Essay talk:New World Order
[edit] Neocon|servative
As there is for neoconservative. I figured Neocon could redirect to Neoconservative when the article is created. I'm actually surprised there isn't one yet; at least a parody. -Smyth 17:19, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
I always thought that the New World Order was that crazy thing that paleoconservatives were afraid liberals were going to set up, where the UN would rule everything in favor of (take your picks) "international Communism," "Zionists", international finance, or the Illuminati. Researcher 17:32, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
- Well, the external link does go to an Illuminati website. -Smyth 17:36, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
- Oh, I made a neocon page, since you kind of requested one. Researcher 19:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
[edit] Oh Come On!
I tried to make this a serious page about the silly John Birch/paleocon absurdity...I propose a full-scale revert, or at least something to make it seem like satire. As it is, it makes us look like total wingnuts...and not just wingnuts, but freaking conservative wingnuts!! Researcher 23:27, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
- <sigh> Another truth denier. OK, there is prove all around you! Google the New World Order or look for it on YouTube. And the One World Goverment is not liberal or conservative, but rather just fascist. Elassint 23:34, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
- Are you seriously claiming that George W. Bush is working together with ANYONE in the rest of the world? Beyond that, the symbolism of the US, granted, comes from Freemasonry, but there is zero reason to think that the US (or anyone else) is trying (or even CAPABLE) of setting up a "One World Government." Researcher 23:36, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
- For the record, you don't give any proof whatsoever in your entry, except certain symbolism (some of which goes back centuries.) Researcher 23:39, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
- Wow. I just removed a few hundred or so red links from the "timeline" section. Then I actually read most of the "article". I agree with Researcher. This article reads like one of RobS' rants, albeit a bit better written. I'll going in and harvesting more of these pointless red links soon. We need some discussion on what this article is about... and what purpose it serves... human
14:41, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- None? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:43, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- That much? Are you sure? human
14:49, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- Nope. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:54, 6 November 2007 (EST) <- Is rarely certain of anything.
- So, not only does it serve no purpose, it actually removes purpose? 162.82.215.199 14:57, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- Nope. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:54, 6 November 2007 (EST) <- Is rarely certain of anything.
- That much? Are you sure? human
- None? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:43, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- Wow. I just removed a few hundred or so red links from the "timeline" section. Then I actually read most of the "article". I agree with Researcher. This article reads like one of RobS' rants, albeit a bit better written. I'll going in and harvesting more of these pointless red links soon. We need some discussion on what this article is about... and what purpose it serves... human
[edit] Real article
We do need a real article on this though.......many of these claims show questionable logic (post hoc analysis, false analogy, non-sequitors, false dichotomy, cherry picking, anecdotes, quote mining, ect.) a review of NWO claims, and the evidence and logic used to back them up and the problems inherent in that evidence and logic would be a good article. And those who wish to try and convince us of the NWO can certainly try and correct the logical flaws and provide evidence.......130.113.218.226 15:19, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- Hmm..that gives me an idea.162.82.215.199 15:22, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- So who wants to tackle starting to turn this mess into a decent article? human
15:23, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- So who wants to tackle starting to turn this mess into a decent article? human
- No, no, that just sounds like a dumb rant. Elassint Throw things at me 15:24, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- Side-by-side the "proofs" and "timeline" sections? But then what are we refuting? Is there some good source for the "loony" side of the template? What sounds like a dumb rant? human
15:25, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- Side-by-side the "proofs" and "timeline" sections? But then what are we refuting? Is there some good source for the "loony" side of the template? What sounds like a dumb rant? human
[edit] In two minutes I will send an important fleet of Black Helicopters to implant mind-control chips in all of your brains
In two minutes I will send an important fleet of Black Helicopters to implant mind-control chips in all of your brains.--Ken's New World Order 16:00, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- Are you joking? 98.17.61.6 16:01, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- I think he is. Elassint Throw things at me 16:02, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- User:98.17.61.6 and User:Elassint, I think it is unreasonable for you to imply that I am joking. Furthermore, you will find out for yourselves whether I am joking in 47 more seconds.--Ken's New World Order 16:05, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- Its been 5 minutes. Elassint Throw things at me 16:07, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- cite
- You know, ever since I thought I heard helicopters an hour or so ago I'm feeling a whole lot better about the NWO. Maybe this can turn out to be a Good Thing? CЯacke®
- No, it won't. Trust me. Elassint Throw things at me 18:15, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- Wait a second, just how do we know you're not in on it all, you come in a "warn" us and those that take the bait suddenly disappear during the night? Very clever ebil NWOrderer. CЯacke® 18:22, 6 November 2007 (EST)<-- And how do we know YOUR not on it?
