I’m wondering about peoples take on certain issues. It’s a topic that’s probably going to spark quite a debate. I’m sure it’s been had here before, but I wasn’t around to witness it, or be a part of it.
What’s your take on certain theories that are out there? Some people would call them conspiracy theories, but I’m not talking about tinfoil hats, but more on governmental matters.
What’s your take on the masons, the new world order, it’s ties to Christianity. Do you believe in any of it? I don’t believe it all, but some of it is so clearly documented that anyone can look it up, and learn about it. I know some of it’s phony, but the simple truth is: What has been done has been done, and what has been done by certain groups have been done. That can’t be refuted. The big question is. What exactly has been done, and by who. Is there a collective? Is there a major goal? Is it a mix of a collective, and ‘random things’, bringing something about…
I’m sure conspiracy theories are occasionally true, but I don’t really approve of the attitude of the stereotype conspiracy theorist. A conspiracy theorist unwilling to honestly and deeply consider the majority/established opinion is just as closed minded as a person who always believes established theories.
It’s also entirely possible that any given conspiracy theory may have some relevant points but still be wrong. That’s what I believe about the idea that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were an inside job. I read some stuff on the Internet back in September about those conspiracy theories and their claims, and I don’t think there’s any case that the destruction of the Towers was coordinated ahead of time. However, I think it’s highly probable that the U.S. government may have known about the possibility of a terrorist attack and failed to take appropriate measures to prevent it (simply out of arrogance and carelessness, not an Evil Plot), and that the government would naturally have tried to cover up its own gross incompetence.
Of course big time industrialists know each other; of course they meet, dicuss, plan, and work to promote their common interests.
Of course people devoted to some cause also cooperate to promote that cause.
And the very reason there are politicians is that they should meet, discuss, plan, and work for the good of those they represent.
The idea that all really important work of this kind really takes place in secret cabals (with or without exotic and bizarre rituals) adds nothing to that picture, I think, except a sense of romance.,
Again, of course, industrialist, politicians, etc. don’t always tell the truth and especially not the whole truth, if they want popular support for a scheme that has consequences that they suspect might be unacceptable to the people whose support they seek.
But I can see no reason at all to suppose that the ultimate goal of big time industrialists (or politicians – or others) really is secretly something quite different from what one would rationally expect. In particular, I very much doubt that there are any long term plans or goals that industrialist or other cabals have been slowly and slyly working to realize for several generations. There seems to be exactly nothing that suggests that markets or nations have any noticeable tendency to consider the long term effects of anything.
I agree. Yet these situations, despite being created by people committed to short-term interests, often take on the impression of conspiracy. In many cases, different actors aim for the same thing in response to the same stimuli, and what then ensues is an apparently coordinated move effected by shadowy masterminds… when it’s really just a bunch of opportunists taking advantage of an extant situation.
almost like when a guy sits down with a pencil, starts doodling, and ends up with a masterpiece. We think he’s some genius, but really he was just a guy with a pencil, and ended up doing what he did, rather than doing something that he set out to do, lol.
I like that to an extent, but we can’t really lump this all into that, because there are different elements involved. Different groups that have done different things, the way certain things coexist, even though they don’t in reality. Really hard to explain. Maybe what I should have said is these elements coexist, but pausibly unknowingly to some. I guess I’m not even going to try, and explain that anymore, lol…
Do you think they’ll ever get their New World Order, or one governmental body, or do you think the world will fall into a collapse before that can ever truly come about?
Okay, now we’re officially veering into cloud-cuckoo land. If you can even define who “they” are, then at least it’d be a start at answering the question.
My point is, you have the kind of situation causing disruption across the US right now, the same situation that has ruled poorer countries for the last half century, not due to some vast conspiracy but because it’s a power vacuum. If one oil company refused to use despicable tactics and declined to lobby, threaten, and instigate, then they’d rapidly be crushed by other oil companies. So it is in other matters, as well.
In other words it’s not a conspiracy but a sociopolitical structure. Those aren’t nearly as easy to tear down.
on a side note, a new world order could be a wonderful thing if it were run by say…someone decent, rather than, say hitler, lol.
Then there’s the issue of what will the laws be, what will be manditory, what will be the punishment? Will we be aloud to run our own business easily? Would the government start treating protesters like terrorists, and lock them in camps. It’s hard to say…
I say they loosely. The governments that are working together to bring about a one world government. Why would you say something like veering into cloud-cuckoo land. Have you not heard George bush senior, junior, bill clinton, obama, and tony blare use the term New World Order?
You can see people talking about it. Different countries leader’s. Here’s a list of people I’ve heard use the term New World Order.
Bill Clinton, Obama,George Bush, George W Bush,Tony Blair, President Nixon,Kissinger,Gary Hart,David Rockefeller,Gordon Brown.
One question that has to be asked though is are they speaking collectively on a new world order, or is each nation’s government talking about their own new world order?
here’s a quote from a book.
Rockefeller’s 2002 autobiography “Memoirs” he wrote: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”.
Maybe the question I should have asked was do you think someone will achieve a new world order, or will the world collapse before it comes about?
