Jump to content

Talk:New World Order conspiracy theory/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Misinformation

Misinformation not to say lies are being put up in this article! I am apalled by reference number 18 and the fact that is is used as evidence that Obama has said that he wants to create a "New world order" ... He has not used the term! check external link number 18. Somebody has said that he is creating a new world order He has not!.. This should be removed from the article and since i'm not able to do it i come in here. This is a stain on Wikipedia!

--Rmsondergaard (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Although you are correct that reference 18's external link does not a link to an article which confirms that Obama himself used the term "new world order", he has in fact publicly used the term at least one one occasion. However, I hope you understand that the History of the term section of the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article explains quite clearly that Obama's use of term should obviously not be interpreted as a call for a totalitarian one-world government. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I still see a problem there. The linked article should support the claim, this one does not really. I am sure we can find a better suited source for it. 87.166.106.43 (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
You are quite right. It seems that Obama only publicly used the term "world order" during his appearance on Late Show with David Letterman on 9 october 2008. I'm not sure how one references that... --Loremaster (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Now this is the first time i write on a talk page, so forgive me if I violate protocol. Rmsondergaard (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You did violate protocol to the extent that new sections to start a discussion should be created the bottom of the talk page rather than the top. I've therefore moved it for you. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The article still states that Obama has used the term New world order. This is not verified by reference number 18. As such i am removing it. --RSondergaard (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Eherm if i could...RSondergaard (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
You can remove it but I'll remove it for you. That being said, when you want to create a new topic of discussion, don't put your comments at the top of the page (especially not in a section that is about a different topic). Instead, click on the new section tab at the top of the talk page in order to create a new section at the bottom of the page. Thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Masonic pyramid with all-seeing eye in... Israeli Supreme Court Bldg!

http://www.abidemiracles.com/555701.htm

I think the article would be enhanced if it showed the above photo. Then the reader would know the masonic pyramid with all seeing eye is contained within the Israeli Supreme Court Building. The Rothchilds paid for this building out of family funds with no charge to the Israeli government.

same but different, not as good a photo: http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=1229

Whoisincharge (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we would need a second- or third-party reliable source that reports that many paranoid conspiracy theorists are connecting the building of the Supreme Court of Israel with the New World Order conspiracy before we can add such an image to the article. That being said, I think you might benefit from actually reading the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article in it's entirety to get a more critical view of New World Order conspiracism and also Frank Albo's essay Masonic Parlante in a Canadian Temple of Democracy: The Manitoba Legislative Building as Initiatory Theatre to get a more scholarly view of Freemasonry and sacred architecture. --Loremaster (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, thank you for inspiring me to add more pictures to the article. --Loremaster (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

right wing, left wing...

is it really necessary to have all this right wing left wing stuff? i dont see this as being an ideological, polarizing issue... and also, towards the end of the paragraph it says something along the lines of the far right and far left joining forces for some anarchist movement... but in reality, the far left would never want to bring about anarchy because they believe government to be the answer to most things. therefore they never would truly be leftists at all... its quite a paradox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.192.140 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. Yes it is absolutely necessary for this article to contain the political qualifiers "right-wing" and "left-wing" because of the fact that 1) the reliable sources for this article use these terms a lot, and 2) it is important for readers of this article to know and understand the political ideology of the notable people who embrace and promote New World Order conspiracy theories.
  2. There are right-wing libertarians (right-anarchists) and left-wing libertarians (left-anarchists) and there are right-wing authoritarians (fascists) and left-wing authoritarians (communists). Only know-nothing right-wing populist Americans think that all leftists want big government.
--Loremaster (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fascism is left wing, not right wing. This is clearly evidenced by primacy of the state over the individual, and rights of the state over the individual also. Nazism is also left wing. Check it out. I study politics at University level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.111.72 (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I really don't believe you do study politics. Or else you are sorely misinformed. Either way, you are wrong and I suggest reading the pages for Fascism and National Socialism; this will be more enlightening than your gross misunderstanding of PoliSci 101, and may guide you toward the eventual realization that 'saying something does not make it so'. On the current topic - political qualifiers are an undesirable necessity here, IMO. 156.98.129.16 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest our “university student” reads Fascism's position in the political spectrum. --Loremaster (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible Links, Quotes, etc.

I found this quote which is widely used by believers in conspiracies which can be found in the autobiography of David Rockefeller Sr., titled Memoirs, published in 2002 by Random House, ISBN-13: 978-0812969733, page 405:

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents … to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

And another quote by the man, supposedly said at a Trilateral Commission meeting (June 1991), the only source I have for this currently is from the book, Matrix of Power: How the World Has Been Controlled by Powerful Men Without Your Knowledge (2000), by Jordan Maxwell:

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

If I can get another source for that I will...

(and before you begin, I am not right wing, left wing, extremist, anarchist, etc.... From reading the article, it seems these theories are portrayed in a negative light, I thought wikipedia was supposed to be neutral, it seems a bit unfair to brand all people with these beliefs as such, and I emphasise all because some people who believe in these theories do fall into those groups. Also, being skeptical doesn't mean following the official story of events, there are many official stories that have been torn to shreds by dedicated investigators who are skeptic and see holes in the official version of events, the only problem is getting citations and sources for these alternative versions of events because independant media is very rare these days and the investigator has to use rationality, logic and patience to gather information as opposed to regurgitating the Associated Press story, which seems to be the only accepted one.)

If anyone has more links, quotes, citations to do with the fors and againsts of this topic, I'd imagine here would be the best place to put them, I'm new to this so excuse any mistakes I've made in terms of posting this content. 86.172.239.156 (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  1. If you are interested in contributing to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article, I recommend you create a user account since it is extremely useful for an editor (such as giving him the ability to more easily watch over pages he is interested in) but it also contributes to a culture of accountability on Wikipedia.
  2. If you had actually taken the time to read the article in its entirety, you would know that the infamous Rockefeller quote is in the Round Table section properly contextualized.
  3. As for the second quote, I remember reading somewhere that it was fake in the sense that Rockefeller never actually said it. However, I will have to get back to you on that to confirm it as fact.
  4. Although you don't have to, it would be helpful if you told us what your political views are in order for us to undertand the perspective you are coming from so that we can help you better understand the article. For example, what do you think of the producerism article? Does it accurately reflect your point of view?
  5. Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthemore, if these reliable sources use words like "right wing" and "paranoia", we must use these words as well even if they are not politically correct. That being said, this article doesn't necessarily reflect the personal opinions of the editors but the verifiable opinions of journalists and academics on the subject of New World Order conspiracy theory
  6. Since you admit to being new to Wikipedia, I strongly recommend that you also take the time to read the Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability policy pages. If you don't like any of the rules, go publish your research somewhere else like a blog for example.
--Loremaster (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Both you and Rockefeller would be parsing words or engaging in dodgey semantics debates if you'd claim the statement you provided by Fulford "contextualizes" (implied as negating or countering) his previous statement.
What's he really denying after the fact, distancing himself from? or even that it would be desirable to have a single government elected by the people of the world ... and who have accused me of being ruler of the world. It's POV to use Fulford's attempted detachment from Rockefeller's earlier statement as legitimate while simulataneuously mocking and doubting CT's for simply taking the words at face value. Furthermore the way the passage is written borders on original research if it takes those dissertations and concludes with a POV that Rockefeller's statements can't be taken seriously.
Additionally, why do you take it upon yourself to query his personal views? Must he pass some litmus test for you, or are you trying to get him to offer a statement you will later use to marginalize him as ignorant or a crank? His personal views are NOT relevant because we are not supposed to be pushing our point of view here and you are in violation of Wikipedia:Agf to assume he would be.
On another note the attitude and tone of your treatment to a new editor who in good faith brought relevant and historically accurate public statements, properly referenced and was willing to provide more, is just shameful. Though I agree people should register an account before a single edit here, it is not a wiki rule and should not become an issue of contention for you unless they are disruptive. You seem to use this as a preface to your replies to cut the other editor down to size, prequalifying your opinion over theirs. This statement- If you don't like any of the rules, go publish your research somewhere else like a blog for example. was completely out of line and displays you aren't interested in other editors work appearing here. At no point did he show any rejection of the rules of wiki, in fact since your own reply is blatant rejection of the wiki guidelines Wikipedia:Bite, Wikipedia:Civ and Wikipedia:Agf, if it wasn't for your hard work on the article I'd say the one who should start a blog should be you.
See if your reply to him reflected either the letter or spirit of this-
Understand that newcomers are both necessary for and valuable to the community. By empowering newcomers, we can improve the diversity of knowledge, perspectives, and ideals on Wikipedia, thereby preserving its neutrality and integrity as a resource and ultimately increasing its value. In fact, it has been found that newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of lasting content to Wikipedia (i.e., substantive edits): while insiders and administrators are responsible for a large bulk of total edits, these often involve tweaking, reverting, and rearranging content.[1]
Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value. A newcomer brings a wealth of ideas, creative energy, and experience from other areas that, current rules and standards aside, have the potential to better our community and Wikipedia as a whole. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are substandard or that they are simply "wrong."
If a newcomer seems to have made a small mistake (e.g., forgetting to put book titles in italics), try to correct it yourself: do not slam the newcomer. Remember, this is a place where anyone may edit and therefore it is in every sense each person's responsibility to edit, rather than to criticize or supervise others. Do not use bad manners or swear to newcomers. Or else they would not want to come on this website again.
I often get the feeling that last line conveys your desires for other editors. It's very un wiki. Regards :-) Batvette (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Batvette, in light of your history on this talk page, I won't waste my time responding to your rant except to say this: Since no one cares about your biased opinion nor needs you to referee discussions on this talk page, limit yourself to discussing possible improvements to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article or get lost. --Loremaster (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
To anyone who cares: I have edited the Round Table section of the article in order to dispel any confusion the previous version may have created. --Loremaster (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You see that tag above, which states that this article has been cited by a media organization? This is the reputation that YOUR bias, and YOUR rude manners, has brought to wikipedia-
However, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which is notorious for being completely infested with maniacally obsessive trolls, crooked insiders, and establishment apologists, claims that in its warped version of reality, the “new world order” as a sinister concept is still a nebulous conspiracy theory..
Are you proud? Batvette (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I actually read the Infowars.com criticism a long time ago and I edited the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article significantly in order to take it into account. That being said, infowars.com is not a respectable nor notable “media organization”. Their reputation is far worse than anything they say about Wikipedia. According to the ADL Special Report: Rage Grows in America: Anti‑Government Conspiracies, it is the best example of a paranoid conspiracy theory website. Since I'm neither a troll nor an insider nor an apologist, you have no idea how proud it makes me that the Alex Jones gang felt the need to attack this article. It demonstrates that these cranks are worried that Wikipedia is exposing what they believe for what it is: Bullshit! --Loremaster (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Crosbiesmith's peer review

Bureaucratic collectivist

The term 'bureaucratic collectivist' doesn't appear in the named source, Dances with Devils. [1] - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The term summarizes several descriptions of the “bureaucratic”, “socialist”, “communist”, “tyrannical”, “totalitarian”, “collectivist” world government feared by right-wing conspiracy theorists found in the source. --Loremaster (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Rockefeller quote

The quote from Rockefeller's Memoirs is not discussed in the referenced source, A Culture of Conspiracy. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. The discussion of the quote comes from an email discussion between a Wikipedia contributor and Micheal Barkun. I'll remove the book as a source. --Loremaster (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

BIS quote

The quote about the BIS, starting: "create a world system of financial control in private hands..." is now sourced to A Culture of Conspiracy. It does not appear there. The original source is Carroll Quigley (1966). Tragedy and hope: a history of the world in our time. p. 324.. If this reference is used, the text should note that this was Quigley's own statement - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. In rearranging sentences and paragraphs in the Round Table section, some sources got misplaced or became irrelevant. Thanks for reminding me to fix that once and for all. I'll simply delete the Quigley statement. --Loremaster (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

More Barkun

There is no reference to 'a virtual actor serving as the figurehead for a supercomputer' in A Culture of Conspiracy - Crosbiesmith (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Barkun does talk about the Antichrist as a supercomputer. However, he isn't the source for the specific notion of a “virtual actor”. This may have been lost in editing or was never added so I'll find and restore it. --Loremaster (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The notion of the Antichrist as a “virtual actor” comes from a conspiracy theory that suggests the Antichrist will be a hologram created by NASA's Project Blue Beam. However, to avoid the sentence in the article that deals with the identity of the Antichrist becoming too heavy, I'm simply gonna delete the mention of a virtual actor and leave the mention of a supercomputer. --Loremaster --Loremaster (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

To "Talk" first

I had posted the below section but it was removed with the comment that it should first go to the Talk page as it is controversial subject. I think that it is approptiate to be a section on opponents of the New World Order and I think that one of the most notable was Larry McDonald. What I have posted is referenced and quite fairly representing his points of opposition. What do people think? --Bert Schlossberg (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to such section. However, editors must take particular care when describing living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Furthermore, we would need to find a reliable source that that mentions Larry McDonald (or anyone else) as a notable opponent of the New World Order or, more precisely in light of the title of this article, a notable New World Order conspiracy theorist. --Loremaster (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is Cong. Ron Paul's (himslef notable) replay of Cong. Larry McDonald on Pat Buchanan's Crossfire show of 1983, and Ron Paul's comment certainly underlining McDonald's notability http://www.youtube.com/user/rescueKAL007#p/c/FD3DE4F0642C350C/0/1c8v-kgLvhM Bert Schlossberg (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
That's not a reliable source. Please check the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline page. --Loremaster (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Referring to the second paragraph above, I think you probably did not intend that you think that Larry McDonald is still alive. I believe that there is indeed evidence that he survived and alive at lest until 1995, but I do not think that you intended that. Just a note, and a reason why the reaosning (in part) of that paragraph would not holdBert Schlossberg (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable opponents of the New World Order

  • Larry McDonald - Lawrence Patton McDonald (April 1, 1935 - Sept. 1,1983), a conservative Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, represented the 7th congressional district of Georgia. He was onboard Korean Air Lines Flight 007 when it was shot down by Soviet interceptors just west of Sakhalin Island on Sept. 1, 1983. He was the 2nd president of the John Birch Society and the only member of Congress reportedly killed by Communists during the Cold War."

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government, combining super-capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control ... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."[1][2]

(Speaking of Carroll Quigley, a history professor and Secretary to Council on Foreign Relations:) "He says, Sure we've been working it, sure we've been collaborating with communism, yes we're working with global accommodation, yes, we're working for world government. But the only thing I object to, is that we've kept it a secret."[3]

---

I'd just like to note that Bert attempted to add the exact same information to the Rockefeller family article, and he is related to a person killed on board the Korean Air flight which is mentioned. It was reverted and is being discussed on the talk page. Angryapathy (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know. --Loremaster (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I won't pursue it further. But I will note this. I am, indeed, related to someone on the flight. This has a lot to say about my motivation in the first place. But do we not all have motivations in being involved in editing? So the only issue ought to be accuracy, regardless of our various motivations. Secondly, it is true that I have posted the same info for a number of people. But that is precisiely because it applies equally to a number of subjects. Similarly, There was one letter signed by three senators - Kennedy, Levin, and Nunn. I posted under these three persons, of course, changing the order according to the article. So. having added the "exact same information" could not be wrong in any sense, as I see it. If it be wrong, then fault must be found as to its applicability to the subject, and not to its sameness. Bert Schlossberg (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's move on then. --Loremaster (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The best way to move on is by reinstating what has been deletedBert Schlossberg (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It won't (at least not in the way you want it to be) so forget about it. --Loremaster (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

On which grounds do you think that edit is not to be reinstated - because it is not important to this article that there are notable opponents to New World Order?, That Larry McDonald, the president of John Birch Society and congressman from Georgia was not notable? having no influence?, That McDonald should not be mentioned as he was on KAL 007 shot down by the Soviets and inclusion of him as "notable opposition" could come about only by prejudice by someone on the "extreme right" and thus not disinterested? That McDonald did not say what the edit says he says in opposition to the New World Order? I say here what I have told you on my User page, that I personally do not believe that KAL 007 was shot down in a plot of New World Order to get Larry McDonald, as you mistakenly thought of me, that the cause of the shootdown lies elswhere, and that that is not my "motivation" for this edit. If I did believe that, though, that KAL 007 was, indeed, shot down by the New World Order, would that be reason for deletion of the edit? Is it a requirement of Wikipedia that edits are accepted, only if the editor think it not true, or is disinterested and really doesn't care?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm not opposed to having a section that lists notable New World Order conspiracy theorists but we need a reliable source that states that Larry MacDonald is a notable New World Order conspiracy theorist (rather than an opponent of the New World Order) in light of the fact that this article is about the notion of a New World Order in conspiracy theory. The fact that McDonald was on KAL 007 shot down by the Soviets is completely irrelevant information that shouldn't and wouldn't be mentioned in this article even if we decided to add him to our list of New World Order conspiracy theorists. That being said, MacDonald's lunatic assertion that Rockefellers and company are involved in a communist New World Order conspiracy would and will be a great addition to the Round Table section of the article (in part because it neutralizes User:Batvette's criticism of this article which he expressed in a section above). --Loremaster (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem is also a matter of synthesis above all. Yes, it is true that McDonald's plane was shot down by the Soviets. Yes, it is true that he was quoted as mentioning the Rockefellers and The New World Order as being related. My problem is that there is nothing showing that the flight being shot down has anything to do with The New World Order or the Rockefellers. So why are you trying to add that information to these articles?
Another question is in regards to the Rockefeller quote: what comes inbetween the two phrases with the ellipsis (the three periods)? It seems like quote cherry-picking to go from the first part of that sentence, a skip, and then the end of the sentence. (I read the source, and the quote reflects the source accurately.) Angryapathy (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The issue of synthesis is a good point. --Loremaster (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am glad to see that part of what I had originally editted in has been put back - but not in the section I had orignally "Notable opponents of the New World Order". It now being in in the Round Table section makes sense as McDonald's quote does speak to that point. Yet, you have deleted McDonald's other quote concerning Quigly - "He says, Sure we've been working it, sure we've been collaborating with communism, yes we're working with global accommodation, yes, we're working for world government. But the only thing I object to, is that we've kept it a secret." when Quigly is substantially dealt with in the same Round Table section. Why is that? Another question I have, for my clarification - you are not opposed to a new section that "lists notable New World Order conspiracy theorists" (as has been deleted) but you say "we need a reliable source that states that Larry MacDonald is a notable New World Order conspiracy theorist (rather than an opponent of the New World Order) in light of the fact that this article is about the notion of a New World Order in conspiracy theory." I understand from this that you accept part of what I present of McDonald's quote and have placed it in Round Table because he is in fact, an opponent of the New World Order, but do not accept the other part because we do not have a source that says that he is a "notable New World Order conspiracy theorist." Is that right? My point in asking is this. Don't you think that that requirement is quite stringint, especially in the light of the fact that the part that is accepted and now appears in Round Table also does not have the backing of a source saying that "McDonald is an opponent of the New World Order"? That he is an opponent of the New World Order is evident from what he says. In like manner, to my way of thinking, that McDonald is a notable New World Order conspiracy theorist is evident by what he says and by who he is! In the light of all this, Mcdonald being the president of J.B.S. and member of Congress, and a sitting member of Congress at the time KAL 007 was shot down, and the only sitting Congressman ever killed (reportedly) by the Soviets during the Cold War,and a man that exerted a tremendous influence on conservatives, and in the manner of death, fueled much indignation among many, that probably swayed them toward conspiracy theory thinking, all of this (which would be gleaned from the orignal full edit I made) justifies inclusion of what has been deleted, and remains delteted, namely - "He was onboard Korean Air Lines Flight 007 when it was shot down by Soviet interceptors just west of Sakhalin Island on Sept. 1, 1983. He was the 2nd president of the John Birch Society and the only member of Congress reportedly killed by Communists during the Cold War." Besides, isn't it customary in Wikipedia to add a little bit about a person to identify him and pointing out the importance or background of a person?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

None of the information about the flight, the Soviets, or the John Birch society has anything to do with the New World Order. Referring to him as a Congressman and having a wiki-link to his article is enough information for an article about New World Order (conspiracy theory). If people want to know more, they can click on his name, where they can find that info. And if you can find a reliable source that connects his death to the New World Order, then perhaps it can be added. Angryapathy (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. Singling out and quoting MacDonald as arguing that there is a one-world government conspiracy (with a neutral description of who is he) is different from creating a section that lists him as a notable New World Order conspiracy theorist. As I said before, Wikipedia editors must take particular care when directly and explicitly describing persons as conspiracy theorists for legal reasons in light of how damaging such a label can be to a person's reputation. So we need a solid reliable source that explicitly describes him as a “notable New World Order conspiracy theorist”.
  2. As for his quote about Quigley, it's not important, especially since we explain how Q's work is often misinterpreted by conspiracy theorists.
  3. As Angryapathy explained, none of the information about MacDonald you want added is relevant and important to an article about New World Order conspiracy theory.
--Loremaster (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you find my description of Larry McDonald - "Lawrence Patton McDonald (April 1, 1935 - Sept. 1,1983), a conservative Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, represented the 7th congressional district of Georgia. He was onboard Korean Air Lines Flight 007 when it was shot down by Soviet interceptors just west of Sakhalin Island on Sept. 1, 1983. He was the 2nd president of the John Birch Society and the only member of Congress reportedly killed by Communists during the Cold War." not neutral?

Further, Wikipedia editors must take particular care when directly and explicitly describing persons as conspiracy theorists for legal reasons in light of how damaging such a label can be to a person's reputation This is, as you say, a restatement of what you had previously said, except in your previous statement, you have, probably by error and not reflecting your thinking, that McDonald is still living. Does what you say now also apply to someone who is dead? that is, that for legal reasons, Wikipedia must have someone who is dead decribed in the reliable literature as a "notable new World order conspiracy theorist" before listing him as such in an article?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem confused. The issue of neutrality is about whether or not it is appropriate to describe MacDonald as a conspiracy theorist while the problem with your description is that there is too much information in it that is irrelevant to an article about the New World Order. That being said, in light of the fact that he is dead the issue isn't so much legal reasons as much as it is one of fairness. So having a solid reliable source neutralizes any possibility of a dispute erupting in the future where some reader complains on this talk page that it is unfair to describe MacDonald as a conspiracy theorist. Are we done? --Loremaster (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Bert Schlossberg (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Good. --Loremaster (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A possible clarification of why the NPOV issue keeps raising its ugly head.

In light of your earlier statement-

Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthemore, if these reliable sources use words like "right wing" and "paranoia", we must use these words as well even if they are not politically correct. That being said, this article doesn't necessarily reflect the personal opinions of the editors but the verifiable opinions of journalists and academics on the subject of New World Order conspiracy theory.

In that light it's not surprising you only have skeptical scholars and experts' opinions here to show the reader. Those on the opposite side of the street bristle at the label of conspiracy theory, at least those who take the public perceptions of their personal views seriously. At no point in this article do we see a so called conspiracy theorists position presented by that individual, in fair context and with references that meet wiki guidelines, that is not actually setting it up for further ridicule or tailored around a proceeding rebuttal by a skeptical expert. In essence what we've still got here is a page that takes an issue and divides it into various levels of ridiculous, and on most of them it indeed is, and takes dissertations by qualified experts dismissing the more ridiculous aspects of it yet discards that in many cases you can find within the body of their work passages showing that some fundamental parts of CT's beliefs are rational and even shared by them. Even possibly yourself. To wit-

The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a powerful and secretive elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign nation-states and put an end to international power struggles. Significant occurrences in politics and finance are speculated to be orchestrated by an extremely influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Numerous historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to achieve world domination through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes.

This is what you call absurd, yet one can find within the works of Domhoff and others, concessions appearing as self disclaimers that, by merely switching a word here or there for a toned down synonym- such as "planning" for "conspiring" or "have undue influence" for "rule the world" or "non public" for "secretive" (meetings) show they agree that elements of what people believe are obviously factual and nothing unusual at all. It's the way its always been and probably destiny anyway. It may appear I am beating a dead horse but while the article has expanded and improved I see the same underlying problem of ridicule of Reptilians yet the valid points- today what stood out to me was the mass surveillance section- are not seriously refutable at all. Really, comparing being embedded with RFID chips with the introduction of the printing press? Batvette (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  1. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This article is about conspiracy theories about the New World Order. Conspiracy theories in general often come from questionable sources and self-published sources. Therefore, we have no choice but to rely on the opinions of scholars and experts who, in their vast majority, are skeptical of conspiracy theories. If they weren't skeptical, these alternative views wouldn't be called “conspiracy theories”!
  2. The position of conspiracy theorists is in fact presented by an individual a few times in this article but editors must take particular care when describing living persons as conspiracy theorists, for legal reasons and in order to be fair.
  3. No one is denying that the transnational capitalist class is working openly and sometimes secretively to implement global capitalism through economic and military coercion to protect the interests of transnational corporations. However, the point this article is making is that it is completely absurd to believe these same people are working to create a communist world government, which is exactly what a majority of right-wing conspiracy theorists actually believe EVEN IF YOU DONT! If you can't understand this crucial point, you will always have a problem understanding this article.
  4. I don't get why you are still obsessed with the notion that this article “ridicules” people who honestly believe there is a New World Order conspiracy simply because we mention that some of them (but not all them) believe Reptilians are behind said conspiracy. I understand that you don't believe in aliens but you simply have to accept that many conspiracy theorists do. This isn't my opinion. It is the erudite opinion of a political scientist who specializes in conspiracy theories! Here is a quote from Amazon.com about Micheal Barkun's book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America:

    Many people assume that the X-Files conspiracy theory - malevolent space aliens in cahoots with shadowy government agencies - is the brainchild of caffeinated scriptwriters with an overnight deadline. But according to this fascinating cultural study, such scenarios have a long and disturbing intellectual pedigree. Political scientist Barkun (Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement) traces them to a venerable tradition of "New World Order" conspiracy theories combining fundamentalist dread of the Antichrist with secular right-wing suspicions that the powers that be are controlled by Masons, Jesuits, Jews and, above all, the Illuminati. Starting in the 1980s, extraterrestrials began to appear at the summits of these conspiracy-theory hierarchies, a process accelerated by the Internet's anarchic dissemination and recombination of myths and rumors. The resulting "improvisational millennialism" has yielded any number of baroque "superconspiracies" (one theory yokes together UFOs, the Gestapo, the Mafia and the Wobblies), but Barkun contends there are serious repercussions. As New World Order themes have infiltrated the previously apolitical UFO subculture, he argues, they have become more respectable and widespread: racialist and anti-Semitic ideologies have resurfaced in the coded guise of alien cabals, and a vast popular audience has been introduced by Hollywood to the notion that the government is a totalitarian clique in black helicopters - a view once confined to right-wing extremists. Scholarly but fluently written and free of excessive jargon, Barkun's exploration of the conspiratorial worldview combines sociological depth with a deadpan appreciation of pop culture and raises serious questions about the replacement of democracy by conspiracy as the dominant paradigm of political action in the public mind.

