Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of New World Order (conspiracy theory).
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth.

Archive 1 - 2006

Contents

[edit] Ideologies

there is a section about ideologies on the New world order. It only lists a single ideology that of the new age movement. I think this is rather one sided and the minority view. someone should add the ideology that the New world order is negative in nature.thanks

"someone should add the ideology taht the New world order is negative in nature" that seems very vague. are you saying the idea itself of the new world order itself is negative? if so THAT seems pretty one sided Cheesecake42 (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ReOrganize

This is an EXTREMELY convoluted wiki page, which i find very sad because its an important subject. There are generally accepted beliefs as to what the New World Order is, and how it is acquiring total control. These simple and openly accepted ideas need to be put forth CLEARLY in the first section. Most of the following subsections are inappropriate for this page according to quality standards, and are misleading for people seeking information on the NWO. For example: one of the subsections of "Implementations" is titled "Black Helicopters" this part is ridiculous and makes no sense. Black helicopters are not an implementation scenario and their random mention is confusing and unclear. Also, most of the "Ideologies" section is without organization and filled with sourceless claims. There is a low standard of writing quality. The major sections are poorly titled and put a bad taste in the reader's mouth. The "timeline" section is completely unnecessary and contains blurbs that are irrelevant to this page.

THIS PAGE IS FOR READERS SEEKING BASIC ENCYCLOPEDIC INFORMATION ON THE "NEW WORLD ORDER" AND RELATED THEORIES/FACTS. IT IS NOT A PLACE FOR PERSONAL OR OBSCURE BLURBS.

Please help me reconstruct this page to correctly portray the NWO, its existence/nonexistence, dangers, and ideas associated with it. This page is NOT going to cut it. I would also like to point out that there is an NWO page that is not considered "conspiracy" and many of the themes/individuals/scenarios overlap. There is a fine line between what the status-quo considers acceptable public knowledge and what suddenly is considered "conspiracy." Remember this, and present your ideas in a way that readers seeking info can mentally digest easily.

I would like to remind everyone who uses this page that according to Harper's Journal there have been several hundred wikipedia user modifications that have been sourced back to computers at the CIA headquarters in Langley. This said, there are probably many more modifications of this heavily trafficked site from other untracked sources of intel/globalist power. It would not surprise me if frequently visited pages like this are intentionally distorted to portray a wacky, confusing image of a what truly constitutes an expanding awareness movement. I'm sure some technocrat is gonna read what i just wrote... so damnitall. Can some of you a$$#*!%$ just agree on some basic info minus the winding diatribes so that people who search this on the net seeking truth aren't totally turned-off? Please. -ReedPerry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedperry (talk • contribs) 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stay Here

[edit] Facts vs. Theories

I propose that any verifiable facts in this article (i.e. not homepages or conspiracy pages found from Google) be moved to the main New World Order article. In my research, I've found much of this article to be undeniably true, thus not theory. Of course anything with barcodes, extraterrestrials, freemasonry, and such should stay here. Examples of items that can be moved would be references on the aims of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission (since transcripts of such exist from their meetings and on their websites), some of the books by prominent authors, references to a world economy and international treaties. The main NWO article is greatly lacking in all these areas. Geekrecon 10:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC). One fact i can guarentee is that anything posted against these types of agenda will be removed. People's encylopedia my a..e.

[edit] Quotes

The quotes are a nice read but anyone know if they're all true and verified? Because usually cool quotes are distorted, misatributed or just totally false. Falsifying and distorting quotes is pretty common, notice it in some of Zedong's books too. So somekind of confirmation would be nice.


From the mouths of the men who are pushing the NWO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo Visual confirmation that this term Is being Used by Heads of the USA - particularly in the Bush administration. Sorry another tinfoil hat wearing youtube.com consperacy girl.(99.232.157.89 (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] I'm checking the references....

Boy oh boy, one man's nationalism is another man's patriotism it seems. And I suppose it depends on what man is speaking. For example: I wonder if our Founding Fathers would be called "nationalists" today by those trying to thwart efforts to expose international socialism i.e., one global government aka NWO - and would the Founding Fathers even accept the premise of "nationalism" as being as derogatory a term as how it has been used herein. There is a big difference between mere avoidance of "entangling foreign alliances" that lead America to never ending wars as a more correct foreign policy vs. strict isolationism in all areas. But of course it is convenient for the internationalists to paint anti-NWO types as "isolationists" and as "centrists" much as the Federalists tried to paint the anti-Federalists as kooks in America's early history.- WJM

In my opinion this article is a good start on the subject.

Keep it imo.

peace Chris

I think the article provides a good overview to what would generally be considered a fringe cultural phenomenon. The external links might be very POV, but I think you're right that they're appropriate in this context, and the article makes it clear that this is a heavily POV subject. Any reasonably critical eye should be able to discern this. I think the article strikes a good balance between the extremes of completely marginalizing the cultural context and giving it credulous coverage. Definitely a good start. --SamClayton 09:35, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have been speaking to some fenatics on both sides of the fence on this issue, and the documentation here, appears to be of balance between the two. Well fenced. I say keep the article. It appears appropriate in context to the volatility of the issue.

