1. Clock

    Clock Active Member

    This article is incomplete. Be aware of the information that you take from here!

    Article that I debunked is here : [1]

    Claim:
    President George Bush in a speech to Congress on SEPTEMBER 11, (9/11) 1990, SAID THIS: "[The war in Iraq is] a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times...a New World Order can emerge."



    Here is the full quote, thanks to Wikiquote :
    Of course, the people at the website of Wake Up America have to quote mine and make the statement fit their view. What Bush Senior was talking about was a world where countries can cooperate with each other and not constantly have to face war. Scroll down and read muertos' article about it here.

    Claim:
    In his September 21, 1992 speech to the United Nations, President George Bush announced that foreign troops, would occupy America and train for a New World Order Army. He stated:



    "Nations should develop and train military units for possible U.N. peacekeeping operations. ... If multinational units are to work together, they must train together. ... Effective multinational action will also require coordinated command & control and inter-operability of both equipment and communications." New World Order and E.L.F. Psychotronic Tyranny!




    This is a made up quote. In a quick Wikiquote search, I have found no statements of Bush Senior ever saying this, heck, it is not even considered to be missatributed. [2] A quick search on Google led me to nothing but directories to his website or other conspiracy-minded places.[3] As a result, it is fake.

    Then they explain what the New World Order is. Not much bunk here except for the fact that there is a lack of evidence to prove the existence of this theory. [4]+[5]

    Claim:
    The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining super-capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control...Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent. (Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976) In 1981 Congressmen McDonald calls for comprehensive congressional investigation of the CFR and Trilateral Commission. Congress is urged to investigate these organizations. Congressman McDonald was killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets in 1983



    Clock: Something many conspiracy theorists never answer is why does it take many generations to make a plan for this NWO. I mean, how long does it actually take? If the government is so smart in 'slowly but surely' making these secret plans, why are there so many people who know about it? Also, where is this guy getting all of this information? He surely must be part of it all! Yeah there is that whole thing about David Rockefeller and his internationalist ideas like that has been debunked and explained already [6]. It's also important to know that there are some quotes of David actually saying that a one world government is not necessary. [7] Also, how the hell does one combine Capitalism and Communism together? They are 2 completly different political ideologies, that absolutely do not go hand in hand. Capitalism is an economic system in which resources and production are privately made on someone's own terms, and the prices are all based on the competition of free market. [7] Communism refers to everything related to the economy to be owned by a single political party. If Capitalism is about doing anything to make some money privately without the intrusion of the government, and communism being about everything controlled by a government, that is hypocritical and does not work. Also, the Trilateral commision does not have that much power in government, and it certainly not capable of starting a war by sending troops to a certain area.

    Claim:
    "If we do not follow the dictates of our inner moral compass and stand up for human life, then his lawlessness will threaten the peace and democracy of the emerging new world order we now see, this long dreamed-of vision we've all worked toward for so long." -- President George Bush (January 1991)



    Again, no reference of him saying anything like this. There have been only 1 or 2 times where Bush Senior has actually said the phrase New World Order.

    Claim:
    The New World Order program has been on the drawing board for many decades, despite denials and smears from the proponents, the insidious world domination and control preparations continue being set in place, the secretive terms of One World, New World Order, New International Economic Order etc have now been replaced with the more public term of Globalization.
    In hundreds of books, articles, and speeches in the 20th century, many influential and powerful people, including many in Congress, have called for a New World Order, and the surrender of U.S. sovereignty and individual freedoms to a one world government, usually involving the U.N. military and the transfer of it to a one world U.N. army.




    Clock: When has Congress ever said that they wanted to make a NWO? The author here provides no evidence of this, just talk. Of course, if he is talking about George Bush Sr. speech about maknig a "New World Order", Then I strongly suggest to read the whole speech here, to get a clear idea of what it is talking about. Also, what is taking so long for the government to create such plans? They developed many plans in the past in secret such as the Manhattan Project, why can't they suddenly become an Totalitarian government, or create an Orwellian world? Are they waiting for the proper opportunity? They could have easily have executed the plans during the great depression, or in 2008 when the economy was on its knees. Or are they waiting for the completion of FEMA Camps? Well we know that the FEMA camp theory has existed for a very long time now, or maybe they are waiting for all of the burial coffins to be completed? (Not that is is practical)
    Also, the only proof that the author of this website seems to be using that would somehow prove NWO to be possible is because people of high power have used the phrase. That's like if a Marine Biologist would talk a lot about Megaladons (an ancient extinct shark creature that precedes the Great White Shark.) would somehow prove that he knows they exist but that he is hiding them from us for some shady purposes.