  5. No one is comparing RFID chips to the printing press! Everyone knows that RFID chips could be used by a police state to monitor the movements of human beings while the priniting press can't be used in such a way. However, the point critics are making is that, throughout the history of technological change, some new technologies have caused waves of end-of-the wold apocalyptic thinking. In other words, even if RFID chips are one day used by China to acheive the most totalitarian ends imaginable, it doesn't mean the Antichrist and the End Times are around the corner. Get it?
--Loremaster (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
However, the point this article is making is that it is completely absurd to believe these same people are working to create a communist world government, which is exactly what a majority of right-wing conspiracy theorists actually believe EVEN IF YOU DONT! If you can't understand this crucial point, you will always have a problem understanding this article.
Oh really now, do they? Is that why there are no referenced quotations in the article by so called "conspiracy theorists" where they say communists are taking over the world and forming a government? Or that they fear communism will become their way of life? What you are doing it taking it upon yourself to distort and define what millions of people are believing, in a cartoon like image and knock it down as irrational. Yet you have not at all provided proof within wiki guidelines of what you just claimed there.
One can see in the archives you have a long history here of marginalizing new editors as cranks when most have presented rational positions based upon real life concerns, it is not they who are biased but you.
I would further ask if YOU don't understand that if a transnational capitalist class is seeking to consolodate their own behind the scenes power toward a global scale, where they control the selection of leaders in each country, the leaders in these countries weaken each's sovereignty and implement socialist authoritarian systems yet maintain a thin veneer of individual democratic power by the people..... with them controlling the media to silence dissent- are you still going to call what everyone knows as reality a "conspiracy theory"? One can only surmise with your work directly responsible for published criticism such as this- www.infowars.com/new-world-order-still-a-conspiracy-theory/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used you're the one who is out of step here. Batvette (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. Putting aside the fact that a simple Google search for the term "New World Order" will wield numerous websites and blogs by conspiracy theorists who argue that the world government will be socialist/communist/totalitarian; I'm not taking it upon myself to define what people believe about the New World Order and it is intellectually dishonest of you to accuse me of doing that when you know that every claim in this article is based on the writings of scholars, like Micheal Barkun and Chip Berlet, who dedicated their lives to studying conspiracy theories and the people who promote them. If you believe Barkun and Berlet are both biased and factually wrong, prove it! Find us reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy who DISAGREE with Barkun and Berlet's definition of New World Order conspiracy theories. Hint: Infowars.com isn't such a source...
  2. What you fail to understand is that a transnational capitalist class (TCC) can and will try to consolidate power though treaties, like the (failed) Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which threatened national sovereignty and democracy, and force participating nations in a "race to the bottom" in environmental and labor standards. Such treaties establish a new body of universal investment laws to guarantee corporations excessive powers to buy, sell and undertake financial operations all over the world, severely diluting national laws, e.g., on environmental protection, regulation of labour standards and human rights established in developed countries. There is nothing socialistic about this kind of “new world order”! It's global capitalism in its fullest expression! The fact that you actually used the term "socialist authoritarian" to describe the kind of system the TCC wants to implement proves exactly that point I was making earlier: Right-wing populist conspiracy theorists (like you) are absolutely clueless about what global governance, capitalism, socialism, communism, Nazism, and totalitarianism actually are.
  3. I actually read the Infowars.com criticism a long time ago and I edited the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article significantly in order to take it into account. So I'm more in step than you think. ;)
--Loremaster (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
It's downright bizarre- no, wrong term, how about absurd? Preposterous? That when I point out you've no references whatsoever of a prominent CT stating his fears of a communist world government you provide the old sophomoric internet dodge, "the proof is everywhere, just google it and you'll see!" yet you go on to demand reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy who DISAGREE with Barkun and Berlet's definition of New World Order conspiracy theories..
I find 5 instances of the word COMMUNIST in your article. Each and every one references beliefs of so called conspiracy theorists many years ago, for instance the 40's and 50's or where you reference an article in 1950.... about an HG Wells piece written in 1940? HELLO these people are dead and buried! Even Domhoff's reference to communist states In the past the conspirators were usually said to be crypto-communist sympathizers so I don't have to disprove anything from Domhoff or Barkin, YOU have to now prove you have the slightest bit of comprehension of the topic you are writing about!
conspiracy theorists who argue that the world government will be socialist/communist/totalitarian;
That's not what you said now, is it? Why are you so freely substituting or exchanging terms for three wholly different socioeconomic systems?
Here is something you need to explain: If, as you explain in point 3, corporate individuals manipulating government officials get them to enact such measures for their benefit, does this mean they are promoting or furthering capitalism for all people in the affected area/region? Have they increased the opportunities for free enterprise for everyone? In the USSR, when corrupt party officials were exchanging money or gifts to others, were they furthering capitalism for the populace?
You have a strange notion that when rich and powerful people work behind the scenes to get richer, this means they are spreading capitalism as a socioeconomic system, or that anyone but them were intended to benefit. There may be some residual profiting by some down the ladder, if the bean counters missed something.
To reiterate and summarize- This-
However, the point this article is making is that it is completely absurd to believe these same people are working to create a communist world government, which is exactly what a majority of right-wing conspiracy theorists actually believe EVEN IF YOU DONT! If you can't understand this crucial point, you will always have a problem understanding this article.
Your (crucial)point the article is making is not referenced to the statements of any CT either minor or major in significance, nor is it referenced by any of your cited experts as being pertinent to any CTer since the 60's. Frankly the "out of touch" nature of your claim is disturbing and now has me thinking you might be a crank. I hope this isn't the case!Batvette (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. I suggested you google the term “New World Order” to find evidence that conspiracy theorists described the coming world government as socialist/communist/totalitarian only to satisfy your own curiosity. That's obviously very different from demanding reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy who disagree with Barkun and Berlet's definition of New World Order conspiracy theories if you want the article edited to reflect a different point of view. That being said, since you ask for an example of a prominent conspiracy theorist stating his fears of a communist world government, here is one from infowars.com: www.infowars.com/lord-monckton-on-alex-jones-the-u-n-s-push-for-a-marxist-one-world-government/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Lord Monckton On Alex Jones: The U.N.’S Push for a Marxist One-World Government] During the autumn of 2009, Lord Monckton embarked on a tour of North America to campaign against the United Nations Climate Change Conference in December 2009. He warned that US President Barack Obama intended to sign a treaty at the conference which would "impose a communist world government on the world". This was picked up by numerous commentators on the American right, including Glenn Beck. The St. Petersburg Times's PolitiFact.com - described his assertions as "not only unsupported but preposterous".[2] For conspiracy theorists focused on a socialist world government, here are some links: William F. Jasper, Global Tyranny... Step by Step: The United Nations and the Emerging New World Order, John Coleman, One World Order: Socialist Dictatorship, Larry McDonald on the New World Order, Crossfire.
  2. Regarding the issue of communism, what you fail to understand is that after 1991 conspiracy theorists are no longer concerned that card-carrying members of the American Communist Party and/or secret agents of the Soviet Union are plotting to overthrow the U.S government to pave the way for a communist world government. However, they now believe that rich capitalists are plotting to impose a communist world government that won't call itself communist but will be communist in practice none the less. The fact you yourself stupidly said that the transnational capitalist class wants to impose a “socialist authoritarian” system proves the point!
  3. The reason why I describe the world government of conspiracy theorist fantasy as “socialist/communist/totalitarian” is due to the fact conspiracy theorists freely substitute and exchange terms for three wholly different socioeconomic systems because (like you) they are completely clueless about what these systems actually are.
  4. Corporate individuals manipulating government officials to get them to enact measures for their own benefit is in fact called crony capitalism! The notion that capitalism is about increasing the opportunities for free enterprise for everyone in a free market is a myth because the history of capitalist socities demonstrates that big business, having achieved a monopoly or cartel position in most markets of importance, fuses with the government apparatus. A kind of financial oligarchy or conglomerate therefore results, whereby government officials aim to provide the social and legal framework within which giant corporations can operate most effectively. One word for that inevitable outcome of capitalism is Corporatocracy. As for the Soviet Union, anyone familiar with Marxist theory knows that the USSR was a degenerated workers' state which practiced state capitalism or, more precisely, bureaucratic collectivism. A bureaucratic collectivist state owns the means of production, while the surplus ("profit") is distributed among an elite party bureaucracy, rather than among the workers. Also, most importantly, it is the bureaucracy - not the workers or the people in general - who controls the economy and the state. Thus, the system is not truly capitalist, but it is not socialist either. It is a new form of class society which exploits workers through new mechanisms.
  5. Ultimately, you seem to be missing my point which is that conspiracy theorists believe the transnational capitalist class wants to impose a socialist authoritarian one-world government. The reality is that the only kind of “world government” the transnational capitalist class wants to impose is in the form of international treaties which establish a new body of universal investment laws to guarantee corporations excessive powers to buy, sell and undertake financial operations all over the world, severely diluting national laws, e.g., on environmental protection, regulation of labour standards and human rights established in developed countries. That's the true nature of global capitalism but only the most ignorant right-wing-populist-Tea-Party crank, who thinks government bailouts of banks and the automobile industry is “socialism”, would fail to understand that.
  6. This entire debate reminds me of something G. K. Chesterton once said: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”
--Loremaster (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Batvette, since you don't seem to understand the nature of capitalism, I suggest you read former Republican Party strategist Kevin Phillips's 2002 book Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich. Here is a short review by Gregory McNamee of Amazon.com:

Most American conservatives take it as an article of faith that the less governmental involvement in affairs of the market and pocketbook the better. The rich do not, whatever they might say--for much of their wealth comes from the "power and preferment of government." So writes Kevin Phillips, the accomplished historian and one-time Washington insider, in this extraordinary survey of plutocracy, excess, and reform. "Laissez-faire is a pretense," he argues; as the wealth of the rich has grown, so has its control over government, making politics a hostage of money. Examining cycles of economic growth and decline from the founding days of the republic to the recent collapse of technology stocks, Phillips dispels notions of trickle-down wealth creation, pricks holes in speculative bubbles, and decries the ever-increasing "financialization" of the economy--all of which, he argues, have served to reduce the well-being of ordinary Americans and government alike. Highly readable for all its charts and graphs, Phillips's book offers a refreshing--and, of course, controversial--blend of economic history and social criticism. His conclusions won't please all readers, but just about everyone who comes to his pages will feel hackles rising.

--Loremaster (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've edited the Round Table section to include a referenced quotation by a notable believer in New World Order conspiracy where he rants about capitalist-communists taking over the world and forming a government. I hope you are happy. --Loremaster (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good add, but now the lead-in to two consecutive quotations awkwardly is "wherin he states". Since I can't edit at the moment, I thought I'd suggest rephrasing one of the two.
For example: "In his 2002 autobiography David Rockefeller asserted/wrote/declared: [...]" 134.106.119.111 (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing as I was writing it! So I'll work on that real soon. --Loremaster (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Done! --Loremaster (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, and I just noticed that the source for Barkuns claim ["Barkun argues that this statement is partly facetious (the claim of "conspiracy" or "treason") and partly serious"] seems to be lost. I think that Barkun's point is quite important and the source should be close to the paraphrase, e.g. at the end of the sentence. 134.106.119.111 (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm on it. --Loremaster (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A Story

This NWO article is totally like a story and is not like an encyclopedia article and is even demeaning and insulting so it violates neutral point of view. Bbltype 16:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that the history section of any encyclopedic article will always read like a story to a certain degree, Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthemore, if these reliable sources use words that are demeaning and insulting, we must use these words as well even if they are not politically correct. That being said, this article doesn't necessarily reflect the personal opinions of the editors but the verifiable opinions of journalists and academics on the subject of New World Order conspiracy theory. So let's not forget that this article is about conspiracy theories and the people who promote them. --Loremaster (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Community discussion must occur before removing that claim. This article is totally biased and not even close to neutral. Lots and lots of the references do not support the citations. Also on top of that there are things in here that insult people and insult views and insult criticism. This article is not even close to neutral and the community needs to discuss this not just one or two people. You cannot just remove one thing you dont like without other people agreeing after discussing it completely. You don't own this article but heaps of edits are only yours. Oh and BTW ... the mis and re issue ... the citation goes to a reference that doesn't use the word misinterpret so when you say that the article should say what the reference says it's not even in it. Check it out. Bbltype 17:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand that your knee-jerk claim must be discussed by the community so I won't remove your tag for now. As I explained, the article is not biased. It presents a cogent summary of viewpoints published by the reliable sources we have found. If these sources (who are all notable scholars and journalists) “insult” some people and viewpoints, we have no choice but to report this. To not do so would be biased...
As for your accusation that there are “lots and lots of the references do not support the citations”, the article experienced many radical changes over the past year so there might be two or three paragraphs that need to more properly sourced since they lost their original sources.
On the mis and re issue, the source doesn't need to use the word “misinterpret” if it explains that this is in fact what some people are doing.
--Loremaster (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thx for the knee jerk thing :) Look at the sources. The sources don't insult at all. It's how the one who wrote this article put it so that's where the prob is. And the source doesn't say anything about “misinterpreting.” So that means my change to re which is more neutral was more accurate.Bbltype 18:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I've looked at all the sources because I wrote this article based on what is in them. However, the right source for the specific paragraph you have a problem with is actually Barkun rather than Berlet, and I've been meaning to re-write that paragraph to make it less heavy and more consistant with its source. That being said, I'm not sure what you mean by “insulting”. Can you please give me an example? --Loremaster (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Let me ask you something, how come you are the only one who has edited and written this article for many many months? The NWO is important to lots and lots of ppl both those that believe it and those that don't believe it. But this thing is like a story or a newspaper article not an encyclopedia article. It's written well, but it's not encyclopedia language and its too way overly intellectual. Lots of the citations come from only one or two guys and that makes an article even more biased to one view because it wont represent others that are also important. There's heaps of books on the NWO not just two.Bbltype 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm the only one who has edited the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article (while taking into account valid suggestions and criticisms made by others on this talk page) since December 2008 because I'm the only person who still is dedicated to making this article well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough to meet good article criteria; while the vast majority of people who have shown interest in this article were paranoid conspiracy theorists who vandalized the article, ranted that it was nothing more than pro-NWO propaganda written by the FBI, and then ran away never to be heard from again. Regardless, your criticism of the article doesn't make sense since it reflects Wikipedia's demands that its prose must be engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. Furthermore, many passages simply paraphrase content from scholarly essays and books on the subject so the notion that it reads a like a story with a personally invested tone is simply not true. That being said, although there are heaps of books on the NWO, the vast majority are not considered reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy according to Wikipedia policy. We have more than two sources. However, I simply chose to reference many sentences and paragraphs to two of the many we can choose from. --Loremaster (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Bbltype, although I've been meaning to do this for a while, I would like to thank you for forcing me to finally rewrite the third paragraph of the History of the term section to make it more clear and more consistant with its source. :) That being said, I've removed the story tag since you haven't been able to make a solid case that such a tag is justified --Loremaster (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
NP. I love to help. I'm kind of undecided about the issue. The NWO is now in the news alot so it should really be/being discussed by heaps more ppl. It's real weird that more ppl aren't editing this at all. Do you have a theory for why it is the case? But I don't think you should have removed the tag. It should be discussed more so can you please replace it. You said I helped you so maybe keeping it will help you more. Bbltype 19:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. Although you are correct that the phrase “New World Order” has been used a lot by politicians and pundits since 2008, I hope you realize that there is a sharp difference between the concept of a new world order in international politics and the concept of a New World Order in conspiracy theory. The former refers to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. For example, the fall of the Soviet Union leaves the United States as the sole superpower. The latter, obviously, refers to paranoid conspiracy theories about some coming totalitarian one-world government led by a Hitler-like dictator or even the Antichrist the Bible warns about. Obviously, the former deals with reality while the latter deals with fantasy.
  2. As I've said before, most (but not all) the people who have shown interest in editing this article were paranoid conspiracy theorists who wanted to turn this article into a vehicle to promote their weird beliefs. When they saw that I and other Wikipedia contributors weren't gonna stand for it, they got discouraged and left. Beyond that, I think paranoid conspiracy theorists who truly believe that there is some kind “Big Brother” conspiracy out to spy and control us all may be hesistant of editing this article and have their IP address out there for all to see... Isn't paranoia beautiful? ;)
  3. Putting aside the fact that I honestly do not believe that the article reads like a story, to be honest with you, the second reason why I removed the tag is because it's been my experience in the past that such tags rarely attract serious people from the Wikipedia community to discuss a problem with the article; but they do attract paranoid conspiracy theorists to come out and vent their delusions on this talk page. You seem like a good guy so I'm confident we can work together to improve this article (if needed) without this misleading tag. By the way, it wasn't the tag that helped me. You didn't really help me. Your comments on this talk page simply pushed me into doing something I was already planning to do.
--Loremaster (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I know the difference between a new social political order and the "New World Order". Thats why I said its in the news alot lately. Lots of guys on CNN, MSNBC, FauxNews and all them have been talking about the "New World Order" in the past several months and some even wonder if it might be true. There's lots of evidence for a Big Brother conspiracy and lots of evidence against it. IMHO it's not nice to say it is a fantasy or weird because lots of ppl sincerely believe it. They might be sincerely wrong but that doesn't mean they positively are. Being neutral means not saying "fantasy" or "truth", right? :) The tag should not be removed but I won't argue about it cuz maybe we can get more ppl to work on this article and help edit it more and make it a better article? What do you think? BTW I don't mean better because it stinks but better because anything can be improved and the language here is not really the kind from an encyclopedia but from a book or a story. Bbltype 18:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong since we are using the language of scholars who are the most reliable sources on this subject. Although this article can always be improved with some copyediting to make some sentences more elegant, I would and will strongly object to the direction where you want to take it. --Loremaster (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Ummm...where do I want to take it? What happened to good faith? Bbltype 22:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't doubt your good faith but you are simply wrong if you insist on suggesting that this article must be changed because you think it is biased. That being said, although no one denies that there is lots of evidence for the rise of a surveillance-industrial complex (with all the frightening consequences one can imagine it will have), it is simply misinformative to describe it as a “Big Brother conspiracy”. I suggest you read G. William Domhoff's essay There Are No Conspiracies to understand why. --Loremaster (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