Rigel


I think overall the article does an adequate job of presenting both sides, but I would like to see sources for (or removal of) the article linking N.W.O. conspiracy theories to nationalism. That seems like POV to me, and I would like to see a source in writing that shows that there is a psychological link between believing in a N.W.O. conspiracy theory and being a nationalist/isolationist. --Anonymous

It seems like a "centrist" nationalist position. In particular, the idea that the left and right, or the Left and the Capitalist ideologues, are just manipulated pawns for the NWO seems very centrist. The anti-NWO arguments and web pages are very nationalistic, and have a reactionary feel. The fact that they label the threat the "New" probably contributes to this feeling. It seems to be opposed to modernity -- that is, they are opposed to capitalist progress as well as socialist progress, and want things not to change.
Also, there's a big problem with the paragraph asserting that one group thinks the NWO are "big capitalists". It sounds like it's talking about Marxists, leftists, or socialists, but it's not. It should point out that these people aren't necessarily against "capitalism", but against large corporations that threaten soverignty. Traditional Marxists, leftists, and socialists don't use the term NWO at all. They use terms like "the logic of capital," "rationalization," "capitalism," "modern," "class," "superstructure," and "bourgeoisie." When they talk about a global system that's spreading, overpowering governments, destroying sovereignty, and changing nationalism, they call it "capitalism." When they refer to the present, most advanced form of capitalism, they use the term "imperialism." I think most would consider the term NWO to be reactionary, and not very well thought out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.193.86 (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC).


I added some non absoulte mays and might's as abosoute statements are easy to argue with first. And NOT ALL conspirists are real conspirists. Some may be in it for the money selling tapes and are sensationaling certain events and do not believe their own B.S. To call this a finge phenomenon is to ignor all the pollsters results that show for instance, spikes in those that do not believe the official version of Sept. 11 2001 events. How many hours of Discovery channel presentations constitute conspiacy theory? The MEN who killed Kennedy to name one example Conspiracy of Silence a suppessed documentry to name another. Carl Cameron's suppresed 5 part Fox News piece on the "Weehawkin Five" and Israeli spys associated with the events of 911. then there is the whole body of stuff at: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proven_conspiracies

FORGET THE RHETORIC. IT'S ALL FACT, DOCUMENTED, UNDENIABLE AND WITH RESEARCH YOU WILL FIND PROOF POSITIVE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.106.106 (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So you believe things on the internet?

Pakistan is next Targeted Country, every Media Broadcasting Channel , like I-Vision , Wik-Kid , Humtv ,are all Sponsered by or financed by the Companies which Have a Symbol of an EYE (N.W.O). so kids in Pakistan would be manipulated and Trashed by their media channels esp. WIK-KID << so that when they grew up they will be more or less non-muslims . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.143.121.119 (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I can't believe anyone would list websites they found in a Google/Yahoo (and any other search engine) as a credible source. Most humans are stupid. The internet is for everyone, and is made by everyone. Therfore I don't believe anything I read on the internet unless it is observed fact, or about science and math.

Besides, how do you people even KNOW that the NWO would be a unitary government? What if it's a democracy. Besides the NWO would fall apart in a matter of years since at this time in history not many people are ready to be led by a world government, which is why nobody really listens to the UN.

So i'm asking for permission to add to the top of this article a notice saying people need to descide these things for themselves, and should not get their idea's off the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lithium500 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

So do you believe things on the television? At least where I live (Brazil), the most credible source of information are internet radios, blogs and independent news sites, since all newspapers and TV are biased and serve the current people in power, by manipulation or simply deny of information. Your argument, "the internet is for everyone, and is made by everyone", is the strongest point of internet. Or you can always watch your TV and see they treating you like an idiot and pushing their lies through your throat. 200.100.53.4 11:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Given the ephemeral nature of Wikipedia articles (except, I suppose, the ones that are protected), it would be rather redundant to put such a notice up. After all, articles are designed to be neutral so that readers can do just as you suggest. Although the "getting ideas off the internet" thing would probably mean Wikipedia would need to shut down entirely... since it's on the Internet and such. But anyway, a notice of "Decide this for yourself and don't get your ideas from here" would be hardly neutral. .V. -- (TalkEmail) 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Humans are stupid. And I hate most conspiracies. The US government destroying the Twin Towers? Please. If they were behind it, then God help us, for the Apocalypse is at hand. As for this New World Order, well, it probably would be a dictatorship. A violent takeover, installing a ruler with absolute power, no chance of a democracy. Power, unlimited power, would be granted to the ruler of this abominable form of government.

The internet is the most reliable source. The TV is controlled by the media which is controlled by the NWO. Believe it or not that's where its come to. You bet the NWO was behind the Twin Towers. Think steal buildings that were made to be hit by one and maybe two planes crashes would collapse? No way. The Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber after WWII and it didn't collapse. What about building 7? What about the Pentagon? Think an airliner could fly into that building at that speed at a few feet off the ground? The NWO is definitely not a democracy. The NWO is not going to fall apart for a while. What their big plot, in the long run, is to confiscate all fire arms. I'm an American, and we have the right to bear arms. If they confiscate our arms, we would be helpless against them. I think what they would try to do is first have everyone register their firearms. If they don't do that then they'll be arrested. That is not to bad, just register you gun. Think. After that they say everyone who has a gun has to get a microchip in their gun. Well, people don't want to be against the government, so, they'll just do it. At least the majority will. Then, one by one they take our guns away. Of course, all of this takes time and they need something like the Twin Towers to have people want to be protected by the gov. THe government says if you want protection, you just have to give alittle of your rights. The NWO wants to controll the people. In May, the National I.D. card is coming. You have to give your fingerprint in order to drive! Why? More controll. Little by little their winning. For most people, that's a lot to think. They have alot of trust in their government. You can see the NWO working at every corner. They use terrorism as a tool. Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA to fight the Russians during the Cold War! What were the Bushs' doing during 9/11? Having dinner with the Bin Ladens. What about the mayor of NY, who said a few hours before the planes struck the Twin Towers to his "cabinet" to get out, the towers are coming down. What about eye witness that said they heard explosions in the Twin Towers before the plane struck? I know that's alot to swallow. That's just one tiny percentage that I told you about the NWO. There's a lot more. To learn more about the NWO just go on YouTube and type Alex Jones, Police State 2007, New World Order Alex Jones, etc. Don't let them take away your liberties!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tread not (talk • contribs) 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Federalism

