Jump to content

Talk:New World Order conspiracy theory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

NWO is NOT illuminatti

The Illuminati is a ficticious belief in a religiously fueled group, the NWO is the idea of business corrupting politicians to the extent that the politicians become merely figureheads, and the corporations actually run the country.


      • Get your cospiracies right... its all under the same plan, duh!***


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% NWO COULD be illuminatti, try looking up illuminatti as a word, simplifying the defenition here ; ' a secret society ' NWO is A secret society, therefore, NWO is and illuminatti. sure, NWO is not the same illumintatti that is always refered to, such as both this, and the x-files. to simply say its 'the illuminatti' is very generic, like saying 'its the secret society' and I personaly respond with 'which one?' its hard to keep conspiracys streight anymore, since there all the SAME PEOPLE for further referance, I shall point to a few other searches on wikipedia itself. New World Order (conspiracy) Project for the New American Century FreeMasons (also points to TWA and that conspiracy that NWO geneticly engeniered AIDS) strangely, if you put ALL of them together, AND you read the The Globalist Manifesto in its "founders" website, you see some strong connections. Of course the neutrality of this topic, and all the afformentioned topics, but there CONSPIRACYS and as a conspiracy, it is NOT neutral, and it is not nessesarily accurate. an conspiracy involves an opinion, based on facts, and estimations. and as N.W.O. CONSPIRACY, it IS opinionated, and it IS NOT neutral, thats the entire point.

%%%line and down, by Miles, not registered to this site, or anywhere, the above was not edited, merely added to%%%

New World Order (Novus Ordo Mundi)

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.
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. 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? --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? --Khuxan 11:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

perequation?

does anyone know what that word is supposed to be? -Lethe | 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. 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 Government Al Gore style not withstanding.
  • You have a shuttle?

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? --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....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. 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. ←Humus sapiens←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.Kittynboi 19:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.62.199 (talk • contribs) .

Being a part of the conspiracy, I took the liberty to delete the hate links above added by 70.21.62.199 (talk · contribs). 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. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Timeline


Almost all the predicted propaganda in 1984 book is comming true in the War on Terrorism


Possible Goals of NWO


Politicians against NWO


(Know Thy Enemy) - Literature Supportive of NWO Ideals

Warning: the following might induce hate, glorify war, genocide, or US/Europe/Jewish Supremacy

That protocols of the elders of zion is a proven hoax.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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.42.118.202 (talk • contribs) .

User:Ne0Freedom

This page is supposed to be used to discuss a certain encylopedic article - not as a personal/political/hate blog. ←Humus sapiens←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. Asacan 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we detag it now?

Under its 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. 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). --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 -

People are having trouble realising that this world without god, can be taken over by man. Specifically however you can climb the ladder and reach these ultimate high places of the brains money and influence. These men literally have a say in which direction humanity takes. These men are on top of the world, it is a reality. And yet why gingerly think that these men have nothing but goodness in their hearts? Portillo 11:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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? Tom Harrison Talk 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. ←Humus sapiens ну? 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. ←Humus sapiens ну? 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. Tom Harrison Talk 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? ←Humus sapiens ну? 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 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. Tom Harrison Talk 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. ←Humus sapiens ну? 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 !!! --Ne0Freedom 20:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC) --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 --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. Tom Harrison Talk 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. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
How about a link to Anti-semitism instead? Tom Harrison Talk 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? ←Humus sapiens ну? 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 references at Conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 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 --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. Tom Harrison Talk 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. ←Humus sapiens ну? 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.62.131.185.194 11:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Be specific or 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. Tom Harrison Talk 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"

I believe the History Channel has broadcast programs that specifically stated, that through military intelligence and via the Japanese codes being previously broken by USA forces, that F.D.Roosevelt had knowledge of when and where the Japanese were going to attack.. and that he was aware that Pearl Harbor was said target.

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? Zachorious 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the wording you quote does not reflect a bias. — Xiutwel (talk) 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.