One need only look at the archives to see this editor's concerns have been voiced precisely by a long chain of other editors who you've intimidated away from contributing from the wikipedia editing process. You don't consider the article biased but your recognition that the article is written to slant and ridicule a large segment of the population with rational and fact based concerns is not a requirement for the criticism it is just that to be valid. Had you not consistently been archiving these concerns in a hasty manner a concensus of criticism would probably have been reached long ago. The problem seems to be that you've assumed Domhoff's rather cutesy, even smarmy way of ridiculing people for suspecting the very concept of changes taking place yet at the same time concede that the changes are taking place as they always have. That's why I and presumably yet another editor feel insulted by the article. An example of Domhoff doing this can be found in his analysis of Bohemian Grove, where he mocks the idea of shady business deals taking place at the Grove by asserting why would they do it at the Grove when they could do it over the phone at the office- and later concedes the purpose of the Grove is to cement friendships in a frat party atmosphere. Well two strangers talking on the phone is no frat party and that's why the result of the Grove meetings is shady business deals between power brokers, yet Domhoff ridicules anyone thinking so. Batvette (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've explained in the first section of this talk page, the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article is being improved by supporters of WikiProject Rational Skepticism, which seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with pseudoscience and pseudohistory. Therefore, although remaining neutral, this article will be written from a rational skeptical perspective. Like its name suggests, this article isn't about new world order as a fact in international relations (if you are interested in that subject, I suggest you read and possibly edit the new world order (politics) article instead). It's about conspiracy theories about a New World Order. By “conspiracy theory”, we mean any any "fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning". Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism by the scientific community and academia, and often ridiculed by pundits, because they contrast with institutional analysis of historical or current events, and are rarely supported by conclusive evidence.
According to Wikipedia guidelines: “It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers. On the other hand, there may be circumstances where it benefits discussions to keep older sections visible on the talk pages, so that newly visiting editors can see which issues have been addressed already and avoid redundant discussion. However, this can also be solved by placing notices at the beginning of the talk page.” That being said, I have edited this article long enough to know that there are four groups of people who edit it:
  1. Rational skeptics who want this article to be best example of a critical yet neutral analysis of New World Order conspiracism.
  2. Cranks who believe that the New World Order is not a conspiracy theory but a FACT. They often edit the article only to delete the word “theory” and then leave.
  3. Cranks who believe in a New World Order conspiracy and want to edit the article so that it emphasizes and promotes their pet conspiracy theory about a New World Order. They tend to be more persistent but usually leave when confronted by constant opposition.
  4. Reasonable but misguided invidivuals who are concerned about the rise of the transnational capitalist class but, unfortunately, have embraced New World Order conspiracism instead of Marxist analysis. They wish that paranoid New World Order conspiracy theories involving the Illuminati, Freemasons, Elders of Zion, New Agers, Nazis, alien overlords, and transhumanists would be deleted so that the article solely focuses on the Round Table conspiracy. Although I sympathize with this group, what they fail to understand is that an article on New World Order conspiracism must be comprehensive and therefore cannot exclude the conspiracy theories they judge to be ridiculous and only include the conspiracy theories they judge to be reasonable.
People in group 2 and 3 are rarely interested in discussion on this talk page because they know their convoluted comments and proposed changes will not stand up to rational criticisms so they automatically resort to vandalism, which can be and is always quickly reverted. That being said, even if 100 people suddendly appeared on this talk page and criticized the article using exactly that same arguments both Bbltype and Batvette have expressed, Wikipedia guidelines enable me to disregard this “consensus” since none of these people will be able to find reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that contradict the sources I have used for this article.
Neither Domhoff nor any rational skeptic of New World Order conspiracy theories denies that “changes are taking place”. It is a fact that we have witnessed the implementation of global capitalism through economic and military coercion to protect the interests of transnational corporations. However, it is paranoid fantasy to beleive that the transnational capitalist class, which has emerged from global capitalism, is conspiring to implement a communist world government through a strengthened United Nations to force humanity into permanent slavery. The problem is that paranoid anti-government right-wing conspiracy theorists misintepret real changes brought upon by global capitalism as evidence for some kind of communist conspiracy that simply doesn't exist!
Regarding the Bohemian Grove, Domhoff argues that it simply “is not a place of power. It's a place where the powerful relax, enjoy each other's company, and get to know some of the artists, entertainers, and professors who are included to give the occasion a thin veneer of cultural and intellectual pretension. Despite the suspicions of many on the Right, and a few on the Left, it is not a secret meeting place to plot, plan, or conspire. The most important decisions typically happen just where we might expect: in the boardrooms of corporations and foundations, at the White House, and in the backrooms of Congress. Yes, as I show later, some wanna-be and has-been Republican politicians sometimes visit the Bohemian Grove, including future and former presidents of the United States, but they are there to demonstrate what wonderful human beings they are, to cultivate potential financial backers, or to brag about their past exploits.” Rather that relying on Batvette's misinterpretations, anyone who is interested in reading Domhoff's essay on the Bohemian Grove can do so by clicking here to make up their own mind as to whether or not his critique of anti-Bohemian paranoia is solid. Utimately, his point is the people who are really interested in change in order to achieve social justice should stop obsessing about the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and the Bohemian Grove and focus on the real enemies: the corporate elite, the Republican Party, and conservative Democrats.
--Loremaster (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh how nice of you to provide that link as after a revisit I find Domhoff's doublespeak makes my case all the more obvious.
Despite the suspicions of many on the Right, and a few on the Left, it is not a secret meeting place to plot, plan, or conspire.
And goes on to say some wanna-be and has-been Republican politicians sometimes visit the Bohemian Grove, including future and former presidents of the United States, but they are there to demonstrate what wonderful human beings they are, to cultivate potential financial backers, or to brag about their past exploits.
and there is much more! But let's start with a rational skeptic's analysis-
Moreover, there is a literature in social psychology, called small-group research, or small-group dynamics, which shows that people who meet in relaxed settings, and see their group as exclusive, become even tighter with each other than people in ordinary groups. Even better, people in exclusive groups are more likely to listen to each other and come to a compromise if they have the task of figuring out what to do about some policy issue.
In short, a study of the Bohemian Grove could show that social cohesion is an aid to the formation of policy consensus. I took to saying that from a social-psychological point of view, the upper class is made up of constantly shifting face-to-face small groups -- a board of directors meeting at the corporation in the morning, a meeting of a policy discussion group in the afternoon, a drink with some buddies at an exclusive club in the evening. And best of all, of course, many of them camped out together at the Bohemian Grove one year or another.
On this I agree, but I disagree that the result is harmless fun. Because of their meetings and frat boy antics at the Grove, these power brokers achieve personal relationships which allow conspiratorial agreements with mutual benefit that would otherwise not be possible amongst them, as individuals.
Whether the final details are etched out there or not is irrelevant, and their motto of spiders not weaving is really mocking of what's going on here. They are spiders weaving webs together to more efficiently catch flies later.
Let's look at some examples which discredit Domhoff's dismissive nature of these events. About the Lakeside talks he states Whatever the value of the talks, most members think there is something very nice about hearing official government policy, orthodox big-business ideology, and new scientific information from a fellow Bohemian or one of his guests in an informal atmosphere where no reporters are allowed to be present.
One would have to be in complete denial to believe after each of these daily lakeside talks these individuals go back to their respective camps to prove what great human beings they are! As the camps are segregated into groups of fellow individuals with similar positions in their walks of life, they discuss these policies and business proposals in private, and reveal to others how they will respond to them. Only a moron doesn't see this is private planning and conspiring outside of public scrutiny on matters which affect the public. Say a top government official reveals impending policy affecting the auto industry, and after the lakeside talks the camp with all the Ford and GM executives go back to their cottage and have a few beers over it. You think that won't influence how they will respond to this policy or that they won't agree to a response that the boys at Chrysler would be shut out of knowing in advance? The possibilities of abuse of power because of this event both public and private are enormous! Anyone who goes out drinking with buddies after work understands this.
But most damning of your (and Domhoff's) assertions is this revelation-
But rehabilitation through a Lakeside Talk was not all Nixon accomplished at the Bohemian Grove that summer. He also had a "candid discussion" with Ronald Reagan "as we sat outdoors on a bench under one of the giant redwoods." Nixon told Reagan of his plans to enter the primaries. He assured Reagan he would not campaign against any "fellow Republicans." Reagan allegedly professed surprise that there was speculation about his possible candidacy, and claimed he did not want to be a favorite son. According to Nixon, Reagan said "that he would not be a candidate in the primaries." In other words, they came to a deal at the Grove, with Reagan saying he would only enter the primaries if Nixon faltered.
Domhoff fills that analysis with assurances nothing of the sort happens there. Does he assume we're stupid and can't read? I'll finish by saying I agree with his closing points a hundred percent and what goes on at the Grove does not bother me one bit, in fact I'm jealous I don't get an invite because frankly it sounds like a blast. However the camraderie it fosters among these men of power set the stage for relationships that you and Domhoff will claim are impossible to allow anything resembling a conspiracy to make unusual agreements of global scope occur. He's using doublespeak to bull**** us in this analysis just as he does the NWO/CT issue in general, and that isn't even including the complete lie that no secret deals are made there that he slips up and reveals about Nixon and Reagan. Batvette (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that you avoid responding to all the other arguments that were made above, the problem is that neither Domhoff nor anyone else is arguing that the Bohemian Grove cannot and never has been used by members to discuss government policies and business proposals in private outside of public scrutiny on matters which affect the public. However, the point is simply that A) the vast majority of important decisions are not taken there; B) The vast majority of important decisions that harm the public are taken in the boardrooms of corporations and foundations, at the White House, and in the backrooms of Congress --- without the need of having met at some private club once a year; C) Corporations are always aware of official government policy since, with the use of lobbyists, they constantly play a role in shaping it. So the notion that Ford and GM executives attending the Bohemian Grove would do something radically different because of something they heard there is simply ridiculous. Furthermore, it would never amount to a criminal conspiracy; D) the Nixon-Reagan deal is not a civil, criminal or political conspiracy; E) Secret arrangements may be hatched at clubs like the Bohemian Grove but none of them have ever or will ever involve implementing a socialist authoritarian world government; F) the power elite has always be open about its plans to implememt global capitalism through economic and military coercion to protect the interests of transnational corporations. Even it were proven that some or all members of the Bohemian Grove do in fact support the notion of a one-world government, it should be obvious that it would be a capitalist one-world government not a socialist authoritarian one. So I don't understand this obsession you and other conspiracy theorists have in assuming that there is a secret conspiracy when everything that matters is out in the open as the documents of the CFR that are publicly available prove over and over again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.165.90 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You claimed my assessment was a misinterpretation and I reinforced my point that Domhoff conceals its significance with doublespeak and contradictions, claiming no secret deals are made there while later describing a secret deal made between Reagan and Nixon. Your reply consists of backpedalling through weasel words, such as now determining that the vast majority of deals are not done there when earlier it was "no deals". The point I was making,in regards to your above bold font assertion, was that Domhoff's dismissal of conspiracies is a complete sham, not that what goes on at the Grove must fit your personal perversion of NWO beliefs or it's completely innocent. You're clearly showing a disregard for seeing truth published and instead a willingness to enforce the status quo which ridicules any suspicion even that of rational people with factual substantiation behind their concerns. In light of the fact you are now the exclusive editor of this article this puts its entire content in ill repute of any NPOV status.
As for my personal views I frankly don't know what's going on with this "New World Order" thingy, whether it's socialist or capitalist or the way things always have been, a few greedy humans working together to shove it up the tookas of the rest of us. I just keep hearing so much about it in legitimate media so I came here to find out last year and I didn't see the answer in a way that didn't insult me and make me feel patronized for even looking- and that's why I'm still here hoping others with a more objective view can work on the article until we find out.Batvette (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Domhoff said this which you did quote- Despite the suspicions of many on the Right, and a few on the Left, it is not a secret meeting place to plot, plan, or conspire.
I showed he also asserted that talks are held there specifically out of the view of the media, and showed his own example of Reagan and Nixon plotting, planning and conspiring to not compete against each other in the 1968 Presidential Election Primaries.
To diffuse this you now claim- neither Domhoff nor anyone else is arguing that the Bohemian Grove cannot and never has been used by members to discuss government policies and business proposals in private outside of public scrutiny on matters which affect the public. which conveniently sidesteps two politicians conspiring to avoid competition which is detrimental to party chances at a victory-
Your own slippery rhetoric aside, I offer your source, Domhoff, has been impeached for credibility as a source and should therefore be excluded from reference in this article. Batvette (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Give me a break! Putting aside the fact that you are unable able to grasp the nuances of Domhoff's essay, the Nixon-Reagan deal is not a civil, criminal or political conspiracy. Nothing illegal took place. It doesn't harm the public in any way. Deals like that are made all time whether they be at Bohemian Grove or elsewhere. Neither Nixon nor Reagan need a club like the Bohemian Grove to make such a deal. The problem is that you don't even understand what the word “conspiracy” means. A civil conspiracy is an agreement between persons to defraud others of their legal rights. A criminal conspiracy is an agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement. A political conspiracy is an agreement to overthrow of a government. Domhoff is simply arguing that there is a difference between secret deals to gain an avantage in business or in an election and civil, criminal or political conspiracies that can and should be prosecuted in a court of law. That being said, even if everything you said about Domhoff's essay was right (but it isn't), there are no claims in the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article that are based on the core arguments made in this essay. Furthermore, the vast majority of claims in the article are based on the views of Micheal Barkun and Chip Berlet, which no one has been or will ever be able to contradict. Like I've said before, find us reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy who DISAGREE with Barkun and Berlet's definition of New World Order conspiracy theories or their description of NWO conspiracy theorists and then you will be able to make a case that this article is biased and needs to be more objective. Otherwise, get lost. --Loremaster (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I feel no shame for not seeing "nuances" your own imagination believes are there but plain English does not spell out. Domhoff stated and you quoted and made a point of the statement Despite the suspicions of many on the Right, and a few on the Left, it is not a secret meeting place to plot, plan, or conspire. Your current backpedalling and desire to redefine it as not hurting the public or that it COULD happen anywhere else seeks to distract from the very point I am making of the both of you and that the entire article reeks of- in too many instances you make blanket assurances that something does NOT go on in secret behind closed doors. Domhoff did not say very few secret plans are made at the Grove and he does not say only those which don't hurt the public. HE SAID it is not a secret meeting place to plot, plan or conspire.
In the same piece he states about the Lakeside talks most members think there is something very nice about hearing official government policy, orthodox big-business ideology, and new scientific information from a fellow Bohemian or one of his guests in an informal atmosphere where no reporters are allowed to be present.
AND THEN ADDITIONALLY details a plan, a plot, hatched in this place where no reporters are allowed to be present, between two Presidential hopefuls in the 1968 election who were in the same party FROM the same state yet unaware of each's intentions prior to meeting at that time, whereas to avoid a very costly conflict for their party by having them compete against each other in primary elections and thus drain Republican party resources that could be used against the (then still alive) Democratic challenger Robert Kennedy, did conspire between them a plan to subvert the normal democratic process and avoid running against each other yet have the better candidate stand by ready in case the lesser appeared to falter, and thus rigged the 1968 Presidential Election and changed the course of human history. The Republicans were allowed to vet their most promising candidate without a costly primary runoff yet still have the luxury of inserting the alternate candidate at any time it appeared Nixon may not be a clear winner- and retain the campaign fund war chest much fatter than the opposition party's. The whole thing took place at the Grove and the media never possible to hear about it at the time and members largely sworn to secrecy until years later. The assurances of corruption apologists are becoming rather tiresome here.
Now I am sorry you only look at nuances but feel the need to craft this article to insult me or anyone with a rational mind as a conspiracy theorist for having the audacity to read plain English. The Nixon/Reagan agreememnt is in fact a conspiracy that, Kennedy's assasination aside, greatly altered human history. It's time for you and your revered academia to get off your high horses, stop obfuscating the truth behind the rhetoric of socio-economic classroom verbiage, and allow some reality to be presented not as conspiracy theory to mock but to scrutinize by people coming to wikipedia for answers.
You may be surprised to know despite a bit of annoyance at Domhoff's habit of doublespeak in assuring an innocent intent at the Grove, I find his work informative, well detailed and probably quite accurate. I wasn't seriously considering impeaching him as a reference here and quite enjoyed reading the piece. Relevant to the article and referencing his philosophy there are no conspiracies as a whole however it is obvious this is but one side of the issue, the only side you want this article to reflect. Per its title and toward the rational skepticism project I cannot deny this is the ONLY side the article CAN reflect. I'm thinking it's time for a fork on this article which can objectively present the issues behind all of this and allow the rational reader to decide if all of this amounts to a conspiracy theory he can dismiss and mock or are these real events by the usual players as they always have taken place. What do you think of that?Batvette (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
*sigh* I have better things to do than refute your convoluted misinterpretations and fallacious arguments. As I said before, find us reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy who DISAGREE with Barkun and Berlet's definition of New World Order conspiracy theories or their description of NWO conspiracy theorists and then you will be able to make a case that this article is biased and needs to be more objective. --Loremaster (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Content forking is undesirable. You will have to fix this article or ignore it. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough, and I understand why we wouldn't want to to this. However can you see the inherent problem when you take a legitimate issue with many tangible facts behind it and then present that matter as a conspiracy theory, the POV only limited to various levels of absurdity or dismissal? By placing this article within rational skepticism it loads the content as really only one sided. If you review the archives you will see a long history of editors making a similar claim of POV issues here and I'm afraid it has caused much friction with this editor whose work has been amongst the best you can find at wikipedia. It often pains me to return repeatedly to challenge the material as any rewrite would obviously degrade it and it's certainly beyond my ability. However the problem remains as long as he's writing it with this approach it is not an encyclopedic way to educate readers who come to wiki looking for informative and NPOV answers to their questions and invites vandalism. I'm looking for a solution as somewhere between this page and the NWO policy page is a giant information gap. If we can't fork it, the only way to fix it is to get a lot of new edit talent in here working on it. On an issue with such wide real world scope it is detrimental to the goal of NPOV to have a single editor with such extreme control of this article, view its history.Batvette (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Batvette, every rational observer of this article (who isn't a New World Order conspiracy theorist), including a few political scientists, consider it to be the most well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, and neutral encyclopedic article on the subject of New World Order conspiracy theory. In light of your known conspiratorial bias and ignorance of Wikipedia guidelines, nothing you have said or will say will convince anyone to change anything about this article. You are simply wasting your time. Get a life. --Loremaster (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So about Larry MacDonald...

Why did you initially obstruct inclusion of his beliefs about the Rockefellers colluding to implement a socialist one world government ruled by ultra capitalists (did I get that right before we twist it into something else?) on grounds of both possible defamation of character and then questionable referencing? His own page makes no bones about the claim and even has not one but two printed references. It also mentions his calls to have the CFR and Trilateral group brought up for congressional investigation. Just what is it you were trying to keep from the view of Wikipedia readers here, that someone of such high stature in Government, and the cousin of General Patton, held the very views you are working overtime to ridicule as paranoid delusions of the fringe? At this point your Round Table section does not impeach CT at all but reinforces its validity despite a few weak attempts to marginalize roles of the players. Batvette (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that Larry MacDonald doesn't have any more “stature” or credibility than a lunatic like Michele Bachmann simply because they are both United States Representatives, the beliefs of MacDonald were included as you can plainly see in the Round Table section. My objection was the way in which User:Bert Schlossberg wanted to include MacDonald's beliefs. Creating a section called Notable New World Order conspiracy theorists and listing people there could get us in trouble since editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to ANY Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. In other words, we need a reliable source that describes MacDonald as a New World Order conspiracy theorist before we list him in a section that describes him as being one. That's all. --Loremaster (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
(sheepishly concede to have created this section without realizing you did write it into the article after all) the rather flimsy rationale presented against it made it appear it wouldn't be. However whether the solution to the repeated (and certainly not just by me) concern of NPOV to this article is a fork or continued push pull over content, MacDonald becomes a central figure in this because his assertions are exactly what have been bared for ridicule and glossed over in the round table section. While one can say his extreme conservative viewpoints are cause for ridicule one cannot dismiss serving five terms in Congress will have an individual exposed to the national power structure, and pressing for an investigation of trilateral and CFR activities would jeapordize his credibility in Congress if he thought they were groundless. Larry MacDonald it appears is most notable by his contemporaries as having near unimpeachable character and values, and given that it is highly unlikely a person with mental illness displaying paranoid delusions or personality flaws which would qualify his dismissal as a crank could be elected to such high office 5 consecutive terms, I think the way his comments have been presented here now to stand on their own show commendable NPOV on your part. As one can find many reputable figures of the 20th century political world voicing similar concerns in public, such as Barry Goldwater, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, there must be a bridge of rationality to be found over the chasm between truth and CT. Batvette (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you why MacDonald is a far-right-wing fanatic who sees communist conspiracies everywhere since the fact that he was president of the John Birch Society says it all. I will only say this: I find it interesting that you have not conceded that MacDonald's views prove my earlier assertion that many conspiracy theorists actually believe that the New World Order will be a communist one-world government. You unfairly accused of making stuff up. I'm waiting for an apology... --Loremaster (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

'Theories' not 'theory'

This article, down to the title, is premised on the idea that there is a single New World Order conspiracy theory. As there is no verifiable or widely accepted theory, there can be as many New World Order conspiracy theories as there are conspiracy theorists. The correct way to approach the topic is to create a 'New World Order conspiracy theories' article. This is the approach taken in 'John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories' article and the '9/11 conspiracy theories' article - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Make the move. --Loremaster (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Moved. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I completely disagree. "Conspiracy theory" is a disambiguator for NWO. Moving back. One could argue for (conspiracy theories) in the disambiguator, but that shouldn't be done before discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Arthur Rubin, I don't think the plural discrepancy is worth moving the article. We'd be playing the technicality game I believe. These conspiracy theories are just derivatives and variants that all share a common theme of a parenting New World Order conspiracy theory. I think the article is fine as is, but I wouldn't object to (conspiracy theories) in the disambiguator. John Shandy` • talk 00:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... There is an official guideline we can consult to resolve this issue once and for all? --Loremaster (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Some clumsy phrasing in places, such as:
    In the 1960s, producerist groups like the John Birch Society and the Liberty Lobby directed a great deal of right-wing conspiracist attention to be focused on the United Nations as the vehicle for creating the "One World Government", directed... to be focused on?
    These declarations had the unintended consequence of providing fresh fodder for New World Order conspiracism, and culminated in former Clinton administration adviser Dick Morris and conservative talk show host Sean Hannity arguing on one of his Fox News Channel programs that "conspiracy theorists were right" - needs clarification that this was Hannity's show (I presume)
    Skeptics argue that evidence would suggest that the Bavarian Illuminati was nothing more than a curious historical footnote since there is no evidence that any Illuminati survived its founders - survived its founders?
    British businessman Cecil Rhodes... - he was a businessman, but perhaps better known as a colonialist?
    There are a number of buzzwords (e.g. producerist, paleoconservatives, neoliberal, neoconservatism, used throughout the article. Please be careful to explain their precise meaning as this is not always clear by context alone. Wikilinking alone is not always sufficient.
    A large number of sentences start with Conspiracy theorists believe or Skeptics argue. Consider some variations for style.
    Try reading the article aloud to see where the prose could be improved.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I fixed two dead links using WP:CHECKLINKS, aslo a disambiguation (Iron Dream). Please check that I got this right.
    I am unhappy about the use of ref #2 [3] to support sometimes disputed statements about freemasonry as it is not an independent source. You could attribute it, saying Freemasons say that... or similar; likewise with ref #3 [4] which is from a masonic source, ref #4 [5], #5 [6], also other masonic sources further down the list.
    ref #34 [7] - is conspiracyarchive.com a WP:RS?
    What makes ref #43 [8] a reliable source?
    ref #47 [9], cite the original source, antiwar.com is not an independent reliable source.
    ref #54 [10] needs proper formatting, eg {{cite web}}
    ref #56 [11] needs proper formatting for consistency, using {{cite journal}}
    ref #58 [12]] needs formatting, also what makes this an RS?
    ref #64 [13] needs formatting, not an RS
    ref #65 [14] - what makes this an RS?
    ref #69 [15], not RS, publisher not cited
    ref #71 [16] looks like a blog, not formatted
    ref #72 [17] need properly formatting to establish the publication
    ref #75 [18] is a blog
    ref #83 [19] is not RS
    ref #86 [20] needs publisher details
    ref #87 [21] needs formatting, author and publisher details
    ref #89 [22] need publisher details
    ref #90 [23] needs publisher details
    ref #91 [24] what makes question-everything.mahost.org an RS?
    All citations to books or journals need page numbers. I assume good faith that this will be completed.
    I assume good faith for all print sources. All sources examined supported the statements. All major statements supported by cites.
    I examined the article for potential copyvios, using this tool, plenty of reverse infringements of Wikipedia copyright (unattributed), but that is not of concern in this review.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    In the controversial 2008 book Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making, political scientist David Rothkopf argues that the world population of 6 billion people is governed by an elite of 6000 individuals. Who says this is controversial?
    A number of other points of view seem to be unattributed, eg. "Conspiracy theorists concerned with surveillance abuse believe that the New World Order is being implemented by the cult of intelligence at the core of the surveillance-industrial complex through mass surveillance and the use of Social Security numbers, the bar-coding of retail goods with Universal Product Code markings, and, most recently, RFID tagging via microchip implants."
  1. It is stable."
    No edit wars, etc.:
  2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  3. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    OK, I think this is sufficiently improved to merit GA status. If you wish to take this to WP:FAC, please consider a WP:Peer review first. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Jezhotwells. :) --Loremaster (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply from the primary contributor

Thank you Jezhotwells for reviewing the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article against Good Article criteria. I am happy to see that the vast majority of your criticisms are consistent with my own private judgement of the weaknesses of the article. I will work on improving the article according to all your good recommendations and hopefully will be finished before 9 April 2010. --Loremaster (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written:

  1. I've edited the sentence to now read: In the 1960s, producerist groups like the John Birch Society and the Liberty Lobby disseminated a great deal of right-wing conspiracy theories focused on the United Nations as the vehicle crypto-communists would use to create the "One World Government", and contributed to a conservative movement for United States withdrawal from the U.N.
  2. I've edited the sentence to now read: These declarations had the unintended consequence of providing fresh fodder for New World Order conspiracism, and culminated in former Clinton administration adviser Dick Morris and conservative talk show host Sean Hannity arguing on his Fox News Channel program Hannity that "conspiracy theorists were right".
  3. I've edited the sentence to now read: Skeptics argue that evidence would suggest that the Bavarian Illuminati was nothing more than a curious historical footnote since there is no evidence that the Illuminati survived its suppression in 1785.
  4. I've edited the sentence to now read: English-born South African businessman, mining magnate, and politician Cecil Rhodes advocated the British Empire reannexing the United States of America and reforming itself into an "Imperial Federation" to bring about a hyperpower and lasting world peace.
  5. I disagree that terms like "paleoconservatives", "neoconservative", "producerist" or "neoliberal" are buzzwords but I agree that their precise meaning should be explained so I will work on that.
  6. I agree that a large number of sentences start with “Conspiracy theorists believe” or “Skeptics argue” so I will try to work on it.
  7. I read the article aloud on a regular basis to see where the prose could be improved hence some of my minor changes over the past weeks and months.

It is factually accurate and verifiable:

  1. Your fixing of the two dead links was good. However, I think the term “Iron Dream” should continue to link to the Iron Dream disambiguation page because it is important for readers to understand where this term came from.
  2. ref #2, 3, 4, 5: I will work on the sources for disputed statements about Freemasonry.
  3. ref #34: conspiracyarchive.com is not a RS but the article it republished is. Regardless, I've replaced this source with Frank Albo's book.
  4. ref #43: Barbara Aho's Watch Unto Prayer website is not a RS but it is a primary source that examplifies what our reliable sources tell us that conspiracy theorists believe.
  5. ref #47: I've deleted Gene Berkman's essay The Trilateral Commission and the New World Order as a source.
  6. ref #54, 56, 64, 69, 72, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90: I (or someone else) will work on formatting and adding missing details as soon as possible.
  7. ref #58: I've deleted Rabbi Yonassan Gershom's essay Antisemitic Stereotypes in Alice Bailey's Writings as a source and the paragraph based on it.
  8. ref #64: I would argue that an AlterNet article is a relatively reliable source.
  9. ref #65: I've deleted Phillip D. Collins' essay Luciferianism: The Religion of Apotheosis as a source.
  10. ref #69: I would argue that an AlterNet article is a relatively reliable source.
  11. ref #71: I've deleted Think Progress blogpost The Right-Wing Echo Chamber In Action: How A Conspiracy Travels From Drudge To Obama, Via Fox News.
  12. ref #75: Slate is an not a blog. It's an online magazine which publishes both articles and blogposts. Correct me if I am wrong but we are refering a Slate article.
  13. ref #83: I would argue that an AlterNet article is a relatively reliable source.
  14. ref #91: question-everything.mahost.org is not a RS so I've replaced with Hardt & Negri's book Empire.
  15. Adding pages to all cited books and journals might be only thing that takes more time than your deadlined allows...

It follows the neutral point of view policy:

  1. I've edited the sentence about the book Superclass to delete the word “controversial”.
  2. I've sourced to Michael Barkun's book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America the following sentence: Conspiracy theorists concerned with surveillance abuse believe that the New World Order is being implemented by the cult of intelligence at the core of the surveillance-industrial complex through mass surveillance and the use of Social Security numbers, the bar-coding of retail goods with Universal Product Code markings, and, most recently, RFID tagging via microchip implants.

Bogus references

I notice that Loremaster - who has also used the sock puppet Ghostinthewiki is also misbehaving on this page. They seem to have a curious agenda to push national anarchism, on the one hand wanting to remove a reference to it being far right in the opening paragraph of the National-Anarchism article coupled with their somewhat bizarre insistence on keeping the term in the first paragraph here. This displays not only a contempt for the references, - which support the description of concerns raised over a neo-fascist movement wooing people from the left - but also underlines concerns which have arisen about Loremaster/Ghostinthewiki pushing a somewhat bizarre agenda - which includes angling to get twisted articles good article status. All somewhat sad really.Harrypotter (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Harrypotter, you're wasting your time and seriously getting on my nerves. Except for a few conspiracy cranks who resent me because I refuse to let them turn the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article into a vehicle to promote their pet conspiracy theories, everyone knows that since 11 December 2008 I am the primary contributor responsible for making this article well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough to meet good article criteria, which I finally succeeded in doing on 4 April 2010. That being said, your paranoid and hate-filled obsession with me and our dispute over the National-Anarchism article should not be transported here. Ultimately, if you continue to harass me, I will dedicate myself to having you banned from Wikipedia. --Loremaster (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Before Harrypotter wrote his rant on the talk page, I removed the mention of “national-anarchism” in the lead section because I think “right-wing populism” is the most accurate and inclusive term according to what all sources tell us. I came to this conclusion on 8 April 2010 but that I was still questioning it until now. Furthermore, in light of the animosity between Harrypotter and me stemming from an absurd dispute over the National-Anarchism article, I prefer avoiding an edit war that would ruin the stability the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article has enjoyed for months. However, the mention of “national-anarchism” in the History of the term section will remain and I will resist any attempt by him or anyone else to push a biased POV into this article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
For the record, many months ago during my research for new sources of information to improve the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article from an indisputably rational skeptical perspective, I discovered National-Anarchism when I stumbled on Wayne John Sturgeon's interview of Troy Southgate and then I read the following passage from Graham D. Macklin' essay Co-opting the counter culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction:

Southgate sought to anchor the NRF within this ‘living tradition’ by reprinting Yockey’s The Proclamation of London (1949), ‘a fully-fledged ‘‘Declaration of War’’’ against the ‘Zionist, Capitalist New World Order’.

