New World Order, a plan, not a conspiracy theory.

dense

Overheal wrote: »

sovereignty concepts, not sovereignty itself. Big difference, in fact.

So no, you have no correctly paraphrased.

What???

So, no, you incorrectly accused me of misquoting the document, not incorrectly paraphrasing it.

Do you realise there's a difference?

If I've paraphrased it in a manner that's not to your liking, sorry, that's just a difference of opinion and proof of nothing.

Overheal

Then you have incorrectly interpreted the document. Hope that clears up confusion about my statement.

dense

Overheal wrote: »

Then you have incorrectly interpreted the document. Hope that clears up confusion about my statement.

So we just have a difference of opinion.

No biggie.




BTW, "nefarious" is King Mob's take on it all, not mine.

I expect you'll address him about his misinterpretation too?

dense

Anyone up for disputing that a new world order is much the same as what's in the quote below?

New:unprecedented

World:global

Order:established sovereignty concepts

Politically, this requires a historically unprecedented transcending of established sovereignty concepts and purely power-driven global politics in favour of ensuring the long-term availability of global commons.

#ticksallboxes


http://www.wbgu.de/http:///fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu.de/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_kurz_en.pdf

Overheal

It ticks all the boxes for wanting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)

Not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)

Which is what many posters have been trying to get across to you now.

King Mob

dense wrote: »

Anyone up for disputing that a new world order is much the same as what's in the quote below?

New:unprecedented

World:global

Order:established sovereignty concepts




#ticksallboxes


http://www.wbgu.de/http:///fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu.de/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_kurz_en.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)

he New World Order or NWO is claimed to be an emerging clandestine totalitarian world government by various conspiracy theories.
The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government—which will replace sovereign nation-states—and an all-encompassing propaganda whose ideology hails the establishment of the New World Order as the culmination of history's progress.

You've said repeatedly that your theory does not involve anything clandestine.
You have also said that you don't believe that it's a secretive powerful elite and you got upset when we asked if your believed they were trying to establish a one world government.

So in what way is your theory like the conspiracy idea of a new world order?

You keep saying that I'm accusing these people of being nefarious. This is not true. Please point out where you think I have done this.

Also, you seemed to have missed my question:
You claimed That they wanted to install an unelected position of power that would dictate things to governments.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...0&postcount=13
Are you now abandoning this claim? If so, say so.
If not, please explain where you are getting this notion.

dense

King Mob wrote: »

You keep saying that I'm accusing these people of being nefarious. This is not true. Please point out where you think I have done this.

Here:

King Mob wrote: »

So again, what have these people you are selectively quoting done that indicates that they are working towards this nefarious purpose?

Maybe you forgot you posted it.......

Have any representatives of the people I quoted been in contact with you about that completely unfounded allegation yet?

That their purpose is nefarious?

After all, that is exactly what you have alleged.

dense

Overheal wrote: »

It ticks all the boxes for wanting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)

Not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)

Which is what many posters have been trying to get across to you now.

Thanks.

It does tick all the boxes, doesn't it?

My error was linking to the "conspiracy theory" version of Wiki's New World Order take on the subject.

What many posters have been trying to get across to me is that the plan I linked to IS a conspiracy theory.

One even believes it's being done for nefarious ends!

So as I said at the outset, there are plans in the open for a New World Order, it is not a conspiracy theory, and as Newman said, climate change is being used as the reason for needing to implement it.

You've cleared up the whole thing.

Thanks again.

I had wondered why I'd been advised to discuss in the CT forum!

The problem I see is that if this New World Order OP had been posted in a Political Forum it would have bern swiftly moved out to the CT forum as it has been from the Climate Change thread.

The subject is a real hot potato

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

So as I said at the outset, there are plans in the open for a New World Order, it is not a conspiracy theory, and as Newman said, climate change is being used as the reason for needing to implement it.

