New World Order

OnTheEdge

I can remember not too long ago being accused of wearing a tin foil hat just for mentioning this. Well, the time has come where now the progressives in our government openly admit that it's their agenda. And by progressives I mean our Vice President.

http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/ ... ne-already

aerial

OnTheEdge wrote:

I can remember not too long ago being accused of wearing a tin foil hat just for mentioning this. Well, the time has come where now the progressives in our government openly admit that it's their agenda. And by progressives I mean our Vice President.

http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/ ... ne-already

Haven't even read it yet......just wanted to say they have been saying they are for The New World Order for years now.....it's just when you bring it up the left distract with name calling.......the rights in on it also...

aerial

I like this reply from a post on the site

So when does this new 'unleashing' begin, Joey? How about you and Junior unleash us from Obamacare, the Federal Reserve, executive orders, NDAA, drones, DHS ammo (and weapon and armored personnel carrier) purchases, TSA, gun control, 99 week unemployment benefits, highest corporate tax rates in the world, ILLEGAL immigrants, Solyndra et al, GM, bank bailouts, Fannie and Freddie, Gulf oil drilling moratorium, Keystone pipeline block, delays in approving about a dozen LNG export terminals, EPA, Department of Education and the United Nations? Get back to me next week and I'll have some more for you.

It's been right in front of your nose the whole time....

Bentleyspop

donnaruhl

Bentleyspop wrote:

I don't even think a new world would order that. Yuk!

OnTheEdge

aerial wrote:

OnTheEdge wrote:

I can remember not too long ago being accused of wearing a tin foil hat just for mentioning this. Well, the time has come where now the progressives in our government openly admit that it's their agenda. And by progressives I mean our Vice President.

http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/ ... ne-already

Haven't even read it yet......just wanted to say they have been saying they are for The New World Order for years now.....it's just when you bring it up the left distract with name calling.......the rights in on it also...

I'm sure they've been saying it for years, even Bush, i'm not ignoring that. But it seems to be the first time hearing it on video.

aerial

OnTheEdge wrote:

aerial wrote:

OnTheEdge wrote:

I can remember not too long ago being accused of wearing a tin foil hat just for mentioning this. Well, the time has come where now the progressives in our government openly admit that it's their agenda. And by progressives I mean our Vice President.

http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/ ... ne-already

Haven't even read it yet......just wanted to say they have been saying they are for The New World Order for years now.....it's just when you bring it up the left distract with name calling.......the rights in on it also...

I'm sure they've been saying it for years, even Bush, i'm not ignoring that. But it seems to be the first time hearing it on video.

I'm just glad your listening......and get it.

Bentleyspop

aerial wrote:

OnTheEdge wrote:

aerial wrote:

I can remember not too long ago being accused of wearing a tin foil hat just for mentioning this. Well, the time has come where now the progressives in our government openly admit that it's their agenda. And by progressives I mean our Vice President.

http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/ ... ne-already

Haven't even read it yet......just wanted to say they have been saying they are for The New World Order for years now.....it's just when you bring it up the left distract with name calling.......the rights in on it also...

I'm sure they've been saying it for years, even Bush, i'm not ignoring that. But it seems to be the first time hearing it on video.
I'm just glad your listening......and get it.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

aerial wrote:

I'm just glad your listening......and get it.

there's two contexts when referring to a New World Order. One, is the tin foil hatness of a totalitarian one world government you refer to above, and what the VP clearly is referring to, and that is new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve. did you listen to anything beyond him saying the words "new world order"? He talked about the importance of the success of other world powers and non-powers alike, as everyone's success equals the success of the world market as a whole.

or, maybe he was referring to this group:

OnTheEdge

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

aerial wrote:

I'm just glad your listening......and get it.

there's two contexts when referring to a New World Order. One, is the tin foil hatness of a totalitarian one world government you refer to above, and what the VP clearly is referring to, and that is new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve. did you listen to anything beyond him saying the words "new world order"? He talked about the importance of the success of other world powers and non-powers alike, as everyone's success equals the success of the world market as a whole.

or, maybe he was referring to this group:

Yeah yeah. At first it was "put your tin foil hat on you crazy republican". Now that it's actually being talked about openly by government officials it's "not the same world order". Agenda 21 is Agenda 21. They can make it sound however they want, but it is what it is.

brianlux

"Chicks on the Right". I must add that to my "get it while it's hot" news sources.