These two essays (along with Spencer Sunshine's essay Rebranding Fascism) are what motivated me to only mention national-anarchism in the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article but also take an interest in improving the National-Anarchism article! Ironically, I have to thank Harrypotter because his interference today unwittingly encouraged me to improve both the mention and the sourcing of national-anarchism in this article by using these two essays that I should have kept as the best references instead of deleting them months ago! --Loremaster (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have restored this section of the talk page which Loremaster/Ghostinthewiki archived for no reason than perhaps their embarrassment. Their suggestion that Iam a) paranoid, hate-filled or obsessed with Loremaster/Ghostinthewiki has no foundation. True a do resent the way Loremaster/Ghostinthewiki directly lied twice when operating their Ghostinthewiki sock puppet, but that hardly qualifies for this sort of response. Their latest trick has been getting Nick Griffin, neo-Nazi leader of the British National Party to involve himself in the National-Anarchism page. Scepticism in the face of errant behaviour is not paranoia.Harrypotter (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Harrypotter, the only reason why I archived this discussion is because this talk page is only for discussing improvements to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article. Your obsession over a recent mistake that I explained and apologized for should not play out here. That being said, you accuse me of getting British far-right politician Nick Griffin involved in the National-Anarchism page when in fact I clearly said that it is British political theorist Roger Griffin who was contacted to get his opinion. I will assume that it was a honest mistake rather than an outright lie but this proves to me that your obsessional resentment of me clouds your judgement and that you need to stop embarrassing yourself, take a break from this dispute, and come back with a spirit of good faith and compromise. --Loremaster (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Zero Option

The Zero Option may not be in Barkun's listing. Are no other books allowed than those in Barkun's listing? or any other listing? The Zero Option, in any fair reading, does fit the catagory of the other books that are listedBert Schlossberg (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You've been adding refernces to that book to many articles. Is there a reliable 3rd-party source which describes it as a sugnificant work on this topic?  Will Beback  talk  04:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I know of no 3rd part source which describes The Zero Option as a significant work for this topic. Is the listing of only "significant" works, rather than works which clearly conform to the subject, which, of course, are considered important to the one editing? Should not judgement be made as to whether the book "fits the bill" to the subject well? The fact that I draw attention to this book in a number of articles, really is neither here nor there. My motivations are neither here nor there. We all, I dare say, have motives in editing and in the choice of articles we edit. What really matters is pertinency and accuracyBert Schlossberg (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Bert, despite your good intentions, you seem not to be familiar with the rules of Wikipedia. I thererefore politely suggest you read the Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability policy pages and get back to us. --Loremaster (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Loremaster, I am getting back to you as you request after having read again the Wikipedia sections above. You are questioning, I believe, my editing in The Zero Option by David Rollins, published by McMillan in Australia, and which article clearly presenting a conspiracy theme to the downing of KAL 007, as an entry in the "In Popular Culture" section of the N.W.O (conspiracy theory) section. I believe it to be justly there. Like the other entries, the novel, as a novel, is a work of fiction. That it is partly based on what is accurate or inaccurate research, does not change the fact that it is a novel and largly fiction. That the author, David Rollins,has used my research as a basis for part of the scenerio, and consideres my research valuable, as he says in the book, does not change the fact that this is a novel, a work of fiction, which it clearly presents itself as, with no attempt to foist itself as the truth. That the central figure, Cong. Larry McDonald, was an actual figure, does not change the fact that the book is a work of fiction, and does not pretend to be anything other. That my motivation for editing in The Zero Option to "In Popular Culture" section of the N.W.O. (conspir...) article has a lot to do with my being personally involved in the event of the downing of KAL 007 is of no relevence, just as it has no relelvence for my editing in the KAL 007 article - as wikipedia does not demand that edits be accepted only on the proviso that the editor is without motivation in the subject he is editing. Accuracy of the edit does have relevence. But I have not heard that as an issue to my inclusion of the Zero Option to the list. I, therefore, see no reason to question my editing the Zero Option in the "In Popular Culture" section of the articleBert Schlossberg (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What does the book have to do with the New World Order? Is the New World Order a central theme? I looked at the article and can't find any reviews or secondary sources describing it. That in turn calls its notability into question.   Will Beback  talk  15:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The book develops the theme of a plan by higher ups in the U. S. Government to use a civilian passenger plane to obtain intelligence information by a purposefull intrusion into Soviet airspace. The higher ups are acutal people of the Reagan administration Edwin Meese, CIA's willliam Casey,and others. If the plane would be shot down, well, this would only show the USSR in its worst light and also serve its purpose. McDonald being aboard was unknown. But once the plane was downed, and McDonald the anit-communist congressman knowing many secrets of U.S. defense and nuclear developments survived, that too could be handled, and that by the collusion of the Soviets with the U.S., each according to its own interests and for its own ends, in concealing the survival of McDonald from the world, this concealment requiring the convergence of interest and operation between the ostensible enemies of each other - this convergence thus abetting erstwhile enemies in something more pervasive and essential than their open hostilites. The novel has the the fictious happenings of McDonald after the shootdown and the attempts at his rescue esconced in the substratum of development of open surface hostility to "collusion" to "conspiracy", a development characteristic to New World Order thinking and actuality.

I have seen a number of reviews of Zero Option. Here are two of them:

"Halfway between a Jerry Bruckheimer mega-spectacle and one of those frightfully clever BBC political thrillers. Cleanly done...and sophisticated." Owen Richardson, THE AGE.

"A ripping yarn that you are sure to enjoy curled up by the fire. Just remember it is a novel and not the truth." Susan DeLong, BOOKCASE.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


Here is News Online's Gary Kemble

David Rollins ... 'I actually think there's a grain of truth in what I've written' (Pan Macmillan) [25] trimmed text   Will Beback  talk  18:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)' Bert Schlossberg (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So what? No one disputes that this book is a work of conspiracy fiction. However, we need a reliable source to confirm that it is notable work of conspiracy fiction about various fringe theories related to the New World Order. Why is this hard for you to understand and accept? Nothing you have written confirms that this book explicitly or implicitly incorporates in its story the notion that there is a conspiracy to create a “New World Order” in the form of a “one world government”. Stop wasting our time with your obsession with Korean Air Flight 007. --Loremaster (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Zero Option.   Will Beback  talk  17:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

redirect for the H.G. Wells book

redirect for the H.G. Wells book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.33.243 (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be opposed to such a redirect since I think the The New World Order (Wells) article should be expanded. --Loremaster (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

I bring this up in light current discussions taking place about this article.

There are currently two articles for the term New World Order, one in reference to theory and another in reference to the terms political use. I suggest that this is an inferior way of dealing with the subject- No matter its context, it is a single term, that has varying interpretation within politics and within conspiracy discussion, sometimes acting as a catalyst for dialog directed at one of the genre from the other.

In some nationalistic and libertarian circle the term has been picked up to describe alleged conspiracies by globalist progressives, which may have the effect of cultivating the terms use in both politics and conspiracy theories. On the other hand, some socio-spiritual groups use the term in positive light to describe their ideal political goals, or as a name for an age in which these goals will come to exists- this may function in the same way, across the political and conspiracism.

These claims should not be taken as fact, but rather be used as consideration as to how the term is not separate from it self.

It is my proposal that this article and the article dealing with the terms use politically be merged and revised; examining the ways the term is used and its the implications of its use. Doing this will have the effect of eliminating many generalizations and making any future inquiries into the subject of "the new world order" comprehensive; showing how the term has been used in politics, the media and subsequently its understanding by conspiracy theorist. Zzzmidnight (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be strongly opposed to such a merge for many reasons but especially because it would make the new article way too long. I would be further opposed if some of the content from this current New World Order conspiracy theory article were deleted in order to make the new article shorter. P.S. Don't waste your time with a long reply because you are not going to change my mind on this particular issue. --Loremaster (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The term is a big subject :-) Zzzmidnight (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Loremaster is more concerned with the preservation of the appearance of his article than pursuing the progression of encyclopedic content at wikipedia as it pertains to informing readers. As he has molded this into a top notch appearing article I can't oppose him on that with any credibility.
However ZZmidnight's point does have merit in that a huge gap exists between the two articles, and nothing else on the disambiguation page or the lead here offers another avenue of information.
In short, it does leave someone choosing between the woefully sparse political page or labelling themselves as a conspiracy theorist for exploring what's behind a very over used term. That perhaps is the real issue here, not Loremaster's article but the way everyone affixes "NWO" to every change they observe or predict, be they realistic or paranoid.
Is there a way the disambiguation page for NWO or a see also section here could resolve this? Batvette (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The disambiguation page can be found at New World Order. --Loremaster (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I am interested in what the "many reasons" are, Loremaster, that you "would be strongly opposed to such a merge". I certainly believe that a large article is justified for a large subject.Zzzmidnight (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Contrary to what Batvette said, I am equally interested in preserving the structure and content of this good article as well as pursuing the logical progression of encyclopedic content on Wikipedia as it pertains to informing readers. According to Wikipedia guidelines, the 3 main reasons to be opposed to a merging of these two article are because 1) the resulting article will to be too long or "clunky"; 2) the separate topics could be and have been expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles; and 3) the topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles. As I said before, you are free to make your case for a merging to other readers of this talk page but you won't change my mind. --Loremaster (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Understood.Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Lead

In reference to emerging debate between Rolyatleahcim and Loremaster

Special reference to Loremaster's comments in Talk:New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)#Collaboration_Mutual_Understanding_and_Content_Framing

I'm certain that Loremaster's "In conspiracy theory, ..." implies that conspiracy theory is being used to allude to the paradigm in which New World Order or NWO refers to a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government (as opposed to its use in politics). It's not suggesting that there is one conspiracy theory involving the use of NWO. In other words, it's like someone saying "In evolutionary theory, ..." - they're not suggesting there's one evolutionary theory (there are quite a few, actually), but rather are referring to the paradigm collectively. In conspiratorial circles, use of the NWO indeed refers to the one-world government and the emergence of that one-world government. While Loremaster's verbiage may have confused you, it is grammatically sound and it reads well. Your version of the line does not read well, in my opinion. Your version is also relies heavily on passive voice, which I don't think is necessary here. "Within the context of ________, the term ... refers to a ... and its emergence." That just reads weird. I would stick with "In ________, the term ... refers to the emergence of a ..." as it did before. It reads well, and it's correct because we don't need to look at the NWO and the emergence of the NWO as two separate subjects. Together they represent the NWO terminology within the conspiracy theory paradigm. It's simpler, and I think we should stick with it, although I will always be interested in hearing suggestions for the lead, because someone may come up with a sound improvement down the road, especially as the subject matter evolves. John Shandy` • talk 03:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The difference would be; evolutionary theory pertains to the theory of evolution, (outside of conspircism, which I suggested this article be about) there is no theory of conspiracies. Perhaps the way it reads is objectionable, but the points it relates should not be. If you do not like the way the lead reads, please come up with a sufficiently-readable way to relay the same points (pluralism, a world government and its emergence).Rolyatleahcim (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone already has come up with one that hits those points: "In conspiracy theory, the term ... refers to the emergence of a ..." Your version doesn't say anything different. I suppose you could change the line to say conspiracism instead of conspiracy theory for less confusion, but the line was correct and accurate before you edited it. If you read the Naom Chomsky line towards the bottom of this section of the conspiracy theory article, you can see another use of "conspiracy theory" as a thought process or alternative means of analysis. Your revision doesn't add anything, and instead just changes it from active voice to passive voice. You and Loremaster have already batted the edit around a bit, so I won't mess with the line unless we reach a consensus. However, until I see something better suggested or think of something better myself, I contend that the prior format of the sentence is entirely desirable and accurate, although we might consider replacing the use of conspiracy theory with something more conventional so that future editors don't adjust it out of confusion either. John Shandy` • talk 05:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

John is absolutely correct. The term "conspiracy theory" can and does have several meanings but, in the first sentence of the article only , it means the theorizing of conspiracies. Several scholars use it in this way as well. An example can be found in a description of Andrew Strombeck's essay Whose Conspiracy Theory? in Postmodern Culture - Volume 15, Number 2, January 2005:


--Loremaster (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Tin Foil Brigade

The author does a disservice to those of us who are victims of something often referred to as "organized stalking and electronic harassment." (I'm one of them, so I'll speak from experience and research that I've done into the problem.)

First, in the article, the author references MK Ultra as a "conspiracy theory" when in fact it is a "reality." What is my source? Check the National Archives, Wikipedia itself and any number of government sites. The linking of MK Ultra subprojects only to "Manchurian Candidate," or any number of other exotic topics overlooks the fact that the focus of MK Ultra was on torture and interrogation techniques. In recent news, the torture and interrogation as well as non consensual human experimentation on Guantanamo detainees brings up the question of whether MK Ultra was really abandoned or if most of its documentation was destroyed in the 1970s.

In terms of directed energy weapons (therefore your tinfoil reference), I'll point out first that they are not as "exotic" as they might appear. A quick glance at the Policeone website will indicate that local police are equipping themselves with more sophisticated DEWs, including acoustic ones and microwaves. This also points out to the increased militarization of the police. It doesn't mean that the aliens, Reptilians, New World Order, Illuminati, Freemasons or Luciferians are taking over the world, but it does mean that the "tin foil brigade's" claims that these weapons are being used are not that out of the question. (Not that I'm saying the police department is the one using them.) If the author wants to debunk conspiracy theories about the use of DEWs, then he would have to show evidence that they are not being used or could not possibly be used.

Not all of us who have the OS/EH/MC problem subscribe to other types of conspiracy theories about the origins of the problem. In fact, if the author states that the military industrial complex is not conducting non consensual experimentation or using weapons against civilian targets, I would point out that the difficulty that targets have getting these crimes investigated (even when in my case I have clear evidence of conspiracy for some of the harassment). It indicates that some factions of government or law enforcement are covering up. Generally that only happens when Intel is involved. The fact that the harassment geared at us is straight out of Intel and Military manuals and that the weapons are created by the MIC industry leads many of us to believe that the origins of our targeting comes from that area. Therefore, the MIC being behind the harassment is likely but it doesn't mean that we believe in New World Order conspiracies. We as targets not only have to slug through tons of intentional disinformation on the internet, but can also be generators of disinformation or less-provable information if we are not careful.

It doesn't mean that all of us (and certainly I don't) believe that aliens, reptilians, "the New World Order," Illuminati, Freemasons, or Luciferians are behind the targeting. It doesn't even mean that the targeting is related to broader issues of the supposed one world dictatorship. But increased militarization of the police, increased warrantless surveillance (see lawsuits against NSA/ATT/Verizon for example - you should add other issues surrounding the surveillance conspiracy), increased fusion centers around the country, etc. may *not* be directly related to the targeting of the "tin foil brigade" but it is likely generated from the same forces that are behind our harassment. (Tin foil is a misnomer by the way, since it does very little to counter the effects of the weapons and it is a metal that is linked to Alzheimers. I don't know of any targets that wear tin foil beanies - that's just in the movies.)

On a final note, in Dr. Stephen Younger's book, "Endangered Species" (Harper Collins 2008), there is mention on page 83 that microwave weapons were being developed in Los Alamos but that the project was (supposedly) abandoned due to the fact that it caused "permanent brain damage." I would ask - whose brains were damaged in order to find out? Was this non consensual experimentation?

All in all, I think it's best to trace the origins of various conspiracy theories about NWO without dismissing or lumping together all conspiracies. A little bit of background work would help the article. Using a reference that dismisses us as "paranoid" or giving us a mental health diagnosis from a distance(they feel powerless, etc) is hardly factual for a "debunking" article. Did someone actually investigate these cases? Or is this just internet armchair psychology? If one consider that many posting as targets on the internet are actually trolls or disinformation specialist, I would hardly want my mental health diagnosis based on their claims.

AccessRestricted (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't reference Project MKULTRA as a "conspiracy theory". It simply states that conspiracy theorists use Project MKULTRA (which is real) as evidence to support their paranoid conspiracy theories (which are not real). That's a substantive difference that your mind doesn't seem to grasp... The same goes for "directed energy / microwave weapons". Regarding the mental health diagnosis of conspiracy theorists, some psychological studies have been done. However, even if there weren't any such studies, an article simply reports the opinion of reliable sources. It ultimately doesn't matter if these sources engaged in internet armchair psychology. --Loremaster (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The continued issue of NPOV and article ownership

As the primary editor insists on archiving the many criticisms of multiple editors concerning this page in its present form and catagorization at light speed to hide it from view, as the archive instructions suggest I revive the old discussion or create a new one to solicit input by potential new editors.

As the article exists to present the issue as conspiracy theory and only conspiracy theory, it prejudges and discards any possibility of balanced view. Particularly in the Round Table scenario, which distorts well known and easily referenced facts that only the most dutifully devoted political corruption apologists could obscure. (see example in recent archive of Bohemian Grove collusion between two candidates in the 1968 Presidential Election, conspiring, in secrecy, to avoid the competition inherent to Democratic process)

The CFR and Trilateral Group are dismissed as ginger groups or argue that it is in fact a mere policy discussion forum and its position in influencing the policies of world leaders has been much reduced from its heyday during World War I and slowly waned after the end of World War II and the Suez Crisis. YET anything of a more factual nature is strangely absent- the Establishment-oriented Washington Post pondered in early 1977, "But here is the unsettling thing about the Trilateral Commission. The President-elect (Carter) is a member. So is Vice-President-elect Walter F. Mondale. So are the new secretaries of State, Defense and Treasury, Cyrus R. Vance, Harold Brown and W. Michael Blumenthal. So is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is a former Trilateral director and Carter's national security advisor, also a bunch of others who will make foreign policy for America in the next four years further- Carter administration Trilateral also included Ambassadors Andrew Young, Gerard Smith, Richard Gardner, and Elliot Richardson, White House economic aide Henry Owen, Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Director Paul Warnke of the Arms Control and Disarmamerit Agency, Undersecretaries of State Richard Cooper for economic affairs and Lucy Benson for security assistance, Undersecretary of the Treasury Anthony Solomon, Robert Bowie of the CIA, and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke.

NOT the picture painted by a clearly agenda driven editor.

That is of course a bold accusation to make but outrageous actions can only elicit outrageous allegations- to wit, the exclusion of the book "none dare call it conspiracy" from wikipedia is one thing. However to find that the page on its deceased author, Gary Allen, has been transformed by the very editor of this page from a respectful bio, to a personal assauly on the man's character with a directly implied but not supported by reference as relevant to the individual statement of RACIST and BIGOTRY accusations is proof the editor of this page seeks to taint the encyclopaedic purity of wikipedia through character smears, censorship and threachery. here are the versions before he edited it-[26]

and currently after his repeated edits- [27]

He references a quote from Chip Berlet criticizing Allen, then includes a quote from Berlet regarding Producerism that not even Berlet pretends could be attributed to Gary Allen-

Producerism not only promotes scapegoating, but also has a history of assuming that a proper citizen is a White male.

Directly implying that a deceased individual, who happens to be the author of a book selling 5 million copies that stands against the one sided view he fights to present here, is a racist. Now I suppose this shameful assault on a dead man's reputation will be defended as trying to achieve featured article status or just sticking to mainstream academia views and the mini cabal he organizes will say this is disruptive.

The archives, and now this which will soon likely be buried there, scream BULL**** to that.

Verifiable facts that people should know are not a conspiracy theory. Wondering why someone tries so hard to obscure them may not be either. I merely ask people be allowed to see the facts and come to their own conclusion bereft of the extreme POV slant appearing here. Batvette (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor seems to have an agenda. Fortunately, his edits appear in plain view and his lack of NPOV is exposed.

Of course there will be people who accuse me and people like Batvette of having "agendas", i.e. striving for an accurate presentation of the facts. The truth isn't an "agenda", it is the reality we inhabit, which we're trying to help people understand, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremystalked (talk • contribs) 11:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As a not particularly involved editor, I would like to note that Batvette has not been following NPOV in any of his suggested edits. I haven't checked Jeremystalked's contributions for nonsense, yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Electronic harassment is my one and only major edit to date. Have at it. If you check it and find that it is not "nonsensical", will you come back here and apologize for the smear in which you imply that I am spewing nonsense which you haven't detected yet?Jeremystalked (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
*sigh* Since I know from experience that it is a waste of time to try to reason with User:Batvette (whose pro-NWO-conspiracy biased POV and agenda is obvious to any rational observer) by refuting the countless number of logical fallacies and straw-man arguments contained in his rant (which I won't archive for a few months in order to use it as Exibit A of his irrationality) such as confusing the Round Table movement with the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. As I've said before and will continue to say: Find us reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy who DISAGREE with Barkun and Berlet's definition of New World Order conspiracy theories or their description of NWO conspiracy theorists and then you will be able to make a case that this article is biased and needs to be more objective. If you can't, you need to move on. As for the repeated claim that I act as if I own this article, I will not apologize for taking responsibility for it and protecting it from flashmobs of conspiracy cranks. --Loremaster (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not promoting NWO conspiracy theory. I am protesting the portrayal of easily researched and verifiable facts in this article insultingly diluted by the editor and his references as dismissable folly, or perversely misportrayed, then held up to a ridiculous shifting standard of conspiracy theory.
by refuting the countless number of logical fallacies and straw-man arguments of his rants. You're a great debator only in the hallowed halls of your own mind. This is why you have repeatedly shoved all the discussion pages into archives in quick haste, you did so when I utterly destroyed your false assertions about Bohemian Grove in record time- despite the fact this active page was anytyhing but extended in length. You haven't even explained your obviously mean spirited, partisan smear against Gary Allen, but I don't need an explanation from you because it was what it was. I also don't need your approval to voice the criticism many editors have also expressed but did not have the tenacity to insist appear here. As long as this article remainds protected POV of you and a few other political and socio-economic corruption apologia syncophants, I will ensure a section remains active which seeks to welcome mainstream view editors who refuse to have their intelligence insulted by your distorted mistruths. What seems unable to penetrate the vast emptiness of your inflated head is that the caricature you have constructed is an invitational for vandalism.
Finally regarding "flashmobs of conspiracy cranks".... welcome to wikipedia, you may find this link helpful- WP:AGF Batvette (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been watching this article for some time, and I am compelled to object to the notion that Loremaster asserts ownership over this article. I also feel that this article complies with WP:NPOV, far more than some other articles I've seen on Wikipedia. I actually admire that certain users have taken this article under their wing, most notably Loremaster. I am a skeptic and reject the overall NWO theory and its subsets, but I think it's a topic of rapidly growing importance, and it deserves to be recognized by Wikipedia. However, I don't think that NWO believers who edit this article are interested in making the article better so as to comply with Wikipedia's policies or meet Wikipedia's criteria for good and featured articles. Instead, I feel that if editors like Loremaster stood by and let NWO believers have their way with this article, that many of them would continue to come here and attempt to transform this article into a mere platform for preaching their conspiratorial beliefs as undisputed certainties, thereby using this article to push their political agenda(s). Wikipedia isn't the place for that. It's not the place for controversial articles to be slanted in favor of the respective controversial viewpoints. This article is a fair and balanced representation of the reliable sources which are available. If there is any bias, it derives from the sources, not the way that the article is written, and would certainly not be the result of any of Loremaster's or Rubin's edits. This article's current revision allows individuals to read about NWO and decide for themselves whether or not to embrace it. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to having an External Links section that links to various conspiracy news portals (e.g. Infowars.com), but that's beyond this current discussion section. I contend that this article is well written and neutral. It is both comprehensive, and comprehensible. I'm glad that some people around here have stood up for this article, otherwise I wouldn't be surprised if it only ever amounted to a melting pot of vandalism and nonsense, and it would probably have already made its way to AFD. As for good faith, it seems to me, Batvette, that your good faith in Loremaster has long expired (clearly seen from your comments at the start of this section), so it can only be expected that his good faith in you would be doomed to expire as well. John Shandy` • talk 01:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
John Shandy, thank you for your intelligent commmentary, which nonetheless have several points I beg to differ with.
If vandalism of the page is what you are concerned with wiki has mechanisms to employ to prevent this. I'm not defending the right for 13 year olds to come here and inject conspiratorial assertions at whim.
If there is any bias, it derives from the sources, not the way that the article is written, and would certainly not be the result of any of Loremaster's or Rubin's edits.
Loremaster has determined that only his sources are relevant and has used them to set the entire tone of the article.
This article's current revision allows individuals to read about NWO and decide for themselves whether or not to embrace it.
I don't think that's the case here at all, would you embrace something which demands you share the beliefs of one man who thinks the POTUS and Tony Blair are reptilian aliens wearing a human suit? The article presents the issues in a completely distorted manner, seeks to dismiss them with talking points which insult ones' intelligence, and does not allow a rational person any middle ground to rest upon should they be concerned with these issues. Several problems include the idea that unless we can see an immediate "one world government" in name obviously around the corner, then discussion of factors to such ends is ridiculous. Or that think tanks and meeting groups of the elite publish yearly reports or the like, and this absolves them from any possible unstated self serving agendas. Or the consistent doublespeak apologia for corruption and cronyism these groups engage in, like Domhoff claiming no business or secret deals take place at Bohemian Grove then detailing how Reagan and Nixon met there and conspired in 1968 to avoid competition in the primaries and ensure the GOP campaign war chest was full for the election. This "nothing to see here, move along" attitude by Domhoff is shared by the editor, so you've got biased sourcing, which is turned into a presentation by a biased editor that this is academia's status quo, and anyone questioning it is a crank.
Which leads me to my final point with your comment about my good faith. Loremaster's very first reply to me in this article's talk page last year [[28]] started with a personal attack that I sounded like a crank before he even bothered to address the topical issues, attempting to prequalify his position over mine through personal degradation- one of the cheapest debate tactics in the book. If it's gone downhill from there I needn't apologize. You tell me if my point back then- The appeal to authority you tried to use by stating "I strongly encourage you to read this essay" was puzzling,as many studied experts- college professors- believe in the existence in ideology, if not in title itself, of "the New World Order"- on that basis perhaps we should move the page from the conspiracy theory catagory to something to be taken more seriously?
This is problematic when one insists on affixing names or generalizations to really problematic issues. One can easily say "there is no "New World Order". Someone made that up. Now be a good little boy and off to bed with you." Yet you'd have to be an idiot to not recognize that powerful people meet in secrecy, controlling the destiny of humanity and it is in their common interest to erase international borders for exploitation of cheap labor and obscure the scrutiny of the transfer of their assets to avoid excessive taxation
warranted such an attack. I don't think so and it still stands. As for Arthur Rubins edits I think his reply then was very telling-
You'd have to be an idiot not to recognize that powerful people meeting in secret are usually noticed by mainsteam media or even tabloids, and if a meeting is not noticed by the tabloids, it probably doesn't exist.
Perhaps Mr. "nothing to see here, move along" might be interested in a technological development called the telephone.... conference calls... the internets... oh and they DID notice and told us they were kept out of them. I have a real problem with this kind of person being a gatekeeper of encyclopedic reference on such matters. Batvette (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Batvette, this talk page is only for discussing improvements to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article. Resashing old flame wars between us is counter-productive. So please limit yourself to discussing here substantive changes to the article you want to make before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy who DISAGREE with Barkun and Berlet's definition of New World Order conspiracy theories or their description of NWO conspiracy theorists. If not, I will request that a Wikipedia administrator indefinitely blocks you only from editing the article and its talk page to put an end to this silly routine of yours. --Loremaster (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
So any entry or editing of the article MUST stand up to this standard?
DISAGREE with Barkun and Berlet's definition of New World Order conspiracy theories or their description of NWO conspiracy theorists.
Shouldn't the article therefore be titled "Barkun and Berlet's definitions of NWO conspiracy theorists"? While YOU may consider these two the last word on the matter this simply indicates yet again your singular POV pushing in the article. Perhaps the reason there are not myriad published works in existence attempting to refute the opinions of these two is because their work is hardly a household name. Oh and I invite you to bring your administrator and what army you like to block me friom editing your article based upon what, please? Starting flame wars? Yes, that was it. Bring it. I DARE you. Begin with the evidence of my "flames" against you. I'd mention what most people think of people who make hollow threats, only that might be a flame and I needn't resort to THAT. Your sophomoric debate tactics like prequalifying your replies with insults (as your first reply to me calling me a "crank") and victim ploys might work elsewhere, but most wikipedia editors see right through it. This is the second threat you've made like that, the last time you threatened to have me banned. Stop bullying other editors.Any objective administrator who reviews the lengthy archives of the talk pages here can see these concerns are not solely mine, but have been expressed by many potential editors you have run off.
The fact of the matter is while you agressively and strongly protest any changes in your article, after lengthy heated debates with myself and other editors you initially opposed, after all was said and done you implemented changes in factual points in the article to match the talking points we argued. Your article was imperfect despite your protests. Batvette (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Loremaster's last reply to Batvette

