Talk:New World Order/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 27 January 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Created

This was created in response to that . . . "essay" that drove me so crazy. Please, everyone, do what you can to make it better, RWify it, etc. Researcher 19:46, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks for it, too. That essay is a thorn.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 20:01, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks for adding footnotes. Researcher 20:22, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Edits

I'll leave the edit for now, but why was the fact that the international banking variant and the Zionism variant occur together removed? It is well established that many conspiracy theorists think that the Jews control the banks, and it often occurs in the context of this theory as well. Researcher 21:00, 21 November 2007 (EST)

I'd prefer it in there, as it is a common hate-myth.162.82.215.199 21:01, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Edit War

Could somebody (perhaps somebody powerful) please explain the basis of the "some" "powerful" edit war? Thanks.--Bob^{bing up} 13:11, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Well, it would have to be a powerful group if they were to be responsible for a New World Order. 75.117.235.151 13:19, 10 December 2007 (EST)

And the other point of view is?--Bob^{bing up} 13:22, 10 December 2007 (EST)

'some' indicates our hilarious snark more. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Ah I see. Any chance of your coming to an agreement?--Bob^{bing up} 13:40, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Ferret overlords

Whats this garbage about ferret overlords? Ferret overlords do not exist. Its just silly. FIGHT THE NEW WORLD ORDER 10:32, 12 December 2007 (EST)

And Kent Brockman never said that quote! He was talking about ants. FIGHT THE NEW WORLD ORDER 10:34, 12 December 2007 (EST)

What are you, blind? The ferrets are just the latest. There were the saucer people and the reverse vampires before them! What do you think Baskin-Robbins' 32nd flavor is? I'll clue you in, it's not ice cream. - The Question^{...but what is the answer?} 10:37, 12 December 2007 (EST)

The ferret overlords (hallowed be their names) are there to show how absurd the conspiracy theory is. --Bob^{bing up} 12:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

The new world order is not bulls$%t, it is real and we need to prevent it from occurring.

--FIGHT THE NEW WORLD ORDER 12:21, 12 December 2007 (EST)

And the fennec foxes are in really deep cover (even the ferrets don't admit they exist). [Damnit now I'll have to go into hiding for years for that revelation] Susan^{purrrrr ...} 12:12, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Even now, highly trained secret operatives are on your trail, they have already seen through your cover story of not being a shaman. Be afraid, the ferret-controlled black helicopters are on their way.--Bob^{bing up} 12:26, 12 December 2007 (EST)

A a a r r r g g h h ! Not the BLACK HELICOPTERS!. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 12:31, 12 December 2007 (EST)

You are making fun of a serious problem.--FIGHT THE NEW WORLD ORDER 12:32, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Evil mind control conspiracies to take over our freedom. Serious bobbaing business. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

However, these other secrets that end up exposed may just be a clever cover up for the REAL secret

Why was that removed? --FIGHT THE NEW WORLD ORDER 12:49, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Kent Brockman

Kent Brockman never said that quote. You are faking it. --FIGHT THE NEW WORLD ORDER 12:45, 12 December 2007 (EST)

/me sits quietly drinking from a Tim Horton's coffee mug. Three words: Athabasca Tar Sands. The real conspiracy is coming from the Great White North, eh? They're going to add ten yards to our football fields and start making us put gravy on our french fries, and there's nothing we'll be able to do about it. EVDebs 13:27, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Is that very deep, or am I suffering from some cultural gap? I'm OK up to the Tar Sands but after that I lose it.--Bob^{bing up} 13:32, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Them Canucks, they's all gonna own us one of these days because they'll have all the oil. And I, for one... EVDebs 15:41, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I don't know what the problem is. It's a prefectly cromulent quote. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:14, 12 December 2007 (EST)

And I just want to set the record straight about the Whatchamacarcass sandwich. I used non-diseased meat from diseased animals. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:28, 12 December 2007 (EST)

OK, tell me, what episode did Kent Brockman say that quote? FIGHT THE NEW WORLD ORDER 15:44, 12 December 2007 (EST)

He didn't. It has entered pop culture as: "And I for one welcome our new (BLANK) overlords." --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 16:40, 12 December 2007 (EST)

However, these other secrets that end up exposed may just be a clever cover up for the REAL secret.