OnTheEdge

brianlux wrote:

"Chicks on the Right". I must add that to my "get it while it's hot" news sources.

Yeah you gotta take their stuff with a grain of salt but video footage is video footage. No matter where it comes from.

brianlux

OnTheEdge wrote:

brianlux wrote:

"Chicks on the Right". I must add that to my "get it while it's hot" news sources.

Yeah you gotta take their stuff with a grain of salt but video footage is video footage. No matter where it comes from.

That is true.

Putting on my own tin foil hat for a minute I have to say that worry about a new world order just seems like a lot of unnecessary expenditure of personal energy. Nothing that big can hold up. It's a small world, but not that small. If you want to worry about something, maybe look at environmental degradation or world disorder.

DriftingByTheStorm

brianlux wrote:

Putting on my own tin foil hat for a minute I have to say that worry about a new world order just seems like a lot of unnecessary expenditure of personal energy. Nothing that big can hold up. It's a small world, but not that small. If you want to worry about something, maybe look at environmental degradation or world disorder.

I think you are right, but for the wrong reasons, Brian. Right in that it should not "be worried about", but wrong that it will not hold up. But you are wrong because it is grossly misunderstood. The New World Order will be some sort of global grouping of man, but it will be respective of mans' rights, and actually intended to enshrine them more thoroughly throughout the world. The "perverse" steps being taken right now are either by those opposed to it, or perhaps by those in favor but who feel the necessity for wrong actions in support of right intentions (a position i disagree with).

'The Externalization of the Hierarchy' - 1957 wrote:

Steps Towards the New World Order

In contradistinction to the totalitarian world order, what should the rest of the world plan? Towards what world objectives should the democracies work? Utopian schemes, idealistic forms of government and cultural living processes have ever been the playthings of the human mind, down through the centuries. But these Utopias have been so far ahead of possibility that their presentation seems useless. They are most of them wholly impractical.

Certain immediate possibilities and attainable objectives can, however, be worked out, given a definite will-to-good and patience on the part of humanity.

Certain major and spiritual premises should lie back of all efforts to formulate the new world order. Let me state some of them:

1. The new world order must meet the immediate need and not be an attempt to satisfy some distant, idealistic vision.

2. The new world order must be appropriate to a world which has passed through a destructive crisis and to a humanity which is badly shattered by the experience.

3.The new world order must lay the foundation for a future world order which will be possible only after a time of recovery, of reconstruction, and of rebuilding.

4.The new world order will be founded on the recognition that all men are equal in origin and goal but that all are at differing stages of evolutionary development; that personal integrity, intelligence, vision and experience, plus a marked goodwill, should indicate leadership. The domination of the proletariat over the aristocracy and bourgeoisie, as in Russia, or the domination of an entrenched aristocracy over the proletariat and middle classes, as has been until lately the case in Great Britain, must disappear. The control of labor by capital or the control of capital by labor must also go. [191]

5. In the new world order, the governing body in any nation should be composed of those who work for the greatest good of the greatest number and who at the same time offer opportunity to all, seeing to it that the individual is left free. Today the men of vision are achieving recognition, thus making possible a right choice of leaders. It was not possible until this century.

6. The new world order will be founded on an active sense of responsibility. The rule will be "all for one and one for all." This attitude among nations will have to be developed. It is not yet present.

7. The new world order will not impose a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardization upon the nations. The sovereign rights of each nation will be recognized and its peculiar genius, individual trends and racial qualities will be permitted full expression. In one particular only should there be an attempt to produce unity, and that will be in the field of education.

8. The new world order will recognize that the produce of the world, the natural resources of the planet and its riches, belong to no one nation but should be shared by all. There will be no nations under the category "haves" and others under the opposite category. A fair and properly organized distribution of the wheat, the oil and the mineral wealth of the world will be developed, based upon the needs of each nation, upon its own internal resources and the requirements of its people. All this will be worked out in relation to the whole.