Bavette writes: However to find that the page on its deceased author, Gary Allen, has been transformed by the very editor of this page from a respectful bio, to a personal assauly on the man's character with a directly implied but not supported by reference as relevant to the individual statement of RACIST and BIGOTRY accusations is proof the editor of this page seeks to taint the encyclopaedic purity of wikipedia through character smears, censorship and threachery. here are the versions before he edited it.

It is true that editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability, and No original research. That being said, Gary Allen is a right-wing conservative social and political commentator who has attracted some criticisms. A biographical article on him can only be considered comprehensive if it presents these criticisms as long as they are properly sourced. Investigate reporter Chip Berlet analyzed the ideology presented in Allen's books and concluded that it was a synthesis of right-wing populism, conspiracism and covert white supremacism known as producerism. Using Berlet's well-researched essay as a source, I therefore edited the Gary Allen article in order to include this important perspective in order for readers to take it into account when evaluating the work of Gary Allen. So this has nothing to do with character smears, censorship or treachery. Wikipedia doesn't require that Berlet offer proof of his criticisms of Allen. It only demands that the criticisms that a Wikipedia contributor like you or me writes are based on a proper source, which in this case is Berlet.

Batvette writes: Would you embrace something which demands you share the beliefs of one man who thinks the POTUS and Tony Blair are reptilian aliens wearing a human suit?

Although John Shandy and you might not, thousands of people have, do and will! So I don't get why you are still obsessed with the notion that this article “ridicules” people who honestly believe there is a New World Order conspiracy simply because we mention that some of them (but not all them) believe Reptilians are behind said conspiracy. I understand that you don't believe in aliens but you simply have to accept that many conspiracy theorists do. This isn't my opinion. It is the erudite opinion of a political scientist who specializes in conspiracy theories! Here is a quote from Amazon.com about Micheal Barkun's book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America:

Many people assume that the X-Files conspiracy theory - malevolent space aliens in cahoots with shadowy government agencies - is the brainchild of caffeinated scriptwriters with an overnight deadline. But according to this fascinating cultural study, such scenarios have a long and disturbing intellectual pedigree. Political scientist Barkun (Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement) traces them to a venerable tradition of "New World Order" conspiracy theories combining fundamentalist dread of the Antichrist with secular right-wing suspicions that the powers that be are controlled by Masons, Jesuits, Jews and, above all, the Illuminati. Starting in the 1980s, extraterrestrials began to appear at the summits of these conspiracy-theory hierarchies, a process accelerated by the Internet's anarchic dissemination and recombination of myths and rumors. The resulting "improvisational millennialism" has yielded any number of baroque "superconspiracies" (one theory yokes together UFOs, the Gestapo, the Mafia and the Wobblies), but Barkun contends there are serious repercussions. As New World Order themes have infiltrated the previously apolitical UFO subculture, he argues, they have become more respectable and widespread: racialist and anti-Semitic ideologies have resurfaced in the coded guise of alien cabals, and a vast popular audience has been introduced by Hollywood to the notion that the government is a totalitarian clique in black helicopters - a view once confined to right-wing extremists. Scholarly but fluently written and free of excessive jargon, Barkun's exploration of the conspiratorial worldview combines sociological depth with a deadpan appreciation of pop culture and raises serious questions about the replacement of democracy by conspiracy as the dominant paradigm of political action in the public mind.

After you read this review of Michael Barkun's book by journalist Daniel Pipes: Old Conspiracies, New Beliefs, I ask you to explain to us how this article could possibly be comprehensive if it didn't mention the alien connection.

Batvette writes: Several problems include the idea that unless we can see an immediate "one world government" in name obviously around the corner, then discussion of factors to such ends is ridiculous.

Several conspiracy theorists do in fact believe that there is a one world governemnt (regardless of what it calls itself) that is obviously around the corner. This irrational belief is what galvanized the formation of the American miliatia movement in the 1990s. How can critics not point this fact out? That being said, the article also talks about the “one world government as a gradual phenonenom” hypothesis you personally subscribe to. However, critics such as Mark C. Partrige also point out all the evidence that obviously contradicts this unrealistic notion.

Batvette writes: Or that think tanks and meeting groups of the elite publish yearly reports or the like, and this absolves them from any possible unstated self serving agendas.

No one argues that think tanks and meeting groups of the elite are absolved from any possibly unstated self-serving agendas BUT the point is simply that there is no evidence that these unstated self-serving agendas include a conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. government or create a socialist one-world government.

Batvette writes: Or the consistent doublespeak apologia for corruption and cronyism these groups engage in, like Domhoff claiming no business or secret deals take place at Bohemian Grove then detailing how Reagan and Nixon met there and conspired in 1968 to avoid competition in the primaries and ensure the GOP campaign war chest was full for the election. This "nothing to see here, move along" attitude by Domhoff is shared by the editor, so you've got biased sourcing, which is turned into a presentation by a biased editor that this is academia's status quo, and anyone questioning it is a crank.

I don't know how many time I have to say this but two politicians agreeing to avoid competition in the primaries and ensure the GOP campaign war chest was full for the election is not a civil, criminal or political conspiracy. It's not corrupt, illegal nor immoral. The fact that it had an impact on American history doesn't make it a conspiracy. Regardless, Domhoff sees the role of social clubs such as the Bohemian Grove as being nothing more than a means to create social cohesion within a power elite. He adds that those understandings of these clubs fit with the perceptions of the members of the elite. In other words, the people who go the Bohemian Grove don't think this club has the power and influence that conspiracy theorists think it has. Domhoff simply warns progressives against getting distracted by conspiracy theories which demonize such clubs and make scapegoats of them. He argues that the opponents of progressivism are the corporate elite, the Republican Party, and conservative Democrats. It is the same people more or less who go the Bohemian Grove, but it puts them in their most important roles, as capitalists and political leaders, which are visible and can be more easily fought. So, although you interpret him as saying "nothing to see here, move along", what he is in fact saying is "stop wasting you time chasing ghosts in the shadows when the bad guys are over there in the plain light of day". On the other hand, even if you could demonstrate through a persuasive argument that Domhoff has a strong bias or contradicts himself or is factually wrong on some point, it doesn't change the fact that, according to Wikipedia guidelines, he is still considered a reliable source whose scholarly opinion deserves to be presented in this article. Your only option is to find a reliable source who contradicts him. I didn't make the rules. That's just how Wikipedia works. Lastly, I have and will continue to argue that anyone who believes the transnational capitalist class is conspiring to create a socialist one-world government is in fact a crank. Even more so if he is stupid enough to bring up the Georgia Guidestones in any rational conversation about whether or not there is a basis for the fundamental "New World Order conspiracy" if not who is behind it.

That being said, whether or not I agree with Barkun or Berlet is irrelevant, what matters is that the content of this article must be based on reliable sources. Barkun and Berlet are viewed by many people as experts on conspiracy theories/ists in general and New World Order conspiracism in particular. Therefore, a good encyclopedic article on New World Order conspiracy theory would logically rely heavily on their erudite opinions. Are there other experts (i.e. mainstream scholars and journalists who have analyzed this topic from a relatively objective point of view) besides Barkun and Berlet? Yes. Could we have written this article based on their opinions instead of those of Barkun and Berlet? Yes. However, all these other experts essentially say the same thing but Barkun and Berlet are more widely known and have written far more extensively on the subject of New World Order conspiracism. Therefore, the burden is on you to find reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy who DISAGREE with the definition of New World Order conspiracy theories and/or their description of NWO conspiracy theorists commonly accepted by the all experts on the subject even if we exclude Barkun and Berlet from their numbers. Lastly, if you seriously think that there administrators who would side with you on any of the ridiculous claims you have made on this talk page over several months now, PLEASE request that one of them get involved in this dispute so that I can make my case against you once and for all. In others words, put up or shut up. --Loremaster (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you both be so kind as to restate your arguments against one another in a sentence or two; I am interested in understanding the issue at hand here, but would prefer not to review your comprehensive past dialog.Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
No. I gave up a long time ago trying to reason with someone like Batvette. I am simply refuting his non-sensical claims in order for people who read his shrill and long-winded rants to know that he doesn't have a case. --Loremaster (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
His arguments may be sound or not. It is unfortunate however, that the argument could become about the type of person an editor is. The problem with this is, it is based on the fallacy of permanence. You may find that you have the ability to convert other's POV, however not when things become personal.Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
As the archives of this talk page show, it is impossible to convert Batvette's POV even when I don't make it personal. Why? Because he stubbornly dismisses all arguments which contradicts his own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task. The best example of this problem is the “debate” we have been having over the Alien Invasion section of this article. He argues that this section intentionally “ridicules” any reasonable person who believes in a plausible New World Order conspiracy by suggesting they must believe in aliens and therefore are lunatics. Putting aside the fact that the content of this section is written from a neutral point of view, I've explained to him several times that experts argue that many (but not all) conspiracy theorists believe aliens are behind the New World Order conspiracy. However, he ignores this fact and simply repeats his unsound argument over and over again. So I have better things to do than hit my head against his wall. --Loremaster (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Although John Shandy and you might not, thousands of people have, do and will! do you have well sourced references that claim thousands of people believe that to be the case? I don't think so, you have David Icke and thousands who read his books, who may share his views on aliens. I find it pretty revealing you made a long glossed over accounting of your edit of the Gary Allen page but didn't repeat the line you added there. Which was taking Berlet's speculation about producerism advocates being white supremists and published that line on his page to discredit him even though no known source can be found that claims he is a white supremist. It was such a ridiculous stretch to connect that I don't think that was accidental, you are not dumb.
However back to my problem with the article. Mainly centering around the Round Table section, what you have there is a distortion of facts that rational people are curious about and hear repeatedly discussed in the news- this "council on foreign relations", this "trilateral group", these "bilderbergs" being comprised of a relative handful (low thousands) of corporate owners, top government officials, the elite, as it were, having undue influence on society and the media, and really subverting the power of the common man through democracy. Most refer to them as the NWO and you can single out accounts of those centering their concerns around one world governments and global socialism. However the bulk of interested people aren't all wrapped up in the titled generalizations used by socioeconomic professors and academia, which the article seeks to use to obfuscate the facts with corruption apologia- when presented with evidence that CFR DOES wield this power, he counters it with the weakest of arguments. I think what I am getting at is I don't have a problem if the article belittles people believing in lizard people, or the elders of zion, or freemasons taking over the world. That's pretty silly and has no basis. However there is plenty of factual data which suggeats the previously mentioned three think tanks' power to control our government, and the media, and shape our future is every bit as strong as many CT's believe and these are real organizations and this is an issue that is not to be taken with the slight levity of alien lizard societies. As I have referenced before, an analysis by one Lawrence Shoup- Council_Foreign_Relations considered highly credible, took tooth and nail to be even recognized despite acceptance by CFR itself- See most important critical analysisand still is not at all accurately represented in the picture painted in that section. In short, the "round table" section is a completely fraudulent representation of the issues and to that end insults the intelligence of the many who know better. The primary editot is mistaking my ensuring a factual representation is presented for POV pushing, I don't think the latter is the case. Oh and finally on this note- and raises serious questions about the replacement of democracy by conspiracy as the dominant paradigm of political action in the public mind how refreshing to see Barkun himself can be counted in the legions of paranoid conspiracy theorists. Batvette (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
On the issue of Reptilians, how many times do I have to quote the description of Barkun's book which says that the New World Order/ufology/alien invasion connection is embraced by far more people than only David Icke and his followers. Even if such beliefs were only limited to the subculture surrounding Icke (who has lectured in 25 countries, his books have been translated into eight languages, his website gets 600,000 hits a week, and his lecture tours attract thousands), it still proves the point that thousands of people believe it. Cased closed.
Regarding Gary Allen and the issue of racism, you seem ignorant of the fact that Allen was vehemently opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which outlawed unequal application of voter registration requirements for blacks and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public) and he wrote speeches for George Wallace, who is best-known for his pro-segregation attitudes during the American desegregation period. That being said, I suggest you read the PRA's page on the John Birch Society (an organization Allen was an influential member of), and an article on the FDL website entitled Come Saturday Morning: Is Incurious Mike Really That Incurious? (and an Alternate article entitled How the GOP Became the White Man's Party which doesn't mention Allen but talks about the ideas he helped promote). Regarding my edit of the Gary Allen article, I stand by the factuality of the quote I added. However, I only support it's removal and replacement with a summarization because it was too long.
Since I have refuted nonsensical claims about the CFR made in Batvette's rant a few months ago even going so far as contacting G. William Domhoff for his opinion, I'm not going to waste my time doing so again except to say that when the CFR talk abouts a “new world order” they are simply talking about a new body of universal investment laws to guarantee corporations excessive powers to buy, sell and undertake financial operations all over the world, severely diluting national laws, e.g., on environmental protection, regulation of labour standards and human rights established in developed countries. There is nothing socialistic about this kind of “new world order”! It's global capitalism in its fullest expression.
Lastly, you obviously don't seem to understand what Barkun said if you seriously believe that he is paranoid conspiracy theorist simply because he is suggesting that many people now look at politics through the paranoid prism of conspiracy rather than a rational and realistic understanding how of interest groups behave in a relatively democratic capitalist system.

--Loremaster (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You may not have a problem with this article belittling believers in Zionist-lizards but I do. Please read the following section of this talk page.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Rolyatleahcim, the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article does not belittle people who believe Reptilians, Elders of Zion, and/or Freemasons are conspiring to rule the world. However, it is perfecly consistant with Wikipedia policy which requires that an article must be written from a neutral point of view that we should report the opinion of critics who do in fact “belittle” such believers. --Loremaster (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, you misunderstand me- Saying I have a problem with this article belittling others is in reference to Batvette's last statement where he said he has no problem with this.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm still unclear why you felt the need to say this since the article doesn't belittle anyone and, although you are free to join this debate, no one asked you what you think. --Loremaster (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration, Mutual Understanding and Content Framing

In reference to disagreements between editor Loremaster and Batvette

I have made this as brief as possible and I thank you both in advance for your participation.

Being a theorist my self, I can certainly relate to Batvette's position, that is (by no fault of my own); holding a POV that there is more than meets the eye in any given situation. What exactly it is that can not be seen directly, is the motives of individuals, which can only be theorized about. It is a natural conclusion of a conspiracy theorist, or anyone logical, to believe a subject with actual nefarious motives would wish theorist exposing them be discredited; this leads some theorist to entertain the notion that bogus theories are created for the purpose of inducing ridicule upon the whole genre of conspiracism. Recognizing this, please accept that fact that you, Loremaster, refuting the arguments of a conspiracy theorist, would become target of speculation (It is a healthy and natural process for intentional conspiracy theorist. We may wish to distinguish this from unhealthy compulsory conspiracism, in which you would act as a device for the function of speculation).

I have found that for my self, in-order to be a content conspiracy theorist, there are a great number of far-fetched and wild possibilities that I must explore the logicality of (rather than rejecting a notion because I find it ridiculous). What this means is inquiring into the faults of proposed conspiracies. It is the lack of skeptical inquiry, situational awareness and some predisposition regarding the theories context that leads many conspiracy theorist to hold unfounded beliefs (I personally hold the position that a person can be the most open if they believe in nothing). I don't want to be seen as a "crank", and neither does any other legitimate conspiracy theorist; I there for engage with others directly, (conspiracy theorist and non-theorist) framing theories and developing context for them by refuting illogical fallacies (when I am able to distinguish them) and defending the validity of conspiracism. In the context of this article, developing this type of philosophical framework would mean distinguishing the ins and outs of New-World-Order-centric conspiracism and separating conspiracy theory ideas from actual possibilities (no mater how crazy they are) and distinguishing why people would believe them. An ideal goal, it's feasibility debatable, it would validate conspiracy theorist- who doesn't want to be validated? By understanding this, you may understand why Batvette and others would committee to debunk any information that could lead to their being generalized and stereotyped.

Conscientious editors, in recognition of this situation, would look to frame information in such a way that no person is invalidated for their beliefs and to foster a culture of understanding (rather than of generalization). This does NOT mean removing legitimate content and information about illogical or ridiculous conspiracy theories that people actually believe in. It DOES mean that we should all seek to understand each others point of view, strive to have others be able to understand our point of view, and work together to develop content here that would lead to the highest levels of mindfulness.

Under these terms, I would then ask you, Batvette, to state your concerns in such a way that others are not made wrong if they cant relate to them. You may have to stand for concerns in the face of no agreement, but please do.

I myself will be engaging in the development of this article and others relating to conspiracism, and wish to move forward on solid ground. I would like to be able work with both of you (and anyone else): it is clear your mutual commitment. Sometimes it is just important to step-back and talk about what we are talking about. Rolyatleahcim (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