The phrasing is what's causing trouble here - it reads like you are against these various environmental individuals and groups and their aims

Various phrases don't imply anything sinister or negative. In this context, it's a general term for changing the world for the better and the environmental policies being enacted around the world to help that goal

Ajsoprano

What’s wrong with a new world order?

The only people who would not profit from it are the few at the top who have everything.

Was this conspiracy started by them?

King Mob

dense wrote: »

Here:



Maybe you forgot you posted it.......

Have any representatives of the people I quoted been in contact with you about that completely unfounded allegation yet?

That their purpose is nefarious?

After all, that is exactly what you have alleged.

I am not accusing anyone of anything there.
Tellingly it seems that it is because you have misunderstood or misinterpreted what was written.

I was asking you to clarify what nefarious purposes you believe they are working towards. I was and am unsure if what you believe in this regard as you are being very vague and very contradictory. I asked this as the definition you provided implied the accusation of nefarious purposes.

At no point did I ever indicate that I believed that the people you are refering to are involved in any such nefarious purposes.

Now again:
You claimed That they wanted to install an unelected position of power that would dictate things to governments.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...0&postcount=13
Are you now abandoning this claim?
If not, please explain where you are getting this notion.

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The phrasing is what's causing trouble here - it reads like you are against these various environmental individuals and groups and their aims

Various phrases don't imply anything sinister or negative. In this context, it's a general term for changing the world for the better and the environmental policies being enacted around the world to help that goal

If "various phrases don't imply anything sinister or negative" where did you get the idea that the phrasing is what's causing trouble here?

I stated that there was no conspiracy and nothing criminal being done.


How did King Mob end up accusing people I quoted in the OP of being engaged in "nefarious activities"?

Nothing to do with anything I said. And completely off the wall.

I set out to see if what Maurice Newman said about climate change and a New World Order was right, and it very much looks like it is.

And as someone has just said (I thought no one would dare say it) what's so wrong about a New World Order?

Anyone I've ever spoken to who is passionate about rectifying climate change and introducing "climate justice" denies all knowledge of CC being used as a vehicle to introduce a New World Order.

You'll see evidence of that in the Climate Change thread.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057828857

This thread shows that there's a strong link and one that climate change experts and those who wish to create "climate justice" should not be denying.

Ajsoprano

dense wrote: »

If "various phrases don't imply anything sinister or negative" where did you get the idea that the phrasing is what's causing trouble here?

I stated that there was no conspiracy and nothing criminal being done.


How did King Mob end up accusing people I quoted in the OP of being engaged in "nefarious activities"?

Nothing to do with anything I said. And completely off the wall.

I set out to see if what Maurice Newman said about climate change and a New World Order was right, and it very much looks like it is.

And as someone has just said (I thought no one would dare say it) what's so wrong about a New World Order?

Anyone I've ever spoken to who is passionate about rectifying climate change and introducing "climate justice" denies all knowledge of CC being used as a vehicle to introduce a New World Order.

You'll see evidence of that in the Climate Change thread.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057828857

This thread shows that there's a strong link and one that climate change experts and those who wish to create "climate justice" should not be denying.

But you haven’t answered the question. What I get from that post is

“To anyone saying what’s wrong with a world order I will tell you that they will say it’s for the good of climate change.

The way the free market runs at the moment countries compete to use up the earths resources and pollute the world.
With one government we wouldn’t have to advertise a new car or phone every six months there would be no need for war on the scale that it happens now.

Just saying it’s bad doesn’t make it bad.

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

Anyone I've ever spoken to who is passionate about rectifying climate change and introducing "climate justice" denies all knowledge of CC being used as a vehicle to introduce a New World Order.

I think we're still deep into semantics here

Do you support these people's efforts (Bianca Jagger, etc) or no? and reasons why

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I think we're still deep into semantics here

Do you support these people's efforts (Bianca Jagger, etc) or no? and reasons why

As you've asked, I think it's a crock of shït designed by eco fascists to appeal to gormless wannabe socialists who want everyone to have everything for nothing, based on UNIPCC scaremongering using highly dubious "climate science".