9. In the preparatory period for the new world order there will be a steady and regulated disarmament. It will not be optional. No nation will be permitted to produce and organize any equipment for destructive purposes or to infringe the security of any other nation. One of the first tasks of any future peace conference will be to regulate this matter and gradually see to the disarming of the nations. [192]

These are the simple and general premises upon which the new world order must begin its work. These preliminary stages must be kept fluid and experimental; the vision of possibility must never be lost, and the foundations must be preserved inviolate, but the intermediate processes and the experimentations must be carried forward by men who, having the best interests of the whole at heart, can change the detail of organization whilst preserving the life of the organism.

Bentleyspop

OnTheEdge wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I'm just glad your listening......and get it.

there's two contexts when referring to a New World Order. One, is the tin foil hatness of a totalitarian one world government you refer to above, and what the VP clearly is referring to, and that is new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve. did you listen to anything beyond him saying the words "new world order"? He talked about the importance of the success of other world powers and non-powers alike, as everyone's success equals the success of the world market as a whole.

or, maybe he was referring to this group:

Yeah yeah. At first it was "put your tin foil hat on you crazy republican". Now that it's actually being talked about openly by government officials it's "not the same world order". Agenda 21 is Agenda 21. They can make it sound however they want, but it is what it is.

What's next?
You going to tell us that the space program never put a man on the moon?
The there were 3 shooters on the grassy knoll?
That Newtown was a govt plot to end the NRA?
That the Rothschilds control the worldwide finacial systems?
And of course you'll have to tell us about ZOG!!
:fp: :nono: :corn:

Hugh Freaking Dillon

OnTheEdge wrote:

Yeah yeah. At first it was "put your tin foil hat on you crazy republican". Now that it's actually being talked about openly by government officials it's "not the same world order". Agenda 21 is Agenda 21. They can make it sound however they want, but it is what it is.

so are you of the mind that Agenda 21 is actually a conspiracy by the UN to rob America of its property rights?

aerial

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Putting on my own tin foil hat for a minute I have to say that worry about a new world order just seems like a lot of unnecessary expenditure of personal energy. Nothing that big can hold up. It's a small world, but not that small. If you want to worry about something, maybe look at environmental degradation or world disorder.

I think you are right, but for the wrong reasons, Brian. Right in that it should not "be worried about", but wrong that it will not hold up. But you are wrong because it is grossly misunderstood. The New World Order will be some sort of global grouping of man, but it will be respective of mans' rights, and actually intended to enshrine them more thoroughly throughout the world. The "perverse" steps being taken right now are either by those opposed to it, or perhaps by those in favor but who feel the necessity for wrong actions in support of right intentions (a position i disagree with).

'The Externalization of the Hierarchy' - 1957 wrote:

Steps Towards the New World Order

In contradistinction to the totalitarian world order, what should the rest of the world plan? Towards what world objectives should the democracies work? Utopian schemes, idealistic forms of government and cultural living processes have ever been the playthings of the human mind, down through the centuries. But these Utopias have been so far ahead of possibility that their presentation seems useless. They are most of them wholly impractical.

Certain immediate possibilities and attainable objectives can, however, be worked out, given a definite will-to-good and patience on the part of humanity.

Certain major and spiritual premises should lie back of all efforts to formulate the new world order. Let me state some of them:

1. The new world order must meet the immediate need and not be an attempt to satisfy some distant, idealistic vision.

2. The new world order must be appropriate to a world which has passed through a destructive crisis and to a humanity which is badly shattered by the experience.

3.The new world order must lay the foundation for a future world order which will be possible only after a time of recovery, of reconstruction, and of rebuilding.

4.The new world order will be founded on the recognition that all men are equal in origin and goal but that all are at differing stages of evolutionary development; that personal integrity, intelligence, vision and experience, plus a marked goodwill, should indicate leadership. The domination of the proletariat over the aristocracy and bourgeoisie, as in Russia, or the domination of an entrenched aristocracy over the proletariat and middle classes, as has been until lately the case in Great Britain, must disappear. The control of labor by capital or the control of capital by labor must also go. [191]

5. In the new world order, the governing body in any nation should be composed of those who work for the greatest good of the greatest number and who at the same time offer opportunity to all, seeing to it that the individual is left free. Today the men of vision are achieving recognition, thus making possible a :corn: :corn: right choice of leaders. It was not possible until this century.

6. The new world order will be founded on an active sense of responsibility. The rule will be "all for one and one for all." This attitude among nations will have to be developed. It is not yet present.