    Claim:
    "Lets forgive the Nazi war criminals" (George Bush, New York Times, April, 14, 1990)



    Clock: That is just silly. Again, no evidence of Bush actually saying this but on conspiracy websites. I'm also noticing that this website is very anti-Bush Sr. Not that I particularly care about him (i'm not American) it reminds me a lot of Alex Jones, who jumps from president to president by each calling them the anti-Christ or the destroyers of America.


    The "Evil" New World Order "Map"

    A section of the website contains an article talking about a so called NWO map, developed in 1941 or 1942. There is a picture of the map from their website here:[​IMG]

    I was curious about this map, and I did a bit of research, and I've managed to find the real map itself in high quality, thanks to wikipedia:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Gomberg_map.jpg Now that we can analyse the proper map, things are starting to make a lot more sense. The map was developed by Maurice Gomberg. It was a proposal of how the world should be distributed following the ending of World War 2, assuming that the Nazi party would fall. The proposal is to "assume world leadership for the establishment of a New Moral Order, for permanent peace, order, justice, security and world reconstruction." It is not to create a huge idea that will unleash hell upon humanity. It does really have a nice message, butt unfortunately it hasn't aged to well, mainly because it completely ignores what would happen following WW2 (the cold war) and contains alot of American ass kissing, such as this new world of peace to be primarily controlled by the USA, to rename Europe as the United States of Europe, South America as the United States of South America, which means that in no means can it be taken seriously. CTers mainly jump on this map because it is approved by the Library of Congress as an Official map, despite the fact that Maurice Gomberg had made it as a personal project and released it independently[11]. Just like George Orwell's 1984, it was more of an idea than fact. Many conspiracy theorists believe that this is proof for a New World Order. However, let's look at this rationally. If the governments of the world were really working on such a map of world domination, would they really release this? Especially at the price they were releasing this (1$)? The only reason this has caught on in the eyes of conspiracy theorists is because that it contains the words "New Moral Order".

    ********
    Sources
    [1]: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/newworldindex.htm
    [2]: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush
    [3]: https://www.google.ca/search?q="Nations should develop and train military units for possible U.N. peacekeeping operations. ... If multinational units are to work together, they must train together. ... Effective multinational action will also require coordinated command & control and inter-operability of both equipment and communications." &rlz=1C1CHWA_enCA511CA511&aq=f&oq="Nations should develop and train military units for possible U.N. peacekeeping operations. ... If multinational units are to work together,
    [4]: http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/global-domination-agenda-debunked/
    [5]: http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/world-domination-conspiracies-debunked/
    [6]: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/431-Anyone-care-to-debunk-these-quotes
    [7]: http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=capitalism
    [8]: http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=communism
    [9]: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller
    [10]:http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3430
    [11]:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Gomberg_ad.png

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  2. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Can you prove that and I don't mean some wiki quote... I mean prove it?

    If you can show that one little thing is true... I will start taking notice of your claim that the NWO is a myth.
     
  3. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    http://capitalism.org/

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism
     
  4. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Did you not see the bit where I said: "Can you prove that and I don't mean some wiki quote... I mean prove it?", or did you just deliberately ignore it?
     
  5. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    So a dictionary is a 'wiki' quote to you.

    What would you consider 'proof'.
     
  6. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Can you clarify Oxy....Are you looking for proof that Capitalism works the way the definition says? or what exactly?

    When a farmer grows his crop- takes it to the market and offers it for sale...is that not proof?

    If he sets his price too high no one will buy - too low and he will sell all of it but not enough to cover his costs...

    What exactly are you looking for proof of? (is that bad grammar? ending in a preposition?)
     
  7. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Much of a muchness really, particularly in the context of Clock's argument. I suppose I should have been more specific really but I made the error of thinking the 'meaning' of the question would be deduced from what I highlighted.

    It appears Clock is arguing that the U.S and Western 'Keynsian' system are 'capitalist' and Russia etc was 'communist' and therefore incompatible to a NWO. What I really meant was Can he prove that the West has a Capitalist system... the qualifier being " in which resources and production are privately made on someone's own terms, and the prices are all based on the competition of free market"

    This was the bit I was asking him to prove... not a definition of Capitalism which anyone can look up if they need to.
     
  8. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Here is some 'proof'. I make jewelry. I can chose to buy my materials from thousands of places. I can choose from a wide variety of prices and quality.

    Take 6 mm gold Tigereye beads, I can go to a retail store and pay $8-$10 for a 15.5 inch temp strand, or I can order them for prices as low as $3.65 or I can buy from a wholesale store or at a show for around $3 a strand.