Here's more of it, from a different angle, victims of weather, seeking "climate justice":

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/stop-climate-change-open-borders-180223144922968.html


See the Climate Change thread for more information on my views if interested.

I will not be expanding on them here.

What part of your acknowledged existence of their efforts has got to do with my attitude towards them?

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

As you've asked, I think it's a crock of shït designed by eco fascists to appeal to gormless wannabe socialists who want everyone to have everything for nothing, based on UNIPCC scaremongering using highly dubious "climate science".

Here's more of it, from a different angle, victims of weather, seeking "climate justice":

What part of your acknowledged existence of their efforts has got to do with my attitude towards them?

Then you believe this group is spreading lies/false information/etc for their own ends?

King Mob

dense wrote: »

As you've asked, I think it's a crock of shdesigned by eco fascists to appeal to gormless wannabe socialists who want everyone to have everything for nothing, based on UNIPCC scaremongering using highly dubious "climate science".

Here's more of it, from a different angle, victims of weather, seeking "climate justice":

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/stop-climate-change-open-borders-180223144922968.html


See the Climate Change thread for more information on my views if interested.

I will not be expanding on them here.

What part of your acknowledged existence of their efforts has got to do with my attitude towards them?

Sounds pretty nefarious to me.
And the idea that climate scientists are engaged in an elaborate hoax sounds like a pretty silly conspiracy theory to me...

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Well if this group representing man-made climate change is false/fiction according to yourself, that would mean that you clearly believe they are a nefarious group (spreading lies, etc)

You didn't answer my question at all but never mind, you've asked another one.

Did you see this during the week?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-22/snap-royalty-kylie-jenner-erased-a-billion-dollars-in-one-tweet

It shows how stupid people follow stupid things.

I think we are becoming more stupid and less intelligent.
We appear to have dumbed down in the last number of decades.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=global+intelligence+levels+falling&oq=global+intelligence+levels+falling&gs_l=mobile-heirloom-serp.3..41.7299.9761.0.10468.15.10.0.0.0.1.194.927.8j2.10.0....0...1c.1.34.mobile-heirloom-serp..7.8.706.kMtgX-srdvQ

The vast majority of people are unable to critically analyse what they're being told.

Do you remember the hordes of clowns that attended foreign property exhibitions during the Celtic Tiger and were sold dreams by "experts"?

The constant news that our academic standards are lower than ever?

You would have a hard time proving that a criminal act is being perpetrated by those who have a bit of intelligence using their intellect to take advantage of it by trying to persuade an increasingly thick society that has lost the ability to critically analyse the claims that are made by politically motivated UN sponsored climate scientists.

That's why nefarious is the wrong term.

We don't try politicians who we might later claim have lied in their manifestos


Similarly, those of experimental socialist leanings who are using climate change as a means of introducing a new experimental world order, which, in order to work includes the requirement that national sovereignty will be transcended cannot be accused of being engaged in nefarious activities.

You cant blame them for chancing their arm to promote their political ideologies.

They can always fall back on the fact that "climate science" is not actually settled, and the dumbed down generation should have been aware of that when they start complaining of paying more and more taxes to fight climate change, and start wondering why they're staring at more wind turbines than they've ever seen, along with complimentary rises in their electricity bills.

I look forward to the government explaining that they have no say in that anymore because of their disposing of sovereign power in favour of a new world order.

It's already here in some respects.

You only had to look at Richard Boyd Barret on Prime Time last week to know that he hadn't got a clue why he was promoting the new Climate Emergency Measures Bill.

His uninformed virtue signalling must have embarrassed even the other radical socialists pushing it.

The thing to remember is that "climate science" as we have read here is a political hobby horse, as opposed to being a science.

King Mob

dense wrote: »

I look forward to the government explaining that they have no say in that anymore because of their disposing of sovereign power in favour of a new world order.