I have deleted the above line as I don't understand it. Could someone explain it before reinserting it? Especially "these other secrets". Thanks.--Bob^{bing up} 12:49, 12 December 2007 (EST)

The secrets that the UN & US are notoriously bad at keeping. --FIGHT THE NEW WORLD ORDER 12:52, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Such as that time is cubic and harmonic? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Are you just trying to make fun of me? I suppose so. -_- --FIGHT THE NEW WORLD ORDER 13:32, 12 December 2007 (EST) No! heaven forfnord! Susan^{purrrrr ...}

Don't worry about it. These people are so deluded. So anyway, what's your position on the plot by the US Postmaster General to take control of the Federal Government? Likely to succeed? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 13:35, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Yes, we are. Try looking up Hanlon's razor to see why. EVDebs 16:05, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I am trying to make fun of you on an equivalent level as you are of us. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

NWO IS BULLSHIT

THE NWO IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!! EVEN IF DUMBASS CONSERPSAY THOERISTS HAD "EVENDENCE" THAT IT WAS REAL IT WOULD BE FALSE BECAUSE THE EVEDENCE WOULD HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH ME AND ANY/THING/ONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS WRONG!!! SO THERE! --AschlaflyImpersonator2 00:18, 13 December 2007 (EST)

So, you try to make your case by reverse psychology? No, it's bs because there is no evidence. I'm not saying I'm always right (I've been wrong too many times, as a former creationist and libertarian), but that in this case there simply is no real evidence to back up these claims. Researcher 00:19, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I'm just joking around =] AschlaflyImpersonator2 00:22, 13 December 2007 (EST)

No. It's real. That's all from me. --Cheers, ♦ Ryan ♦ ^{ǂ wuz here ǂ} 00:20, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Alright, who is it. Elassint? Ames? Someone else? --Cheers, ♦ Ryan ♦ ^{ǂ wuz here ǂ} 00:43, 13 December 2007 (EST)

They lied, they are all my sockpuppets. human 00:45, 13 December 2007 (EST)

ZOMG LIER!1111111

But... who will I blame when my favorite candidate loses the election? --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk} 04:04, 20 December 2007 (EST)

NWO is bullshit, huh? Well here's VIDEO EVIDENCE of their existence! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIrcjgj1rRE&feature=related What now, smart guy?UncleHo (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

UN Secrets

I have added a fact tag to to the UN secrets part. What secrets has the UN failed to keep?--Bob^{bing up} 03:06, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Good point, reworded that to remove that bit. Added further large scale disagreements between US and UN. Researcher 16:04, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Minor edit wars

What is it with these anon IPs and their raging hard-ons for needing to change fairly minor parts of this article? --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 21:46, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure. I think the "some" "often" part is because it makes NWO theorists sound more anti-Semitic (which, traditionally, they are). Researcher 21:51, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Whatever it is, I love that we're driving someone nuts. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 21:55, 20 December 2007 (EST)

But they drive me _nuts Researcher 21:57, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Granted, but I can live with it knowing that it is burning someone up. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 22:01, 20 December 2007 (EST)

What happened? I was having fun. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 22:38, 20 December 2007 (EST)

It's a skewl night. CЯacke® 22:40, 20 December 2007 (EST)

True, but our wandal was from Little Rock, AR. Maybe mommy made him get a bath before bed. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 22:43, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Maek hiz skinz shiny white? CЯacke® 22:45, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Pointless link

The link to uncyclopedia is stupid and pointless and should be removed ASAP. 98.17.14.164 21:56, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I can't follow the link from work, and don't care enough to when I'm home. What is the substance of the link? Why is it there, why should it go? Researcher 21:58, 20 December 2007 (EST)

It is there for no good reason and I see no point in leaving a useless link there. 98.17.14.164 22:00, 20 December 2007 (EST)

No good reason? It is an article on the same subject from a different wiki. I don't get your objection. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 22:02, 20 December 2007 (EST)

OK, should we put in links to wikipedia, ED, illogicalpedia, conservapedia, the NWO wiki, and every single wiki we can find until we will up the external links section?

I'm game. Though I wouldn't just add them all. That's what Talk pages are for. Though you must also remember that we are POV here. That will factor in. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 22:07, 20 December 2007 (EST)

The Uncyclopedia article is no dumber than the conspiracy theory itself. So, I don't get your objection. The Uncyclopedia article has the virtue of not actually being believed by anyone.

