often very blurred with an extrapolated (conspiracy) one. I think really the article is like it is because of enormous problem in Wikipedia's editorial goals which treats things like this as a curious specimen in a jar rather than a topic and that's a far bigger problem.

== Historical Manipulations ==

Dunno how, but surely someone has to add into the Historical Manipulation the Gulf War 2 by Tony Blair, with the 'sexed-up' 45-minute document (and poor old David Kelly). Thanks. He managed to take a country to war who were largely opposed only 6 months earlier. Thanks!

... The NWO conspiracy is (as correctly noted in the article) usually percieved as having the forcible destruction of American right-wing Christians as either an explicit or incidental goal. Conspiracy theories involving Gulf War 2 usually involve the opposite; I don't think it fits.

==NWO - Fact or fiction?==
No one can proove it, Neither can anyone disproove it.
I believe an encyclopedia Should focus on spreading knowledge, controvertial or not.
I like wikipedia because it gives views from as many perspectives as possible and dosen't Censor information just because it's controvertial.
After all most conspiracies are based on fact.


fact, there are too many signs that indeed prove that it is real. bohemian grove, masonic signs all around washington dc, the all seeing eye which isnt anything christian ive ever seen. think about it if you were invited in on a club that you could make millions of dollars and political power would you not do it. i hate to say it but secret societies are part of the human mind and is the ONLY way to truly take over the world

For Example...
* Confiscation of Tesla's documents and removal of his name from almost every school book.
* Usage of HAARP as a weapon - Why would the Military fund a civilian project?
-------
:You're reading too much Alex Jones. That guy will rot your brain. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 21:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
-------
:I found out about NWO and other thoeries by using unconventional means(P2P) to research the root of the war in Iraq; not by reading alex jones, though his videos gave me a clue: 4th [[reich]].
And someone has been deleting almost all my editings or maybe the admins reverted back to an older version of database...

::: Hate links deleted. &larr;[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]][[User talk:Humus sapiens|&larr;ну?]] 01:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
If this comment is deleted, I'll know for sure that there are individuals actively suppressing information about the New World Order proving I'm right on target and NWO is active with a full-fledged system monitering the conventional internet.
:It hasn't been deleted. I guess you're wrong.[[User:Kittynboi|Kittynboi]] 19:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

-------
<small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:70.21.62.199|70.21.62.199]] ([[User talk:70.21.62.199|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/70.21.62.199|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->

: Being a part of [[All your base are belong to us|the conspiracy]], I took the liberty to delete the hate links above added by {{user|70.21.62.199}}. Using WP to spread hate in uncritical and unchallenging way is wrong. Please note that the links are available at corresponding articles where responsible and [[WP:RULES]]-abiding editors strive to describe even controversial subjects in encyclopedic and neutral way. &larr;[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]][[User talk:Humus sapiens|&larr;ну?]] 02:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

-------
Ok, here it is again, in more detail and without any external links...

;Timeline:
*2001 Sept. 11 '''[[9/11 attacks]]''' occur -- passenger planes got Hijacked and crashed into [[World Trade Center]] and [[The Pentagon]] - alegedly done by [[Al qaeda]]. There are also [[9/11 Conspiracy|conspiracies that the US/UK government willingly let it occur]].
*2001 Nov. '''[[USA PATRIOT Act]]''' Passed -- Overrides the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]].
*2002 '''[[Homeland Security Act]]''' passed, effective from 2003 Jan. -- Gives the US federal government full authority to moniter any citizen.
*2002 Jan. 29 '''[[Axis of Evil]]''' & '''[[War on Terrorism]]''' -- [[Axis of Evil]] is a term used by [[George W. Bush]] describe the first three regimes in a [[war against terror]]. Since terror is an idea not living thing(s), he is basically declaring Infinite War. Gives the federal government full authority to [[Habeas corpus|take required actions, presuming the accused is guilty]] under [[Martial Law]]
*2002 Jul. '''[[Iraq War]]''' starts -- A preemptive strike and occupation of Iraq through [[Censorship|lies]] and propagada.
*2003 [[Information Operations Roadmap]] commissioned, declasified in Jan 2006 -- Includes a major Disinformation project to plant stories in any availaible(non-domestic) news Media; which is ultimately consumed by US audience. Basically US government is lying to the whole world, even Indirectly to its citizens.
*2004 Oct. 16 '''[[US Global Anti-Semitism Review Act]]''' established -- A committee established by law, and made up [[Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor]]; that moniters anything the jews might not like and reports annually to the [[US Congress]] - similar to the anti-communism thought that appeared during the cold war only this time it is written down. Also note that the book on [[The Protocols of the Elders of Zion|protocols]] is alegedly written by jews. If the law is passed, it will most probably be against [[Homeschooling]]/[[Self study]]/[[Natural learning]].


