Just watched Invisible Empire: New World Order Defined

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - INVISIBLE EMPIRE TRAILER #2 Order Today at Infowars.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IeYlAAjcuA&feature=player_embedded)


http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/inemnewwoord.html



I was at my friends house yesterday and he attained a copy of this film. We sat down to watch it and here are my thoughts.

The first half of the movie was lame compared to the second half. The second half was at least interesting and it should've started there. Overall the film was too long and ran probably 20-40 minutes longer than it should have. It is tiring to watch and I felt drained afterwords. The graphics and production value was excellent as it always is with AJ's films but I am guessing that flashy graphics for the entire film might have been partially what caused me to feel tired.

However their attempt at propaganda is very thin, especially at the first part of the movie. They show clips of prominent government officials discussing "the nwo" out of context and then try to tie it into a book that was written in 1919 about the concept of a one world government. To anyone who has ever studied contemporary history or international relations they understand that the context of the phrase "nwo" was not that of what the filmmaker was trying to tie it to. Even Madeline Albright (I am NOT a fan) mentioned that the phrase had a lot of previous negative connotation to it and was not the best way to describe what they were discussing. "A new world order" that Bush Sr used multiple times simply meant that the way the world was arranged at the time is in the process of changing into a new order. The world order was known as "bi-polar" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarity_%28power%29#Bipolarity during the Cold War. When the Soviet Union collapsed it was no longer bi-polar and the US became the dominant world force. Everyone was in a tizzy because the balance of power was upset. The elitists didn't think the "lesser" countries would be able to govern themselves without either the Soviets or the US governments playing puppetmaster.

While yes of course the globalists are real and are trying to advance their agenda, the film was taking separate statements and trying to tie them together through loose and shaky unsubstantiated inferences. It then tried to make the CFR, BG, TC, BH, and S&B out to be more than what they are.

It then continues on discussing Iran Contra and some of the misdeeds of the CIA which I didn't find anything wrong with. The dirt and horrifc actions that the CIA has perpetuated across the globe are indeed worthy of condemnation. There is no doubt that GH Bush was CIA and dirty. There is no question there are globalists and an agenda and have been somewhat effective. However this film makes assumptions, jumps to conclusions, takes incredible leaps of logic, and makes unsubstantiated inferences.

But then again that's par for the course for all of AJ's films.



.

[tropicangela]

Agreed, AJ's work is often too long. I've only gotten through the first half of Invisible Empire. Guess I will finish it.

[Galileo Galilei]

YouTube - INVISIBLE EMPIRE TRAILER #2 Order Today at Infowars.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IeYlAAjcuA&feature=player_embedded)


http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/inemnewwoord.html



I was at my friends house yesterday and he attained a copy of this film. We sat down to watch it and here are my thoughts.

The first half of the movie was lame compared to the second half. The second half was at least interesting and it should've started there. Overall the film was too long and ran probably 20-40 minutes longer than it should have. It is tiring to watch and I felt drained afterwords. The graphics and production value was excellent as it always is with AJ's films but I am guessing that flashy graphics for the entire film might have been partially what caused me to feel tired.

However their attempt at propaganda is very thin, especially at the first part of the movie. They show clips of prominent government officials discussing "the nwo" out of context and then try to tie it into a book that was written in 1919 about the concept of a one world government. To anyone who has ever studied contemporary history or international relations they understand that the context of the phrase "nwo" was not that of what the filmmaker was trying to tie it to. Even Madeline Albright (I am NOT a fan) mentioned that the phrase had a lot of previous negative connotation to it and was not the best way to describe what they were discussing. "A new world order" that Bush Sr used multiple times simply meant that the way the world was arranged at the time is in the process of changing into a new order. The world order was known as "bi-polar" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarity_%28power%29#Bipolarity during the Cold War. When the Soviet Union collapsed it was no longer bi-polar and the US became the dominant world force. Everyone was in a tizzy because the balance of power was upset. The elitists didn't think the "lesser" countries would be able to govern themselves without either the Soviets or the US governments playing puppetmaster.

While yes of course the globalists are real and are trying to advance their agenda, the film was taking separate statements and trying to tie them together through loose and shaky unsubstantiated inferences. It then tried to make the CFR, BG, TC, BH, and S&B out to be more than what they are.

It then continues on discussing Iran Contra and some of the misdeeds of the CIA which I didn't find anything wrong with. The dirt and horrifc actions that the CIA has perpetuated across the globe are indeed worthy of condemnation. There is no doubt that GH Bush was CIA and dirty. There is no question there are globalists and an agenda and have been somewhat effective. However this film makes assumptions, jumps to conclusions, takes incredible leaps of logic, and makes unsubstantiated inferences.

But then again that's par for the course for all of AJ's films.



.



