I believe Bush 1 was serious when he proclaimed a "New World Order".

[Fire Walk With Me]

I don't believe that he was having a psychotic fugue.

If you were creating something so bold, you would have to destroy lots of things that were in your way, such as laws, freedoms, distribution and control of resources, etc.

If you look at BushCo as a set of international businessmen in league with aspects of OPEC and other big money persons, then things make more sense. To establish favorable business conditions, one must take steps, and be "history's actors", as they call themselves.

If you factor social control as we've seen in illegal wiretaps, hounding of protesters, library list grabs, and more, and that's only what we know about... Consider the 1984 lines of endless war and faceless, amorphous enemies.

I take it to the tin foil degree and consider them as predators, in the sense that they care nothing for human life not their own, and everything for their money and for power over others.

So, if =I= wanted to create an NWO, I'd:

-Destroy the nexus of international trade and perhaps the western economy as a bonus (much to be made from creating new rules favoring one's self, in times of chaos)
-Blame said amorphous, faceless enemy.
-Create endless war against said enemy, a continuous wartime economy.
-Use said enemy to justify pre-emptive strikes against countries containing resources you need (set the goal, create the conditions).
-Use conditions to cement power structure, new laws, beginning to swerve social and economic conditions away from freedom (see record Exxon profits).
-Stonewall against any and all opposition, which is easy from the profit viewpoint, which cares nothing for polls, etc.



Note that if another attack occurs, we would be in real trouble economically. If you wished to severely damage the free world's economy in order to insinuate yourself into the overall power structure and to control the most valuable resources, you could spend billions of dollars over a period of years to leave the reserves teetering a bit. A disaster occurs? You can clean up. Especially if your own people and companies specialize in rebuilding, etc.

I know that I'm in tinfoil land here, but in terms of the conniving plots of political thrillers and predatory, selfish business, I wouldn't put this past them. I can't say if this is what they're doing, but the longer we wait and the more they do it, one has to wonder how specifically they need to do so in order to gain their ends.

Misdirection, stonewalling, lies for war, oil company ties, mideast ties, illegal wiretapping... This stinks, and a big enough pile without any sign of cleanup can signify that the pile is on purpose. Who stands to gain? Follow the money.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iran+oil

[Kelly Rupert]

1. Or, rather, he intended an entirely different meaning of the phrase.

Nothing really "bold" or "psychotic" in his proclamation. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the world indeed was a different place. No longer did nations count themselves as either US-aligned or Soviet-aligned. That was the old political order, and it died with the USSR. Now, many hoped all nations of the world would be part of a global community. Nations would cooperate economically rather than open themselves to one pact and snub the other. Crises would be handled, as in the first Gulf War, by international cooperation rather than antagonistic power plays aimed at weakening the other side. That, indeed, would be a new world order--one in the classic sense of the term.

"New World Order" had a meaning far before conspiracy theorists gave it its ominous one. The phrase has existed since the end of the first world war, and refers to a paradigm shift in geopolitics--such as the end of the Cold War.

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. I'd love to be wrong, prove me wrong, but your post is the best-possible-case.

Not the case we're currently living. Whenever these profit bots "stay the course" and kaleidoscope reasons for their actions, I suspect that they are simply continuing along a pre-determined course to a specific set of goals.

The continued press to war, and to rumors of war, are not the sign of global fellowship. The record Exxon profits signify something in and of themselves. Look at the Bush family business history and at their business friendships.

[hang a left]

2. Yeah, me too.

I think you are on to something. I have always had the feeling that we are headed somewhere nasty...on purpose. I am definately MIHOP here.

[bluewave]

3. Yep. The global oligarchy seems to be directing policy. How else

does a country like Britain, who didn't want war, get caught in war?

[Kelly Rupert]

4. There's this odd concept called "representational government."

In it, politicians make decisions based on what they believe is in the best interest of the nation, and at regular intervals the people decide whether they think the politicians have been doing a good job. Sometimes the politicians do not do what polls indicate the average voter wants. If it works, then the politician says, "See? I know better than anyone else. Re-elect me." If it doesn't, he gets his ass booted. This is not evidence of conspiracy. It is, rather, evidence of politicans. They are similar situations, admittedly, but are not identical.

[bluewave]

6. You'll rarely see a representational government ignore the populace to

the extent they did in Britain. I've never seen a party commit political suicide like that. They were motivated to do it for a reason: dirty $$$ from the oligarchs.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. And yet, it wasn't 'political suicide' - they were re-elected in 2005

with a smaller majority, but Labour were still re-elected. Of course, an even larger proportion of the MPs from the largest opposition party, the Conservatives, also voted for the invasion. But the parties that voted against it didn't make spectacular gains, just modest ones. So, 'political suicide' it wasn't. 'Political cynicism', perhaps - they judged they had enough support on other matters that they could stay in power.

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. This thread should be moved to the tin foil gallery.

There is reason to believe, here in tin foil hat land, that the last two elections were interfered with and possibly stolen.

As always, please prove me wrong. I don't like thinking this way.

[Syrinx]

8. it IS interesting that Bush Sr. first used "New World Order"...

When addressing Congress on September 11, 1991.

[malaise]

11. The New world order is

Reagan and Thatcher's phrase. I wonder how many innocents Somalis were killed last night.

Those who support this better remember that same knife stick goat, stick sheep.

[TahitiNut]

17. 1990, not 1991

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Toward_a_New_World_Order


I listened live ... and got a chill in my gut. That was the single most frightening speech of any President in my lifetime at that point.

[Syrinx]

18. thanks for the link

Quite a read, I'll say. Thanks for the correction, also. :hi:

[soothsayer]

9. Watch for the coming of the "Amero" (currency of the US, Canada,

and Mexico). Then we'll be really, really close to the NWO crowd's wet dream.

[Hubert Flottz]

10. New World Order = World Domination

Believe it!

[dbt]

12. And AFTER I took my initial steps toward creating a New World Order

(as you so ably outlined above), I would send Legions of operatives onto the Internets to reassure anxious Citizens that the NWO does not, in fact, exist and to postulate that it does only makes "us" look foolish to "them" when "we" talk about it.

:evilgrin:
dbt
Committee On Noticing Spray Programs Involving Real Aircraft Calculated Yearly

[salvorhardin]

14. Congratulations

You have successfully paired yourself with Pat Robertson and other distinguished thinkers.

[Homer Wells]

15. I was watrching Dobbs last night when he brought this up

and he merely shook his head in amazement.

[Imagevision]

16. "New World Order"? oh just another Skull & Bonesman expressing future dreams

along with his father and his son...