On a separate note, if there are issues any of you have regarding certain points of interest and content; lets discuses them in sections of there own; in order to to separate issues, and avoid confusion and hostility. (It is counter productive, Batvette, to discuses issues you have regarding content you wish to be included in this article while simultaneously making arguments against Loremaster's relationship to the information. What would work, is building a case and support for that case in such a way that it could withstand criticism- This is what I mean by "being a stand in the face of no agreement.")Rolyatleahcim (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Rolyatleahcim, in light of the fact you have revealed your conspiratorial bias, I have no interest in further engaging you in debate except to warn that you should discuss substantial changes to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article on this talk page before making them, making sure to supply full citations of reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy when adding information. As for Batvette, I have nothing more to say to him for reasons I have already explained. In short, please do not waste your time trying to set yourself up as some kind of impartial moderator since I don't take you seriously. P.S. Your long-winded replies (as opposed to short ones) accomplish nothing except annoy me. --Loremaster (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
You have misconstrued what I have said; you either have not read what I have put here, not understood it or are refuting the validity of the position of a conspiracy theorist. What I have is deep-rooted interest in entertaining the notion of conspiracy theories, rather than a bias toward toward them as you have stated. I am frustrated at your misunderstanding this. Rolyatleahcim (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I know I should be polite, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks and be welcoming. However, I don't trust you so, as I said, stop wasting your time trying to be moderator when no one asked you to be especially since you admit to being new to Wikipedia. --Loremaster (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Loremaster, I thank you for revealing your personal anti-conspiratorial bias biases. I apologize for presuming your being interested in resolution with fellow editors here on Wikipedia, regardless, thank you for your contributions. In light of your deceleration of partiality, please know I hold nothing against. Please know I mean to be constructive and concise in our interactions. Thank you, Rolyatleahcim (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have an anti-conspiratorial bias since I actually believe in some plausible “event conspiracy theories” such as the Organized crime and the CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. However, I have never hidden the fact that I am skeptical and critical of irrational “systemic conspiracy theories” and “superconspiracy theories”. That being said, I know from experience that there is no resolution possible with cranks so the only resolution I am interested in is seeing Batvette indefinitely blocked from editing this talk page. As for you, please discuss changes to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article on this talk page before making them. Thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like you may be just as much of a conspiracy theorist as I am (at least it the eyes of JFK-plot deniers). I personally believer resolution is possible through conversation, in light of any situation and even with "cranks" (But it is a theory of mine). That said, Please know: I decline your request to discuses all updates to this article. I will however discuss "substantial changes". If I happen to make a change that you believe to be substantial and I did not bring it up here first (such as my first change to this article), please let me know. Rolyatleahcim (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I hate to break the news to Loremaster but his determination that another editor is a CRANK and using this as a repetetive flame will have no weight whatsoever in administrative action upon me. I have made my case against his fraudulent presentation of the particulars in the section in question, his acceptance of criticism of his work and its bias is hardly a prerequisite for it to be valid. My points on the article overall are echoed in an essay Is this a conspiracy site?on this site Historical and Investigative Researchwhich also contains a piece on The Council on Foreign Relations-What is the Council on Foreign Relations? which heavily references the work of G. Wm. Domhoff in a noncritical tone but comes to a completely contradictory conclusion than this article's author does while referencing the same expert. This can only add to the body of evidence presented that this article is POV of the author, obfuscating obvious truths, and not representative of even the experts he cites, let alone close to factual. Batvette (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Your POV is understood Batvette, what actions would you be pursing? I would get behind any initiative that could lead to a more POV-free WP, though I can not speak to the validity of your allegations that this article IS indeed POV (I have not reviewed your and Loremaster's conversations in entirety, and would rather not). But certainly if you believer this article is POV, PLEASE pursue a course of action.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The action I have pursued obviously has not been effective, attempts to actually bring the article toward more widely recognized realities were swiftly met with near instant reverts, and I frankly do not have the time and energy to compete with another editor or entities acting as such capable of several hundred edits within a period of as many days. The information in question is out there, much more prolifically than one would think. Many agree about its active supression- top censored stories of 2008-9, Obama's Trilateral Commission Teammost everyone you talk to knows about all this, seems to be the best kept secret never.Batvette (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I would finally add it is preposterous Loremaster has repeatedly threatened to have me "blocked" and other administrative actions against me, given I have never had a single admin action against me, not even a warning! Contrast his own frankly lurid and shameful history Sock Puppets, Revert Wars, His whole school blocked, oh my! I'm not sure why he's even still allowed access to wiki.Batvette (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Although it is undeniable that Batvette has been incessantly making delusional claims on this talk page about the Round Table section of the article because of his obsessive belief that the Council on Foreign Relations is conspiring to create a socialist one-world government, almost all of his actual edits to the article in the distant past consisted of deleting the Alien invasion section of the article because of his irrational belief that this section somehow ridicules reasonable people who believe in a plausible New World Order conspiracy but don't believe in aliens. This is why they were swiftly met with near instant reverts. That being said, the reason why I think Batvette should be blocked is that, beyond the problem of him regularly disrupting this talk page with incessant personal attacks against me in which he falsely accuses me of pushing a POV and trying to obfuscate the truth by making fraudulent presentations, he rarely provides any constructive criticism based on a coherent interpretation of reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that could substantively improve the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article. Batvette seems to forget that this article is about New World Order conspiracy theories. Explaining to readers why it is nonsensical to believe that the CFR is plotting to a create a socialist one-world government is not the same as arguing that it doesn't exert a powerful influence on U.S. foreign policy. Rational criticism of the CFR should therefore be in the Council on Foreign Relations article. Lastly, regarding the issue of me being temporarily blocked because of an edit war and my use of a sock-puppet to protect an article I care about from being vandalized, most of the parties involved came around to my position and some even apologized to me. Furthermore, that incident has nothing to do with the issues being discussed here so it is totally inappropriate for you to bring it up. It only shows your desperation. --Loremaster (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Lastly, regarding the issue of me being temporarily blocked because of an edit war and my use of a sock-puppet to protect an article I care about from being vandalized, most of the parties involved came around to my position and some even apologized to me. That is not what is displayed in that section of your talk page, the replies by others were critical of your "the rules are for everyone but me, I can do what I want because I think my work is so important here" attitude. You created sock puppet accounts and while temporarily blocked for policy violations, performed edits from other ISP's to evade the block. This is not civil behaviour. This is not showing the willingness to work with others. Despite the superficial apearance of your "work" here, YOU are the problem when others are present, and your idea of consensus on articles is chasing everyone else away. You continue to talk about having ME blocked from editing as if it is appropriate or even within your power to do so, this bullying and threatening is merely more evidence that you are not only the problem, but that you think it is an everyday thing for all editors to face such drama and punitive actions as part of the editing process. It IS in fact an everyday thing for you to misrepresent the positions of others as well as the issues as you do about your own talk page. I have posted PLENTY on this talk page yet none of it even suggests this: his obsessive belief that the Council on Foreign Relations is conspiring to create a socialist one-world government and is again your pattern of trying to make someone's position more extreme than it is then call him a extremist. Your assessment about the CFR is that it is "merely a ginger group" which is just stupid. the term comes from the use of ginger root to make a horse seem more lively, or to add flavour or spice to food and beverages. Your presentation of the influence of the three think tanks mentioned has in fact added content from sources I introduced long ago, leading one to conclude my criticisms were always valid, but your immediate response is always to fight first and concede quietly later on if the points were right. A major problem still exists in that you portray those who view Rockefeller's statements, for instance, as being paranoid or foolish, and provide his own less than refuting later statements as "proof". In the end I think there are many reasons for the average person to believe powerful people are working in secrecy to forward their agendas, and too much of this article tries to portray the situation as "identify "New World Order as requiring a singular governing body for the entire planet. Now stand back, point and laugh at anyone who wants to see what this New World Order thing is about." Even if their suspicions are merely that their own nations's sovereignty is diminished and there are many dishonest people in corporations and governments withholding knowledge of their activities from public view.Batvette (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The two people who wrote critical comments on me were not involved in the misunderstanding and edit war that provoked my temporarily blocking. They were simply people who don't like me because of unrelated previous disputes we have had in the distant past who then jumped in to take cheap shots at me when they noticed I was down. Ultimately, an administrator agreed with me and removed the temporary block. As I explained several times, I created a sockpuppet to protect the National-Anarchism article from being damaged during my temporary block. As you can see on my talk page, the person involved in this dispute actually apologized to me when he finally realized that my only agenda was making sure that this article remain neutral. Ultimately, although I had good reasons to do what I did, I know it was wrong, I will never do it again, and I apologized to the Wikipedia community.
That being said, the reason why I have repeatedly called for you to be blocked from editing the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article and its talk page because you have NEVER contributed positively to either the article or this talk page. You simply come here every few months to repeat your absurd grievances with this article over and over again (despite the fact that they have been consistently refuted) and personally attack me by accusing me of ownership or misrepresenting the facts. You have therefore made it impossible for me to work with you in good faith.
For example, you claim that the article describes the CFR as a ginger group when in fact it is the Round Table that is being described as such. You can't seem to understand that many conspiracy theorists believe that the CFR is a front for a sinister secret society called the Round Table. The article simply explains that, regardless of how influential the CFR may or may not be, the Round Table no longer has the influence it once had. Is your brain capable of grasping this simple fact?
As for the so-called major problem by caused my contextualizing of Rockefeller's statement, you are free to dislike Rockfeller's promotion of multilateralism and neoliberalism because you sincerely believe with good reasons that it hurts the American people BUT it is in fact paranoid and foolish to believe that someone like Rockfeller wants to create a socialist one-world governement (which is what conspiracy theorists accuse him of). So the real problem is that you fail to understand that critics are simply refuting the paranoid conspiracy theory not rational criticisms of Rockefeller's real agenda of establishing a new body of universal investment laws to guarantee corporations excessive powers to buy, sell and undertake financial operations all over the world, severely diluting national laws, e.g., on environmental protection, regulation of labour standards and human rights established in developed countries. No one is denying the negative consequences of this publicly-known agenda. We are simply saying it is obviously not the same thing as a secret plot to create a socialist one-world government. Only a know-nothing Tea Party conspiracy crank would believe otherwise...
So I will say it again: Find us reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy who DISAGREE with how New World Order conspiracy theories are defined or how NWO conspiracy theorists are described and then you will be able to make a case that this article is biased and needs to be more objective. If you can't, you need to move on.
--Loremaster (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Well that's pretty funny you claim I'm misrepresenting the "ginger group" statement because while I now see it does appear to be directed at "round table", the discussion on CFR segueways right into that seamlessly, in fact the paragraph it's in starts by attempting to address the CFR claim.
Perhaps the Council and Trilateral commission need their own section, as the Round Table was a British born group from the 1800's and on but the former two are both US based and much more current.
I also notice what you claim about "all critics agree" and reference Domhoff to source the statement, going to the reference finds this is not supported. Domhoff says Historical studies of the CFR show that it has a very different role in the overall power structure than what is claimed by conspiratorial theorists. which is a far cry from all critics agreeing. One critic makes that statement.
Here is one major flaw about how you are approaching this subject matter. Everything,to you, has to measure up to this socialist one world government image. Yet everywhere I see people talking about this "New World Order" and their apprehensions, they don't go to such an extreme. Their concerns are more aligned with people in positions of power digging in deeper with their hands in politicians pockets, making deals with foreign governments to enrich themselves and weaken US sovereignty so there is effectively no borders and illegal immigration is just accepted. They are worried that this MIC has gotten so powerful and secretive, and the mainstream media so controlled, that they are kept in the dark about what really goes on. In a sense, they are. So it's not about "one world government" to most people. Nor does it make any sense that the suspected culprits are socialists. So maybe I'm wrong to say the article is biased, and should just call it the more appropriate name of caricature of the situation.
Which is more encyclopedic than the more accurate complete, utter bull****, because the way the article is written all the conspiracy theories/theorists are all poorly referenced. Each section seems to have its theory written around cartoon characters that don't exist so it's easy to knock them down. Sure there are some you name but not enough to make them realistic.
As for the repeated administrative actions against you, well I can see you're only adding weight to my argument, that you felt the rules were for everyone but you because what you do here is so important you don't have to follow them. You can have that attitude, I don't make wiki my life, those that do can spend all the time they like guarding their little forts. The Wiki philosophy however I believe allows anyone to come along and cry "bull****" when they see it as long as they are civil and of good intent, that's all I am doing. Which is a far cry from adding unnecessary implied flames like this to my comments- Only a know-nothing Tea Party conspiracy crank would believe otherwise...
Who was that directed toward? Is this the flame war thingy you were going on about earlier? Well I know you are, but what am I, is the closest I will go to that.
However let's get that straight. You've never called for me to be blocked, by taking it to a higher level, because you know how far it would get. Nowhere. What you have done is repeatedly made the hollow threat and it is in fact against wiki policy to do this so I ask you to cease or I will report you to the wiki fairy. If one exists, if it doesn't perhaps I should apply for the position. Batvette (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. It's not funny but actually sad that for months now you have misinsterpreted the ginger group statement as refering to CFR rather than the Round Table. It shows how poor your reading and analytical skills truly are. That being said, the reason why discussion of the CFR segueways into discussion about the Round Table is because many conspiracy theorists have read Quigley's books about Round Table and the Anglo-American Establishment and misinterpret it as evidence that CFR and the Trilateral Commission are fronts for some kind of British hegemony conspiracy started by Rhodes. So again you fail to understand that this article is about these CONSPIRACY THEORIES the particuliarities of which you seem to be ignorant of.
  2. The reason why everything in this article has to measure up a conspiracy to create a socialist one-world government is because this article is about NWO-as-OWG CONSPIRACY THEORIES and reliable sources tell us that this is what CONSPIRACY THEORISTS are obsessed about. Furthermore, you yourself have not only invoked this conspiracy but you actually said that the CFR talks about socialist one-world government when they don't so forgive me for not taking seriously your pathetic attempt to now portray yourself as a reasonable critic only concerned about the misdeeds by greedy capitalists.
  3. The problem has never been that the article is biased or that it is a caricature of the situation. It's that you simply refuse to understand that this article is about CONSPIRACY THEORIES and arguments against them. If, for example, you want to argue that the real policies (as opposed to the imaginary ones) proposed by the CFR (which they have never kept secret) have, are or will hurt the American people, you need to edit the Wikipedia article on the CFR ans stop wasting your time here.
  4. All the conspiracy theories discussed in this article have solid references, specifically Barkun and Berlet. All the conspiracy theories have and continue to be articulated by real conspiracy theorists (ranging from Pat Robertson to Alex Jones to David Icke). However, you do bring up a good point that we should probably name more names to avoid unfounded accusation such as yours from being repeated.
  5. I'm not adding weight to your argument about my alleged 'above the rules' attitude because it was an extreme one-time situation where I felt compelled to do something I never imagine I would do.
  6. You are obviously free to come to this talk page and criticize the article for perceived bias. However, your accusation that I am intentionally misreprenting facts is not only false but inacceptable. Furthermore, if you refuse to find us reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy who DISAGREE with how New World Order conspiracy theories are defined or how NWO conspiracy theorists are described in this article in order to make a case that this article is biased and needs to be more objective, you are wasting everyone's time with your semi-coherent rants.
  7. I wasn't talking about you when I said only a know-nothing Tea Party conspiracy crank would believe that there is a conspiracy to create a socialist one-world government. It was a rhetorical tactic to make you realize who you should not want to be associated with.
  8. That being said, I am tired of this routine of yours. Before the end of the month, I will ask an administrator to intervene in order to end this dispute once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do! Make sure to point out to him that many times in the past, as you just did above, you conceded the faults within the article I pointed out and modified the article as such making my efforts not only in good faith as I believe they are, but valid and necessary in the wiki philosophy of community contribution. (you didn't address the error about "all critics agree" being unsourced, BTW) You might refrain from insulting his intelligence by saying you weren't referrring to someone you've repeatedly and unabashedly called at random times a crank, ignorant, and a conspiracy theorist, with the combined insult know nothing Tea Party conspiracy crank. You've made no bones about flaming me with all of the former titles, only the Tea Party thing is new. While I am disgusted with the performance of our government, I am not of that group. I might finish by pointing out if you can't stand criticism of your work wiki is a funny place for you to contribute. Batvette (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. None of the edits you inspired me to do in the article were significant. It mostly consisted of dumbing down the article so that even obtuse readers like you can understand it. That being said, the lack of names you pointed out is not a fault with the article since many sections do actually name names. Furthermore, many of our reliable sources do not always name the names of conspiracy theorists when discussing a particular conspiracy theory that is popular. I was simply pointing that I should edit the article not because these changes are crucial to its improvement but only because they would help avoid ridiculous accusations such as the ones you keep making being repeated over and over again by you or other people.
  2. I did in fact forget to address the "all critics agree" issue. Both Shoup and Domhoff agree that historical studies (done by notable mainstream historians other than themselves) demonstrate that the CFR does not have the James-Bond-villain-like influence and agenda that conspiracy theorists think it does. Does that mean that CFR has no influence? Of course not. Does that mean the CFR does not promote policies that may hurt the American middle and lower classes? Of course not. The point is simply that no serious academic believes that the CFR is out to create a socialist one-world government like many many conspiracy theorists do. The source for this statement is Domhoff's essay.
  3. I do confess to, and I do not apologize for, calling you a crank, ignorant, and a conspiracy theorist several times because I sincerely believe that you are in light of the many absurd things you have written on this talk page. However, I honestly wasn't refering to you when I said know nothing Tea Party conspiracy crank since I have no idea whether or not you support the Tea Party movement. Do you? ;)
  4. I can stand and even welcome rational criticism of this article. I simply can't tolerate semi-coherent rants mixed with false personal attacks that I am intentionally misrepresenting facts when I am clearly not. As someone pointed out, I am the person most responsible for making this article as good as you ironically often concede it is.
--Loremaster (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Your opinion that things I say are absurd does not give you license to attack my person with flames and personal insults intended to discredit me, particularly when the things I say have become distorted by yourself in your own mind- case in point, this- his obsessive belief that the Council on Foreign Relations is conspiring to create a socialist one-world government, which is not my position. At all. You distort my position, then think this lets you get away with flaming me to discredit me. You don't have that right, sorry. And "all critics agree" is in fact your original research and not supported by the reference, you should correct it and move on. Finally understand that if I say you misrepresent the positions of others, or the article is a fraud, that is not attacking your person, who or what you are, but criticizing what you are doing. Particularly as I support it with the statement in question, it is not the same as saying "Loremaster is a liar", to say "what Loremaster said was a lie". Contrast this to "you're a conspiracy theorist", or "you're a crank". I've spent a lot of years arguing politics and social issues with people in some very heavily moderated forums, where the distinction had to be learned or all your posts get deleted and people get banned. Oh, and I'm reviewing the book you provided and will comment on it in time. You might find we are much more on the same page than you realize. Thank you. Batvette (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. It simply amazes me how many times we can find instances of you talking about your belief that a secret elite is working to build a socialist one-world government in the archives and how many times you have the audacity to deny you never talked about that! I therefore suggest that anyone who wonders whether or not I am mischaracterizing your views to go through the archives and judge for themselves.
  2. As for the "all critics agree" issue, I suggest you re-read G. William Domhoff's comments on the Council on Foreign Relations.
  3. From the archives: I agree with Arthur Rubin where he says "the article is now much less biased than it was previously, and none of your [Batvette's] suggestions is even plausibly related to article improvement." and with his comment on YouTube. I would use the word responsibility, not ownership. It's not a bad thing. I was wondering about it when he [Loremaster] first arrived, but not now. In fact, I'm pleased someone is looking after this article, it needs it. Loremaster's comments above are well said. Batvette is clearly not showing good faith towards Loremaster and needs to read WP:AGF as well as WP:NPOV which he either doesn't understand or does not agree with. And of course WP:Fringe which also applies here. I've already had to warn Batvette about personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
--Loremaster (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. Since one of us is grounded in reality enough to know nobody but you cares about this discussion enough to do that, we'll just chock this up to another in your long list of unsupported claims. You misrepresented my position, if not, please link to my asserting what you claim.
  2. Does this link to what you previously had in the article but provided an unsupporting reference? I certainly hope so, your mistakes are becoming tiresome.Does Domhoff state all critics agree or is it your own research that he and some others agree? How did this come about, did they get together and vote on it? What is this other role then?
  3. Dougweiler was wrong, I said so in a reply directly below that which he replied to graciously and correctly several posts below, where he directly commented on my good faith. If you would also assert I have made personal attacks on you, which Doug was wrong about, I invite you to pore over that entire archive and reproduce said personal attack. Someone saying someone else made a personal attack on you is not evidence of said attack, you must produce my words as such or it is hearsay. Must everything so obvious need to be explained to you?
  4. Do not distract from the issue which was your unnecessary comment flaming me. You trying to prove anyone else's behaviour is as uncivil as your own, as laughably unsuccessful and desperate as it is, is not a noble pursuit by any means. I've never needed to attack your person as your words give me plenty of material to demonstrate your abrasive actions toward anyone who does not agree with your presentation of this subject matter.Batvette (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Some members of the CFR end up working for government officials or taking high-level appointments in government. They are offered these positions because they have the power of corporations and foundations behind them, have given donations to politicians, have expertise from being in the CFR, and have status from being in the CFR.
and we wonder why people think the CFR is a common denominator in corrupt dealings between corporations and government? Bah! Nothing to see here, move along. I might add I think I have no problem with Domhoff, he does seem to intersperse his commentary with candid admissions about what the realities are here, albeit if not shouting them in his summaries. This does not suffice for your all critics agree reference so we'll have to call that original research.Batvette (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Guys, could you please move it to your private talk pages? 78.50.150.124 (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
At this point, I don't ever want to waste my time talking to Batvette ever again whether it be here or somewhere else. I just wish he would go away. --Loremaster (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This is the crux of the problem. You don't want to work with editors who wish to change your presentation. You're only happy if you drive them away from "your" article, and I am hardly the only one. Your first reply in this section is sufficient evidence. Batvette (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Arthur Rubin, having nothing whatsoever to do with the article, deleted. Your assessment of my comments here is not relevant. Get over yourself, and play "last word" in an argument you're involved with. Batvette (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

To become a Good Article

Since 11 December 2008, the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article is being improved by supporters of WikiProject Rational Skepticism, which seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with pseudoscience and pseudohistory. Therefore, although remaining neutral, this article will be written from a rational skeptical perspective. Like its name suggests, this article isn't about new world order as a fact in international relations (if you are interested in that subject, I suggest you read and possibly edit the new world order (politics) article instead). It's about conspiracy theories about a New World Order. By “conspiracy theory”, we mean any any "fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning". Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism by the scientific community and academia, and often ridiculed by pundits, because they contrast with institutional analysis of historical or current events, and are rarely supported by conclusive evidence.

That being said, in order for the article to be judged a good article by the Wikipedia community, I am interested in collaborating with anyone who has created a user account to make it well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough to meet good article criteria.

This article primarily needs additional citations for verification. --Loremaster (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Rational skepticism must be unbiased as a general rule. The use of words like "right wing", "paranoia", etc. is ill minded and should be left out of the article. This page has gone from an encyclopedia entry on the New World Order 'theory' to somebody's personal opinion. Trolling of wiki pages as a means to censor the adding of factual information crucial to understanding the theory keeps this from becoming a good article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.180.201 (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthemore, if these reliable sources use words like "right wing" and "paranoia", we must use these words as well even if they are not politically correct. That being said, this article doesn't necessarily reflect the personal opinions of the editors but the verifiable opinions of journalists and academics on the subject of New World Order conspiracy theory. As for your accusation of trolling and censorship, you will have to be more specific to be taken seriously. --Loremaster (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
To avoid having this recurring dispute, I've deleted the word "paranoia" from the History of the term section of the article. However, the words like "right wing", "far right", "radical right", and "extremist" will remain. --Loremaster (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yay for loaded language and pigeonholing - another win for 'rational skeptics' no doubt.
By the way - when you talk of 'academics' so highly, which pristine academics are we talking about? The same Professors that are part of the loving Military-Industrial Academic Complex?
And don't even try to deny that contention - you will only end up making yourself look ridiculous. I think this sucking up to the Establishment is despicable and betrays these so-called 'rational skeptics' for what they really are - radical utopian extremists subscribing to lunatic ideas of creating a more 'just world' through computers.84.30.39.140 (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
As much as you may hate it, the burden of proof is on the claimant in any given scenario. Everything in this article is well-sourced with reliable sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article proportionately reflects the attitudes of the sources it derives from. If conspiracists could manage to get any publications made through an organization with a reputation for good fact-checking and peer review, then we might be able to include them, but they never make it past the fact-checking phase (since their evidence is weak or non-existent). A rational skeptic thinks rationally, using reason, logic, and available tools such as science in order to objectively collect data, evaluate it for correlations and validity, etc. A conspiracist is typically paranoid and appeals to emotions such as anger, fear, etc. which drive a conspiracist's thought process in a drastically different way than reason would, finding patterns that don't exist and so forth. You're going to have to do some work to find truth, and coming here and accusing us of using loaded language or pigeonholing people is baseless - we are simply representing the reliable sources on the subject. If you don't like those sources, then this isn't the place to !@#$% about it. Instead, contact the authors of the sources or maybe sit down and actually objectively evaluate whatever sources made you feel that the NWO is the truth... you might actually realize there's a reason for the distinction between a reliable source and an unreliable source. John Shandy` • talk 19:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
About paranoia Junior, you might want to hang around with some of the big boys someday - like, for instance, Andrew Grove of Intel. He wrote an entire book on why it is good to be paranoid as a business executive. 'Paranoia' is not something that is shunned as someone who holds 'responsibilities' - yet through the social sciences they have managed to convince you (lesser 'worker bees' in the hierarchical structure) that maintaining some of your 'survival instincts' is a bad thing.
Go ahead, do some 'original research' for once, and start reading a book - preferably beginning with Andrew S. Grove's 'Only The Paranoid Survive'. And you know what? He is right on that one - they are the only ones that do in the end.
Good day talking to you again Sir. Don't allow my little posts here to get in the way of your cognitive dissonance.84.30.39.140 (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstood me, or I did not provide enough clarification. I was referring to irrational paranoia. Of course paranoia is basic survival instinct, and a good one to have. However, I refuse to adhere to a tin foil hat style of irrational paranoia, because that kind of paranoia is not useful - it is only distracting. And when I spoke of original research, I wasn't suggesting that original research is a bad thing. It's a valuable thing, and comprises the majority of research. However, you need to realize that we're in a different paradigm here. This is an encyclopedia, where we essentially do nothing other than describe and represent subjects, people, objects, etc. In an encyclopedic paradigm, you do not conduct original research, instead you describe the subject matter of an article based on the relevant and available research, publications, and media. Unfortunately, this is one of the misconceptions that has and will forever plague Wikipedia. We merely represent the relevant views on a subject in proportion to the available reliable sources that pertain to that subject - nothing more, nothing less. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a doctrine, scripture, or end-all be-all source of truth. In an encyclopedia, original research is not useful, because it is not reliable or verifiable. I think you are making a grave error in interpreting Wikipedia as some kind of beacon of truth or of deceit - it strives to be neither. John Shandy` • talk 06:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

After a lot of work, I consider the article to be relatively comprehensive. The thing we should now focus on is standardizing citations according to Wikipedia:Citing sources style guidelines. Does anyone care to help? --Loremaster (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started working on citations. --Loremaster (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I now consider the article essentially complete. The only thing left to do is professional copyediting and finishing the standardization of citations. --Loremaster (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So... it's May 2010, does the [first paragraph of the section] have an update? IMHO this article is not up to wikipedia standards, being long, full of off-topic references. Every conspiracy theory ever called a conspiracy theory is mentioned, but the ties to the topic of the article are tentative and not well-stated. This article is full-on obfuscation and what substance might be there is impossible to find. It's FULL of meaningless generalizations like "Conspiracy theorists believe..." (sorry, but, there's nobody who's done that research nor is the statement specific enough to mean anything. Is it time to get some of the off-topic references into their own articles?

User:69.107.65.57, as you can see from the sub-section below, the article has been reviewed and been judged to meet Good Article criteria. That being said, although I agree that this article can and should be improved, your criticism is far too vague to taken seriously. Political scientist Michael Barkun and investigative reporter Chip Berlet are well-known for having extensively researched conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists in America. They are the two most reliable sources for this article on which many general and specific claims are based. Therefore, what you think is an off-topic reference is in fact quite on topic according to our sources so I suggest you familiarize yourself with them before passing judgement. P.S. Please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). --Loremaster (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I would have to agree with User:69.107.65.57. Though his comments are vague, this should not be a reason to dismiss them. While Michael Barkun and Chip Berlet do seem to be credible and prominent, there viewpoints account for only a small margin of those held on the subject. It is there for, I propose a merger. I will make a section for the proposal. On a side note, I would like to say that I would get behind you Loremaster in improving this article and getting it to WP:FAC Zzzmidnight (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, there are thousands or probably millions of people who actually believe in New World Order conspiracy theories. However, an article on New World Order conspiracy theories should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not only are Barkun and Berlet considered experts on conspiracy theories in general and New World Order conspiracy theories in particular but their viewpoints reflects the consensus among mainstream scholars and journalists who have studied this topic from a critical point of view. And, according to Wikipedia guidelines, these points of views are the only ones that matter. That being said, your suggestion that we should merge the New World Order (conspiracy theory) with New world order (politics) article in no way addresses the issues brought up by User:69.107.65.57 and, as explained to you in the section you created which has since been archived, I am opposed to any such merger. --Loremaster (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

OK, I think this is sufficiently improved to merit GA status. If you wish to take this to WP:FAC, please consider a WP:Peer review first. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jezhotwells. :) --Loremaster (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Barkun's review of the article!