--Edgerunner⁷⁶ 22:00, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I love how some tool person who can't even be bothered to pick a proper username is so invested in such a particular detail. PFoster 22:06, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I think the link is in there because the UC article almost looks real. human 22:39, 20 December 2007 (EST)

The link is there because I wrote that Uncyclopedia article, and I was shamelessly whoring it. So I think we should keep it! --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk}_{Over 145 edits!} 22:56, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I'm all for it. Ultimately, I was just trying to egg Little Rock boy into a racist rant. It didn't work. Time or, more to the point, his bedtime was working against me. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 22:59, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Various edit wars.

I think most of the edit wars here were generated by Elassint, Ryan and Elassint's socks. They're working on their own New World Order Wiki now http://nwo.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page and they've both resigned from this site so maybe there will be less activity now.--Bob^{bing up} 18:16, 22 December 2007 (EST)

What?! But... I liked Elassint. I met him first on Uncyclopedia. And now he leaves me! *Goes to cry my eyes out* </hysteria> --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk}_{Over 300 edits!} 18:23, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Wait, I thought you were Elassint! Guessed wrong on that one... human 19:05, 22 December 2007 (EST)

He still could be. Wheels within wheels ... but LOLWUT? Have the black helicopters taken down nwowiki? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I know ;) I think maybe we all tried to go to nwowiki at the same time and clogged the innertubes. Should we add an EL to it on the article? In "memoriam", as it were, to our departed freinds? human 19:53, 22 December 2007 (EST)

...I don't know whether to assume you were joking or be incensed at the accusation of being a sockpuppet. Particularly since I got my ass banned on Uncyclopedia for sockpuppetry. (Scroll down on that last one, and look for anything with "Manforman" or "Radioactive afikomen" in it, and you should get a vague idea of what happened.) --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk}_{Over 300 edits!} 20:01, 22 December 2007 (EST)

You have been unblocked by now.

Oh, don't worry. We're all sockpuppets here. I'm a sockpuppet of Heidrun, for example. But no - since your train of references leads back a good way, we will grant you the stamp of real. Well done! ;) -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

No offense intended (to RA) - first, we don't hate on puppets here. Second, E & co. could easily be puppets of you, the real person behind the organization. Anyway, by now, I suspect that all RW users are puppets of E & co., including myself! human 20:09, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Indeed, sockpuppetry is a very respectable passtime around here. I, for example, happen to be the sock of at least three different users, plus Helena Bonham Carter. Or the other way around, I forget. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 20:11, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Anyone want to hear the story how I got tempbanned on Uncyclopedia? --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk}_{Over 300 edits!} 20:21, 22 December 2007 (EST)

What's this all about the New World Order Wiki? What the? I am missing a discussion I need to hear? --Cheers, ♦ Ryan ♦ ^{ǂ wuz here ǂ} 20:47, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Ah well. Our overlords decided that we could put it back up again. RA - that was the mudkipdip guy, or whatever his name was, no? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Kip the Dip. No, 'twasn't him. 'Twas Smackbot (I suspect) that was responsible for most of the sockpuppets. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk}_{Over 300 edits!} 21:09, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I didn't even know that UP had drama. I thought that it was all kept under control by the iron fist of the admins. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Well, the admins are so outnumbered... plus many bannable users manage to build up huge fan clubs, so their drama is tolerated more. But most of all, Famine and his iron fist is on sabbatical. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk}_{Over 300 edits!} 21:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I dunno who's more of a pain in the ass, the neo-nazis from metapedia or the "anonymous" NWO bunch. PFoster 21:12, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I've learned to laugh at conspiracy theorists. You kind of have to after a while. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk}_{Over 300 edits!} 21:19, 22 December 2007 (EST)

What the Fek am I Missing Here

Why do a bunch of anonymous IPs, one guy with a crazy name and Ryan want the link to UP out of here so badly? PFoster 21:51, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Useless link. Not needed. Has almost nothing to do with the subject except for being about the NWO, but it's just parody of it. --Cheers, ♦ Ryan ♦ ^{ǂ wuz here ǂ} 21:53, 22 December 2007 (EST)

"Just parody of it" is what makes it such a good fit. Sorry. PFoster 21:55, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I'll stay here and revert as long as I need to. I'm meant to be retiring but I won't go away until this stops. --Cheers, ♦ Ryan ♦ ^{ǂ wuz here ǂ} 21:56, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Wow, if I did that with every line on RW I disagree with I'd have to edit 48 hours a day! Dude, lighten up, go make the nwo wiki awesome, so I can argue justification when I add an EL to it! human 22:03, 22 December 2007 (EST)