; Almost all the predicted propaganda in [[Nineteen Eighty-Four|1984 book]] is comming true in the [[War on Terrorism]]
*1) "'''BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU'''" - [[Homeland Security Act]] Moniters all US Citizens, invading privacy.
*2) "'''WAR IS PEACE'''" - [[War on Terrorism]] is permanent war and is supposed to be against evil regimes that causes terror.
*3) "'''FREEDOM IS SLAVERY'''" - [[USA PATRIOT Act]] - Sacrifice freedom (of [[freedom of speech|speech]], [[freedom of the press|press]], [[freedom of religion|religion]], and [[freedom of assembly|assembly]]) to secure freedom
*4) "'''IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH'''" - A law against hasn't been passed(yet); but the [[US government]] dosen't need one, since it can [[Censorship|censor]] anything it dosen't want the public to know. If the law is passed, it will most probably be against [[Homeschooling]]/[[Self study]]/[[Natural learning]].


;Possible Goals of NWO:
* [[Deconstruction]] of public services; eg: [[Public transport|Transport]], [[Public health care|Health care]]
* Moniter and raise and population for [[war effort]]
* Promote [[Globalization]] & [[Capitalism]]
* [[commercialize]] and maybe even [[Resources monopoly|Monopolize]] all [[natural resources]] through [[Company (law)|companies]] & [[Business|Business]]
* [[Deregulation]] of trade - Promote [[Free Trade]] with [[Protectionism]] and eliminate [[Fair trade]]
* Create large debts through [[Derivative (finance)|Derivatives]] and eventually financial collapse
* [[Deconstruction]] of [[Family values|family]] & religious values - by introducing [[feminism]] and eventually [[Homosexual Agenda|Homosexuality]]


;Politicians against NWO:
*[[Lyndon LaRouche]] (Democrat)
<!-- *[[Pat Buchanan]] (Republican) -->
<!-- *[[David Icke]] -->


;(Know Thy Enemy) - Literature Supportive of NWO Ideals:
Warning: the following might induce hate, glorify war, genocide, or US/Europe/Jewish Supremacy
* [[Project for the New American Century]] - US Supremacy
* [[Mein Kampf]] - The mind of a dictator
* [[The Protocols of the Elders of Zion]] - The guide lines for [[world domination]] that is being followed by a Secret Society, and alegedly written by Jews.
:That protocols of the elders of zion is a proven hoax.[[User:Kittynboi|Kittynboi]] 19:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
:Actually "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" has NOT been proven to be a hoax. What is said to be a hoax however, is that it was written by a Jewish cabal. In reality, it doesn't matter if it was written by Jews or anyone else, it was written down and is proof that people with the time and resources CAN AND WILL take the time to think of everything involved in taking total control behind the scenes. Evil shall always rise to the top of any power structure because it is willing to do what good can only stand by and watch. - Kenn 10:45, 10 March 2006 <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:24.42.118.202|24.42.118.202]] ([[User talk:24.42.118.202|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/24.42.118.202|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->