    The price differences show that there is a free market system. I am free to then make what I wish and to charge the price I wish for my product. I will have to contend with 'housewives' that only want the cost of their materials back and importers, buying necklaces made in Asia and other art jewelers asking higher prices.

    I can take them to a flea market, or offer them to a gallery. I can put them on E Bay or Etsy or Artfire or any of several sites that are like that. I can set up my own web page. I can apply and get in art shows/festivals. I am free in all ways. I will need to collect sales tax and to send that to the state. When I make a profit, I will need to pay income taxes. That is it--a free market system.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Sorry Cairenn but that is not proof of 'the' system used in the West. If you mismanage things, start taking high risks and then lose a lot of money, would you expect to be bailed out by folks?

    When you have cartels, Libor fixing, a few elite setting the price, (and trading it) of all major commodities from grains, to metals and virtually everything else, that is not a free market or capitalism... it is Corporatism or a Plutocracy where the game is set to enrich a few (who produce nothing) at the expense of the many who are kept hard at work on the treadmill actually creating wealth.

    Yes, some manage to break out by various different means but the game is stacked against 'normal' people. There are many examples of what I have just described. really it deserves its own thread.

    I wish we did have Capitalism, I am a great believer in it. I say bring it back.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2013
  10. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Oxy, all the things you just railed against are part of a free market system. Have much have you studied or read about the history of business? It is not taught in schools, I have done a lot of research on it, starting the development of 'big business' in the late middle ages.

    Even then, the more successful merchants had a lot of power, at many times, they had more real power than the Crowns and peers. When Philip II of France needed money to raise an army for the Crusades he mortgaged cities and lands to the merchants.
     
  11. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    If you confuse Capitalism with Corporatism or Plutocracy, you are making a big mistake.

    So you think it normal for 'free market' activity, that companies/people who carry out massive money laundering, theft, insider trading and market rigging are allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well I had always suspected that you saw nothing wrong with the system and supported it. That's ok but don't try to call it Capitalism or 'free market forces' because it is not and if you have studied it like you say, you will be well aware of that.
     
  12. xenon

    xenon Active Member

    Strangely, here is Biden, Bush, Kissinger, Clinton, Kerry and even Nixon all uttering the exact same phrase "New World Order".



    Perhaps it's some kind of political tourettes syndrome...Or maybe a weird skull and bones type of thing where all of a sudden they revert back to a hazing...

    In any event, they are either talking about something or not. Would it be too much to ask a "Reporter" or a "Journalist" to ...you know...ask them about it? Are these "Reporters" and "Journalists" afraid of being called Conspiracy Theorists if they ask what our employees are talking about? After all, it could be kind of important. Or, maybe not.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    There are still many folks in the US becoming rich by their own skills/knowledge/ideas.

    I just checked the Wikipedia list of US billionaires. I checked the first 5 names in A-G (I have run out of time). I eliminated any that were heirs or that went to work for their parents company or that seemed to come from some wealth (lost Bill Gates that way). I also eliminated any where there was not enough information. Here are 15 billionaires that came from moderate or poor families.

    John Abele
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Abele

    Sheldon Adelson
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Adelson

    Steve Ballmer
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Ballmer

    Thomas J. Barrack, Jr.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Barrack,_Jr.

    No C because 4 of the first 5 were Cargills

    Ray Dalio
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Dalio

    Jim Davis
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Davis_(business)

    Richard Egan
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Egan_(businessman)

    Larry Ellison
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison

    Archie Aldis Emmerson
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Aldis_Emmerson

    Israel Englander
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Englander

    Jeffrey Epstein
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

    Philip Falcone
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Falcone

    Chuck Feeney
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney

    David Geffen
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Geffen

    Alan Gerry
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Gerry
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    But it takes government intervention break up plutacracy and corrupt financial markets etc... that and all government is bad so...


    A natural outcome of free markets is that a few players come to win the game and control enough of the capital to be able to re-write the rules of the game. It takes government rules (anti-trust laws and such) to stop that from happening and we don't like the government do we.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Your description above is not representative of the vast majority of transactions in the World. You take examples on the margin and try to suggest that is representative of the whole.

    Moreover, all of those things you mentioned are not caused by nor dependent on capitalism. Corruption is system agnostic.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Thanks. Like I said 'some', (a very few exceptional people), manage to overcome the system and do extremely well but that is not the issue as far as I am concerned. My problem is with the systemic criminality that affects millions of people detrimentally which either goes unpunished or laws are changed to facilitate the further actions which used to be criminal until lobbyists managed to 'rearrange things'.