It already is awesome, more awesome than some users here. --58.168.187.38 22:21, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Um, no, it's not. Needs more goat articles and information. Don't worry, you'll get there! human 22:48, 22 December 2007 (EST)

? --12.75.67.18 22:27, 22 December 2007 (EST)

It also needs an eighth-grade history lesson. The League of Nations was founded after the First World War, bozos. PFoster 23:13, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, man, fuck off, one little mistake to an article that Elassint made, and we know he's not so good in some subjects. --58.168.187.38 03:17, 23 December 2007 (EST)

You mean, like, international politics? human 16:22, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Yea, like international politics. So STFU. 209.17.190.78 17:01, 23 December 2007 (EST)

I hate myself a bit for doing this...

...but I've locked the page 'cause I'm tired of reverting the same damn edit over and over. Anyone wants to override me is totally okay by me. PFoster 22:01, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I changed it to registered users, instead of sysop. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 22:03, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Great. </sarcasm>. Protection made sense, considering the revert wars over one link. But there are registered users on the "other side" of this silly revert war. Eh, maybe they'll get bored and go away. I rescind my earlier sarcasm! Sorry. Keeping the IPs hands off it for a bit is probably a good idea. human 22:06, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Spam

There is a spam link in this page that goes to an uncylopedia page. Please delete it. --98.17.60.108 13:43, 24 December 2007 (EST)

I believe we've spoken about this before. The user consensus seems to be that it stays. Please don't start an edit war by removing it.--Bob^{bing up} 13:46, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Yes, it says it's a parody, so what's the problem? Totnesmartin 13:48, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Gary Allen

I don't think Gary Allen's 1972 book was the first appearance of the term. Gary Allen is the source of the term's popularity among John Birch Society types as a conspiracy theory but I'm pretty sure Allen saw the term somewhere else and latched onto it, perhaps Alice Bailey or H.G. Wells who both are said to have used the term, or perhaps it appeared in Council on Foreign Relations publications of the time. Secret Squirrel 21:31, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Links to parody sites inserted by the bunchanumbers crowd...

Can we get a show of hands from some of the regulars - do they stay? do we revert? is there a consensus? We've been taking them out, RA made a case to keep them, now bunchanumbers is reverting that. What's the deal? PFoster 11:32, 17 February 2008 (EST)

I say keep. True Spartans never surrender, never retreat, to IP addresses. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

I say let's put as many as we can in a template (subpage, not template space) and use choose/option to randomly display one at a time (and make "blank", or none, an option, too). human 14:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

There you go again. Always choosing the most technically difficult solution? :-) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:43, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Hehe. What's difficult about it? Half this site is randomly generated anyway! human 20:25, 17 February 2008 (EST)

What can we do to stop the New World Order?

Any Ideas? --That Guy you saw down the street 13:51, 27 February 2008 (EST)

B O R E D Susan^{The Earth Moved} 13:53, 27 February 2008 (EST)

We could do a barrel roll. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Huh? Are you just joking around or something? --That Guy you saw down the street 13:56, 27 February 2008 (EST)

I'm deadly serious. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

You must be talking about something else. I'm talking about the secret government plot to unite the entire world under a fascist regime. This is very serious and something we need to stop. That Guy you saw down the street

I'm BORED with wazzocks like TGYSDTS. Susan^{The Earth Moved} 14:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)

I'm BORED with people like SusanG. --That Guy you saw down the street 14:03, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Ah, sorry, I was talking about something else. Hello, Cameron "Buck" Williams, I didn't recognise you before. How's your Tribulation Force going? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Cameron "Buck" Williams is a fictional character. You still don't seem to know what we are talking about. --That Guy you saw down the street 14:06, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Yes I do. You're trying to foil the evil plot by the satanists secularists general establishment to take away your freedom, and suchlike. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Um, do you even know basic spelling? Oh, I see, your one of those "parodists" that make fun of anyone they disagree with. --That Guy you saw down the street 14:11, 27 February 2008 (EST)

OH NOES TEH LIBERALS R USING MOCKERY AND DECEIT!!!1! Nah, if you can come up with a convincing case for an overarching global conspiracy, then I'll do my best to rebut it. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

We could hide under a blanket and hope it goes away. Thoughts? --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 15:11, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Eh, that would be a little warm. I mean, I do live in New England, so I know from blankets, but I don't think that would help much with the whole NWO thing. In fact, you should probably go about your business, because there's nothing to see here, citizen. EVDebs 19:35, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Everybody creates their own microstate so the NEW-ists have more work to do (vampires and grains of rice method). Delegate much boring work to them (uniform road signs, zero longitude etc). Or everybody creates their own alternative NWO - divide and rule.

