Do you believe in the New World Order Agenda?

[Ibn.AL.Muqafaa]

New World Order Agenda, which is lead by the Rothschild Family, Rockefellers, George Soros, Kissinger , Larry Summers etc.
Many people who are critical of the Federal reserve believe that Jacob Rothschild controls it, and JFK was assassinated because he wanted to have the US dollar rely on the gold standard.

[Jamesiv1]

Anybody that thinks its wrong to embrace the New World Order can get the hell out.

[Ibn.AL.Muqafaa]

Why?

[Lamp]

Why?

He's joking

[donnay]

"Four Hidden Dynasties."

[oyarde]

I really do not believe in any agendas but mine . There is this guy though , Ron Paul whose agenda is similar . So , I will support it .

[r3volution 3.0]

The "NWO" doesn't exist in the cartoonish sense that many people believe.

It's less an organized cabal scheming for world domination than assorted interests groups out to make a buck.

The appeal of the NWO mythology is that it pieces together various groups that really were cabals scheming for world domination.

The Illumanity really existed, and did plot world domination, and probably did play a major role in the French revolution.

There really was a plot among Western financiers and other elites to bring about the bolshevik revolution.

There really is a group of people who want to use "global warming" as a justification for "sustainable" (i.e. communistic) world government.

Etc

The problem is these groups aren't all connected, except in some cases in a loose, ideological way.

It's not one big conspiracy, but lots of little ones, which is simply the normal state of affairs.

[timosman]

The "NWO" doesn't exist in the cartoonish sense that many people believe.

It's less an organized cabal scheming for world domination than assorted interests groups out to make a buck.

The appeal of the NWO mythology is that it pieces together various groups that really were cabals scheming for world domination.

The Illumanity really existed, and did plot world domination, and probably did play a major role in the French revolution.

There really was a plot among Western financiers and other elites to bring about the bolshevik revolution.

There really is a group of people who want to use "global warming" as a justification for "sustainable" (i.e. communistic) world government.

Etc

The problem is these groups aren't all connected, except in some cases in a loose, ideological way.

It's not one big conspiracy, but lots of little ones, which is simply the normal state of affairs.

And then they lived happily ever after ......

[r3volution 3.0]

To elaborate:

When people first "wake up" and realize that elites don't have their best interests at heart, there's a natural tendency to assume that something Great and Evil must have brought this about - as if the normal state of affairs would be as they once believed it was, but for this Great and Evil force which corrupted things. Hence the appeal of all-encompassing conspiracy theories, linking together all the misdeeds of powerful people. But the reality is that there are just different interest groups (usually motivated by practical things like money, sometimes motivated by ideology) all competing for power. I suppose it's not unlike people who attribute their every misfortune to a curse, or God's wrath, or something like that. Partly it's a desire for a simple explanation, partly it's a way of not having to acknowledge that the normal state of world is not so nice.

[wizardwatson]

The "NWO" doesn't exist in the cartoonish sense that many people believe.

It's less an organized cabal scheming for world domination than assorted interests groups out to make a buck.

The appeal of the NWO mythology is that it pieces together various groups that really were cabals scheming for world domination.

The Illumanity really existed, and did plot world domination, and probably did play a major role in the French revolution.

There really was a plot among Western financiers and other elites to bring about the bolshevik revolution.

There really is a group of people who want to use "global warming" as a justification for "sustainable" (i.e. communistic) world government.

Etc

The problem is these groups aren't all connected, except in some cases in a loose, ideological way.

It's not one big conspiracy, but lots of little ones, which is simply the normal state of affairs.

Kind of a liars paradox here don't you think?

You don't know there's no central group of conspirators. And if you did, and there was, wouldn't you say this?

It's like when someone is familiar with Masons tells you that Masons are just a bunch of old farts doing meaningless rituals. Maybe they are, or maybe you are a liar, or maybe they are and you didn't pass the test so they kept you on the outside.

And whenever I talk about conspiracy, I like to try to remember to point out to people that it doesn't affect OUR strategy. Secret societies or no secret societies, 9/11 was an inside job or 9/11 wasn't an inside job, doesn't affect our strategy.