  1. 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.
  2. According to David Icke, Illuminati and Freemasons are just tools to be used by a network that is older than that.
  3. 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? — Xiutwel (talk) 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? 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.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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.142.23 (talk • contribs) .

What sources? -- zzuuzz (talk) 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

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 verifiable from reliable sources. It's what encyclopaedias do, and it's an official policy around here. Another important policy is 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:

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.

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. -- zzuuzz (talk) 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. 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. 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. 24.18.35.120 09:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See note 2, Berlet, and note 5, Barkun in the references. Tom Harrison Talk 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. Tom Harrison Talk 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


I agree that there ought to be some kind of cultural tag to this article. No offense, fellow editors from across the puddle, but in most European countries conspiration theories usually look quite different. --Prievoznik 19:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

List of doomsday scenarios

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

Please revert this article back to the way it was - it had little problems, and conspiracies are just controversial by nature - therefore, everything from every point of view should be stated - CONSPIRACIES ARE BASED ON FACTS!

Hey everyone - please, put back this article to the way it was. Fact or fiction is of complete indifference to me because I need as much information concerning this NWO conspiracy thing as possible. If you people are truly dedicated to common knowledge, i say fuck NPOV, because controversy is not easy - state the facts, and live with it.

I have reveted most of the deleted information, as it should never have been removed in the first place. Now as for conpiracies being based on facts, and forgetting NPOV, I can't disagree with you more. If anything the article needs a serious cleamup, and could use a serious POV check. Avador 16:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting most, if not all of this article back to the way it was suppose to be. I think this article could use a good sharp inspection of POV, but we must, as always - follow the Wikipedian motto of the Wikicult: NPOV, Verifiability, and no OR." Gee - Wikipedia is really a cult for sure...hahaha - keep up the good work people...--Lord X 20:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

Re-write

Honestly, after examing this article from the ground up, I really think it needs to be complety re-done from the basics. It is full of insane, unveferied claims, and almost none of the sources listed could be considered valid. What do the rest of you think? Avador 16:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Concur. For instance, this: "On September 27, 2006 the US Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which enables the executive branch to designate US citizens, foreign nationals and other world citizens as unlawful enemy combatants effectively stripping them of their citizenship. This allows legal torture, and detention of all designates for an unlimited period of time. This negates all provisions contained within the Geneva Convention, the Bill of Rights and the 4th amendment. Convictions are based upon secret evidence are delivered before a military court while the defendant is declined a jury of his peers. This bill can also apply to political subversives, dissidents and anyone who disagrees with the president, as detailed in Bill, HR 6616 [14]." is flat out wrong. The crazies need to be reigned in on this.
Why not explain why you think this is wrong...? --Lord X 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

It seems to me that the best way to make this article NPOV is to drastically shorten it. Briefly describe the beliefs and the criticisms but leave it at that. Otherwise it's constantly going to be a back-and-forth battle between believers who want to add more "evidence" and disbelievers who want to add more criticism. As evidenced by the comments below, clearly many contributors believe that Wikipedia is their platform for trying to convert people. This isn't an encyclopedia of conspiracy theories, and every individual claim or idea doesn't need to be addressed. A simple, abbreviated article would not unduly rob the conspiracy theorists, nor would it have to be free of criticism. 168.97.133.243 02:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This chat forum also needs to be rewritten...

This Talk forum contains all of the bias that we are trying to remove from the article. What's the point? razi shaban 12:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC).

This is a very interesting subject with a wide variety of views. It’s good that so many people have input that they feel strongly about. Wikipedia is a great researching tool, and all information should remain free of censorship. Personally I believe that the NWO conspiracy is true, and we are approaching the finally stages of the grand plan. Killer Kras

If anything, the idiot inside WIKIPEDIA who wrote that this great arcticle needs rewritten is the one who should be rewritten out!...- Most things said as it is, are by any means TRUE. If this happens to ruffle the feathers of the zombies who think they can profit from those very things not being talked about freely....well. They are the very ones who should be rewritten OUT of this discussion. The truth will always bother no ends those with something to hide...