[[User:Ne0Freedom]]

: This page is supposed to be used to discuss a certain encylopedic article - not as a personal/political/hate blog. &larr;[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]][[User talk:Humus sapiens|&larr;ну?]] 04:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there Should be a new section on NWO propenents links with anti-semitism. It seems apparent when 'the protocols of the elders of Zion' is quoted as a legitimate text from the 'enemy', it has long been used as propoganda demonising jews despite no basis in fact (read the wiki article on it, its quite good). Also I think there is a subtext to 'the world's wealthiest people' which carries the the old bigot line 'the jews rule the world with their money'. Maybe I am just ultra sensitive to this stuff, I had a relative killed in a hate crime and I hate to see any sign that these people's beliefs are ok because 'its a free country'. They are not because they are harmful.

:: Wow! What a great blog! Too bad this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. [[User:Asacan|Asacan]] 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

== Can we detag it now? ==
Under it's current state, the article seems quite viable. I can see no vandalism, no outragous lunacy, and no hate-blogging. I see a theory that seems consistent with the many versions drifting in meme culture, although I should point out I see NWO more frequently equated with the "Illuminati" than stated here. If the next person to see this message agrees with me, can you please de-tag the article - if you're opposed to it, just reply to me stating why we shouldn't de-tag. [[User:AKismet|AKismet]] 05:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I took off the tags after editing the UK paragraph to be a little less "statement of fact" and more "people say..." Besides, the constant quotation of "United Kingdom" tends to suggest sarcasm at the thought of the UK as an independent entity. Also, looking through the comments, I really don't see the point in including them (especially the Federation website). --[[User:165.134.195.72|165.134.195.72]] 01:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== Multilateral understanding ==

I think we need to avoid talking about specific subjects, I mean the ones that can discredite us and our message because of the perception peoples have been taught to have about them. What I mean, is at the current stage we should not speak about some topics (there is one in particular), rather we should get them to free their mind and get to the same conclusions by themselves. Otherwise the message will never spread and it will be very easy to attack us.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree. The problem is that this "message" that needs to be spread is too different to too many people. Some people have a fair grasp of the whole system and understand it in "greys" instead of "black & white". It is these people that understand that you need to let people free their minds at their own pace and "wake up", with little bits of information at a time. The problem is misinformation from BOTH sides. You will find horse feces on both sides of the farmer's fence. So now we have a large population of people who realize something is up, but they don't have the whole picture. It is they who are the "tin-foil hat" conspriacy theoricists that force the "sleeping" to stop thinking as soon as they hear the very words "conspiracy theory". This leaves those who actually read into history and find out that the "official" story is usually artifical, looking crazy. Yet who is more crazy? One who thinks for himself and reads into the fine details to come to a logical conclusion, or one who only gets information from a centralized source that is owned by those that are accused of "conspiracy"?

IS it really crazy to believe that a population, no matter how big or small, of people involved in state & federal government, big buisness, banking, media and the education system are corupt? Is it really crazy to belive that some people in multifarious positions of power have agendas different than they claim? Is it not at all possible that these people might meet each other and decide to work together, like two Mob families that merge upon realization that between them they would have all the power, or two corperate entities that merge instead of compete? As long as the many allow themselves to be ruled by the few, they will be ruled by tyrants. Evil cut-throat minded men will always reach higher positions of power than the good intentioned men, ''for the evil men will always be willing to do what the good men can only watch, to attain said power'' - K

== External links ==

I think there are too many links that are promotional and uninformative, and some that are more or less the same material. Is there a way we could agree on about how many, and what kind, of links we should include? Maybe a couple religious, a couple secular, anti-semitic and not, narrowly-focused, all-inclusive, etc. Maybe twenty links total? It doesn't need to be a hard number, but having too many makes it look like a link-dump and invites anyone to add another. Any thoughts? [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 20:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