A colleague of mine contacted political scientist and conspiracy theory expert Michael Barkun to ask him to review the article. Here are some of his comments:

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on the Wikipedia article, “New World Order (conspiracy theory).” In general, the article is sound and comprehensive. However, I do have a few suggestions that I think would improve it.

The final sentence of the third paragraph imputes certain views to skeptics, of which I am the only one named. Much of it poses no problem, but the final clause does , at least insofar as I am concerned. “Producerist demagogy” clearly comes from one of the other sources listed, since it isn’t a term I have used or am familiar with.

“The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”: I’m not sure why Goran Larsson, a relatively obscure figure, is the only named individual associated with the debunking of The Protocols. They were first exposed by the Times of London, and the contemporary scholar most associated with demonstrating how they were concocted is Norman Cohn in Warrant for Genocide.

“Alien Invasion”: A clearer distinction needs to be made between “Greys” and “Reptilians,” since the latter are said to live underground. “Hollow Earth” appears in the first sentence, but the link to Reptilians isn’t made.

In general, however, these are fairly small points.

— Michael Barkun, Oct 13

I have recently edited the article to take account of Barkun's suggestions. --Loremaster (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The New World Order article is in very good shape. It suddenly occurred to me that it’s possible the phrase appears in Gary Allen’s 1971 book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy. But I don’t have it handy at the moment, so I can’t check.

— Michael Barkun, Nov 9

Does anyone have a copy of this book? --Loremaster (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I could pick up a copy of the German translation of that book at the library, and there is a pdf version of that book if you googlesearch its title. But a) the pdf does not note pagination and b) is most likely a violation of copyright laws. I'm pretty sure both don't really help. 78.48.66.162 (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
We only need to confirm that Gary Allen used the term ″New World Order″ in the book... --Loremaster (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
He does. I only read the thing cursoryly, but at least once he seems to refer to the New World Order being build by the "Bilderbergers", the other (two) occurances show Allen's belief that the New World Order means a World Government/global "superstate". 78.48.66.162 (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks! I edited the article accordingly. :) --Loremaster (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Great. One thing, though: I may be wrong, but the new version might qualify as synthesis. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the guidelines, though. 78.54.173.18 (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand why you think that but the source we used in the old version already mentioned Allen's first book. So Barkun only confirmed something we already knew but failed to mention... --Loremaster (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Keraunos to the New Age section

I've recently reverted edits by User:Keraunos to the New Age section of the article because they were superfluous details that do not contribute to a better understanding of how New Age beliefs and New World Order conspiracy theories have become intertwined. --Loremaster (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Obama's New World Order

The article says that B. Obama has used the term "new world order" but it seemingly provides no citation for this. I have not been able to find any online refernces where Obama actually spoke the phrase "new world order" ... if there is no reference to Obama actually using this phrase, I suggest this reference to Obama's use of the phrase "new world order" should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.34.190 (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Obama used the term "world order" during his appearance on Late Show with David Letterman on 9 october 2008. --Loremaster (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama also used the words "new international order", “that can resolve the challenges of our times” on May 22, 2010 at a commencement speech at the U.S. Military Academy West Point. [29]--Duchamps_comb MFA 04:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Why did you feel it necessary to mention his second name? --Loremaster (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The man's second/or third name is Barack Obama. --Duchamps_comb MFA 04:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong. Barack Hussein Obama II is first and only legal name. --Loremaster (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
"...an AP photo was revealed of the school register of a child then known as Barry Soetoro, now known as Barack Hussein Obama, whose citizenship was listed as "Indonesian" and whose religion was listed as "Islam." the photo strongly contradicts the Obama camp's claim that he was not a Muslim, and is said to confirm he is a national of at least one other country. The AP has confirmed the authenticity of the photograph." [30] --Duchamps_comb MFA 22:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The school registration was filled out by his step-father, not by his biological father. As well, his birth certificate precedes any school registration documents. A scanned copy of his birth certificate is included on the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article I mentioned in a different reply in the following section. If you believe the photo or the certificate are faked, then this conversation was over before it began. (Although, it shouldn't have begun in the first place, because wikipedia is not a forum.) Again, I recommend reading this article on Snopes.com which debunks the conspiracy theory of Barack Obama being a non-citizen or a Muslim. Even if he were a Muslim, such a fact would not disqualify him from presidential candidacy. John Shandy` • talk 01:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a conspiracy theory

The New World Order is not a Conspiracy Theory. If anyone would watch New World Order Rising by Jack Van Impe Ministries, Alex Jones' Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack Obama one would know that this is not a conspiracy theory. Also, various mainstream media sources are not even ashamed to admit that this is not a conspiracy theory now. Some include Yahoo news and Time magazine. The article for Yahoo News is entitled "Admidst financial crisis, a New World Order emerges." Also there was a Time Magazine article with a picture of a section of the United States broken off and the article was entitled "And Now It's Time for a New World Order." Finally, there is mention in the greatest book ever written regarding global governence: God's word. And here is the verse: It is not some big scheme cooked up by a small group of crazy people, this is something that has been in the making for over 200 years, that was first started by the Illuminati and other secret societies. You can read about the history of the Illumati by reading David Livingstone's "Terrorism and the Illuminati: A Three Thousand Year History". In closing, it was predicted over 2000 years ago in God's Word that we would have Global Governence. This was part of God's ultimate plan when man became too sinful. This is a sign that Jesus Christ is soon to return. One of many Bible verses to prove this is: "Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. If anyone has an ear, let him hear: If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints." Revelation 13:7-10 Whoever wrote this needed to further investigate their sources and understand what global governence really means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liaritchie1 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not archive to take "current" topics off the page just because you do not like what is being said. --Duchamps_comb MFA 04:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
IP 78.55.20.87 removed the message left by Liaritchie1 and correctly noted in his summary that wikipedia is not a forum. Liaritchie1's post does not discuss the quality of the article or suggest changes to the article, which is the overarching purpose of this talk page. Whether any of us like or dislike Liaritchie1's remarks, he is clearly using the talk page as a soapbox or forum to promote a New World Order as an unchallenged fact. Although the world often goes by "claims," rather than evidence and reliable sourcing, Wikipedia (quite fortunately) does not follow suit. If Liaritchie1 would be happy to provide reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking that challenge the current presentation of this article, then we might be able to incorporate some of the unsubstantiated rant provided above. However, Liaritchie1's remarks are nothing other than a rant - he or she is not even making suggestions, and Liaritchie1 mentions in the edit summary for this edit to the article that he or she has proven that the NWO is real with reliable sources (the only source referenced is the bible - and that can hardly be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards). On a side note, Barack Obama's first name is Barack Obama - Barry Soetoro was simply listed on some school registration documents by his step-father (not his biological father) - I recommend Wikipedia's well-sourced Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article which is a very enlightening and encompassing article on the subject. As well, I recommend looking at this article on Snopes.com. John Shandy` • talk 07:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
John Shandy is absolutely right. As for the reason I archived this particular thread dealing with Barack Obama and the New World Order, it is because Obama has publicly used the expressions "world order" and "new international order" but never "New World Order". This is why I've deleted the mention of Obama in the History of the term section of the article as well. --Loremaster (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
As John Shandy has already said, I deleted the above because it was obviously soapboxing. But if you take a look at the other edits of that editor, you will see that he inserted the very same text into the article itself, at an inappropriate place. I'd say, this amounts to spamming and vandalism. So I stand by my deletion of this unconstructive entry. 78.55.218.66 (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

HG Wells' New World Order a 'secular, social democratic world government'?!

Quote: "A number of Fabian socialist intellectuals, such as British writer H. G. Wells in the 1940s, appropriated and redefined the term "new world order" as a synonym for the establishment of a full-fledged secular, social democratic world government"

Rest assured that the person who wrote the above was either reading a couple of different books altogether by a writer who happened to share HG Wells' name, or he can't recognize a totalitarian state when it bites him in the buttocks. Either way, it sure as bloody heck does not resemble a 'social democratic world government' in the slightest.

Look at this essay for a thorough debunking of these benevolent socialist do-gooder fantasies surrounding the figure of Wells:

H.G. Wells’s Idea of a World Brain: A Critical Re-Assessment http://people.lis.illinois.edu/~wrayward/Wellss_Idea_of_World_Brain.htm

Yay at Wikipedia for blatantly misinforming the public on the 20th century's British Anglophile totalitarians. Chalk it all up to a 'conspiracy theory', mock and chide anyone concerned about the future, and just pretend this whole computer movement is an egalitarian benevolent social movement aimed at removing class systems, prejudices and boundaries. Continue floating those optimism memes in the face of evidence pointing completely to the contrary. I would expect nothing less from a bunch of lackeys hiding behind screennames acting on the behalf of a venture capital vulture.84.30.39.140 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

sigh... Please review or read the source referenced for that quote in the article. Also, you should note that Wikipedia's mission is not to misinform the public, or to even inform the public. Wikipedia is not a news source, but an encyclopedia. This article isn't meant to dissuade people from believing in the NWO conspiracy theory, and it isn't meant to persuade people to believe in the NWO conspiracy theory. The purpose of this encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia is to illustrate (in proportion to the sources referenced) the subject of the NWO conspiracy theory, what its different variants are, which organizations/institutions/individuals conspiracists believe to be behind it, and so on. This article's job isn't to perpetuate this theory, or to debunk it - this article's overarching purpose is to describe it, in proportion to what the sources perceive it to be (and it just so happens, that the sources overwhelmingly discount the notion of an NWO as a conspiracy theory with far right populist and anti-establishment leanings/origins - but that's not our fault, because we don't and cannot engage in original research here at Wikipedia). As well, you are not assuming good faith and you are ignoring of Wikipedia's policy on civility. You blatantly throw baseless insults around by calling us lackeys and and you accuse us of hiding behind aliases and having an agenda that is in alignment with a venture capital organization. All we have done is register on Wikipedia and take-up aliases, thereby voluntarily subscribing ourselves to a sense of accountability. How ignorant of some Ann O'Nymous user hiding behind an IP to accuse us of hiding or having some kind of agenda. We're not hiding anything - and in particular, look at the user boxes on either my user page or Loremaster's user page - you can see clearly what subjects we're interested in or what our personal stances or biases are. I feel that most of the positive contributors to this article have done a fair job of keeping their biases out of the article, which has repeatedly won against all baseless challenges of its neutral point of view. Is there anything else we can debunk for you today? John Shandy` • talk 20:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually ('sigh' - to use your mannerisms for a minute here) - you have done fairly little 'debunking' today, since you already have admitted you don't do any real 'research' for yourself and basically hide behind cryptic nonsensical site policies and directives. I am at pains to detect any hint of 'rationality' or 'skepticism' here - it looks more like machine logic and a deliberate clouding of whatever passes for your 'Input/Output' feedback loop.
LOL. It's like shooting fish in a barrel with you Wikipedians....
Also, fairly interesting that you chose to talk about the 'NWO' instead of the 'quote' I took issue with in the first place - the mischaracterization of HG Wells' conception of a 'new world order' as being a liberal, social democratic world government ideal. Out of all the things you could have responded with, this is the one thing that you managed to come up with? Some pointless, fruitless exercise along the lines of 'Yes, Wikipedia is good - no, it isn't - blabla you are violating 'assume good faith' policy blahblah - insert another cop-out/strawman/argument of last resort here'. Sounds to me like willful skirting of debate and an attempt at debate steering.
Care for another try at the wheel? I'll go somewhat easier on you. Go ahead and address the main substantive part of my original post. Can you do that? 84.30.39.140 (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd also like to add - since you didn't manage to catch it - the 'venture capital vulture' reference was a sly reference to Jimmy Wales (I do presume you know who he is, right? You're at least capable of comprehending this part, right?), not a 'venture capital organization'.84.30.39.140 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I did not admit to doing no research for myself. I regularly engage in original research, as a part of my day-to-day job and for my own interests and learning - but not when I'm editing an encyclopedia, because that would be nonsensical, given that such research would not necessarily be verifiable or reliable. Quoting from the no original research policy, The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources. - the part I bolded is the reason why original research is unbecoming of an encyclopedia. I really don't see what's so difficult to understand about it. We use reliable sources that have been subjected to fact-checking, peer review, and so on in order to ascertain their reliability so that what we write in an article is verifiable, rather than conjured-up.
I addressed your concern... I asked you to review the content of the source that is referenced for that line of the article. I have not read that entire book by H.G. Wells, but I also am not the author of the statement you quoted. I believe Loremaster wrote it, so he'll address it directly when he sees your message here on the talk page. However, having read portions of the book and having scanned through once you brought it up, I do not see how the statement is an inaccurate representation of H.G. Wells's definition of new world order, despite what the source you've provided says (which I have not had time to read or evaluate). It's possible that a line could be added after the line about Wells that offers a dissenting opinion on Wells's meaning, but you don't appear prepared for a civil discussion on the matter - you seem more interested in insulting everyone on the talk page, and in soapboxing your opinions on the existence of and nature of a new world order.
The reason I brought up some of Wikipedia's policies, particularly Assume good faith, is because you have taken an unnecessary step further in your criticism of the quote you took issue with. Don't you consider it possible that, if indeed Wells's concept of a new world order has been mis-characterized, that perhaps it was a misinterpretation, misunderstanding, or mistake? However, when you brought it up, you immediately assumed that such a mis-characterization is a deliberate ploy enacted to misinform readers. You have not assumed good faith on the part of the editor wrote that statement. I'm not trying to steer debate, and you should be glad that I'm not going to debate you over the line when I've not read the source it references in its entirety, or the source that you have provided. My response's primary intent was to address your baseless allegations of mischief on part of the editors who have been contributing to this article (such as Rest assured that the person who wrote the above ... or he can't recognize a totalitarian state when it bites him in the buttocks.; Yay at Wikipedia for blatantly misinforming the public on the 20th century's British Anglophile totalitarians.; and Continue floating those optimism memes in the face of evidence pointing completely to the contrary. I would expect nothing less from a bunch of lackeys hiding behind screennames acting on the behalf of a venture capital vulture.). Oh and, need I remind you again that you are hiding behind an IP, while simultaneously accusing us of hiding behind aliases? I welcome you to create a user account, and I assure you there are no Illuminati or shape-shifting reptilians monitoring our user accounts. John Shandy` • talk 07:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
'I do not see how the statement is an inaccurate representation of H.G. Wells' definition of new world order'? Seriously (and I want to stress, this is not hyperbole) - you might as well call Mein Kampf 'socially democratic' if this is indeed Wikipedia's definition of a 'socially democratic, secular world govermnet' - there is no denial about the totalitarian tenets of his vision for the 'New World Order', the 'Samurai' class, the 'World Brain', and all these other institutions he is talking about. There is nothing 'democratic' about them - in fact, voting or elections do not even enter into the equations, and the mass bulk of the populace are seen as subjects for the rulers to manipulate.
This is not hyperbole, BTW - I think a lot would become clear to you once you've read his books and actually read the essay which I provided a link to for everyone to read, which is actually quite good and academic in nature - providing lots of references, footnotes and sources.84.30.39.140 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW, you had to add the patronising little quip about the 'Illuminati' and 'reptoids' in there, didn't you? Your technique is oh so predictable - you chastise people and pigeonhole them into groups even when they have never talked about 'Reptoids' or 'Illuminati'. Why don't you actually take the time out of your busy schedule to learn what other people's positions and frame of reference is on any particular subject before immediately sequestering them into groups? I demand to see some 'rationality' by you at long last given the claim at your User page you're a 'rational skeptic' - I don't care about your particular interpretation of it, but if you think a 'rational skeptic' resorts to pigeonholing, castigating, pejorative comments and other childish five-year old games, you're doing the entire label a disservice.84.30.39.140 (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
This is what you should do before even opening your mouth on a 'Talk' page - actually READ the source, actually READ the books to get a frame of reference, instead of giving me and everyone else YOUR opinion, which on its own has no merit. See, Mr. 'Rational skeptic' - I actually READ and can 'document' and provide examples of things I'm saying. You barge into this thread without having read the books, without having read the sources I've provided for you, and somehow you're under this illusion it's perfectly fine to edit articles or pages without doing any real 'research'. Wow - this is 'rational skepticism' alright - more like a five year old's definition of it. Seriously, an 'encyclopedia' deserves better than this.84.30.39.140 (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
John, DNFTT. Seriously, even if there was a point to the original post, the editors' personal attacks and disregard for (or ignorance of) the tenets of wikipedia render this whole conversation unconstructive. 78.50.130.200 (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
You're right, I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I can't help pointing out irony when it knocks on my door. The above IP has stated "Why don't you actually take the time out of your busy schedule to learn what other people's positions and frame of reference is on any particular subject before immediately sequestering them into groups?", yet has very quickly forgotten each of the insults and pigeonholing attempts conducted by himself in his very first posts on the talk page. I've already explained that my chiming in on the matter was to denote his lack of good faith, lack of civility, and lack of understanding of Wikipedia's purpose, and I even admitted that since I haven't read the source he questions or the source he offers up that I won't be debating the statement in the article (which he seems to think I'm doing anyway). That's the extent of my engagement with this particular conspiracist. Loremaster is usually quite busy on weekends it seems, but I'm sure he'll address the problems with the quoted statement on Monday if not sooner - however, I hope the above IP will realize that his belligerence will not get him very far or help him be taken seriously, especially with Loremaster. John Shandy` • talk 20:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
There you go and do it again - to placate your ego - put on the pejorative labels. So, the deck is purposely stacked against me it seems - you can engage in namecalling and petty pejorative labels being applied against 'IP address posters', yet I can't 'engage' (nice term there - right from the military, in fact) you in quite the same manner. Hmmm - quite the authoritarian streak there. I think for all your liberal posturing, you would have liked the Third Reich quite well.84.30.39.140 (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
My intent is not to massage my ego - I am actually a relatively new registered user (only been registered and editing since about March), so I really don't have any weight to throw around. I have not labeled you - I've only pointed out that you have done almost everything that you accuse editors of this article of doing, which in my opinion is quite ironic. I've not served in the military, I am not well-familiar with military terminology or procedures - I only know that I personally favor using military to defend freedoms, rather than advance interests, of any given nation. I wasn't trying to make an authoritarian streak. I hold no position of authority here - I am merely attempting to serve as a voice of reason, and establish an understanding between what you have accused editors of, and what you yourself are doing. Think what you will of me, but it has no bearing on the quality of this article, and it does not move any of us one step closer to an improvement in the article. Liberal posturing? I would have liked the Third Reich? Those are nonsensical and insulting accusations, which you seem to enjoy throwing at me. Do you live in a paradigm of absolutism, where a liberal equates to a totalitarian - is there not allowed to be some grey area where I may hold certain liberal views and certain conservative views? I ask that rhetorically, of course, but we shouldn't have to have this kind of a dialog anyway, because this talk page should be used to discuss improvements to the article, not hurl baseless accusations at the available editors. I think you are reading into my choices of words too much - my use of "engage" was not loaded with any agenda. I was simply referring to my choice to engage you in a dialog after you accused editors of this article of deliberately misinforming the public through mis-characterization of H.G. Wells's concept of a new world order. I suggest you wait until Loremaster addresses the rationale and issues of the statement you quoted from the article before you continue attacking myself or other editors on this talk page. John Shandy` • talk 04:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Der Ton macht die Musik. [31] 78.55.100.91 (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Loremaster's reply