I watched the first 10 minutes of the film. I thought it was interesting showing all the footage of people using the term 'New World Order'. It seemed to me more like they were setting the stage for today's usage. Many phrases and clauses go through various nuances of meanings and NWO is no exception. It can be argued the NWO is used as a code word by globalists.

Most people don't even know that NWO order precedes Bush's use of the phrase in 1991.

The NWO is not a real organization; it is a label. Whatever the NWO is, it opposes Ron Paul and the U.S. Constitution.

[Matt Collins]

Whatever the NWO is, it opposes Ron Paul and the U.S. Constitution.It's not a thing, it's simply a phrase to describe a shift or change in international affairs. :(

[Galileo Galilei]

It's not a thing, it's simply a phrase to describe a shift or change in international affairs. :(

That depends who is using the term. The most frequent usage uses it to describe the existing power structure.

For example, I could say the MSM is biased against Ron Paul. Or I could say the establishment is opposed to Ron Paul. Or more simply, the NWO opposes Ron Paul.

Eventually the dictionaries will catch up to those who actually speak the language.

[sratiug]

It's not a thing, it's simply a phrase to describe a shift or change in international affairs. :(

I disagree. It is a thing called world domination by the rich and powerful.

[Cowlesy]

Thanks for the summary.

I have always thought that if someone spent a year reading every issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine (the Council on Foreign Relations' publication), you could make a strong, factual documentary of true globalist leaders' intentions.

I treat the Globalists much like I treat the Socialists, the ends to which they mean to achieve are never justified by the means used to achieve them.

Where I think they really jump the rails and become dangerous is the notion that paper currency is a worthy means of assessing value. We saw a big chink in their intellectual armor with the credit crisis and the clear mis-pricing of assets and credit. All it is going to take is some major event somewhere to rattle the system again, and we'll see if their financial system once again weathers the storm.

Edit: Great example. On Page 2 of the current issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has penned an essay, "Helping Others Defend Themselves."
In coming years, the greatest threats to the United States are likely to emanate from states that cannot adequately govern themselves or secure their own territory. The U.S. government must improve its ability to help its partners defend themselves, or, if necessary, fight alongside U.S. troops.

[Ireland4Liberty]

It's not a thing, it's simply a phrase to describe a shift or change in international affairs. :(

Totally agree matt. People are trying to pin something to just plain old co-opting of gov by special interests. Simple as that. All these AJ movies are pure spin.

[MyLibertyStuff]

Although the movie was a little extreme for my tastes, it was easy for me to distinguish between evidence and opinion, as sources are shown in most points of evidence. The opinions were a little out there, as would be expected by Alex Jones.

However, as time goes on, things have seemed to be moving in the direction his followers have been fighting against for years. It gives a disturbing amount of credibility to them.

Although, I have to beg the question, why doesnt the NWO just make Alex Jones disappear?

[dannno]

However their attempt at propaganda is very thin, especially at the first part of the movie. They show clips of prominent government officials discussing "the nwo" out of context and then try to tie it into a book that was written in 1919 about the concept of a one world government. To anyone who has ever studied contemporary history or international relations they understand that the context of the phrase "nwo" was not that of what the filmmaker was trying to tie it to.


That is not thorough explanation of what the film portrays. There is also a lot of opinion there that I don't agree with.

Ok, yes, a lot of people HEARD Bush say "NWO" and talked about it. They were speaking about it in the 'peaceful' sense perhaps. Maybe they are well-intentioned. In fact, maybe Bush Sr. is well intentioned. That is still irrelevant to the point the film is making, which sucks because you obviously watched it, but it sounds like you got bored and probably stopped paying attention.

What you don't understand is that what AJ was trying to do is to show how a lot of these people are involved with the Bilderberg Group, CFR, etc, and that this NWO is a term that they use which is meant to have slightly different meaning when used in the media as compared to their overall goals.

One of the statements in the film hits it dead on.. If these meetings were supposed to be beneficial, then they would be happening out in the open, these discussions would be public. The media would attempt to cover them. The fact that they are hidden and not discussed and from evidence we have we can see that they in fact have an agenda that is different than the one they portray to the public.. or at least the people heading everything have a different agenda, a lot of people who attend these meetings are just as naive and ignorant as your run-of-the-mill neocon. You just have to look past that and see the overall agenda, which the film clearly portrayed.

[dannno]

Although, I have to beg the question, why doesnt the NWO just make Alex Jones disappear?

It would give him and his work MUCH more attention and scrutiny by the public. That would be bad for them.

[dannno]

Maybe somebody could give me a thoughtful explanation of why the media covers CPAC and SRLC but not CFR and Bilderberg meetings.

Which of these events are actually more important? Which conference discusses issues that actually become implemented and which conference discusses a particular ideology which we are moving further away from? Which conference has more powerful and influential people?