Where did any of the people you are accusing of all of this say anything about disposing of sovereign power?

dense

King Mob wrote: »

Where did any of the people you are accusing of all of this say anything about disposing of sovereign power?

By transcending sovereignty to whoever those who want it transcended want it transcended to.

King Mob

dense wrote: »

By transcending sovereignty to whoever those who want it transcended want it transcended to.

Disposing of sovereignity is not the same thing as what was actually said in any of the things your quoted.
At this stage, you are completely contradicting yourself and simply inventing things to support your conspiracy.

Claiming that a select group of organisations or people are faking the idea of climate change and/or falsifying climate science to gain power is a conspiracy theory. And it's a particularly silly one too.

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

You would have a hard time proving that a criminal act is being perpetrated by those who have a bit of intelligence using their intellect to take advantage of it by trying to persuade an increasingly thick society that has lost the ability to critically analyse the claims that are made by politically motivated UN sponsored climate scientists.

What the above indicates is that you believe the politicians/individuals who are promoting global action to tackle man-made climate change - are doing so for nefarious or underhand reasons

And likewise that climate scientists are also doing it for unethical reasons

Basically a conspiracy between both sides..

dense

King Mob wrote: »

Disposing of sovereignity is not the same thing as what was actually said in any of the things your quoted.
At this stage, you are completely contradicting yourself and simply inventing things to support your conspiracy.

Claiming that a select group of organisations or people are faking the idea of climate change and/or falsifying climate science to gain power is a conspiracy theory. And it's a particularly silly one too.

Why?

King Mob

dense wrote: »

Why?

Why what?
Why is it a conspiracy theory?
Why is it silly?
Why would I answer your question when you've done nothing but dodge mine?

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What the above indicates is that you believe the politicians/individuals who are promoting global action to tackle man-made climate change - are doing so for nefarious or underhand reasons

And likewise that climate scientists are also doing it for unethical reasons

Basically a conspiracy between both sides..

No, it indicates that nefarious is a term I would not endorse the use of in this context.


Anything else that you're not clear about?

dense

King Mob wrote: »

Why what?
Why is it a conspiracy theory?
Why is it silly?
Why would I answer your question when you've done nothing but dodge mine?

Sorry, I thought you had all the answers.

If you're not able to explain why what I said is silly that's OK.

I kind of expected that.

All you've been doing is asking questions.

Nothing wrong with that, if we don't ask we don't learn.

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

No, it indicates that nefarious is a term I would not endorse the use of in this context.

I think we're getting back into semantics again. Nefarious, unethical, immoral, underhand.

Deliberately misleading people to pursue a hidden/nefarious/unethical/etc agenda

Anything else that you're not clear about?

According to you, are these politicians/individuals willfully and deliberately misleading the public about climate change? (and why?)

Likewise, are climate scientists deliberately and willfully misleading politicians/individuals/public about climate change? (and why?)

King Mob

dense wrote: »

Sorry, I thought you had all the answers.

If you're not able to explain why what I said is silly that's OK.

I kind of expected it.

All you've been doing is ask questions.

I've been asking questions to get you to elaborate and explain your conspiracy. So far you have been very evasive and frankly, less than honest.

Your conspiracy theory is silly simply because the scale of it.
There is no way to do something like fake the entirety of a field of science.

Further, it assumes that somehow, the green energy industry and environmental scientists are much more influential and powerful than lobbies like the fossil fuel industries and hostile governments like the US.

I can't really be more specific, as you are refusing to be more specific.

Overheal

dense wrote: »

By transcending sovereignty to whoever those who want it transcended want it transcended to.

That’s literally not what any of the document said at all. And I’ve tried to explain that to you at least twice already. Neither are the comments about global commons being a plot to give everyone everything for free.

I applaud everyone’s patience with you.

Cheerful Spring

From what I remember the new world order was about corporations involving themselves more in everyday lives of humans. I think that has happened? Politicians are just there, to make ordinary people feel comfortable. Reality is very different.