- Because "your" is a possessive?CЯacke® 18:31, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- I used to feel safer when I could see the KC130's refuelling the FB111-whatevers overhead every day. Trus me. human
18:23, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- I used to feel safer when I could see the KC130's refuelling the FB111-whatevers overhead every day. Trus me. human
- No, it won't. Trust me. Elassint Throw things at me 18:15, 6 November 2007 (EST)
- You know, ever since I thought I heard helicopters an hour or so ago I'm feeling a whole lot better about the NWO. Maybe this can turn out to be a Good Thing? CЯacke®
- cite
- Its been 5 minutes. Elassint Throw things at me 16:07, 6 November 2007 (EST)
[edit] GHWB - 9/11 speech - woo
Can anyone say why this coincidence is any more than woo? Did OBL/aQ say they chose the date due to the speech? An IP and Elassint have been revert-warring over this one word, with no gain to the article as far as I can see. human
13:27, 7 November 2007 (EST)
[edit] meaning?
"Very few know the true meaning behind this and the U.N."
This sentence just hangs there on its own, and doesn't make a lot of sense. What is it supposed to mean, and can we reword it if it does have a useful meaning? human
13:42, 7 November 2007 (EST)
[edit] mission doubt
Agree with the mission doubt - I nearly deleted it this afternoon (GMT) when thingy was pissing about with it. Susanpurr 14:23, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- It wouldn't hurt the site at all for it to be gone. human
14:35, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- Moving it to "essay" would be an option, but identifying the author(s) who care about it might be tough. It either needs deletion or complete rewriting, but there is persistent reversion of edits that try to RWify it, apparently by an editor who buys in so thoroughly to the "theory" that they can't see that they aren't making any clear arguments for it. I mean, masonic symbols as proof?! Now, if it's supposed to be pure snark/parody, there should be some subtle but clear way to tell a reader that. human
14:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- PS, "a lot of work"? A lot of typing, perhaps. human
14:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- Moving it to "essay" would be an option, but identifying the author(s) who care about it might be tough. It either needs deletion or complete rewriting, but there is persistent reversion of edits that try to RWify it, apparently by an editor who buys in so thoroughly to the "theory" that they can't see that they aren't making any clear arguments for it. I mean, masonic symbols as proof?! Now, if it's supposed to be pure snark/parody, there should be some subtle but clear way to tell a reader that. human
Well actually it would make an excellent liberapedia article - but not a RW one. Perhaps they would care to port it over.--Bobbing up 14:49, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- We already have one. It sould go in the essay section. NOT THE FUN SECTION Elassint Throw things at me 14:59, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- Hmm, apparently it was a liberapedia article[1] - the opening paragraph is still exactly the same. I'm gonna dig through the diffs, I bet the whole thing here was lifted from there (hence the massive red linkage in the older version here). That would reduce it to spam, really. human
15:01, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- Wrong. Elassint Throw things at me 15:02, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- No, it's not a direct copy - but the opening paragraphs are identical. Both articles are pretty poor quality. human
15:07, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- No, it's not a direct copy - but the opening paragraphs are identical. Both articles are pretty poor quality. human
- Wrong. Elassint Throw things at me 15:02, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- Hmm, apparently it was a liberapedia article[1] - the opening paragraph is still exactly the same. I'm gonna dig through the diffs, I bet the whole thing here was lifted from there (hence the massive red linkage in the older version here). That would reduce it to spam, really. human
[edit] Now discussing the essay...
