Talk:New World Order

	This Conspiracy related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Please

If you're going to try to make a statement at least use proper the grammar and rules of English to do so. Nothing weakens an argument faster than key words spelled incorrectly or by having bad grammar trump good logic, (which is sorely lacking on both counts in this piece). CЯacke®

China

So... you think you're so smart? China stated this:

"Such alarming days when the destinies of others are in the hands of a hypocritical nation have to be terminated, and a new world order should be put in place, according to which all nations, big or small, poor or rich, can have their key interests respected and protected on an equal footing."

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2013-10/13/c_132794246.htm

You guys are the "experts", debunk it!

Debunk what exactly? A line from a PRC-controlled news agency which talks about a "new world order" in the future tense ("should be put in place"), assuming it has been translated accurately? As in implying it doesn't already exist? If the NWO is real, why would China be criticizing America? Wouldn't those distinctions be irrelevant? And if it's supposed to be a secret, which is the whole point of a conspiracy, why publish it in the state's biggest media outlet? 2A00:23C7:99A4:5000:813A:7DC7:906F:6C0D (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Error In Evidence Section

Under the evidence section, it is claimed that Novus Order Seclorum is "mistranslated" as "new world order," and that a correct translation is "new order of the ages."

This is patently ridiculous. Are you all that desperate to disprove things that you are even saying people can't perform basic translations of latin. There are numerous latin-to-english translation machines on the web; i chose the second that came up on Google, Able media's, and inputed the word "seclorum." This is what came up:

secul.orum N 2 2 GEN P N seculum, seculi N N [EEXCM] Later world/universe; secular/temporal/earthly/worldly affairs/cares/temptation;

Not only is saying the phrase means New World Order not a mistranslation, but the translation of seclorum as World is the FIRST suggestion the translation machine gives me! And no where at all does it list ages, the closest it comes to that is temporal. So can someone please explain to me how it is "rational" to say that reading the phrase Novus Ordo Seclorum as New World Order is a mistranslation? Thanks. And if I could add my own two cents: (warning - subjective opinion) The lengths that State apologists have went on this site to deny that something fishy is afoot is comical to me; this is my small way of participating by illustrating one small example of a mischaracterization that cumulatively builds up to make this site even greater bullshit than regular Wikipedia. I see lots of Red Herrings and Straw mans in use to "disprove" "conspiracy theories" on this site, and for a platform that claims the title of Rational I feel you do not live up to that title. ^{— Unsigned, by: 108.247.85.194 / talk}

This guy should have put the entire phrase into that translator. Novu Ordo means "New Order". If seclorum meant what he wanted it to mean it would be the second word in the phrase. Second of all; type in "seclorum translation" into your search engine and see what comes up. Thirdly, if there are so many errors here that build up to make this site "even greater bullshit than Wikipedia", then why choose something as minor as a translation error. If anyone is the Red Herring dangling Straw Man it's you. ^{— Unsigned, by: 74.90.35.146 / talk}

You can't really disprove a claim like "the NWO/Illuminati/Freemasons/lizard people secretly rule the world", anymore than you can disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's up to you to prove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'd rather not be a Spaghetti apologist. 2A00:23C7:99A4:5000:C90B:9D31:57FA:141F (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Question

Have the NWO-ists "discovered" the ISO yet? Anna Livia (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

They already had since at least the late 80s, read the text new order of barbarians~,it talks about it somewhere. 201.79.60.157 (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

History of the New World Order

How has the NWO evolved over time?

In the 1920s, when the concept started, there was the League of Nations (and other organisations of varying ages dealing with international arrangements - the Universal Postal Union etc), and, in the aftermath of WWI and the revolutions in various countries/the formation of the USSR so a NWO and the encouragement thereof #was# a fact/viable policy. The NWO after WWII and then after 1989/1991 would be rather different in turn - as would responses thereto.

There will always be some opposition to the world order as it is or as it seems to be developing, and promotion of what it could be (nuclear weapons should be kept to a minimum, the natural world should be looked after, culture and cooperation should be promoted etc).

To what extent are the 'anti-NWO-orderists' who are the subject of this article expressing a feeling of 'the world being outside their control' (and they do not have the inclination to do something about what they can)? Anna Livia (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually

... The Wikiverse/collaboration across the tubes and the boundaries of The Real World by the sheeple and others is the NWO. Anna Livia (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Coronavirus aspects

Will mention [1] Anna Livia (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

That video with the cubes cited in evidence

I haven't seen it, but I feel like there's something fishy about it. As in maybe the clip is fake or something. anonymous ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:6c63:637f:e920:1815:b107:60a5:dac9 / talk / contribs}

YT have removed it, but there are many other cube-related videos which spout similar nonsense, a few of which I've linked. If it's trolling, it's inspired. 86.128.106.43 (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

More citations

Will mention [2] (a case of 'not engaging brain before opening mouth' syndrome) and [3]. Anna Livia (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)