Bravo for the brave souls in here, who have kept this lamp burning and allow for others to get to the bottom of the rabbit hole. XX

BTW, WIKI: If you will begin to PUSH the oppresors agenda: WE´ll just move on, go elsewhere...find another means to get the truth out.

If anything, this article needs rewriting to give it MORE TEETH, not less. Sorry, oppresors! DAVID

Removed for sourcing

I removed the following because it is unsourced and seems outlandish. If someone can find a source for it, go ahead and put it back in:

  • Close to 40% of Americans believe that the September 11, 2001 attacks, engineered by elements of the conspiracy, was a sacrifice the United States government deemed acceptable, since it allowed them to declare war on Afghanistan, and Iraq, a large source of oil. This in turn would let the United States take their oil under the façade of anti-terrorism measures, giving the conspirators even more power.

I have no opinion in this matter and so please don't try to draw me into lengthy debate. This is just an item that can be easily verified, or at least tested. It'd be better if someone did so. --Woodstein52, 00:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the claim is not fit for publication and should be removed. The suggestion made if not properly researched and then sourced is simply "fuel for the fire" and no one should believe anykind of statistics they read unless they come from credible sources, namely universities and independent government watchdogs. If reading about a statistical or any kind of scientific claim make sure it has a reference that can be found which includes the original research. We want truth not drama.

But later in iraq on 11/9(the opposite of 9/11) 2 airplanes crashed into two smaller towers. I know that isn't just a coincidence.DanielT..Kim 02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion of rephrasing

From the timeline:

"On March 25, 1957 the EEC (European Common Market) is formed, which in 1992 changed its name to the European Union. It is believed by many Christians that the Anti-Christ will be a future President of the European Union."

Where is the evidence that "many Christians" believe this? My suggestion is to change this to "It is believed by some Christian groups, mainly in the USA(if anyone can quote sources?), that the Anti-Christ will be a future President of the European Union."

--Prievoznik 12:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Georgia guidestones

Something called the Georgia Guidestones is appearantly considered to be connected to the "new world order"; a search for both terms in Google gives me 101,000 hits. 84.202.102.128 03:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

just out of interest, do people actually believe these stories? you should get a life and enjoy yourselves!!!

Small update

I removed the reference in the article to "strange symbols" in the Denver International Airport as being part of a NWO plan. As has been pointed out dozens of times in newspapers, television programs, and websites these "strange symbols" are depictions of various animals and "spirit" entities from the traditions of local Native American tribes. Believe me, as a Denver native I have heard these "theories" repeated and disproved countless times. Law82 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that they are nonsense. The whole business is nonsense. When we describe a conspiracy theory, we are describing a sociological/psychological phenomenon. The point is that people say these pictures are part of the NWO master plan. Describing the conspiracy theory means we have to describe the goofy stuff these people believe. Tom Harrison Talk 15:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I stand corrected. 71.118.254.237 07:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Add opposing viewpoint?

This article should have an opposing viewpoint, perhaps in a "Criticisms" section, to maintain balance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.3.224.64 (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Novus ordo seclorum and novus ordo mundi

I am no expert on Latin, but I reverted a change at the beginning of the article from novus ordo mundi to novus ordo seclorum (i.e., I changed it back to "mundi"). I believe novus order mundi means new world order, while novus ordo seclorum means new order of the ages. Very similar, and a bit of hair splitting. For example, in French (a descendant of Latin) the word for "world" is monde (compare mundi in Latin) and the word for a century of years (as in "an age") is siècle (compare seclorum in Latin). Any Latin experts around who can help us out? Yours, Famspear 02:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

signs

for the section 'Signs' can links be provided to all the signs. example, the mention of denver airport artwork links to a page that doesn't mention it.

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_World_Order_conspiracy_theory/Archive_1&oldid=1235895995"