[legion]

Sometimes I think Alex Jones is just a rational libertarian who uses the NWO stuff to market himself and bring attention to issues nobody would pay attention to otherwise. Perhaps that's the real conspiracy.

[dannno]

Sometimes I think Alex Jones is just a rational libertarian who uses the NWO stuff to market himself and bring attention to issues nobody would pay attention to otherwise. Perhaps that's the real conspiracy.

Actually for once in the entire history of the forum that I'm aware of I agree with your train of thought here on a hot topic related issue.

The NWO stuff is real, the evidence he presents is real. Sometimes he'll say something like "the globalists want to murder us all", which there is plenty of evidence that there may be some sort of eugenics plan, but the way he portrays a lot of these issues are a bit extreme and border on entertainment. Everything that I've seen him do is principled on libertarianism and freedom, and you are right that he uses the entertainment value of his show and films to draw people into that message.

[Matt Collins]

I have always thought that if someone spent a year reading every issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine (the Council on Foreign Relations' publication), you could make a strong, factual documentary of true globalist leaders' intentions. Absolutely without a doubt but only because they are just the prevailing think tank for the ruling class.




All these AJ movies are pure spin.No there is some truth to them, but they blend opinion, speculation, and conjecture as if it were fact.


.

[Matt Collins]

Maybe somebody could give me a thoughtful explanation of why the media covers CPAC and SRLC but not CFR and Bilderberg meetingsBecause some are open to the public and others aren't? :rolleyes:



One of the statements in the film hits it dead on.. If these meetings were supposed to be beneficial, then they would be happening out in the open, these discussions would be public. I have plenty of meetings with people that are beneficial, significant, and critical. But yet we hold them in private. Why? Because they are not for public consumption.

[Matt Collins]

Sometimes I think Alex Jones is just a rational libertarian who uses the NWO stuff to market himself and bring attention to issues nobody would pay attention to otherwise.That is why I wish AJ was spread further than he is because he makes people think outside the box. Although half of what he puts out is bunk I find that the people who do end up listening to him tend to be a lot more critical of and skeptical about government in general. That can only be a good thing. :)

[dannno]

Because some are open to the public and others aren't? :rolleyes:


I have plenty of meetings with people that are beneficial, significant, and critical. But yet we hold them in private. Why? Because they are not for public consumption.

To be clear, covering a meeting does not neccessitate covering the entire contents of the meeting.

So what is your explanation for the media covering the secret meeting between Hillary and Obama that never actually occurred?

Why would they cover a meeting between those two, that didn't even exist, but not between them and a few hundred of the other most powerful people in the world that occurred at the same time?

[Matt Collins]

So what is your explanation for the media covering the secret meeting between Hillary and Obama that never actually occurred?Because the media is ignorant and confused, not to mention cheap and lazy. :)

[dannno]

Because the media is ignorant and confused, not to mention cheap and lazy. :)

I thought the media was kidnapped :confused: Or were you asleep for that scene ;)

Oh ya, I would say that the last half of The Obama Deception is also exponentially better than the first half. Not sure if you ever got to watching that.

[MyLibertyStuff]

Actually for once in the entire history of the forum that I'm aware of I agree with your train of thought here on a hot topic related issue.

The NWO stuff is real, the evidence he presents is real. Sometimes he'll say something like "the globalists want to murder us all", which there is plenty of evidence that there may be some sort of eugenics plan, but the way he portrays a lot of these issues are a bit extreme and border on entertainment. Everything that I've seen him do is principled on libertarianism and freedom, and you are right that he uses the entertainment value of his show and films to draw people into that message.

Great points

[legion]

That is why I wish AJ was spread further than he is because he makes people think outside the box. Although half of what he puts out is bunk I find that the people who do end up listening to him tend to be a lot more critical of and skeptical about government in general. That can only be a good thing. :)

Well, until Ron Paul in 2007 Alex Jones was the libertarian that reached the most amount of people. He certainly reached more people than the Libertarian Party or a Lew Rockwell type.

I don't think Ron Paul would have been nearly so popular had Alex Jones been out there planting seeds. As wrong as they are, most "Ron Paul" people are not 100% rational. They each have their own cranky ideas that I guess make living in this world a little more exciting.

Of course, most people in the 1700's weren't rational during our revolution, either. The HBO documentary "John Adams" portrays this pretty well, with Adams in Boston surrounded by ropemakers with anger problems.

I imagine it got started some time in the early 90s with Alex sitting around in a studio apartment in Austin watching Cops, and wondering if he could use the same style presentation to scare the shit out of people that the same thing was going to happen to them. A Thomas Payne for our times, I suppose.