WE NEED TO ORGANIZE.

Whether the enemy is united in the root, or a bunch of separate crazy weeds might affect higher-level late-game strategy, but doesn't change initial stages, and really speculating and pretending to know just wastes time.

Focus on how to unite us.

Agreeing on an imaginary concept for the enemy isn't going to help. Especially before you've even imagined what you are.

[specsaregood]

The "NWO" doesn't exist in the cartoonish sense that many people believe.

It's less an organized cabal scheming for world domination than assorted interests groups out to make a buck.

The appeal of the NWO mythology is that it pieces together various groups that really were cabals scheming for world domination.

The Illumanity really existed, and did plot world domination, and probably did play a major role in the French revolution.

There really was a plot among Western financiers and other elites to bring about the bolshevik revolution.

There really is a group of people who want to use "global warming" as a justification for "sustainable" (i.e. communistic) world government.

Etc

The problem is these groups aren't all connected, except in some cases in a loose, ideological way.

It's not one big conspiracy, but lots of little ones, which is simply the normal state of affairs.

The Reptilians run it all from the royal nesting grounds under DIA.

[r3volution 3.0]

And whenever I talk about conspiracy, I like to try to remember to point out to people that it doesn't affect OUR strategy. Secret societies or no secret societies, 9/11 was an inside job or 9/11 wasn't an inside job, doesn't affect our strategy.

Well, it shouldn't, but it does.

I find an inverse correlation between belief in the NWO et al and understanding of libertarianism.

People who see the world's problems as personal (...if only we got rid of "Them") have less incentive to learn how societies really work.

It's not unlike the "throw the rascals" out mentality of the average voter.

...too focused on the rascals in front of them to wonder why everyone they elect turns out to be a rascal.

[wizardwatson]

Well, it shouldn't, but it does.

I find an inverse correlation between belief in the NWO et al and understanding of libertarianism.

People who see the world's problems as personal (...if only we got rid of "Them") have less incentive to learn how societies really work.

It's not unlike the "throw the rascals" out mentality of the average voter.

...too focused on the rascals in front of them to wonder why everyone they elect turns out to be a rascal.

Well, so, you're agreeing with me. I should mark my calendar.

Well, for the most part. You're actually doubling down and saying belief in conspiracy impedes strategy. But that's what I was implying really. To say these things "don't affect" strategy is to say they aren't relevant to development and implementation of strategy. Which of course implies that obsessing over it is going to impede these activities. People who obsess over conspiracy rather than society building and strategy formation are of course less apt to be useful in this regard.

I've noticed in my years here, that strategy is rarely discussed. When it is, its usually accompanied by someone's grandiose scheme to "define liberty" in some sort of bulleted list, or mission statement.

Real action, real leadership, is almost like magic. No one believes its real. They need some existing tangible group action to cling to. "The next campaign!"

Real strategy for liberty, is pre-embryonic. The enemy is an old dragon, and Ron Paul is like Jack returning home with some magic beans.

[timosman]

Well, so, you're agreeing with me. I should mark my calendar.

Well, for the most part. You're actually doubling down and saying belief in conspiracy impedes strategy. But that's what I was implying really. To say these things "don't affect" strategy is to say they aren't relevant to development and implementation of strategy. Which of course implies that obsessing over it is going to impede these activities. People who obsess over conspiracy rather than society building and strategy formation are of course less apt to be useful in this regard.

I've noticed in my years here, that strategy is rarely discussed. When it is, its usually accompanied by someone's grandiose scheme to "define liberty" in some sort of bulleted list, or mission statement.

Real action, real leadership, is almost like magic. No one believes its real. They need some existing tangible group action to cling to. "The next campaign!"

Real strategy for liberty, is pre-embryonic. The enemy is an old dragon, and Ron Paul is like Jack returning home with some magic beans.

Does he have a ring?

[r3volution 3.0]

Well, so, you're agreeing with me. I should mark my calendar.