I'm not any kind of expert on this subject. I did notice that the word "federalism" was used to describe the tradional "world order" where there are multiple independent nations. As an American I have only heard the word "federalism" used to describe the system we have in the United States where there the states have some powers under a central national government. I tend to think that the word "federalism" is misused in the introduction to this article. Is there someone who knows more about this question? Thanks. Steve Dufour 00:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Federalism has a specific meaning when it comes to US politics, but it also has the more general meaning of "A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units." [[1]]. .V. [Talk|Email] 01:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, it would not be correct to say that the world is under a system of federalism since there is no central authority. I guess you could count the United Nations, but I don't think its authority can be compared to the authority of the US government over the states. Steve Dufour 04:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You are very much correct. .V. [Talk|Email] 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this an American conspiracy?

"Although the UN is usually a central figure in most theories". Is it? Where? In America perhaps because all conspiracies must really be due to those pesky foreigners. In other parts of the world you could change the 'N' to an 'S' to identify the main character in conspiracy theories.

Regards,

George.

194.46.176.193 23:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow readers: I changed the material. The statement that the UN is "usually a central figure in most theories" is certainly unsourced and probably could not be verified for purposes of Wikipedia. You could say that "such and such a commentator says that the UN is usually a central figure in most theories" or something like that, if you could find a source for that. Famspear 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-NPOV and Non-Verified

This article contains many one-sided and non-verified claims. Do others agree? If so, we should add the appropriate Wiki tags.--P Todd 01:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see a great deal of POV, but there are some unverified claims. Though it seems it would be better to add references than just tag them. Many of them say something to the extent of "Theorists allege..." and then they don't back it up. However, I'm pretty sure they they do allege what they claim to allege, so it shouldn't be too much of a hunt to find sources. I'll look into that. .V. [Talk|Email] 11:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs protection

The kooks are invading. THis article needs a subjective mind to go through it and clean up the non-encyclopedic stuff the tinfoil hat types have added. It should also perhaps be locked to anonymous edits and/or watched.

The superkooks like to 'stay off the grid' and won't DARE register an account to pollute this article with their paranoid ramblings! 209.195.72.34 19:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

IDIOTS! Lets try to be opened minded here. You call these people kooks, because they don't believe everything that is told to them. You say this article needs a subjective mind to "go through it and clean up". What you mean is censor it. Even if it is a bunch of BS, read through that and figure it out for yourself. What you are suggesting is even worse. Lets "clean it up" and keep the information generic without questioning. That's what you suggest! If that's your idea of people, I would rather be a kook than a blind follower. Also, what you are suggesting is exactly why people feel there are conspiracy theories. Because there are so many people out there that don't want to question things, especially if they sound "kooky". Wake up to reality and realize that they don't teach everything to you in school. Just like Japanese textbooks conveniently leave out the Rape of Nanjing, our textbooks leave plenty out too. People in power have the goal of maintaining that power. That is true in every society, in every part of the world, at anytime in history. Until everyone will at least look into and think about kooky ideas, we will continue to live in ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.114.184 (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Interesting...I believe the very concept of Wikipedia and the Internet in general (which by its very nature is impossible to censor) is evidence enough against a "new world order." You seem to be suggesting that we stop "blindly following" the media and start "blindly following" the conspiracy theorists. I would rather gather facts from several different sources and make up my mind on my own. And I agree that this page should be locked from anonymouse edits.--Justintree (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incoherent list of events

"Fodder will have to touch himself upon request. Adams will have his life thrown away by the corporations he is so scared of."

What do these mean? Where is the author getting his information? These should be modified, cited, or removed.

64.80.108.53 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also... "Deceleration Of Interdependence" Bizarre, kooky, but so poetically awesome! Can't we just allow this one article to be overun by the endearing nutjobs? So what if the CIA ate their dog. So what if UPC codes are obviously the Mark of the Beast? How cool is it that the reptillian aliens from inside the hollow Earth plotting with the Illuminati to take over the world in preparation for the Anti-Christ could have also conspired to make inventory control so much easier for Supermarkets?

[edit] corporations vs workers (whether true or false) is a common leftist/rightist point of view, not a conspiracy theory

i removed the following from the article:

While the Trilateral Commission may be rather secretive, the fact that it's composed of about 300 or so of the world's most powerful businessmen, politicians, academics and some labor and NGO leaders makes it rather reasonable that as an institution, it probably has significant effects on global decision-making. This is a common sense claim of basic human psychology and the social sciences, not a conspiracy theory: make a regular habit of putting a bunch of 300 of the most powerful individuals in the world in a good place where they can talk together comfortably and off the record (with no journalists recording or secretaries making official records) and it's fairly likely that they will exchange useful information and ideas and plan things in their (and their organisations') common interest. Also, the claim that corporations, through the stock market and other mechanisms, aim to maximise their profits and thereby exploit workers is not a conspiracy theory, it's the foundation of the most widely used "theories" of economics. Whether or not it's a good thing is POV. Whether or not it's true or not depends on how true various "theories" of economics are. But a wrong theory of economics is not a conspiracy theory (unless it's focussed mostly on a small number of secretive individuals working together, but then it would not normally be called a theory of economics). Boud 20:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You removed this part of the article because it wasn't part of a conspiracy theory, because it is an obvious fact. So whenever someone brings in an article to prove a conspiracy, with something that is fact, you want to remove it! So you want to systematically keep these conspiracy theories just that. Instead of using the internet as a tool to figure out the truth. That seems like a brilliant idea! Obviously the main goal of all of these New World Order conspiracy theories is for the capitalist elites to take over an exploit the workers. Isn't this exactly what Marx talked about. So because we showed proof of this conspiracy, we take that proof out!?!? Wow, mind boggling how people can think they are so smart and are doing such great things. All you have to do is have a basic knowledge of Marx to know that for capitalism to work, it has to keep growing its markets, which would mean eventual global dominance. That is until the workers take over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.114.184 (talk) 07:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • If that were his motivation, I doubt he would have posted about the change here. The reason (as I understand it) that it was removed is because it is not part of a conspiracy, it is simply a meeting of individuals who have little or no other opportunity to converse off the record. To say that, just because they hold power and influence, they should be monitored in all of their activities sounds almost exactly like claims made by conspiracy theorists against "them". If you violate one person's rights, then that opens the door to violate anyone else's rights, so allowing them some privacy would be a good way to stay away from what the conspiracy theorists claim is going to happen. --Justintree (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Hitler