: Agreed, and I think that this entire article is inadequate for a serious encyclopedia. Instead of promoting those fringe websites (which is against [[POV]]), it should reflect mainstream scholarly perspectives and analysis (including psychoanalysis) of the subject. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] <sup>[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну?]]</sup> 09:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

== One example of ignorance here ==

[[Tetragrammaton]] in Greek means "word with four letters". This text says 72. The rest of the "article" is of about the same quality level. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] <sup>[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну?]]</sup> 09:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
:Your participation will be most welcome. The tag says, "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims." Other than ''Tetragrammaton'', you haven't noted any specifically, but when you see them, please correct or remove them. Until then, I'm removing the tag. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
:: Too fast. As I said, this was just one example. This article is a serious contender to be the most [[WP:WEASEL]] in WP. Please restore the tag until all those "some say" are properly attributed (according to [[WP:RS]], [[WP:CITE]]) or gone. Are we supposed to promote encyclopedic knowledge or old wives tales? ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] <sup>[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну?]]</sup> 12:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

:I have restored the tag as you asked. I hope you do not think that I have some greater obligation to maintain this page than you do. Again, if you see problems, correct them. I'm sure you are as adept as I am at using Google to search for [http://www.google.com/search?hs=a3q&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&q=%2272%22+%22name+of+God%22+%22masons%22+%22conspiracy%22&btnG=Search conspiracy theories]. This article describes the beliefs of people who subscribe to this particular flavor of conspiracy theory. It does not describe, and is not meant to describe, the actual state of reality. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 14:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

:: Tom, I didn't imply any additional obligations on your side. I thank you for being reasonable. Back to the subject: I think this article would only win if the weaseling is replaced with views of reputable mainstream scholars. Cheers. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] <sup>[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну?]]</sup> 20:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Humus, an Interational Crime or Treason is considered 'Conspiracy' only when there is cover up involved, for example, the subject being shunned by the mainstream scholars/media. So according to their views [[There Is No Cabal]] !!! --[[User:Ne0Freedom|Ne0Freedom]] 20:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC) --[[User:Ne0Freedom|Ne0Freedom]] 05:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

::::I think the point of the critique is being missed here. Primarily that this article provides no citations or references. You are mistaking a crtique of style with a critique of belief. The citations do not need to be from "mainstream scholars" or maintstream media. But they need to be from somewhere. Cite Alex Jones or Laurence Gardner or your own mother if you wish. But just cite it. There are too many "some believers think" or "some people say" statements, with no citation. Is a reader supposed to just take this at face value? Additionally, If I want to read further on one of these theories, where am I supposed to go? Just because your idea may not be "mainstream" doesn't mean your writing cannot follow practical and sound research writing standards --[[User:Majec|Majec]] 03:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

== Conspiracy theorists allege... ==

I restored this wording. This is after all a conspiracy theory. I also removed the formating and categorization from the ''see also'' list. It seemed to me to constitute original research. I restored [[US Global Anti-Semitism Review Act]] to the ''see also'' list, not understanding why it was removed. Possibly a link to more general coverage of anti-semitism would be better. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 11:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

: Despite false claims on [[User:Ne0Freedom]]'s talk page that [[US Global Anti-Semitism Review Act]] is "A committee established by law, and made up [[Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor]]; that moniters anything the jews might not like..." (sic), I don't think it deserves to be listed in the ''See also'' list. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] <sup>[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну?]]</sup> 19:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

::How about a link to [[Anti-semitism]] instead? [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 21:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

::: No doubt, many antisemites are conspiracy theorists. If there is a relation between ''New World Order (conspiracy)'' and ''antisemitism'', it is not obvious (to me at least) and needs to be better explained: is it a conspiracy in itself, or one becomes a part of some (competing?) conspiracy when he exposes/fights it? How about those who are against those who fight it? ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] <sup>[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну?]]</sup> 22:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