[Matt Collins]

Well, until Ron Paul in 2007 Alex Jones was the libertarian that reached the most amount of people. He certainly reached more people than the Libertarian Party or a Lew Rockwell type.
I imagine it got started some time in the early 90s with Alex sitting around in a studio apartment in Austin watching Cops, and wondering if he could use the same style presentation to scare the shit out of people that the same thing was going to happen to them. A Thomas Payne for our times, I suppose.Lew Rockwell is scholarly, Alex is conjecture. There are almost no similarities between the two of them.

[Galileo Galilei]

Lew Rockwell is scholarly, Alex is conjecture. There are almost no similarities between the two of them.

Its interesting to note that Lew Rockwell is starting to cover conspiracies, but Alex is not covering Austrian Economics.

i.e. Alex is exerting greater influence on the movement.

[emazur]

Like Walter Williams, Lew Rockwell appears on Alex Jones' radio show every now and then. A quick search found me these:
YouTube - Lew Rockwell on Alex Jones Tv with Jason Bermas 1/4:We Are Now Nazi Germany !! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a8Ev-nNfaI)
YouTube - Lew Rockwell on Alex Jones Tv 1/3:Obama's Puppet Masters Have Been Busy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eG3463c3P4)
I don't recall Rockwell himself talking about a nwo but others have written articles on his website:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates14.html

[chadhb]

I enjoyed Police State 4 rise of Fema, there was actually alot of information I had never heard of. Problem with these films, is so much of this inforamtion is out there already in video form, that there is not that much new information for 2 hours.

Police State 4 rehashes gun confiscation in New Orleans, a good reminder that these things did happen. The emtpy prison in Montana was something I never heard of and after AJ exposed it, they shut the operation down.

Cindey Sheehan was also in the movie exposing the NWO. Who the democrats seem to have forgotten now.

[pacelli]

Although, I have to beg the question, why doesnt the NWO just make Alex Jones disappear?

Because Alex Jones is not a threat to the formation of a world government. Alex doesn't propose any solutions that will actually stop the development of a new world order. If Alex was ever a legitimate threat, he would be off the air.

By the way, the phrase "new world order" is an overall goal to restore the tower of babel (which is the old world order).

[Galileo Galilei]

Because Alex Jones is not a threat to the formation of a world government. Alex doesn't propose any solutions that will actually stop the development of a new world order. If Alex was ever a legitimate threat, he would be off the air.

By the way, the phrase "new world order" is an overall goal to restore the tower of babel (which is the old world order).

That's baloney and you know it. Alex knows the power of the People is more powerful than the NWO.

You vastly over-estimate the power of the NWO. The NWO is not a real organization, it is a label.

[Natalie]

I also was not crazy about Invisible Empire. Another new AJ movie, "Police State 4" came out yesterday. I guess I somehow missed Police States 1, 2, and 3 :confused: Maybe I will check those out as well if I have time. I think my fav AJ movie that I have seen was "American Dictators." Probably because it was one of the first ones that I saw and it made me all scared.

[pacelli]

That's baloney and you know it. Alex knows the power of the People is more powerful than the NWO.

You vastly over-estimate the power of the NWO. The NWO is not a real organization, it is a label.

If it is baloney, could you please name 1 practical and specific solution that Alex Jones has proposed, that, if employed by every single listener, will immediately dismantle the goals and values of the label referred to as the NWO?

By the way, how do you know what Alex knows?

[dannno]

If it is baloney, could you please name 1 practical and specific solution that Alex Jones has proposed, that, if employed by every single listener, will immediately dismantle the goals and values of the label referred to as the NWO?

By the way, how do you know what Alex knows?

Education of others about liberty. It's a continual process. It's happening now as we speak.

[pacelli]

Education of others about liberty. It's a continual process. It's happening now as we speak.

If that worked, we wouldn't need any more videos.

[dannno]

If that worked, we wouldn't need any more videos.

Again, it's a process that is occurring as we speak.

YouTube - Guns N' Roses - Patience (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEzuC5UoM8g)

[dannno]

We're winning

[pacelli]

Again, it's a process that is occurring as we speak.

YouTube - Guns N' Roses - Patience (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEzuC5UoM8g)

I've been patient with JonesCorp since I started listening to them years ago. I just haven't seen any practical solutions that will slay the beast as represented by the new world order. Sure, the process of educating the unaware will eventually defeat the plans of the globalists, but how many good people are going to die at the hands of the NWO thugs while we wait for the educational process to be complete?

[Anti Federalist]

Maybe somebody could give me a thoughtful explanation of why the media covers CPAC and SRLC but not CFR and Bilderberg meetings.

Which of these events are actually more important? Which conference discusses issues that actually become implemented and which conference discusses a particular ideology which we are moving further away from? Which conference has more powerful and influential people?

I'd like an answer to that as well.