Removed the part that said Hitler was part jewish, since it's not proved and totally unsupported by any historian or biographer (except the conspiration theories nutjobs). - Thiago

201.78.163.207 00:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bias

Page is bias, poorly written and needs a complete overhaul.

75.72.242.219 12:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New World Order / North American Union Reference Information!

PLEASE HELP! to restore the North American Union article enough to get it returned to "article status".

I also posted George H.W. Bush's New World Order Speech for reference.

You can find additional info here:

GEORGE W. BUSH TO BE DICTATOR DURING UPCOMING PLANNED CATASTROPHIC EMERGENCY

Wisepiglet 22:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Does "See Also" have to be so long?

If you've noticed the "See Also" section, you would find that there is an incredibly long list of such "related articles". While I acknowledge that there are a few plausible ones such as "World government" and "Illuminati", some to be only remotely related or none at all, such as "Secularism", "Ecumenism", and "World Council of Churches". Others appear to just a smattering of various conspiracy theories, some of which may or may not have any relation to the topic at hand, such as "Creation-evolution controversy"... I think a clean-up might be imperative. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 18:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

that link hurts my eyes Cheesecake42 (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

The following quote (and possibly the subsequent quote) is not actaully Lincoln. It was atrributed to him in the 1870's; however, someone else actually wrote it. The words are too formal for Lincoln's style. Enthroned, endeavor, etc. “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.” - Abraham Lincoln - In a letter written to William Elkin. Thomas Esques

[edit] Sherlock Holmes

The part about Sherlock Holmes should be removed as he was a fictional character in the books written by Conan Arthur Doyle, his opinion in a serious political debate is irrelevant because he never existed at all.

Invalid preposition. Why cannot fictional characters state a triusm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.46.154.193 (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George H.W Bush

In the speech that he gave to Congress in 1990 when he first mentioned the New World Order, it seems that he used the words "New World Order" by accident instead of "New Era", he blatantly corrects himself. This is very significant as no-one batted an eyelid regarding the usage of the phrase.

[edit] Too many quotes!

The quotes may be notable, famous, whatever-you-call-it, but nonetheless, too many. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and these quotes are taking up about half (or more) of the article length. At the very least, please only put those which are evidently and unambiguously referring to the conspiracy - not simply a world government in general. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 12:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question.

Isn't New World Order in latin, Novus Ordo Seclorum? If not, then I would like to know what the latin means under the pyramid on the back of the one dollar bill. Thank you very much. Amphitere

We have an article on Novus Ordo Seclorum that will answer your question!--Isotope23 talk 01:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The phrase New World Order has its roots in the Latin phrases Annuit Cœptis, meaning "He has approved our beginnings," and Novus Ordo Seclorum meaning "A New Order of the Ages." However when translating the phrase New World Order back to latin it translates as Novus Ordo Mundi - Ne0Freedom 17:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structural changes (and a few content additions)

Someone unsigned wrote this as a loose piece of text at the top of this discussion page:

there is a section about ideologies on the New world order. It only lists a single ideology that of the new age movement. I think this is rather one sided and the minority view. someone should add the ideology that the New world order is negative in nature.thanks

- and it got me involved in fixing up some structural problems with the page. I have moved the Timeline out of the Ideologies section, re-arranged the Ideologies with sub-heads rather than bulleted points (they were too complex and long for bullets), and have done the same with the section that covers theorized methods of implementation, titling each one and giving it sub-head status.

While at work on this task, some basic copy-editing tasks caught my atention, and my desire for completion led me to add a few more categories of implementation, but in general my work did not include writing new text or sourcing anything that was unsourced.

I hope this new structure meets people's needs. I will not likely be sticking around on this page or contributing heavily to it, so don't worry about my personal investment in the new format -- it's just what seemed most logical to me at the time.

Nameless Date Stamp 08:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Where is the criticism for these theories? The way I see it, this conspiracy crap which is taking over YouTube with its Satanic Whores bullshit etc should positively be leaking with holes.200.105.222.177 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.105.222.177 (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd probably be hard pressed to find legitimate, well sourced criticism of this for the same reason you won't find much in the way of scholarly response or criticism of the Flat Earth Society; these theories are generally recognized as ludicrous and not worth response.--Isotope23 talk 17:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, there is very good evidence for this to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.235.207 (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zionists does not equal Jewish

Section headed Antisemitic ideologies: Zionists as the enemy.