    I would compare it to 'warlords oppressing the people', except the tools have changed. Instead of muscle and guns debt, usury, complex financial machinations, laws and deceptive practices are the weapons. Albeit that the muscle and guns are used to enforce the previous.
     
  17. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I agree with you. Deregulation is simply a euphemism for 'do as you will' and may the most manipulative, controlling and devious win.

    I don't know anyone who 'doesn't like government' per se, (although there are undoubtedly those who don't). I think the most common complaint is 'people don't like what the government are doing'. I qualify that by instancing some examples:

    Governments are unduly influenced by big corporations to such an extent that the corporations dictate the laws and practices, (often writing the laws themselves in the revolving door relationship), so that they enable the corporations to effectively run the government.

    If it was 'a government of the people for the people, (and I don't mean communism), I mean a fair society that had reasonable laws regulating big business so that it adhered to decent social morality and not 'profit at any cost', I think there would be far greater support and far less criticism.

    Globalization is creating unprecedented problems which no one really knows how to deal with. Tax implications are just one facet which is currently perplexing governments around the world.

    Climate change is greatly exacerbated by globalization.

    Markets are manipulated by a few huge players who rig prices to suit and also create complex toxic derivatives which hardly anyone understands. Certain companies are quite happy to sell them to 'their clients' whilst at the same time putting huge bets that the toxic packages will explode on queue thus rewarding them for their deceit.

    The proof of all this is that the wealth of nations is migrating to the super rich at an alarming rate whilst the people are being impoverished and the infrastructures and many cities are dying... (not to mention the people).

    I was very much in favour of Margaret Thatcher's policies and I really do not believe that she envisaged the creation of a business world without social conscience.

    http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/103802
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2013
  18. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    It is not a question of majority SR, it is a question of how the few very powerful and highly amoral massively affect the lives of many millions of people simply because of the inordinate and unchecked power that they have and their inexorable pursuit of money with no regard to the cost to normal people.

    The drug money laundering scandal is a good example but simply one example of many.
     
  19. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Actually it is- you want to castigate the entire system for the sins of a few. Sweeping generalizations may feel good to write but that doesn't mean they are an accurate representation of the facts. More people have benefited from "capitalism" then from ANY other system of resource allocation.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Is that strictly true??

    Firstly it depends on your definition of "benefit".

    Secondly it depends on how many people get that benefit.

    and thirdly I suspect it depends upon the populations of China and India, and how many people existed before capitalism was "invented"
     
  21. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    I think the NWO is for a global govt. In order for that to succeed, you would have to tear down the Constitution. Thats being done. Many politicians have used that quote.

    NAFTA represents the single most creative step towards a New World Order."---Kissinger

    After the insiders have established the United Socialist States of America (in fact if not in name), the next step is the Great Merger of all nations of the world into a dictatorial world government. … The Insiders’ code word for the world superstate is “new world order,” a phrase often used by Richard Nixon. The Council on Foreign Relations states in its Study No. 7: “The U.S. must strive to: A. BUILD A NEW INTERNATIONAL ORDER.” … A world government has always been the object of the Communists.---Gary Allen

    My vision of a 'new world order' foresees a United Nations with a revitalized peacekeeping function.---Bush sr

    We must establish a new world order based on justice, on equity, and on peace.---Castro
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  22. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member


    Read the bold sentence...then read the sentence you wrote directly after it...
    What?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

    Heh. Bingo. The internal contradiction simply doesn't penetrate.

    But it gets worse. "Actually it is- you want to castigate the entire system for the sins of a few." This is put forth as a defense of this system, but it points up the problem with the system instead. It's only "the few" who have the capacity to pull off the sins that castigate the system. The collusion and rapacity of the few fucks up the system, sure, but it fucks it up for the many, while the few are merely annoyed at having to find a new way to achieve the old ends.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  24. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    On y
    On
    On your quote example of: Lets forgive the Nazi war criminals" (George Bush, New York Times, April, 14, 1990), I haven't heard that one, but they do act like a bunch of Nazi's. Look at Prescott Bush, he was involved in the 1933 Business Plot.





    Then he was involved with the Nazi's during WWII...the Union Bank scandal:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

    Then we have the Nazi Patriot Act.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  25. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member


    Except what I wrote IS an accurate representation of the facts.
     
  26. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    Ok, except saying more people have, in your words, 'benefited from "capitalism" then from ANY other system of resource allocation.' Is not only a general statement but it's subjective and unprovable.
     
  27. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Yes, it is a general statement...I did not say they were necessarily bereft of accuracy just that saying them doesn't mean they are true.

