View Full Version : A New World Order? Really?

Ragnar Lodbrok
Sunday, February 21st, 2010, 06:35 PM
This is going to be my Masonic New World order conspiracy thread and attempt to put out the total lack of proof in this one and pretty much all conspiracy theories.

Ragnar Lodbrok
Sunday, February 21st, 2010, 06:41 PM
(Anti-Masonic conspiracy theorists believe that "high-ranking" Freemasons are involved in conspiracies to create an occult New World Order. They claim that some of the Founding Fathers of the United States, such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, had Masonic symbolism interwoven into American society, particularly in the Great Seal of the United States, the United States one-dollar bill, the architecture of National Mall landmarks, and the streets and highways of Washington, D.C.. They speculate that Freemasons did this in order to bind their planning of a government in conformity with the luciferian plan of the Great Architect of the Universe whom, they are said to believe, has tasked the United States with the eventual establishment of an hermetic "Kingdom of God on Earth" and the building of the Third Temple in New Jerusalem as its holiest site.)

Just because Ben Franklin and George Washington went to the same Hellfire Clubs, and it reads "Novus Ordo Seclurem" on some of our coins does not mean there is an actual conspiracy of "elite bankers" to create some collectivistic and "luciferian" one world government.

I've seen this same sort of conspiracy theory thrown around alot by both extreme leftwingers and extreme rightwingers. Alot of the problems we have in the United States with international relations and burecracy that lead people to shout NWO and that the sky is falling has been caused by a variety of separate and unfortunate accurances. Most of these problems being explained by the existence of lobbiest groups and Jewish/Masonic interest groups merely lobbying for their own objectives which are almost always contrary to our national interests. How about it does everyone else here think I'm right? Can anybody here refute me?

Sunday, February 21st, 2010, 07:17 PM
THANK YOU! I have never been one to believe conspiracy theories, no secret UFO's, no Jewish World Takeover, no Freemasonic world takeover, etc, etc. People blaming todays economic problems on the Jews/Freemasons/NWO need to understand that it was mistakes by business and individuals that brought about the Great Recession.

I've heard of a great book called 'Voodoo Histories: How Conspiracy Theories Shape Our World" which goes over some of the most popular ones. I forget the author, but its on Amazon.

BTW, I have a friend who says he hopes that the secret banker conspracy theory is true, because if it isn't then the idiots in the white house really are the ones controlling everything.

Sunday, February 21st, 2010, 07:21 PM
The New World Order is beyond the realm of speculation, it's not even a secret, we're living the future already, especially in Europe. Even if you'd take the 'conspiracy theory' out of the equation - by for instance ignoring everything that is coming out of Rockefeller's mouth, the warnings of JFK, or the stated goals of secret societies - when forgetting about the megalomanic UN, the IMF, the Marxist agenda of the eco-movement - the Georgia guidestones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones) ... it becomes glaringly obvious that the last 200 years of history will have to culminate in the loss of individual and national sovereignity on a scale such as mankind has not seen before - even if there's no grand design, but I beg to differ. The economic crisis might not be artificial (which I think it is) but the laws we have today, they weren't created by accident, nor were the supranational insititutions. That's impossible.

A minority of Masons is involved in creating this sick utopia, but so is a minority of powerful pseudo Christians. We're all too familiar with the ideals of the NWO, the ideals of the neoliberals and the social liberals, and everything to the left thereof - even though some communists might think they're the alternative for the NWO.

Sunday, February 21st, 2010, 07:24 PM
Well, I've always understoof the NWO concept as being an orchestrated one.

I love how the religious right goes on and on about the Constitution being a Christian document when it was written by Deists, Atheists and Freemasons. And for you southerners, one of the leaders of the Confederacy was a Jew. Google and confirm.

Sunday, February 21st, 2010, 08:04 PM
I don’t buy into all the conspiracy theories (some of which are created solely to debunk the sound ones by association) but I do know there’s a concerted agenda to create a New World Order, led by elitist financiers who wish to abolish the nation state and create a consumer society with no borders that they will control via their banks and corporations.

You can argue forever over symbolism, such as the meaning of the eye on the dollar bill or the inscription on coins but here’s a well-documented statement from David Rockefeller, who makes no secret of his goals …

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

David Rockefeller... Baden-Baden, Germany 1991

... and here’s an excerpt from his memoirs ...

"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."

- David Rockefeller, "Memoirs" autobiography (2002, Random House publishers), page 405

To be honest, I think a lot of the evidence is already out there!

Sunday, February 21st, 2010, 08:22 PM
"New Secular Order" is on the dollar bill. Obama has given speeches where he mentions a "new world order" as has Bush and I believe Clinton. You find it everywhere.

Sunday, February 21st, 2010, 09:35 PM
President Washington, a Mason himself, warned us for the "Illuminati". He was a believer (http://hubpages.com/hub/Georges_Washington_did_acknowledge_the_D octrines_of_the_Illuminati_was_spreading _in_United_States), and I don't think he was ill informed:

"It is not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am.. The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of separation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a separation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned."

Sunday, February 21st, 2010, 10:03 PM
The U.S. has turned into a plutocracy.And yes I believe that there is an certain family Banking empire "Rothschilds" that is behind it.

The United States has for practical purposes been a plutocracy for some years now. American national elections usually function more or less correctly, except that they have become all but completely dominated by money.