It states that Zionism is the same as the Jewish faith. This is both misleading and innacurate. Zionism is an idiological force that exists both inside and outside the Jewish faith. So Anti-Zionism is not the same as Antisemitism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.46.154.193 (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: == Zionists does not equal Jewish ==

My thoughts exactly. This needs to be changed. Anti-Zionism doesn't equal Antisemitic. I myself am Anti-Zionism, but I am not against the jewish faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.3.66 (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

I would appreciate it if, whoever put the NPOV tag on this article, would supply specifics of what needs work. That is a necessity. Otherwise, I will remove the tag. Kwork 17:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How come we have no article on the opposite of NWO, NWF (New World Freedom)? Amphitere 18:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC) "Quantum Future"

Wake Up America —Preceding unsigned comment added by Severin Moon (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC) HEY Wake up America and every one else with your head in the sand!!! Over 1400 radio and TV stations are controled by the elite, so you hear what they want you to hear, think about it. Example GE is the largest producer or bombs in the world and they also own NBC and MSNBC so on the subject on war will you hear good or bad things about the war? Quite simply they will "tickle your ears" with what it take to keep you thinking that the terrorists are out side the country and we need to kill em. 911 was an inside job, Bushes brother took out terrorist insurance on the trade center and made a woping $7.1 Billion on the attack. Please go to thetorrentchannel.com (one of many) and down load and view all the stuff that got pulled from the news so we the people couldn't see it. Do your home work, think about it if you were in control or had a business you would "advertise" any way you could for your business to succeed. Same with the new world order, the lie as needed to get the job done. Also the vera chip is coming out and will be implanteded into every person on earth. The united euro the new police state of America. As one dictator said the easiest way to enslave people is to make them think they are free, give them food, entertainment and keep them distracted from the trueth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Severin Moon (talk • contribs) 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell why there should be a POV tag. The title is enough. This article should be moved back to New World Order (conspiracy), so that it's neutral and doesn't side with the viewpoint that it's just a theory. --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Half a year later, and still whoever put up the NPOV tag has not identified specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic. How can we move past the dispute without specifics? Is it time to take down the tag until someone is willing to properly identify what specifically they have a problem with? Jozsefs (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Games

I know next to nothing about global conspiracies, but I'm certain there's no need to mention professional wrestler Scott Hall by name, simply because he was in a stable named the New World Order. --Sakaki22 09:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for renaming

This article refers to the 'New World Order' conspiracy theory. Wikipedia policy says "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". This would appear to favour New World Order (conspiracy theory) as the name for the article, as it is a conspiracy theory held by a small fringe group who believe that there is in fact such a conspiracy. Moreover, naming the article on this conspiracy theory as New World Order (conspiracy) is inconsistent with our naming conflict guideline to "[c]hoose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." New World Order (conspiracy) implies that there is in fact such a conspiracy, thus endorsing a POV, and a rather objectionable one at that. John Nevard 01:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imaginationland

The reference to the Imaginationland episodes of South Park ("Imaginationland", "Imaginationland Episode II", "Imaginationland Episode III) in the "TV shows and anime" section of this article are probably original research. I've watched all three, and I don't remember any references having been made, but this isn't my reason for opposing. That such a conspiracy theory was mentioned or alluded to in South Park needs to have been stated in a reputable third-party source. In the absence of a reference for these episodes, I'm going to remove this reference. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with removal... it is a pretty thin thread to link those episodes to the NWO.--Isotope23 talk 18:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just watched the first episode again last night and I didn't see anything. I'm removing them until someone comes up with a source. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing the conspiracy

I would propose that we edit out the name "conspiracy Theory" from most of the pages. I think that the general public views anything labelled "conspriacy theory" as not true, and simply labeling something as a "conspiracy theory" immedietly makes the page seem biased against the theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.224.63 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think "conspiracy theory" is as neutral a term as I've yet heard, and in my opinion it sums things up rather well. NWO isn't exactly a mainstream theory. Do you have suggestions for terms that are superior to "conspiracy theory?" -FrankTobia (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory stays - look up the definition of "conspiracy." --Strothra (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with the first statement. the term "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" though correct terminology, has a negative connotation attached to it in modern language. the first word association that comes to mind with most people after the phrase is "nutjub" or something equivalent. Whether right or wrong, using "conspiracy theory" because of modern language, takes the neutrality out of the title of the article. I suggest dropping the adjective altogether and naming the article "New World Order Theory". This shows that the idea of the New World Order is in fact, just a theory adn brings no negative connotation along with it. Cheesecake42 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with changing the title?Cheesecake42 (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion belongs at the bottom of the page, not here. Yes, many editors object. Please start a new conversation at the bottom of the page.--Cberlet (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The NWO is not a conspiracy theory.

It is a globalist organizational power structure created by a small but dedicated group of individuals who HAVE REPEATEDLY WRITTEN OF ITS EXISTENCE and of THEIR DEDICATION TO SEEING IT REALIZED.

It's all documented, in their own words, people. From George Bush I to David Rockefeller. From Brzezinski to JP Morgan to Alan Dulles to Eisenhower. It is an indisputable fact to any serious historical researcher or political scientist.

This article is sickeningly biased and a whitewash. Wikipedia has really gone down the tubes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.83.237 (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

From the NWO bosses:Take your meds, shut the hell up, comply with authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.105.118 (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could provide references to some of these documented writings? If you can't, I'd be tempted to assume they don't exist... --Richardrj talk email 10:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

you want Proof?