However, I tend to believe that there is a working order between the stronger nations of the world. Definitely Canada, States, and Britain. When they say NWO, I believe they’re speaking collectively. I don’t know for a fact, no, but it seems like the obvious route, lol.
I like to look at complex systems as manifolds. Chaos theory can help with this.
To put it simply, a manifold is a surface in three (or more) dimensions. You can envision the current state of the system as a ball rolling around on the surface. It can sit precariously on top of a hill, but if you give it a shake, it rolls towards the nearest valley. If you give it a bigger shake, it jumps from a little valley and rolls to a deeper one. If you tip it towards a cliff, it rolls slowly until it experiences a catastrophic drop.
When you have as many people and as many natural forces as we do in the world, you can think of general tendencies of people as forces that shape the manifold. Dictators, conspirators, governments, corporations - they fill environmental niches that are provided by the system we have. To blame individuals can be a mistake - all it takes is for someone sufficiently ambitious to fill a niche that already exists. I think it’s important to think of it as a system and not as something that can be blamed on one person or group of people. Trying to expose or depose individual people has limited benefit when we allow the system that rewards their exploitative behavior to persist.
To influence the system, we have to look at it from a point of view of chaos and catastrophe theory. We find the valley that represents a stable desirable situation, and figure out the smallest change we can make to the terrain to make the ball roll that way. This can be very different from seeking great powers: “Powerful” people often have very limited powers - the might be able to make an entire nation go to war, because the people of the nation are ready to do that. A powerful person might be able to fan the flames of hate, and direct them towards a particular target. But they can’t destroy hate. If the people who are supposedly in power suddenly changed what they were telling their followers, they might find that they no longer have power. Take the example of Jesus. He preached love and equality and he was executed for it. Some might consider him a rare exception because his message of love became one of the dominant religions of the world. But many will be eager to point out all the acts of hate carried out in the name of that love. Even the man who said “love your enemies” and “turn the other cheek” has been used as a figurehead for genocide and oppression.
One of my favorite articles makes an important point about how sometimes inaction is the best action: blog.techfun.org/zentv/
This can be very difficult for those with “great power” to carry out - there’s always a temptation to meddle. In the end it doesn’t matter whether it’s well-intentioned or not, because there are so many unforseeable consequences. When we act in small ways, we see the consequences before they get out of control, but when we mobilize huge armies, institutions, and sums of money, that’s not possible.
There is always some political and economical structure in the world (though at times it can be a very fragmented or chaotic structure), i.e. people everywhere always manage what can be deemed political and economical affairs in some way or other. One does no violence on language, if one calls any such structure for a world order. If those structures change more or less drastically (which they have done every now and then throughout all history), one gets a new world order.
So, when the Soviet Union collapsed, we got a new world order; when China appears a major global economy, we get a new world order. When politicians talk about a new world order, they need not mean anything more sinister than that: they just intend to state a fact, not to hint at the impending completion of their own hidden plans to take over the world.
Just look at the sorry spectacle when EU leaders from different countries try to do something to save the European political and economic order or the equally sorry wrangling in US congress and senate that replaces any measures to do something to help the US economic and political order. Is there anything in these attempts to make collective decisions to suggest that US or Europeans governments would be able to work together to establish a New Global Dictatorship under their collective leadership?
To my mind theories about conspiracies on any scale above court intrigues and coups d’état are of a kind with Sherlockian and Donaldist historiography.
This is why conspiracy theory is often, for many, basically an alternative religion. The phrase “everything is under control” can be read as sinister, or it can be read as comforting. That, and paranoia requires a delusional sense of one’s own importance (if a guy believes the government/NWO/Illuminati/whichever is monitoring his activities, for example, the core comfort of that belief is that his activities are important enough to be monitored).
Especially since they boil down to “a bunch of super-secretive, power-hungry, greedy, hyper-ambitious people who all want to rule the world are, once you get to know them, really good at cooperating with one another and sharing!” Uh. Yeah.
Heh. I already did my conspiracy-fun book years ago. Good bathroom reading, if I do say so Long out of print, of course, but available on eBay and in electronic versions, I think … (definitely on eBay; honestly I’m not 100% sure about the electronic …)
Evidently, we know that the world is out of control and needs some kind of new order. And we need to feel important, I think. That is where religion comes in. But we can’t make the world right; I think any one of us who would become head of a one-world government would fail miserably. We all have different blindnesses and failings. Any of us would make this world even more of a hell than it already is, even if intending all the time to do good. I don’t need to repeat the proverb about power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely.
Because Christians like myself are as hypocritical and incompetent as all other people. It is sadly ironic, but probably inevitable, that crimes of hate would be committed in the name of the supreme example of love who died to conquer that inner hate.
I’m glad to hear that. (I’m male, btw.) We don’t have to worry about conspiracy theories and all the intellectual confusion, even though I do worry. Whatever is true will certainly prevail; otherwise it was never true. And I think all truth leads to God, to Christ. Our King will yet reign over a New Earth – better than a “NWO” – and everything will yet be restored.
I agree. That’s a good observation. He gave His life willingly to pay for sin. I don’t think His life was wrested from Him. And I do believe in the resurrection.