7. The new world order will not impose a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardization upon the nations. The sovereign rights of each nation will be recognized and its peculiar genius, individual trends and racial qualities will be permitted full expression. In one particular only should there be an attempt to produce unity, and that will be in the field of education.

8. The new world order will recognize that the produce of the world, the natural resources of the planet and its riches, belong to no one nation but should be shared by all. There will be no nations under the category "haves" and others under the opposite category. A fair and properly organized distribution of the wheat, the oil and the mineral wealth of the world will be developed, based upon the needs of each nation, upon its own internal resources and the requirements of its people. All this will be worked out in relation to the whole.

9. In the preparatory period for the new world order there will be a steady and regulated disarmament. It will not be optional. No nation will be permitted to produce and organize any equipment for destructive purposes or to infringe the security of any other nation. One of the first tasks of any future peace conference will be to regulate this matter and gradually see to the disarming of the nations. [192]

These are the simple and general premises upon which the new world order must begin its work. These preliminary stages must be kept fluid and experimental; the vision of possibility must never be lost, and the foundations must be preserved inviolate, but the intermediate processes and the experimentations must be carried forward by men who, having the best interests of the whole at heart, can change the detail of organization whilst preserving the life of the organism.

And we can see how they are creating the crises.... destroying this country....sending weapons to people that hate this country....sending weapons to rebels in Syria that say it's okay to rape christian women. Our leaders are covering up details of how they are creating these crises so that the idiots believe they are doing what is right.
There will always be those that work harder. There will always be those that are trifling and lazy. Do they deserve the same anything except the right to freedom. Everyone is different NO ONE can change that.
The reason corporations run this country is because they want to be the Rulers. They are not doing it for the good of the people. Then you take there corporations away from them and then that person will be the Ruler.
Our Republic can work if we hold people accountable for there actions. Everyone! and run this country by the rule of law the way it was intended for EVERYONE rich or poor.
The person that wrote that is a mad man....

DriftingByTheStorm

aerial wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

And we can see how they are creating the crises....

regarding Items 2 & 3 on that list, you have taken them out of context.
She is referring to World War II as the crisis and destruction to which the New World Order must address.
And yes, the plan is probably to move away from "the free market" to some sort of resource based economy. I'm not going to go in to this entire argument here. Some very salient points regarding the detrimental psychological impact of class inequality in a capitalist society are made in the third installment of the Zeitgeist series. If you can manage to make it through the somewhat boring presentation, it is worth the watch.

Regarding laziness and the fairness of resource distribution with relation to people's intrinsic motivation, you would have to realize that the entire premise of "the New World Order" (ie. if you read the books by Alice Bailey, who wrote this piece) is founded *entirely* upon the enlightenment of all mankind. She stresses over and over (among myriad deeply spiritual points) that the truly just order can only emerge once man has ordered his inner life to his and to his fellow man's best benefit. Maybe when people are surrounded by love and don't feel themselves marginalized, hated, and neglected, maybe then will they feel the desire to contribute. But this isn't just a cop out, as I have said, everyone must take responsibility for elevating their own station in life -- both their external *and* internal situation (ie. people both need to "do work" and "find god").

PS - you should also bear in mind that not everything that you see happening around you that seems conspiratorial is done by "the new world order". Just like you would expect in life (and just like Star Wars portrays, lol -- because trust me, Lucas was on about *way* more than just Cambell's myths and Jung's archetypes) there are Forces of Light and Forces of Darkness at play in this world. You need only look back to the history of the Knights Templar to have it made vividly clear that their are two sides raging at battle.

PPS - our republic's founding was spearheaded by a Grand Master Mason and Rosicrucian (Franklin), a Mason and Illuminist (Jefferson), and a Master Mason (Washington). The constitution was signed by the Grand Masters of the Masonic Lodges of four seperate colonies\states. And if you think all of that is coincidence, then you should just have a look at the reverse of the Great Seal of The United States.