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents ... 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

...I'd take take the above quote as a confession!

global economic structure - Capitalism & Monopoly
global political structure - Facist government bent on controlling it's civilians

--Ne0Freedom 03:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

^The Truth. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll cite my userpage >>> --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
God forbid people in the world actually get along together. I swear, every claim made by NWO-believers seems to be racially, nationalistically, or jingoistically motiavted, as if it’s a ‘’’bad’’’ thing that people in different countries find common ground and unity. These people are so obsessed with exposing this giant conspiracy (which is so untrue it’s almost laughable) that they don’t even stop to think that the people of the world voluntarily coming together might actually be a ‘’good thing’’’. The quote you mention meant that Rockafeller was trying to bring people together from disparate backgrounds into a unified, equal, global society working towards the goal of peace in the world. He was trying to use the power he had to work towards international agreement, not world domination. Is your persecution complex so severe that you see this conspiracy in every word ever written? 68.214.213.183 (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You have a lot to learn. The global elite are actually the ones causing the chaos in this world. They are using conflict to convince people that a NWO is the only way. HOW does that equate to the people of the world voluntarily coming together? And please keep the discussion to how to improve the article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Please get back on topic discussing ways to improve the article, not having general discussions concerning the topic itself per WP:NOT#FORUM. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little Light on Criticism?

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. It is a huge black mark on Wikipedia that an article this light on facts doesn't have a substantial criticism section. Are there plans to have other Wikipedia articles hijacked by raving lunatics? I'm looking forward to the Sockland article describing in detail the massive conspiracy to steal from clothes driers around the world and create a subjugated universe of Sock People. I can't wait to see which "popular references" and important people get attached to that one by the loosest of connections. Tony Blair wears socks. Oh my, I believe Bill Clinton and George Bush do, too. Wait a second...didn't THE ENTIRE CAST OF SEINFELD WEAR SOCKS?!?!?! I guess everyone seeks attention in their own ways. Little Billy cries and throws his milk on the floor. Brainless yutzes invent conspiracies. Bend over backwards to find the number 83 everywhere, and you will.

If you want to read the criticisms, ask for the Archive to be revived. As for popular references, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, George Bush ...you hit the jackpot! Oh, by the way, add in Hitler and Saddam for some compare & contrast. The only visible links between them are their deviousness and the groups and secret societies they belonged to :

76.89.178.158 (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Laughing at idiots.

Agree, can this article get some balance here? Loose change has its ass handed to it in the criticism section. Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories are analyzed for bullshit. As it stands this is an embarassment.--Loodog (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References in fiction to the New World Order

Nineteen Eighty-Four? Brave New World? Is any dystopian novel referencing a conspiracy theory? Really guys?... 'Akatsuki From Naruto Shippuden' ok, really, enough is enough. You might as well rename this section, "references in fiction to the idea of world domination" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.133.173 (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section is a bit of a joke. It is a useless list, half of it promoting unknown or unrelated artists. Some cleaning may be done under these guidelines : Wikipedia:Lists in WikipediaKromsson (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the list entirely. The examples there either unrelated to the subject or not notable enough for inclusion.--Jedravent (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Christian's viewpoint

In regards to the section titled, "New World Order (conspiracy theory)#Apocalyptic Christian theories centering on the Book of Revelation", most fundamentalist evangelical Christians do not necessarily assert that, "agents of Satan are involved in deceiving humanity into accepting an international demonic order that has Satan at the core of worship." Man has made decisions that set a course for full acceptance of a single global power, a single global currency, and a single global religion. While Satan has influenced many, he dare not focus on one that has him, "at the core of worship." Too many would object and reject that government. No, he is sly and will deceive slowly, over time, bringing the many organizations that have global reach in their specific areas together (e.g. telecommunications, banking, etc). A commonly held belief for many Christians is that the NWO will focus on global peace through full disarmament, allowing a global entity to control all the arms. It will further move to call for religious unity and tolerance through a single belief that it will conjure up; which is likely to claim that we have some form of divinity within each of or some other form of commonality that gives us full control over our global destiny. I'm no scholar, but I hope I've explained my viewpoint in a coherent manner. I do not speak for all Christians either, so please don't harass me about that. I am just one man, with his opinion and interpretations. I will say this, the Book of Daniel talked about such things as well. Daniel tells of a dream and its interpretation for both King Nebuchadnezzar and himself where four kingdoms would arise from the earth. Even non-Christian scientists and archaeologists cannot argue that copies of Daniel's prophecy were discovered dating back to the early Medo-Persian Empire[2], which is considered to be the second of the four empires. That prophecy has been fulfilled to the smallest detail. Even today, the fourth empire, that of the Romans, prevails in nearly every Western society as those governments have taken from the Romans their Senates and most other aspects of governing. T geier (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "antizionist" smear job

I realize that some antisemites like David Duke use the term "Zionist" as part of the world-Jewish-control conspiracy theory, but it is utterly outrageous to conflate criticism of neoconservatism and pro-Israel lobby with the New World Order conspiracy theory. Associating people like Walt & Mearshimer with this nonsense violates WP:BLP and WP:OR#SYN; they are not even anti-Zionists, let alone antisemitic conspiracy theorists! I've removed the section entirely; I will do a little research to see what's the association between NWO and ZOG conspiracy theories, and try and whip up a competent section to replace it. <eleland/talkedits> 05:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"neoconservatism" by definition is the personification of Wrath and Pride of the Deadly sins--Eternal-Entropy (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"And the LORD said unto me, a conspiracy is found among the men of Judah, and among the inhabitants of Jerusalem. They are turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods to serve them: the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers. --Jeremiah 11:9-10

Jews. Or rather, heathen Jews. --69.113.120.132 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid posting well-known tired antisemitic conspiracy theories. Thank you.--Cberlet (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Conspiracy theory"?

No - "Conspiracy".