::No doubt there's a lot of room for improvement. Anti-semitism is a prominent feature of many NWO conspiracy theories. In some theories Jews are explicitly portrayed as the financiers of the New World Order. In others, the Jews (or at least all but a very few at the highest levels) are portrayed as victims. Some writers like Cooper have explicitely denied being anti-semitic; others are overtly so. Almost none completely ignore the Jews. The book by Barkun cited in the references goes into detail about it, and is well-worth reading. You can also read some of the conspiracist literature to get an idea, if you are up for that, and there are many [[Conspiracy theory#References|references at ''Conspiracy theory'']]. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 22:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

::: I never said anything about jews conspiring against the world. The only 3 FACTS I mentioned are that...
:::* Jews are given credit(along with the blame) for allegedly writing the Protocols {Never said it was not a forgery}.
:::* Some secret group somewhere is conspiring to undermine democracy and freedom using methods which seem very similar to ideas from the protocols.
:::* Jews are being shielded from foreign attacks(verbal & physical){Probably by the same secret group IF they are using the protocols and feeling sympathy for the jews}
:::...So there a secret alliance conspiring to over throw the current democracys and brainwash civilians probably by using the protocols --[[User:Ne0Freedom|Ne0Freedom]] 23:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's one thing to say that ''NWO conspiracy theorists believe'' 'some secret group somewhere is conspiring to undermine democracy...' or ''Writers of conspiracist literature such as X say'' 'Jews are being shielded from foreign attacks...'. That's a legitimate part of an encyclopedia article on the social phenomenon of conspiracy theory. To actually say as a matter of fact that these things are true is way beyond anything Wikipedia has any business doing. This talk page is only for discussion of how the article should develop. It's not the place to assert the truth of these claims. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 23:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

: I've removed [[US Global Anti-Semitism Review Act]] (again) as I don't see any relation to the subject. Sidenote: [[User:Ne0Freedom]]'s credibility just went deeper into negative territory. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] <sup>[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну?]]</sup> 06:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Under this heading it says somewhere: (I quote) 'A few fringe leftists' believe the Neo-Conservatives engineered the September 11th attacks (or allowed them to happen) in order to be able to use the subsequent War on Terrorism as an excuse for the United States Military to ultimately seize the remaining petroleum supply of the world because of the Neo-Conservatives' awareness of the impending crisis of Peak Oil. It is asserted that the real purpose of the Iraq War was for the United States to gain control of Iraq's petroleum reserves to provide a "swing supply" (supply cushion) during the coming Peak Oil crisis.'

Actually, to state that a 'few fringe leftists' believe this, is quite funny. Most non-Americans believe it, I'm afraid.[[User:62.131.185.194|62.131.185.194]] 11:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

== Be specific or [[WP:Bold|Be bold]] ==

Please take out what you see as unverified or original research. If I or anyone else objects we'll speak up. If you think the whole thing is nonsense, nominate it for deletion and we'll work it out there. Otherwise, I'm taking down the tags tomorrow. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 20:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

==Pearl Harbor==
Pearl Harbor does not belong on this list. This has in fact already been reached by a concensus:\
"U.S. civilian and military intelligence forces had, between them, good information suggesting additional Japanese aggression throughout the summer and fall before the attack. None of it specifically indicated an attack against Pearl Harbor." [[Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor]] Section "United_States_preparedness"


== Unitary Being "Bad", and what evidence for only unitary world government?==

The first sentance reads;

"New World Order (Novus Ordo Mundi) refers to a conspiracy theory in which a powerful and secretive group (Illuminati, Freemasons, etc.) has created a secret plan to eventually rule the world via a unitary (as opposed to federal) world government."