America was meant to be a stepping stone toward something even greater. But first the shackles of the Old World Order in Europe (ie monarchy and the pope, and those that stood\stand behind both) had to be overthrown.

same author that wrote the piece you reference wrote:

The three main channels through which the preparation for the new age is going on might be regarded as the Church, the Masonic Fraternity and the educational field.

aerial

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

aerial wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

And we can see how they are creating the crises....

regarding Items 2 & 3 on that list, you have taken them out of context.
She is referring to World War II as the crisis and destruction to which the New World Order must address.
And yes, the plan is probably to move away from "the free market" to some sort of resource based economy. I'm not going to go in to this entire argument here. Some very salient points regarding the detrimental psychological impact of class inequality in a capitalist society are made in the third installment of the Zeitgeist series. If you can manage to make it through the somewhat boring presentation, it is worth the watch.

Regarding laziness and the fairness of resource distribution with relation to people's intrinsic motivation, you would have to realize that the entire premise of "the New World Order" (ie. if you read the books by Alice Bailey, who wrote this piece) is founded *entirely* upon the enlightenment of all mankind. She stresses over and over (among myriad deeply spiritual points) that the truly just order can only emerge once man has ordered his inner life to his and to his fellow man's best benefit. Maybe when people are surrounded by love and don't feel themselves marginalized, hated, and neglected, maybe then will they feel the desire to contribute. But this isn't just a cop out, as I have said, everyone must take responsibility for elevating their own station in life -- both their external *and* internal situation (ie. people both need to "do work" and "find god").

It can never happen. The only place we will find no hate were everyone loves one another will be in heaven.
No disrespect.
On another note I am impressed with your vocabulary (wish I had one like yours).

brianlux

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I think you are right, but for the wrong reasons, Brian. Right in that it should not "be worried about", but wrong that it will not hold up. But you are wrong because it is grossly misunderstood. The New World Order will be some sort of global grouping of man, but it will be respective of mans' rights, and actually intended to enshrine them more thoroughly throughout the world. The "perverse" steps being taken right now are either by those opposed to it, or perhaps by those in favor but who feel the necessity for wrong actions in support of right intentions (a position i disagree with).

I'm all for man's rights, Drifting, but only as long as women's rights, animal rights and planet's rights are restored as well. The latter is what I all too often see missing in any plan for a new world order. But to me, "world" (or planet or Gaia) is the important word here. Gaia is not just people- not even just people and animals, its the living organism which is the whole planet. If the health of the entire organism isn't taken into consideration, even a small link can cause permanent injury, disability or premature death. I know of a man who died from a small cut on one of his fingers. It was not attended to, became infected and eventually caused him to die.

If the whole organism is not taken into consideration, I won't be signing up any time soon.

DriftingByTheStorm

brianlux wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I think you are right, but for the wrong reasons, Brian. Right in that it should not "be worried about", but wrong that it will not hold up. But you are wrong because it is grossly misunderstood. The New World Order will be some sort of global grouping of man, but it will be respective of mans' rights, and actually intended to enshrine them more thoroughly throughout the world. The "perverse" steps being taken right now are either by those opposed to it, or perhaps by those in favor but who feel the necessity for wrong actions in support of right intentions (a position i disagree with).

I'm all for man's rights, Drifting, but only as long as women's rights, animal rights and planet's rights are restored as well. The latter is what I all too often see missing in any plan for a new world order. But to me, "world" (or planet or Gaia) is the important word here. Gaia is not just people- not even just people and animals, its the living organism which is the whole planet. If the health of the entire organism isn't taken into consideration, even a small link can cause permanent injury, disability or premature death. I know of a man who died from a small cut on one of his fingers. It was not attended to, became infected and eventually caused him to die.

If the whole organism is not taken into consideration, I won't be signing up any time soon.

I think you are being too shallow in your reading as well, Brian. Who do you think is pushing Agenda 21?
The illuminist fraternities consider the earth to be a living entity in ways that make "Gaia hypothesis" seem childish. They truly believe earth is a living, illumined soul, with a consciousness far above ours. I'm pretty sure they intend to pay it their respects. Again, there are other forces at work in this world. Also, see the Georgia guide stones for a fairly succinct statement of their commitment to planetary health.


AERIAL,
You are wrong about finding universal happiness in heaven, alone. If you read your own book with eyes to see and ears to hear yo would understand that "thy kingdom come ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN" is meant in all sincerity. The keepers of the ancient wisdom firmly believe that the will of god is for earth to become as heaven. In fact, yo should go re read the numerous NT passages that refer to "the kingdom of god" because that kingdom is to be HERE ... ON EARTH.