Well, for the most part. You're actually doubling down and saying belief in conspiracy impedes strategy. But that's what I was implying really. To say these things "don't affect" strategy is to say they aren't relevant to development and implementation of strategy. Which of course implies that obsessing over it is going to impede these activities. People who obsess over conspiracy rather than society building and strategy formation are of course less apt to be useful in this regard.

Right

I've noticed in my years here, that strategy is rarely discussed. When it is, its usually accompanied by someone's grandiose scheme to "define liberty" in some sort of bulleted list, or mission statement.

Real action, real leadership, is almost like magic. No one believes its real. They need some existing tangible group action to cling to. "The next campaign!"

Real strategy for liberty, is pre-embryonic. The enemy is an old dragon, and Ron Paul is like Jack returning home with some magic beans.

Agree to an extent, but you need a clear goal (and the right goal) before you can take any useful action.

Part of that is defining just what it is, ideally, that we want: your "bulleted list."

Another part is deciding whether/to what extent that can be achieved and sustained in reality (minarchism v. anarchism, and similar debates).

...not saying those issues must all be resolved before any action is taken, but they must eventually be resolved.

Currently, if everybody calling themselves libertarians were suddenly thrust into power, we as a group would not know what to do.

Some of us would have clear but diverging ideas, some would have no clear ideas at all.

[wizardwatson]

Right



Agree to an extent, but you need a clear goal (and the right goal) before you can take any useful action.

Part of that is defining just what it is, ideally, that we want: your "bulleted list."

Another part is deciding whether/to what extent that can be achieved and sustained in reality (minarchism v. anarchism, and similar debates).

...not saying those issues must all be resolved before any action is taken, but they must eventually be resolved.

Currently, if everybody calling themselves libertarians were suddenly thrust into power, we as a group would not know what to do.

Some of us would have clear but diverging ideas, some would have no clear ideas at all.

Well, any organizational efforts I would support at this point. I would even support revamping CFL. The problem with CFL is there is no strategy outside of electoral politics being devised. CFL, last time I tried to use their process, has this ridiculously high barrier of having to fill out a giant form, learn about your precinct, etc. etc. Your average sign-waving Ron Paul supporter isn't going to be in for that, especially if they are alone. That's more the kind of thing that needs money to make it work.

The sound money option I think would be the best avenue for organization, but there's an education gap in that strategy.

Then there's the Christopher A. Brown problem.

We have got to learn to unite transparently. We have to realize that it's very probable that either by intent or by psychosis some actors in the sphere of activism are there simply to prevent unification of any sort.

There are ideas we can unify around. But there is a serious drag effect on unification in this sea of anonymity known as the internet. People run their mouth and show off, but have no ideas for how to move forward.

In a forum like this for instance, even if you have 10 people who would make good leaders, and 1000 people who would make good activists, it only takes 1 guy running a few sock puppets to shoot down every attempt at unification. And there too, not just strategic unification, but even cohesion around a message.

Christopher A. Brown impressed me with his insight in this area. I've often viewed social networks as an economic animal, and he's the first person I've seen who took that to the next level, and actually devised mechanisms for counteracting the unification paralysis it engenders.

Anyway, he gave me hope in a way. No matter what field it is: Social networks, biology, banking, there are strategies and mechanisms to counteract evil.

He also reinforced my axiom that it doesn't matter if it's conspiracy or psyschosis in the social network world. He himself believed there were malicious actors in most activist forums. I leaned towards the idea that most people simply have predictable habits, insecurities, etc. and will in general rationalize inaction as their primary strategy. But his ideas for solving the cohesion problem was based on behavior and thus it doesn't really matter which is true, or which is "more" true.

Anywho, back to work.

[AuH20]

Different blood factions are constantly vying for control, but relatively the same agenda is being administered through these supranational organizations.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

New World Order Agenda, which is lead by the Rothschild Family, Rockefellers, George Soros, Kissinger , Larry Summers etc.
Many people who are critical of the Federal reserve believe that Jacob Rothschild controls it, and JFK was assassinated because he wanted to have the US dollar rely on the gold standard.

I reject the NWO because government is inherently evil and multiculturalism doesn't work. Also the world elites who are pushing world government are evil.

I don't know why anyone will support a NWO. A NWO is pro-elite and pro-establishment.