Isn't this sort of bias toward a unitary world government being "bad"? Since when did we have the specifics on whether the NWO conspiracists wanted a unitary or federal system of rule? [[User:Zachorious|Zachorious]] 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

----
In my view, the wording you quote does not reflect a bias. &#151;&nbsp;[[User:Xiutwel|Xiutwel]] <small>[[User:Xiutwel|(talk)]]</small> 11:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
==Manichean element==
I quote from the article:
:New World Order theories are often criticized for failing to explain why wealthy and powerful individuals are trying to overthrow the government, and are willing to use extremely violent means to do so. For most people, the theories do not persuasively explain why these men would want to jeopardize themselves to gain a position which would be less grand than their present state. Without an explanation, it seems that the conspirators must be "pure evil". This concept is known in literature as [[manichean]] duality. This fits naturally in Christian New World Order conspiracy theories, since the antagonist is the Antichrist; it does not fit well with purely secular conspiracy theories.
My input to this is rather complex, so I would like to discuss here before making any changes to the article.
#It is not necessarily the case in any single theory that NWO-forces would be overthrowing legitimate government, it might also be the case that such forces have been dominating government since the Roman empire or earlier. Not in an absolute sense, but in terms of influence. From this point of view, the creation of a NWO is simply a change of flavor, not an overthrowing of legitimate government by illegitimate.
#According to [[David Icke]], Illuminati and Freemasons are just tools to be used by a network that is older than that.
#So the problem is there are many conspiracy theories about the NWO, so it cannot be easily put that "these theories" are "often criticized", this would over-simplify the debate which is present in society.
How to go about this? &#151;&nbsp;[[User:Xiutwel|Xiutwel]] <small>[[User:Xiutwel|(talk)]]</small> 11:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A few thoughts. 'often criticized...' -by who? It can't be that often, that criticism wouldn't take into account that most if not nearly all NWO conspiracy theories would both ultimately give unprecidented power to the top dogs, far outstripping the power anyone wields today and also allow 'them' to wield that power in the open as opposed to being a shadowy string puller. This entire Manichean element section cites nothing and seems more like an opinion or an attempt to debunk the theories to me. Does that belong? [[User:Tsoldrin|Tsoldrin]] 12:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

==Rewrite==
Hi
I have just rewritten the introduction because the previous one reeks with prejudice and really does nothing to inform, in other words it's more of a political commentary. It's a vast subject and my few lines hardly do it justice but I hope it serves to spark a bit of interest to inspire the reader to inquire further. I'd also like to leave it to others to add their own bits rather than to rewrite the majority of this article myself which is really what it could do with.[[User:84.68.142.23|84.68.142.23]] 18:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved here from my talk page:

''Leave my NWO post alone. My sources can be checked on the web, the names given are their own references.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:84.68.142.23|84.68.142.23]] ([[User talk:84.68.142.23|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/84.68.142.23|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small>''
:What sources? -- [[User:Zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 20:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


If I were to reference every source that contributed to that overall summary it would be many times the length of the introduction and make the piece virtually unreadable. I know your neat little academic world revolves around references and more references but ultimately everything in history is a matter of opinion and interpretation. It's not a science, it's far more complex than the 1+ 1 = 2 mindset that you are using against me. OK lets have a look at a source then. When you have read this you might begin to see what I mean.

For the Cliveden Set I’d point you in this direction.



http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_01.html

[[User:84.68.142.23|84.68.142.23]] 20:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you, that looks like it could be a useful reference for something, though its provenance is not too clear. Now, about your edits. First please remember this is an encyclopaedia, and everything should be [[WP:V|verifiable]] from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. It's what encyclopaedias do, and it's an official policy around here. Another important policy is [[WP:OR|no original research]] - that means no drawing your own conclusions from facts you've read elsewhere. Let's look at half of the material you tried to put into the article:
<blockquote>
''A marked feature of these wayward groups of people is their pursuit of the occult and this is often hidden behind an outward mask of Christian credentials but in effect it can be said that their influence is more often one of infiltration and corruption of the church, especially the Catholic Church. This is typically illustrated with the rise of Humanism during the reign of the Medici dynasty during the Italian Renaissance where an odd mixture of orthodox Christian doctrine is blended with pagan mythology of the Greeks and Romans.''
</blockquote>