The contributors of money to Senate and congressional campaigns are dominated by
the source of that money, and the source of the money is the U.S. government, which directs it to them as a result of the contracts awarded to them by the congressmen and the senators whose election they support. The process is circular.

It would be cheaper for all concerned if business were directly to pay senators and congressmen and eliminate the middlemen, the parasites who live on the surplus money in this system, paid for their ability to persuade both sellers and buyers (so to speak) that they are providing a service by facilitating the bargain. Elections now cannot take place without them.

There would seem to be two steps by which this rot has taken hold.

The first is change in the legislation originally concerned with the use by broadcasters of the airwaves, a public resource. In 1934, the Federal Communications Commission was established with authority over broadcasts. Being a politically balanced body, it decreed that the public service obligation of the broadcaster included the responsibility to provide balanced information. (The Fox News claim to be "fair and balanced" is a sneering reference to this, no doubt unintentional.)

This rule applied to commentary on the news and to coverage of elections and acceptance of political advertising. There had to be substantial balance.

This arrangement was destroyed by the Reagan administration, which removed the FCC's responsibility to enforce political "fairness" in radio and television network commentary and election coverage. The Republican-controlled Congress defeated efforts to reinstate it.

This change was challenged in 1976 by a congressional candidate who contended that he had been defeated by a candidate who spent on his campaign a sum enormously more than the plaintiff could spend. He contended that the Congress had imposed an unconstitutional money qualification upon election to federal office.

In one of the more notorious and deplorable decisions in the history of the Supreme Court, it ruled that all money spent on advertising in a political campaign is constitutionally protected free speech (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976).

Since then, the U.S. has been in a dizzying downward spin in the effective purchase of public office by candidates with the most wealthy supporters, usually business corporations. A perverse effect of the ruling, possibly unrecognized by the court, is that this indirectly required all candidates to adopt pro-business positions, or at least positions sufficiently inoffensive to business that they did not become the object of targeted campaigns to silence them.

On Sept. 9, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments on the legitimacy of any restriction on direct electoral spending by business corporations.

Since 1908, business corporations have been prohibited from spending on federal elections. Unions have been banned from doing so since 1947. States have banned corporate campaign spending since the late 19th century. Today corporations and unions contribute indirectly through political action committees, limited in what can be contributed.

If corporations now were licensed to make direct payment from corporate funds to influence elections, the country would become a wholly owned subsidiary of American business. The government would no longer be able to act disinterestedly. In the circumstances, there would appear to be no possibility that legislation to reverse the effects of such a ruling could succeed.

I do not know whether this is something the majority of citizens wish to see happen. Probably, in these difficult times, the majority do not even know that it is happening. They will discover it later.

Sunday, February 21st, 2010, 10:10 PM
Democracy is a failure. This is why it needs to be manipulated by money and elites. I refer one back to the video "happiness machines" on youtube. I think modern Democracy is better than the old rule by a king that preceded it. It is a step in the right direction, but I think there are better ways to organize our society. Mankind is still in a primitive state.

So long as there is a huge gap between the quality of one individual and the next there will be a strong sense of elitism, manipulation and so on in society. At least all have roughly equal chances in participating in this system and climbing up in it. If you are smarter you can make more money and have more political influence. The idea of "democracy" is a lie told to the moron public.

However I think it doesn't work well. Our laws are so highly biased in favor of business and certain sef destructive tendencies. What woud be better is a more national socialist view of placing standards on our population and raising up its quality then decentralizing power.

Ralf Rossa
Monday, February 22nd, 2010, 01:27 AM
So I was having a cigarette with a member of the British House of Lords and having just read in the New Zealand Heral an article where at a G8 summit Gordon Brown was saying more money needs to be given to the UN towards the establishment of the New World Order, I asked her, "What do the House of Lords think about Gordon Browns plans to give away British soverignty and have this One World Governmnet"?

Now she didnt say to me, "What are you on about you mad conspiracy theorist" like you are obviously hoping, she said, "we think its a good idea", she then proceeded to tell me that the result would be no more wars, no more incidents like Rawanda etc.

You might tell yourself that Iam lying, Iam not Iam afraid.,
Heres a few other sources.








Who was it who said, "all it takes for evil to flourish, is for good men to say nothing", maybe you can stick your fingers in your ears and go "laa, laa, laa, Iam not listening", leaving them free to do what they accussed Hitler of trying to do, but I think you are going to have a hard time proving that the world leaders arent pushing for a single banker dictatorship and its just an imaginary conspiracy theory.

Monday, February 22nd, 2010, 05:29 AM
Actually, it is all very obvious if you just think about it logically.

Auto workers have a union, coal miners have a union, sailors have a union, construction workers have a union, doctors have a union ( the american medical association, trust me it is a union, its only real function is to protect doctors income) , scientists have a union, teachers have a union, pilots have a union; heck, even ladies garment workers ( the people who sew female underwear ) have a union;

So why wouldn't the richest people in the world have a union? When confronted with this argument, someone replied that rich people
don't need a union because they are already rich.

Hah hah , they have it backwards. The richest people in the world are rich, and stay rich, because they have a union.

Call it a cabal, a secret society, Bilderbergers, the county club, the NWO, a conspiracy, the Masons, the Elks, the UN, the Rothschilds, whatever; A union by any other name is a union.