Chemtrails

The new world Order is using chemtrails to whipe the western world off the face of the planet. World wide revolution is the only solution! ^{— Unsigned, by: 217.122.229.194 / talk / contribs}

My god, you're right! Ace McAwesome 21:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

An IP is your god, and he talks to you via wiki talkpages? What kind of religion is that? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A religion no less silly than Christianity. Ace McAwesome 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Healthcare!

In the New World Order, can I get free healthcare? If so, I do not think that I care about being brainwashed with tolerance and diversity (as if these things are wrong) or other liberal values. So, when does it start?--Lefty (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

OH NOES

Oh noes, a secret world controlling society that controls the world, is going to attempt to take control of the world D: 71.238.243.98 (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Organising the New World Order

Given the difficulty in arranging an ordinary meeting let alone a street party - why should it be possible to 'organise the world and the 7 billion people in it'?

Anti-NWOers should propose means of countering the NWO that involve methods other than heading for the hills, wearing a tinfoil hat and with a load of guns and dried/tinned food.

And if a NWO #is# organised the nearly-new baby reptilian will be in charge. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Actual World Power Structures

The article should somehow address (it does not have to go into in much depth) the actual world structure that this myth likely evolved from.

In reality, there are power differences. There are forms of power, especially by Western governments and businesses in the form of: international organization bias, military interventions, economic exploitation, and dominant cultural exportation (Yeah Barbie!™).

The most striking difference between reality and the Conspiracy Theory is the CT's idea that everyone with power is in strict collaboration. In actuality, there is much competition, backstabbing, and differing goals between those in power. Regardless, it is plausible that world leaders are not always innocent or transparent and that leaders have more control than many people might prefer. I will add a section to address this. Update the section or this talk as needed. ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.222.154.159 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

So what you're saying is: some organisations, including governments, are powerful? Isn't that kindofa given? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Bingo

I propose a New World Order argument Bingo.--TemplarJLS (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Proof?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GThfWVCfjVo#t=155

could this be considered proof for a New World Order? I see a lot of CTs citing it.--TemplarJLS (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

They had a MEETING about it!

http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/101636/adapting-to-a-new-world-order-conference-in-montreal

How can you guys be in SO MUCH DENIAL??? ^{— Unsigned, by: 174.25.8.116 / talk / contribs} 12:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Here in the English language, we have this thing where the same phrase or group of words can refer to multiple concepts. For example, when a company says it will execute its quarterly plan, it probably does not mean it is going to set up a gallows for a sheaf of paper. Similarly, when a meeting discusses a new world order, they may well be discussing an order to the world that is new rather than making the minor mistake of telling absolutely everyone about their top secret take over the world plan.

Most children master this concept relatively early when they realise that other children use the words mommy and daddy to refer to people who are not their own parents. King Skeleton (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

World Federalist Association

What is it exactly? I heard it has something to do with Hillary Clinton and her getting an award from it... or something?

And I had this quote thrown at me:

"Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority".--サトセレ (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You guys need to stop ignoring all the NWO quotes.

"World events do not occur by accident. They are made to happen, whether it is to do with national issues or commerce; and most of them are staged and managed by those who hold the purse strings." Denis Winston Healey, Baron Healey CH, MBE, PC, British Labour politician.

See? Another one. Check sources if you like. It's there.--67.5.232.125 (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

So? King Skeleton (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Proof of the new world oder (WAKE UP)

http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2011/12/new-world-order-order-of-illuminati.html

http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2014/05/4-hard-truths-that-will-wake-you-up.html

There you go.--67.5.232.125 (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It does stink in here a bit, doesn't it?--TiaC (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

So let's get this straight: we can't trust any politicians, except the ones who say things that you agree with, who we should trust implicitly. That sounds a lot like the standard world order to me. King Skeleton (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

So let's get this straight (part 2): The New World Order is all about collectivism and all about corporatism. I'm 20 mins in and this "documentary" can even get its own internal consistency right. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

BBC, NWO Quotes, and the New World Order.

https://endofmen.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/new-world-order-doesnt-exist-crazy-conspiracy-nuts/

This place lists soem articles by the BBC about politicians calling for the NWO, and they give links too.