:The source you mentioned does not mention religion, the occult, christianity, greeks, catholicism, paganism or god once. It does not even allude to religion in any way. Come to think of it, even ''you'' don't establish a relation with the Cliveden set. This paragraph is unverifiable original research - it has no sources and it appears to be your own conclusions. As such it is no different from the opinion of my cat, and it shouldn't be included in this collection of facts. If you don't like the way things are done around here, might I suggest you look at working on another project. However, you obviously have an interest in the subject, and a knowledge of where to find references: it would be great if you could combine these with the purpose of Wikipedia - which is not to spread the knowledge that you think you have, but verifiable facts. That doesn't mean facts about these secret societies, but facts - even opinions - which have been reported by reliable sources. Nobody expects you to fill up the article with references - just one reference would be a start. Thanks. -- [[User:Zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 21:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== Islamic Leaders Fighting the Order through manipulation? ==

I have never understood extremest Islam mostly because interpertations of the Koran don't match up with what you see in the middle east. September 11 was 11 years after the new world order speech.


I have studied the subject for about five years now and what I was replacing was prejudiced claptrap, which is far from your ideal of a factual encyclopaedia. Seriously, as I said in the beginning this page needs a rewrite without the inferences of theory every second or third word.

The New world Order is a major sociological and political change that has been planned for a very long time and it is just coming to fruition as of lets say the last 20 years or so. It is a huge subject and extremely complex so I don't expect any piece of writing to have any possibility of summing it up precisely in a few short words.

What I wrote was merely intended to introduce the subject with the idea in mind that others could build on it. It was a first attempt, that's all and I’m quite happy to have it edited and extended with other references and poignant details, but a complete deletion without even considering it properly is quite unjust and especially when you are quite happy to host the entirely biased account that exists currently.

It is markedly different to the standard of professionalism in practically every other article. The way these articles are policed makes me think that anything without an establishment’s seal of approval is wiped immediately. It reminds me of Orwell’s novel to be frank with you. Furthermore it is shooting yourself in the foot when you are so dictatorial in your approach and I think any serious researchers would not entertain such treatment.
[[User:84.66.27.92|84.66.27.92]] 22:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


After researching the NEW WORLD ORDER for nearly 7 years, I cannot imagine how the word ISLAM even made it to the TALK PAGE of this article. Does no one do their homework on here EVER? I am sickened. I cannot believe such a group of ignorants proposes to author this page at all.
[[User:Tsoldrin|Tsoldrin]] 10:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

== Millenarian? ==

The first paragraph of the article after the contents is... "New world order is an integrative millenarian conspiracy theory that appears in both religious and secular versions. It emerged as a combination, and recombination, of fundamentalist Christian eschatology, with the long-standing disposition to blame conspiracies for shifting social inequities." I have a problem with this. For one thing, I had never heard of millenarians and had certainly never heard of them linked to the NWO before reading this article. For another, when I read the millenarian article it didn't have anything to do with the concept of the NWO, as I understand it. Also, saying it emerged from Christian eschatology -- where are the sources? Sounds like original research to me. [[User:24.18.35.120|24.18.35.120]] 09:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:See note 2, Berlet, and note 5, Barkun in the references. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 14:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

== I think there ought to be a US-centric tag here. ==

This article seems to be fairly US centric, with little mention of other countries.

:I would be interested to read about other countries' new world order conspiracy theories. Feel free to list some links or books if you get an opportunity. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

==[[List of doomsday scenarios]]==

Could use votes to save this article, thanks [[User:MapleTree|MapleTree]] 22:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:22, 5 October 2006

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Dragon Ball (TV series). It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. zephyr2k 14:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Singapore, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Joshua Chiew 15:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_World_Order_conspiracy_theory&oldid=79661873"