Change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.183.214 (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA

This article is good enough to be Featured Article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.149.230 (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not by a longshot. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I doubt if it's even good enough to be called an "article". Loads of trash for the most part. 210.213.144.23 (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the best known modern conspiracy theories. The page needs to note that these allegations are part of a longstanding conspiracy theory in the lead, and then throughout the article. This page should not be a dumping ground for conspiracy theory fanatics.--Cberlet (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Title Change Proposal

The term "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" though correct terminology, has a negative connotation attached to it in modern language. the first word association that comes to mind with most people after the phrase is "nutjub" or something equivalent. Whether right or wrong, using "conspiracy theory" because of modern language, takes the neutrality out of the title of the article. I suggest dropping the adjective altogether and naming the article "New World Order Theory". This shows that the idea of the New World Order is in fact, just a theory and brings no negative connotation along with it. 69.73.40.171 (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been debated repeatedly on Wikipeida on numerous pages. The majority view is clear. This is a settled question. Wikipedia is not a blog to push conspiracy theories, now matter how artfully the debate is posed. Been there, done that. Forget it.--Cberlet (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion that it's a conspiracy theory is POV. Wikipedia is not supposed to take sides. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Conspiracy Theory is the correct deffinition of what it is. It is a THEORY that many people/groups have been CONSPIRING the new world order. The problem that I have with it is that Conspiracy Theory has become a negative term and using it takes away npov. The article for Ted Kennedy isn't called Ted Kennedy (liberal). This defines what he is, but it is not necessary to put it in the title. If that were the case, it would look as if somone was using the term liberal as a negative term. Changing the title to "New World Order (Theory)" Does nothing more than make the article more neutral. I have no problem with somewhere in the article referring to it as a conspiracy theory. It just looks extremely negative in the title. Cheesecake42 (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the articles on serious use of the term New world order discuss it as a theory of historical change. Calling this article "New World Order (Theory)" would be confusing to say the least. If you want to take the time, I believe you're likely to find scholarly use of the term "new world order" in this sense is generally accompanied by "conspiracy theory" rather than simply "theory". John Nevard (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"the articles on serious use of the term..." serious use of the term? Cheesecake42 (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a more bold proposition... A lot of the "conspiracy" stuff, as mentioned here before, is verifiable (Bilderberg, CFR, etc). I think that stuff should be moved to the main New World Order article (once it is properly sourced), and then the "theories" that are unverifiable speculation would stay in this article, which will be renamed "Conspiracy theories surrounding the New World Order". I believe this to be the most neutral way to cover the subject matter. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that. The main problem that I have with this article is that there is legitimate arguments with sources that would not be taken seriously because the article is labled "conspiracy theory". I think your solution would make the most sense.Cheesecake42 (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

<---------------I, too, have a bold proposal. Deal with the fact that most reputable published sources consider elaborate theories about the New World Order to be ludicrous conspiracy theories. Changing the name of this entry is a bad idea because it flies in the face of the majority view of most scholars and major media journalists that these claims are a steaming pile of horse manure. Leave this page name alone until you can provide cites to refute what I have just stated. Thanks--Cberlet (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. What gave you the idea that I was going to rush over and change the title immediately!? I clearly stated that everything should be reliably sourced. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to be so cranky about your post in particular. The campaing to remove the term "conspiracy" from titles goes back several years. A majority of editors have opposed changing the title on the Conspiracy theory page itself. The 9/11 pages are constantly embrolied in battles over whether or not Alex Jones or the American Free Press are reputable sources (no, thanks), etc. It gets tedious after a few years.--Cberlet (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
personally I dont consider General Electric a reliable source for news considering it's investments. Cheesecake42 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, then you need to find a blogsite, not Wikipedia. We are here to edit text based on reputable published sources. What most earthlings consider reputable published sources, that is.--Cberlet (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"Changing the name of this entry is a bad idea because it flies in the face of the majority view of most scholars and major media journalists that these claims are a steaming pile of horse manure." This shows exactly what I am saying. Because some people think that it is a "steming pile of horse manure" you think it should be portrayed in a negative manner. That is deffinately not NPOV. This argument doesn't even pertain to what the actual discussion was about which is the use of "conspiracy theory" being a negative term. Going by your statement, why dont you just propose to delete the whole article if in fact it's "a stemaing pile of horse manure"? "Well, then you need to find a blogsite, not Wikipedia. We are here to edit text based on reputable published sources. What most earthlings consider reputable published sources, that is." There's no need to be an ass. I'm trying to have a civilized discussion with you about changing the title of the article. Telling me to go away doesn't help anything. Cheesecake42 (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If you cannot cite a reputable published source to back up you POV, then in fact you should stop wasting our time here on this page. There are numerous scholars who write that the New World Order conspiracy theory is just that, a nonsense claim without merit. A civilized discussion based on nonsense is still nonsense. The issue of using the well-established term "conspiracy theory" here on Wikipedia on appropriate pages has been debated endlessly. It is considered appropriate by a majority of editors.--Cberlet (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You are still just arguing the fact that this article isn't reputable and shouldn't be an article. You've already stated that you want the article to be called a conspiracy theory because IT IS A NEGATIVE TERM. And what is it that you want me to cite exactly?Cheesecake42 (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty good comments above by editors on both sides. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 243 (G. & C. Merriam Company, 8th ed. 1976). The key words seem to be "join", "agreement" and "secret". The terms "join" and "agreement" highlight the fact that a conspiracy, to be a conspiracy, must involve more than one person, by definition. And the term "secret" highlights the idea that there is or must be an attempt by those involved in the agreement to keep at least some of the agreement hidden from the public at large. The definition, as written, is more or less denotative. It highlights the fact that a true conspiracy may be for either a good (or at least benign) purpose OR for a bad purpose.

If my wife and I agree in secret to eat at our favorite restaurant every Friday night for the next month, that is technically a conspiracy in the denotative sense, albeit perhaps a benign conspiracy. Of course, we don't usually use the term in this sense, except perhaps jokingly.