    In this case, it is quantifiable. One only need to look at the 100s of millions of Chinese who have benefited from "free market" oriented economic reform over the last 25 years to verify the statement is true.

    http://thediplomat.com/pacific-money/2013/05/30/half-a-billion-chinas-middle-class-consumers/

    Add to that the numbers from North/South America and Europe, Asian tigers etc...and its very provable.
     
  28. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member


    I believe it is true. "benefit" meaning increasing one's economic status- ie: wealth.

    ...and yes, simply by sheer numbers of people today living under market oriented systems versus any other system it is true...but I am sure it would shown to be true on a scaled basis of people living under market systems versus people under communism etc...

    Half a billion Chinese middle class where 25yrs ago there were almost none.

    (Granted: I am casting a wide net with "market oriented systems"- China is not a "capitalist" society but the economic reforms of the last 25yrs have been based on market oriented concepts and principals....with a not so invisible hand of the state directing traffic.)
     
  29. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Is it the system that is corrupt or the people?

    Can you suggest a system that would not be subject to corruption?

    Or a system that has benefited more people?

    Or system that could provide greater opportunity for economic mobility?
     
  30. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    Here is a
    Bush sr NWO phrases:









    The Rockefellers, King Obama....... want a UN controlled global govt.

    We've got to give them a stake in creating a World Order all of us would like to see."---Obama

    Why do you think the're trying to take our guns away? The UN doesn't like private citizens to have guns. They state the police are suppose to protect us. The police are not obligated to protect us.

    In order to have global govt here, the Constitution has to go bye bye.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  31. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    This came up on my emails. Was this comment directed to me or somebody else?
     
  32. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I will let Margaret Thatcher answer that for me:

    I do not think that these conditions are met when people guilty of incredible criminality are not subject to the laws of the land so yes, the system is corrupt and some of the elite are corrupt.

    What you suggest is 'there are not many of them', so the system is not badly corrupted but what you fail to take into account is the vast worldwide impact of those few people which badly corrupts the whole system and affects millions.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I don't think so, it was in response to SR. Can you please stop posting the OP in full, (also delete the last one), as it means scrolling for ages. Thanks.
     
  34. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member


    Can you suggest a system that would not be subject to corruption?

    Or a system that has benefited more people?

    Or system that could provide greater opportunity for economic mobility?
     
  35. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    No, I am not against the system, (Capitalism) I am against the corruption in the system that has turned it into Corporatism. I think you misunderstand me, (which must be my fault... sorry). I am not against capitalism, how could I be if I supported Thatcherite policies, (not all but a goodly part). I am not anti American as you seem to think either. I am anti corruption and anti war, (unless it is in self defense), I am anti abuse of power by a few elites to the detriment of the people.

    The laws were never perfect but they were better than now as they have 'deregulated' to such a degree that anything goes and even if they overstep those extremes, they are beyond the law anyway as is evidenced by the wanton insider trading, price fixing and money laundering.

    Perhaps we are not so far apart as you may think?
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2013
  36. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    The problem lies that the real power is controlled by a minority of certain corporations, certain families who are corrupt but control vast amounts of business.

    This site has many good quotes:

    http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/famous_quotes

    In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press. … They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.----Oscar Callaway
     
  37. Clock

    Clock Active Member


    [Obama]
    We've gotta give them a stake in creating the kind of uh...world order that I think all of us would like to see.

    Any time a politician says "world order" it's obviously a part of the grand conspiracy. They can cover up 9/11, but they can't keep their candidates from using those words and telling everyone of their grand plans. It's fairly obvious from the full video that he's talking about a "world order" of peace where American national security isn't in question, as the whole context was about investing in education and healthcare in the third world.

    source=http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/alex-jones/the-obama-deception/ (this is a debunking of an Alex Jones movie about obama, It's a nice read)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Clock

    Clock Active Member

    Guys keep in mind that I am simply analyzing the claims from a website. I'm still quite new in the field, so if I screw up, please notify! It would really help.
     
  39. Clock

    Clock Active Member

    Just because you think they act like Nazis, does not necessarily mean they are lol. That's mostly of opinion there (and sorry, I didn't look at your video because I'm quite busy at the moment.
    So by passing the PATRIOT Act, and by instituting invasive TSA searches at airports, proves there's a NWO?

    So let me get this straight. The PATRIOT Act was passed 10 years ago, with all these expansive powers that have very seldom, if ever, been used in the past ten years. Some of its provisions have been used against suspected terrorists—but if the GDE really intended the PATRIOT Act as a major tool of oppression, why haven’t courts and enforcement officials been making more and ever-increasing use of it? I mean, why put this law into place but not use it? What is the GDE waiting for?
     
  40. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    I watched