Also, it shows some quotes by politicians calling ofr a New World Order.--BnBn (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It was a typo, they were calling for a National Organization for Women. Ikanreed (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

BnBn says "soem", a well-known acronym for Super-Overpowered Evil Masochists, a world-controlling of who hurt themselves. Clearly, he is an Illuminati shill.

BnBn mentions "ofr", an acronym for the "Office of Foreign Relations". Yet, as we all know, America is the only country that exists. The OFR is just covering it up so that the masses don't notice and can continue in their gay atheist lifestyles, without accepting the fact that America was founded by Jesus 6,000 years ago.

αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Countering the New World Order

Workers of the world unite - you have nothing to lose except the chains of the NWO!

People should get together and get a Cosmic Ordering wishlist of how to 'improve the world' (improving people's lives generally, sending polio and other diseases the way of smallpox and rinderpest, dealing with the North Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Ocean garbage patches and 'whatever else seems like good things').

Get would be NWO rulers to join a show that is a variant of The Apprentice to selection followed by a Big Brother style series in which the challenges are to come up with solutions to the problems. Those who survive the course are then put in charge of a problem and have to resolve it.

The masses are entertained and the problems may get solved. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But how could you tell who "survived" the course and solved the problem? You would have to know how the world works to a very minute degree, in order to simulate the solution. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

In BB I understand that participants get voted out.

If they come up with a viable solution to 'a problem' they have survived the course (which takes place at Burpelson Air Force Base) - and as the 'New World Order-ists' are out of the way the rest of us can get on with things as usual. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Baha'i Faith

I'm surprised no one's included the Baha'i Faith's support of a "new world order." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD)

Incidentally, the religion has been a conspiracy theory target as well. --Nabil (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the phrase

"...but is usually misattributed to H.G. Wells' 1940 book of the same name". The phrase is used explicitly by Raymond Massey's character in the 1935 film "Things to Come" (he announces that he will establish a "New World Order" after defeating the Mussolini caricature, played by Ralph Richardson), though not in the novel on which it was based, published two years earler. ^{— Unsigned, by: 108.247.85.194 / talk / contribs (signed by bot)} 17:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

o noes we'v been refutd

[http://futureshock2050.com/essays/the-boredom-of-skepticism/ THE BOREDOM OF SKEPTICISM: A Refutation Of RationalWiki's Silly Views On 'New World Order']. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Derogative name calling?

Is it really necessary, constructive or even within rational criticism to use words like "conspiritard" to bolster your arguments or are you just bolstering your ego/feelings of superiority? The tone of writing can have a negative effect on the credibility of the criticism presented when it appears that simply stating what is considered as fact is not critical enough. It is simply inappropriate in my opinion, that is why the article on gravity doesn't use words like "newtonitards" or constant reminding how inferior some theories can be in ones eyes. It should be enough to point the flaws and leave it at that. ^{— Unsigned, by: 178.75.168.222 / talk / contribs}

The article doesn't mention the word conspiratard. The article is overall quite tame. What is your complaint? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

=shieple...

There are many MANY quotes by celebrities admitting they sold their soul for the devil and the New World Order.

http://mediaexposed.tumblr.com/post/8355985339/im-trapped-i-sold-my-soul-to-the-devil-ill

http://mediaexposed.tumblr.com/post/8409886667/make-me-king-as-we-move-toward-a-new-world-order

http://mediaexposed.tumblr.com/post/8367650671/eminem-3-am-mass-satanic-sacrifice-ritual-at-the#disqus_thread

http://mediaexposed.tumblr.com/post/6570882261/souled-out-stars

http://mediaexposed.tumblr.com/search/Eminem

wake. up.

The actual driving forces behind the New World Order.

Are (1) sheeple, (2) cats, or (3) hallucigenia. Other unconsidered possibilities? Anna Livia (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

No. it is 1, Reptilians, 2, Reptilians (jews), Actual jews. WAKE UP SHEEPLE AMassiveGay (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The politicians claim to rule the sheeple/voters and the sheeple pretend to listen to them (and proceed to maliciously confuse the pollsters).

The NWO comprises those politicians and others that the Sir Humphrey Applebys have #not yet# managed to absorb into the Existing World Order (or find a dismissive comment on). Anna Livia (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

And to what extent do 'the majority of us' (bad-mouthed as 'sheeple' by the proponents of the NWO and other such theories) are willing to let/delegate to 'international companies, organisations and other bodies' make arrangements for a more peaceable world (and are more interested in preventing artificial price maintenance and other negative aspects)? Anna Livia (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)