Wow, this is a really oblique rant. But, hey, we all believe some strange things, sometimes even three before breakfast! human
15:09, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- Sweet merciful crap. This whole time I thought the article was meant to be a psrodt. It isn't? Didn't think that Poe's Law would apply on this site, of all places, so soon. It was inevitable I guess.--Bayesupdate 17:08, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- Its not a parody. Elassint Throw things at me 17:09, 7 November 2007 (EST)
I at one point tried editing it to make some sense (and to provide the background for the craziness)...no one seemed to notice, and then all the extra stuff was added and when I asked about it, I was ignored for awhile. As an example of crazy paranoia, SOME kind of article would make sense. But this...ugh. Researcher 23:32, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- There is a lot of weirdness here for sure. The intro: "The New World Order is a fascist attempt by neoconservatives to unite the world under an evil totalitarian state that would enslave the world and basically kill everyone in it." Are we really supposed to believe that the objective is the extermination of the entire human race? I think that we can assume there is an element of parody here - or somebody needs to have his medication checked.--Bobbing up 05:17, 8 November 2007 (EST)
Can't be parody, there's no little green men from outer space. Or are there? Susanmiaouw 06:25, 8 November 2007 (EST)
- You're just not looking hard enough. --Kels 07:12, 8 November 2007 (EST)
[edit] I'm going to take a Crack at it and see if I can't make it into something that the search engines will pick up on and make our site the TOP for NWO
I'm going to take a Crack at it and see if I can't make it into something that the search engines will pick up on and make our site the TOP for NWO. 18:31, 8 November 2007Newton
Which site is "ours"?--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 18:45, 8 November 2007 (EST)
They're ALL "ours" just like the NWO will make the WORLD "ours"! Newton
[edit] On second thought, since I'd have to do an entire rewrite since the "history" only goes back about 16 years, I'm going to pass on this one
On second thought, since I'd have to do an entire rewrite since the "history" only goes back about 16 years, I'm going to pass on this one. Newton 18:54, 8 November 2007
- Please?--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:26, 8 November 2007 (EST)
- Besides it's an essay now. CЯacke® 19:28, 8 November 2007 (EST)
[edit] Rewrite
I'll post sections and review for the author should they want to continue.
The New World Order is a fascist attempt by neoconservatives to unite the world under an evil totalitarian state that would enslave the world and basically kill everyone in it.
The first sentence is a bit run-on for my tastes. It sounds as if it was written by a 12yo. If the author is a 12yo (or younger) you're doing fine, if you're older, you might want to gather your thoughts together in outline form before going off to the editing suite.
It revolves around the UN and globalization, and is the reason why George W. Bush invaded Iraq: to conquer the entire middle east and the WHOLE WORLD!
This sounds as if the writer has tons of information but is trying to cram that into a concise statement of facts that are not yet supported. The UN is made up of diplomats whose careers and livelihoods depend on their own country remaining sovereign. If one eliminated all the duplication of bureaucracies, (good) jobs would be lost, power dissipated and the needs of the population would go unmet as those with power to do something about it became further and further away from those self-same people. Civil unrest would lead to riots and eventually anarchy.
Sounds crazy? Well thats what they want you to think!
Yes and of course anyone who denies the NWO existing is "in on it", a nice way to cover all the bases while having a baseless charge. Check out the Satanic ritual abuse page for how this puppy works.
From what I can see from the essay the writer is newly awakening to the world of world politics and is excited by the thoughts running through their mind. Overall, this is a good thing. It's good to see someone becoming engaged with a world that is larger than the high school they attend.
On the other hand just because one can imagine it happening doesn't necessarily make it so. This is called "screenwriting" and is something no-one is doing right now anyways as they're all on strike.
- CЯacke® 19:19, 8 November 2007 (EST)
- What do you mean by unbanned? I have not been banned. Elassint Throw things at me 19:22, 8 November 2007 (EST)
[edit] But wait theys more
The term was introduced into the popular vocabulary by George H. W. Bush, during a speech to a joint session of congress on September 11, 1990 (exactly 11 years to the day before the 9-11-2001 attacks, of course this may just be a coincidence) about the United States' role as world peacekeeper.[1].
Yeah, since most Americans don't learn Latin no more they cannot decipher the novus ordo seclorum unfurled there under the "all seeing eye" pyramid on the back of every dollar bill in existence. They had to wait until GHWB tol' them what it meant.
Very few know the true meaning behind this and the U.N..
God, it's just pregnant with possibilities!
- CЯacke® 19:54, 8 November 2007 (EST)
Cite error:
<ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found