The more commonly used connotative sense is, of course, the portion of the definition dealing with bad purpose (e.g., unlawful or wrongful). I haven't read the entire article, but it seems that this article is consistently dealing with conspiracy" in this connotative sense. The "secret agreements" (actual or imagined) are generally viewed by the persons believing those theories as being secret agreements for a bad purpose.

And, of course, the very use of the term "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorists" to describe a theory or an individual believing that theory does itself conjure negative connotations about both the theory and the believer -- such as the connotation that the person believing the theory is wacky and delusional -- that the putative "conspiracy" does not really exist (or maybe that the conspiracy does not exist in the way described by the believer, etc., etc.).

The use of the term "conspiracy" has indeed been debated in Wikipedia almost endlessly for a long time. The consensus (at least since I have been editing here in late 2005) is that we do not delete the term "conspiracy" merely because it has negative connotations, which it certainly does.

The analogy of "Ted Kennedy (liberal)" as opposed to just "Ted Kennedy" is arguably not on point. If, for example, there were a Ted Kennedy who was a famous astronaut, you might entitle the two articles "Ted Kennedy (politician)" and "Ted Kennedy (astronaut)" to distinguish the two. The "conspiracy theory" nomenclature here distinguishes this article from the many other Wikipedia articles on New World Order.

Just as an aside, the supporters of conspiracy theories who happen to come across this article, with its current title, and react negatively because of the negative connotation, are simply out of luck. I don't think they can have it both ways. We also have articles with titles like Adolf Hitler and Nazism and Gestapo, and there is no meaningful way around the accurate use of these words in the titles, even though the words have strongly negative connotations for many people.

In this particular case, to change the title from "conspiracy theory" to just "theory" would seem to be a strained, misplaced attempt to try to make the article more "neutral." The body of the text of this article is not about "New World Order" as being merely a theory (or theories). It's about New World Order as a group of conspiracy theories. Conspiracy -- secret agreement among two or more persons -- is central to virtually every theory discussed in the article. I don't have a strong feeling about it but, on balance, I don't see the proposed deletion of the word "conspiracy" in the title as being particularly helpful from the standpoint of the Wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View. Famspear (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lyndon LaRouche and New World Order

I did a search and found that LaRouche generally does not speak of a "New World Order." I removed the short paragraph because it was unsourced and appears to be incorrect. I found one minor comment by a writer for LaRouche's magazine ([3]) commenting on George HW Bush's use of the term, and equating it with Free Trade. LaRouche has often spoken of a New World Economic Order as something he supports, but that is obviously different than the topic of this article. --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Also in LaRouche Org publications here. Here. In a WLYM publication. S******r Institute.. and LaRouche's new wife. Most mentions seem closer to the main New world order article than the topic this covers, though God only knows what LaRouche means whenever he strings a sentence together.
Oh..... but I just came across this. It seems that there are LaRouche connections to this particular brand of conspiracism. And from the man himself- "this same Anglo-American-dominated, globalized new world order, is intended, like Adolf Hitler’s promise of a thousand-year Reich, to rule the entirety of the planet for as far as the horizon of the imagination might reach."[4] Slightly milder in the land of Prada.[5]
And just for laughs, we have the Gnostic Masonic schemes of Mozart. John Nevard (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Really, relying on what LaRouche says about a concept on any one day is not a good way to predict what he will say about it the next. All we can do is say that he said it. There's probably been further mentions in the literature analyzing LaRouche. John Nevard (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Pat Buchanan

The entire section on Pat Buchanan needs to be deleted. Every single part is untrue. The first assertion is unsourced. The Second Source cites "Where the right went wrong" without referring to any page number. The only mention of the Council on Foreign relations in that boook is a passing reference that they--along with a dozen other institutions he lists-- supported NAFTA. The other source simply goes to his author archives at World Net Daily--rather than a specific column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.21.149 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correction on Latin phrases

I added a correction. Annuit coeptis and Novus Ordo Seclorum are two separate phrases, not one. The material in the section I edited appeared to be referencing only the meaning of "novus ordo seclorum," so I deleted the reference to "annuit coeptis." Famspear (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also: Roman Empire

Is there any reason why the Roman Empire is listed in the article's "see also" section? I see no connection between the New World Order and the Roman Empire, definitely not in the latter article. Huon (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bible

How is it the bible isn't even mentioned in this article? A good percentage of the world population believes that the bible speaks of a one world government as a main theme in the "end times" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.173.229 (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned in relation to the mark of the beast. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All problems solved by the UN...they send a Election Observation Team to the US

This was on ALL news channels. I'm NO racist, but the current election in the US has prompted the UN to send a team into the US because they believe the US IS a racist nation, which implies that IF Obama LOSES the election to McCain, the US is racist. People in the US has indicated that this is a example of the New World Order in action, and that the UN is controlling the US, and the NWO is HERE now. 65.163.115.204 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone place this ?!65.163.115.204 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I don't buy it for one second. You claim not to be racist, but you have a racist agenda. You are just like the UN. Ever thought that Obama is being set up to win the election only to be "assassinated" by a white supremacist, thereby causing a race war in the United States, and more racism? No, you haven't. Because you are racist, and you couldn't stand the thought of a black president. If you actually study, you will find out that the Illuminati is racist. As for your contributions, I'm reverting them, but you can put them back once you have provided references to reliable sources. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I live in a area full of racists. Tell people here certain things, you'll get shot. I have found and destroyed a KKK advert on a gas pump. 65.163.115.204 (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Why did YOU call ME a damn racist ?! 65.163.115.204 (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's call it a day with the whole racist thing. I apologized on your talk page. That being said, I don't agree with your theory. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey man, don't worry about it. Things like that happen. 65.163.115.204 (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)