Since John Sandy did a great job of reprimanding User:84.30.39.14 for his violations of talk page guidelines, I won't comment on the issue. Regarding the question of HG Wells and the notion of a New World Order as "secular, social democratic world government", it should be obvious to anyone who has read the Open Conspiracy section of the article that this notion comes from a quote from Wells book The New World Order, which makes no mention of a "World Brain" or anything else that may be interpreted as totalitarian. --Loremaster (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is your retort? You didn't even take the time to read that essay I provided to you, right? You know, an effort that completely makes mincemeat of your pathetic assertion here that Wells' 'New World Order constituted a 'secular, social democratic world government'. You should stop trying to hide behind 'rational skepticism', since there is little evidence that you actually look at all available evidence and literature available to you - you only levitate to what suits your conspicuous views. You want to validate your own personal worldview at all costs - to make you feel better, you see.
Honest question - did you even read the book in question? Oh wait, we already know the answer to that question. It's breathtaking. Really. It's beyond disgusting.
They should revoke your right to post on a site purporting to be an 'encyclopedia'. Stop poisoning people's minds with garbage.84.30.39.140 (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I read the essay before I wrote my retort but it doesn't contradict my point. I also read Well's book many years ago but I have never been a fan of his political ideas or his articulation of ideas he and I may share. Furthermore, the mention of Wells in the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article predates me and was most probably added by someone who saw it as evidence of some New World Order conspiracy. I simply provided some contextualization months if not years later. That being said, if a reliable source clearly demonstrates that Wells was insincere when he describes the New World Order as a "world social democracy" instead of a "world technocracy" I would have no problem editing the article to reflect that fact. However, I'm unclear as to what it would change in the article since the crucial issue it that there has never been and there still is no conspiracy for the establishment of the totalitarian New World Order you and other claim Wells truly envisioned. For the record, it is impossible for me to look at all available evidence and literature available to both of us. I therefore seek out the most well-known reliable sources on any given subject regardless of whether they validate my own personal views. I probably believe in some plausible conspiracy theories (such as the CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory) that Barkun and Berlet (the main sources for this article) would dismiss as non-sense... --Loremaster (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, interesting - what exactly would you define then as a 'world social democracy'? Exactly what shrining principles would such a thing live by if what was astutely documented in the essay doesn't contradict Wells' elaborate framing of the 'Open conspiracy' 'New World Order' as a 'world social democracy'?
No evidence? That's akin to saying the sun doesn't come up in the morning - perhaps you disagree with the framing of such 'evidence' as alluding to the coming of a 'new world order', but there is no denying the aspirations of a certain segment of futurist transhumanists that want a 'World Brain' type construct to govern over entire cities and their populations. A very good example of that is the technocrat-esque Zeitgeist movement and their affiliates at the Venus Project - it's in their manifesto. But this isn't just limited to one specific branch - it's all across the board.
BTW, for your information, a recent report by the Rockefeller Foundation (in cooperation with Global Business Network) has readily conceded that the world from now up to 2030 will slide into one of four basic scenarios, and that all of them will involve less freedom and more authoritarian control - worldwide. That's not me saying it, that's them. Given the amount of companies that are affiliated with GBN alone, I'd be inclined to take them seriously.
None of them describes a cute and loving future - and none of them involve any additional granting of more freedoms.
http://www.gbn.com/consulting/article_details.php?id=101&breadcrumb=consulting
I hope you realize there is real stuff coming down the pike that does not hinge upon my fruityloop theories if I could be accused of having any. Best take up your beef with the social planners and the futurists writing these reports.84.30.39.140 (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article. It isn't a space to discuss Wells's ideas or define the principles of a “world social democracy” or acknowledging the technoutopian fantasies of transhumanists and Zeitgeisters or commenting on futurist reports by the Rockefeller Foundation. The only thing that matters is whether or not the article accurately reports Wells' own personal definition of a new world order in his book The New World Order . Although I agree that the essay you brought to our attention does a good job of exposing the totalitarian nature of some of Well's ideas about a new world order, this article focuses only on how his work has been interpreted by New World Order conspiracy theorists. --Loremaster (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly was left to interpretation then? I would assert that most of Wells' ideas are not actually that far off from being realized, and I can actually provide proof of this. Once faced with the accepted evidence, a change in the article would be in order to make the case that these 'New WOrld Order conspiracy theorists' you allude to perhaps might have a point or two about Wells and the extent to which his plans have come to fruition. As it is, it is horribly one-sided and it basically absolves Wells of having anything to do with an 'authoritarian' and 'totalitarian' world state. That was my main beef with this article from the get go, and hence why I brought this up. I take it this subject in particular stays well within the boundaries of what this Talk page is supposed to be about.84.30.39.140 (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If you come around to actual proposals of changes to the article, make sure to use WP:RS, and keep it non-WP:OR. Your "beef" with rational skepticism is completely irrelevant to the article, and it prevents you from WP:AGF, which would make your requests a lot easier to go into the article than the confrontational way. Once again: Der Ton macht die Musik. 92.77.150.79 (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No offense but one has to be extremely delusional if one thinks that most of Well's ideas are anywhere close to being realized. The fact that some countries are drifting towards authoritarianism is not evidence that his ideas are being implemented or that there is a conspiracy by some secret elite to create a New World Order in the form of a totalitarian one-world government. So even if the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article suggested that Wells advocated for the very totalitarian world state that conspiracy theorists fear, it doesn't change the reality that the state envisioned by Wells does not exist and probably will never exist if Mark C. Partridge's essay One World Government: Conspiracy Theory or Inevitable Future? is correct. Ultimately, you are wasting your time if you think this article will be radically changed to suit your worldview. --Loremaster (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Suit my worldview? 'One has to be extremely delusional'? The pleasure of pointing out the irony is all mine. Actually, I wonder in what world you're actually living in where you feel that what HG Wells wrote has yet to pass. I think it's a waste therefore to bother even talking to you any further, since there must be a reason for your extreme denial of the relevant facts. Besides, you won't even look at the previous documents I provided to you such as the Rockefeller Foundation / Global Business Network report. You don't even know what the Global Business Network amounts to - you don't know a thing about cybernetics and what has led to the Revolution in Military Affairs and transhumanism. So keep wallowing in ignorance and keep pushing those Military-Industrial-Academic textbooks of yours where a caricature is invented that gets chastised. Social sciences work wonders to try to cover up ulterior agendas, doesn't it? Finally, Mark C. Patridge is insignificant, therefore his book is not worth holding up over all the evidence that is staring you right in the face.84.30.39.140 (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that I have edited all sentences in the article dealing with Wells to take into account some of your comments thereby proving my openness, I have read the Rockefeller Foundation/Global Business Network report (which is speculation) but nothing in this document contradicts my point that there is no conspiracy by some secret elite to create a New World Order in the form of a technocratic collectivist one-world government envisioned by Wells regardless of political trends and technological developments that are superficially similar to Well's anachronistic ideas. Furthermore, I find it hilarious that you would accuse me of knowing nothing about transhumanism when I am the person who extensively expanded and improved the Transhumanism article enough for it to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 2, 2006, and I am also the person who first mentioned transhumanism in the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article. So it could even be argued that many New World Order conspiracy theorists first heard about transhumanism because of my contribution to this article! As for my “pushing Military-Industrial-Academic textbooks” (some of which are written by progressives who are highly critical of the military-industrial complex), you seem unable to understand that Wikipedia policy demands that the content of any article must rely on such books. Despite the fact that I try as much as possible to respect it, it is a policy that frustrates even me since there is great information that I would like to add to some articles that I can't because it comes from a blog. Finally, dismissing Mark C. Patridge as “insignificant” without refuting any of the claims he makes in his essay proves that the only thing you have to offer is conspiratorial misinterpretation of good information. So can you please limit yourself to discussing improvements to the New World Order article instead of embarrassing yourself by constantly making personal attacks fueled by your ignorant prejudices about me and other good contributors. --Loremaster (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Way for generalizations. Get your facts straight - the Rockefeller Foundation report (in cooperation with Global Business Network, a hive consortium consisting of almost every major corporation - a cartel in short) can not just be summarized by one pathetic word such as 'Speculation', it's far more than that (but I'm guessing you don't want the readership here to read it - you want them to just brush it off). It's four major projections of the future we're heading in. Three out of four of them are extreme enforced austerity, authoritarian in terms of control, and overall bad for every stakeholder involved. They discuss flu pandemics coming down the pike that will kill millions - it discusses terror attacks happening all over the place - and it says specifically - 'these are proxies for events that are about to happen'. Man, I sometimes have to chuckle at some of you people's incredulity. It's really amazing what the social sciences have done to the cognitive capacity of some people out there that think they are smart and intelligent. It's astounding. It's like common sense has been thrown out of the window.84.30.39.140 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a generalization. By definition futurist/futurological/foresight scenarios involve speculation based on present trends. However, good futurists/futorologists/foreseers always acknowledge that their speculative scenarios may be proven wrong by variables they couldn't possibly anticipate. It should go without saying that no one (including the masterminds of the Global Business Network) knows the future. Just look at the current financial crisis of 2007-2010, the vast majority of economists never saw it coming until it was too late... As I said before, rising authoritarianism in some democratic countries, flu pandemics killing millions, and terrorist attacks creating mass panic are all terrible things that we should all be concerned about but they are in no way evidence that Wells' ideas are being implemented or that there is a conspiracy by some secret elite to create a technocratic socialist one-world government. In other words, none of these valid concerns about the future have anything to do with an article about New World Order conspiracy theories. That's the common sense you seem unable to grasp. --Loremaster (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, institutes like Global Business Network fit to a tee Wells 'the Samurai' class and Carroll Quigley's 'feudal overlords'. Do you know who Carroll Quigley is? This entire debate can end just there, and I will win by default. If you don't know in what context I'm talking about this stuff and what connotations are linked to those two 'descriptors', we can't have a constructive debate about this. You need to be familiar with the subject material first before you can comment on it.84.30.39.140 (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of superficial similarities between the Global Business Network and Wells's ideas about a Samurai class, it doesn't change the fact that the GBN is an institute compromised of members of the transnational capitalist class while Wells was a promoter of international socialism! This is the crucial difference that make any comparison absurd! As for Carroll Quigley, I've known about him and his work for years and, if you had actually taken the time to read the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article in its entirety, you would know that he is mentioned in the Round Table section of the article. Will you please stop assuming that I don't know anything simply because I disagree with you? You keep making a fool of yourself every single time! --Loremaster (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are aware of Carroll Quigley (as you purport to be), then you should be familiar with the fact that his quip about 'feudal overlords' referred to a cadre of corporate CEOs who would take over the reigns of power. Similarly, if you had actually bothered to read Mark Stahlman's essay entitled 'Wired Magazine and the ENglish Ideology', you would know that Wells was a very rare kind of 'socialist' indeed that actually showed signs of being a closet 'Libertarian'. I'm sorry, but just screaming 'you keep making a fool out of yourself' is not going to refute that I am slowly but surely pointing out your major erroneous views on not only Wells, but the semantic meaning behind the terms Carroll Quigley used (which, if I am not mistaken, you claimed you're totally familiar with - yet his 'feudal overlord' descriptor and the way that relates to financial oligarchs did not dawn on you apparently).84.30.39.140 (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As a progressive who constantly denounces the neofeudalist agenda of the superclass, it always puzzles me that some people seem unable to grasp the obvious differences between the agenda of the transnational capitalist class and the dreams of internationalist socialists... --Loremaster (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, you asked for it - I refer you to:
http://web.archive.org/web/20011226171744/www.rewired.com/96/Fall/1122.html
"Wells' dalliance with the Fabian Society (he tried to take it over by promoting free-love to the wives of its board members) may be one of the sources of confusion leading to Wells' apparent "socialist" credentials. But, as even a cursory reading of Wells' quickly demonstrates, their was absolutely no room for working class revolt (or certainly working class leadership) in Wells' worldview. He was thoroughly convinced that the downtrodden could never lead or even comprehend the revolution he saw coming. Wells' life was dedicated to organizing a completely new class of technical and social scientific experts - technocrats - who would assume control of a world driven to collapse and ruin by workers and capitalists alike. Wells wanted to completely reprogram humanity - through the creation of a synthetic religion - and, like all utopians, had no affection for the commoner of his time at all. Wells considered socialism, in its various Social Democratic to Marxist manifestations, to be a string of completely anachronistic failures and a throwback to the era of human folly and self-destruction which Wells sought to leap past - much like Toffler dismissing nation-states and representative democracy as "Second Wave."
"In fact, Wells was very clear what sort of corporativist world he wanted when he identified the earliest of the multinational corporations as the fledgling model of his ideal economic organization. In his 1920's novel, "The World of William Chissolm", and the companion essay, "Imperialism and The Open Conspiracy", Wells cites early multi-nationals as the only kind of globe-spanning (and, therefore, anti-nation-state) economic structures which could embody his revolutionary principles. He chides both government and business leaders who think that any remnant of the still British-nation-centered Empire could survive and calls on the heads of multinationals to join in forming the vanguard of his revolutionary "Open Conspiracy." "84.30.39.140 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. However, Wells is on record as promoting anti-Marxist socialism in his book about a New World Order. That being said, what you still seem to fail to understand is that, according to reliable sources, the vast majority of right-wing conspiracy theorists in America fear a New World Order as a socialist/communist one-world government (rather than a technocratic capitalist one-world government supposedly envisioned by Wells). Therefore, in the context of this article, the only thing that should concern us is how these conspiracy theorists interpret his work. --Loremaster (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Given these edits, I don't think it's constructive for us to continue debating this IP - emotionally-charged talk page responses aren't going to get us anywhere. This IP hasn't assumed good faith on our part from the get-go and has made very sure to denigrate us for our dissent and ignore the talk page guidelines that help us avoid these kinds of frustrations. I'm not even sure we can take this IP seriously any longer. Painting potential scenarios and likely worldwide shifts as part of some deliberate plot is nothing other than speculation, no matter how thoroughly researched and well-projected the events are - stringing them together and affiliating them with a one-world government is not supported by the sources offered by the IP. This amounts to a non sequitur. While these shifts may take place, once cannot conclude or infer from the occurrence (or potential occurrence) of these shifts alone, that they are deliberate or have a causal relationship with some kind of group endeavoring to establish an unsavory one-world government. John Shandy` • talk 16:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I like how you assume the moral high ground when so far you have done nothing but castigate, cajole and spread unfounded assumptions about my character. You have not assumed good faith since the very start. 84.30.39.140 (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

But how can you say that with a straight face when that's exactly what you have being doing? --Loremaster (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I never denied that I did - you and John Shandy on the other hand would no doubt deny that you were doing so. Therefore, at least I can claim I'm not being hypocritical and two-faced - wonder if there's a Wikipedia policy concerning that. 84.30.39.140 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've rightfully castigated you, made correct assumptions about your character and assumed bad faith on your part because of your violations of talk page guidelines from the very start (which are violations you should not be proud about). By the way, not only am I familiar with the technoutopian Californian Ideology behind Wired magazine but I've read every book you keep assuming I haven't read. However, I simply don't read them through the conspiratorial lens you seem to look through. --Loremaster (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious - through which lens do you view it then? I'll give you the chance to respond without me framing your stance on it beforehand.84.30.39.140 (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Through sociological theories of power. To understand what I mean by that, I suggest you read G. William Domhoff's essay There Are No Conspiracies. --Loremaster (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's very funny that you purport to be against techno-utopism (which I assume falls in line with Mark Stahlman's take on the subject), yet you link to (as authoritative proof of your contention that 'there are no conspiracies') essays from 'sociological scientists'. Need I remind you that the 'social sciences' were very much byproducts of cybernetics to begin with. So, it would make sense for them to dispute the notion that there are 'conspiracies' in the first place - given that one of the founders of this techno-utopianism, i.e. HG Wells, talked of an 'open conspiracy' in books and in his own little social club. The social sciences sure know what they're playing at, don't they? And you sure seem to excel in playing damage control, don't you? LOL.84.30.39.140 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

sigh Since you are becoming increasingly irrational, I will follow John Sandy's advice and stop engaging you in discussion. If you refuse to stop indulging in personal attacks and do not actually start providing valid suggestions on how to improve the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article, I will ask a Wikipedia administrator to block you from editing this article and its talk page. --Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I want to thank you for bringing up that particular social scientist. I was very keen to note the discrepancy between his 1950s book 'Who Rules The World?' (for which he caught a lot of flak by arguing there is a power elite in America that constitutes a 'conspiracy' in all but name - he even brings up the Council on Foreign Relations and all the other power blocks for God's sake), and then later creating the perception that none of that exists by saying 'There are no conspiracies'. Hmmmm, very interesting discrepancy there - or perhaps he's just arguing semantics. What exactly does it matter how you call it - you could call it an accumulation of 'social and financial interests' as Domhoff seems to insist on, or you can call it an 'open conspiracy' like H.G. Wells. In any case, it's about the same thing - you're just arguing about the way such a power elite organizes and mobilizes itself, but you don't deny its existence. Hmmm, very curious this all...84.30.39.140 (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You quickly realize there is no discrepancy when you actually take time to read and understand the essay without any preconceived notions. Did you read it? --Loremaster (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I just struggle to comprehend why you are so dismissive of these 'conspiracy theories' when a large bulk of what they say is actually re-enforced by the very same social scientist you referred to. If anything, it's an affirmation of what 'conspiracy theorists' talk about, not a renouncement. Are we splitting hairs here? So you reject the notion of a 'conspiracy', but you accept the fact there is a power elite and an accumulation of business, financial, and political interests? Where does that get us, when the underlying 'idea unit' remains the same?
I want to make this clear - when you seem to be so ardent on dismissing any notion of a 'conspiracy', it would appear to that same segment of the population that you discount everything they're saying as being untrue - such as the various power blocks like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Wisemen's Committee under JFK. Yet by referring to Domhoff and saying that reflects your views, you thereby appear to be acknowledging much of what they say as being true.84.30.39.140 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you read and understand the essay in its entirety? If the answer is yes, please explain it to us. --Loremaster (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I will read it later. First, I'm actually going through and commenting on the book he penned ('Who Rules America?'), where he seems to affirm much of what this segment of the population is actually saying. Yet this Wikipedia article seems to take pride in calling them all a bunch of 'nuts' with crazy ideas - when even a cursory glance at this book of his would actually prove some of their allegations with regards to the CFR and such correct.
Once again, are we just splitting hairs here? Where is the fundamental difference between what he says in that book and between the conclusions Carroll Quigley arrived at?84.30.39.140 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the essay and you will understand... --Loremaster (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read it, and I think it is actually a very weak essay (where are the footnotes - where are the references?). He seems to have been neutered and reined in since first writing about the 'power elite' back in the '50s. Furthermore, his claim that there is no move for world government/governance is so preposterous that it really hurts the rest of the essay. We have tons of documented evidence that a world government is desirable from this wealthy power elite's perspective - the European Union is but one example of a supranational state - the Global Information Grid will tie the EU, the North-American Union (or whatever the real nomenclature will be), and the Asia-Pacific Rim Union all together, and all bureaucrats alike.
Finally, with regards to the CFR - Quigley actually goes into the CFR with a lot more detail. For instance, he fails to point out that an Anglophile was behind the mother company residing in England (Royal Institute of International Affairs), and that the CFR is nothing but an American branch of that same institution. By that same token, we now have an European Union edition of the CFR, called the European Union Council on Foreign Relations. Not everything stands or falls with Domhoff's analysis I'm afraid - and his summary of the CFR is very flimsy and leaves much to be desired. It's through 'omission' that crucial opinions get formed.84.30.39.140 (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The essay is devoid of footnotes and references because it was only meant as an introductory essay for his more scholarly work. Regardless, I hope you now know understand the difference between sociological theories of power and conspiratorial theories of power. Regarding this hypothetical move for world government, I suggest you read Mark C. Partridge's essay One World Government: Conspiracy Theory or Inevitable Future? and I ask you to please provide us with reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy for all your claims about world government. Lastly, regarding Quigley, it is widely known that right-wing conspiracy theorists who believe there is an international conspiracy to bring about a one-world government selectively use Quigley's information and analysis as evidence for their kooky, paranoid fantasies. Therefore, you need to find a second or third-party source that agrees with your interpretation of Quigley's work. --Loremaster (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you really seem to believe there is a body of work that argues 'against' the formation of a world government (based on one or two people at most who are not in influential power positions themselves), when all I have to do is point you to people like Bertrand Russell who called for a world government along with other Anglophiles and then point you to all the other highly influential people who have called for a world government formation - even John Holdren calls for it in his book 'Ecoscience', but instead he refers to it as the 'planetary regime'. If you want sources, go check out Bertrand Russell's book 'The Impact Of Science On Society' - world government always pops up used in conjunction with 'curbing' 'overpopulation' - to almost no exception. I think we should create some altogether new discussion thread where all the evidence that argues there is a push FOR world government is weighed against the evidence that argues there IS NOT such a push for world government. Then, by popular consensus, people will be able to decide for themselves which worldview is ultimately more in tune with reality.84.30.39.140 (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There is actually a body of work that argues against the possibility of the formation of a world government (especially the socialist/communist totalitarian kind of world government imagined by right-wing conspiracy theorists). I only pointed you to two introductory essays on the subject to give you a small taste of a different point of view than the one you fanatically hold to... That being said, putting aside the fact that Bertrand Russell has been dead for over 40 years, no one is disputing that many people (whether or not they hold an influential power position) have called for world government in the past and the present and will probably continue doing so in the future. The crucial point is simply that such idealistic but ultimately unrealistic calls cannot be interpreted as evidence that there is an active conspiracy by a secret elite to create a world government or that the establishment of a world government is likely. As for your suggestion for a new discussion thread on whether or not there is a push for world government, the Talk:World government page would be the only appropriate forum because the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) page is only for discussing improvements to an article about New World Order conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists, remember? --Loremaster (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how you keep shifting the goalposts and keep pushing yourself as the ultimate harbinger of reality. Incidentally, that article you linked me to - only seems to emphasize the author's frustration that they can't get 'global governance' without the so-called 'American loonies' getting agitated about it, but it does not suggest he doesn't see global governance as something to be desired from an establishment-toting perspective - rather the opposite. Besides, all denial aside, the European Union is a supranational organization, and as that article by you also points out, a formation of similar supranational organizations that will (combined) form a world government is very much their approach to it. Here is what he says himself: "The question then is not will global governance emerge, but rather how will these multinational blocs interact with one another.".84.30.39.140 (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not shifting any goalpost. I am simply making you aware of 1) Wikipedia guidelines, 2) information from reliable sources, and 3) common sense. By the way, if you actually read and understood the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article in its entirety, you would know that I am mirroring some arguments that are actually in it! That being said, putting aside the fact that your gift for misinterpretation is both impressive and tiresome, Partridge isn't arguing that regional powers will combine to form a world government. He is arguing that there there will be no world government but that regional powers will be dealing with each other in the same way two nation-states like the United States and China deal with other today. Regardless, there is a difference between global governance and global government. Both the author and I support global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve. For example, we would both endorse international treaties that address the causes of the financial crisis and climate change. However, this is obviously not the same thing as endorsing the abolishment of nation-states and the establishment of an undemocratic world government. So get a grip. --Loremaster (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You're obviously delusional - there's no kind way to say it while staying truthful. The European Union already HAS led to an abolishment of nearly all nation-states' sovereignty within Europe, it is decidedly undemocratic (unelected bureaucrats make laws that are then enforced on each and every member state), and the same will happen to the United States. You're a delusional American that still doesn't recognize he is still very much a slave - but a happy and obedient one that thinks he is part of the power structure. We in Europe perfectly understand what has been going on - they've kept the real underpinnings of the EU secret to us for nearly 50 years, and the same stuff is coming to the United States whether or not you wish to think it away or not. Good night Sir - the only one who has a gift for 'misinterpretation' is you, because apparently, you WANT TO BELIEVE THINGS THE WAY YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO BE!
Lastly, because it is just too easy to destroy all your fallacious arguments piece by piece, your argument that there is a 'distinction' to be made between global governance and global government is sheer baloney. Even Gideon Rachman, the guy that is quoted in that article you so kindly provided to me, has said that 'global governance' is an euphemism for 'global government'. So once again Sir, you are simply in denial and I hate to burst your little bubble, but it's necessary for you to finally grow up and deal with the world as it is.84.30.39.140 (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
This is where I officially debunk you. This is an excerpt from Gideon Rachman's own article, 'And Now For A World Government' (which is the subject of that article you linked me to):
"But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”."
Again, why do I have to argue with someone who obviously doesn't know what he is talking about? That's Jacques Attali right there. You want me to believe your take on 'global governance' vs 'global government' is more correct? Yeah right.... why are you so gullible? Why do you believe everything a bunch of lower-level Anglo-American establishment gatekeepers tell you to dissuade you from your fear of losing 'sovereignty'? You aren't used to having someone destroy your arguments and point out the errors in your presumptions, do you?84.30.39.140 (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL Putting aside the fact that I suspected you might seize on that passage from Gideon Rachman's essay to make that claim that global governance is simply a euphenism for global governement, the reality is that regardless of what an idiot like Sarkozy says or Rachman's idealistic yet unrealistic musings about global goverment, political scientists do make a distinction between global governance and global government. Wipedia's article on global governance and world government explains it well (or least used to). As for your bizarre attempt to associate the political structure of the European Union with my definition of global governance, it is a sign that I am wasting my time arguing with someone as fanatical as you clearly seem to be. So, as I said before, please start discussing improvements to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article making sure to provide reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy or I will ask an administrator to block you from posting on this talk page. --Loremaster (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Man, you're making yourself look like quite the fool here. Let me go over the things you got wrong in that single reply:
1) You mistook 'Jacques Attali' for Sarkozy ('regardless of what an idiot like Sarkozy says' - oh dear - I don't think you even know who Jacques Attali is, since you totally seemed to skim over it. This is not the first time you have failed to pick up on something, by the way, just for the record. Oh boy - your credibility took a dosenove at this very moment - especially given the smug preface - 'you were going to tell me - oh I anticipated you might seize on that', then you gloss over the name 'Jacques Attali' - like I say, a person you probably know nothing about - and instead attribute that quote to Sarkozy.).
2) You called 'Sarkozy' an idiot. Oh, how well-suited for Mr. Intellectually-minded here to resort to such common pejoratives.
3) That you try to re-instate this pathetic assertion that there is a difference between 'global governance' and 'global government' shows that you want the facts to suit your case, not the other way around. You can't have it both ways.
4) As for the 'threat' and appeal to authority - "I will ask an Administrator to block you" - I would invite anyone who comes in here from a non-biased perspective to look at my little debate with Mr. Loremaster here and see who exactly is misrepresenting what. Seriously, I think I'm dealing with someone under 20 years of age - because he can't even get the names right of people outside his country and resorts to calling them 'idiots'.
Finally - I don't know if this is a tactic by you - but you totally screwed up the indentation of all the posts in this thread. Now it looks like 'John Shandy' made a direct reply to this post when in fact that was originally placed several comments before.
5:) Seriously, you keep dishing out 'ultimatums' and pulling the 'Administrator ban/block' card, but it is really you who ought to be blocked from not only this Talk page, but this entire article in fact - because you have shown through all your twisting and deliberate hairsplitting that you can't be trusted to write and/or edit this article in a non-biased fashion.84.30.39.140 (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say Sarkozy's advisor but I often forget some words when I am writing fast hence my tendency to correct my posts for typos and missing words often (as you may have noticed). That being said, I have nothing more to say to you. My warning stands. Goodbye. --Loremaster (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

'Sarkozy's advisor' is a long ways removed from 'an idiot like Sarkozy says'. Ummm..... yeah... (snickers)... nice try worming your way out of that.84.30.39.140 (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally speaking, I have grown rather tired (and admittedly somewhat-frustrated) of people like yourself coming to the article and assuming that any parties in disagreement with your views or theories are a) part of any such conspiracy, b) in favor of an undesirable New World Order as defined by other conspiracists, c) deliberately attempting to misinform readers. It is this typical attitude that I personally don't like, and of course I will respond with equal force and try to use tact and even sarcasm to convey my annoyance with such underlying assumptions as the three I mentioned - and at that, I certainly would be in opposition to the kind of NWO that conspiracists describe, but it doesn't mean I believe one is likely impending or plausible. It's one thing to debate the content of an article, but it's an entirely separate thing to accuse us of having some kind of agenda, simply because we are citing WP policies (to help you avoid assuming bad faith on our part), or simply because we are in disagreement over whether or not a source supports one assertion or another. After you stopped attacking me and began debating the content rather than casting unfounded allegations upon the contributors, I thought there might be some hope and I started to think that you may have good faith and intentions for the article - yet you later proceeded to outright insult Loremaster for not seeing eye to eye with you and you couldn't tolerate it or assume good faith on his part (evidenced by your initial responses and cleanups thereafter), and now as I have admitted, I have pretty much lost any good faith I may have had in your intentions for the article (and certainly for the talk page). All of that aside, your source offers support for those events as possible events, but does not support your claims of their likelihood or their causal relationship with a group endeavoring to establish a one-world government. That's the breaking point - we can't just daisy chain events to causes without something substantial and as always, reliable. John Shandy` • talk 17:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that 'prior intent' though? What do you look for in a crime investigation? Furthermore, don't you find the following quote on page 17 just a LITTLE bit curious: "Please consider names, dates, and other such specifics in each scenario as proxies for types of events, not as necessary conditions for any particular scenario to unfold". Are you familiar with 'Effects-based operations'? Do you know how that could interwine with 'scenario planning'?84.30.39.140 (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, you seem to be misinterpreting what they mean proxies... --Loremaster (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, your attempt at 'screwing up' the indentation seems to be deliberate to create the impression your entire rant is backed up by other people in this thread. For instance, the post below (for which you have altered the indentation of) was first posted on 9 July 2010 - your post is dated '10 July 2010' - therefore, the indentation doesn't make sense, since that post from 9 July 2010 was not intended to be a reply to your post.
Similarly, you seem to fall back on this claim of 'misinterpretation', yet so far you by no means have shown yourself to be immune to 'misinterpretation' on your own part as well by misinterpreting entire articles and even getting names wrong.84.30.39.140 (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The reason Loremaster adjusted the indentations is to make this discussion easier on the eyes - since much of it has been bilateral, with only occasional responses from myself and the other IP, and since your and Loremaster's dialog had become so lengthy, the indentations were crunching most of the text over to the right, taking up lots of vertical space and making the page longer, while leaving tons of empty whitespace. I've seen other Wikipedians do this on other talk pages that are prone to lengthy debates. There's no reason to assume that it is some kind of tactic by him to rearrange posts and create an illusion of support. The jumbled order of some of the posts is more than likely a mistake, if good faith is assumed. We can rearrange the indentations and post orders to their proper and legible order when this discussion gets archived in the later future, if not beforehand. No big deal, to be honest. John Shandy` • talk 18:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Just let me say that the IPs ideas cannot be included for simple, WP-specific reasons: no reliable sources have been offered for them, and they seem to be conclusions of original research. Both of which seriously hampers chances of changing the article. So would the IP mind instead of attacking long-standing editors with an interest in WPs quality to work constructively by arguing on the grounds of RS and WP policies? If not, this whole discussion is pointless ranting and this is, as the top of this very page states, not a forum. 92.77.150.79 (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be the intent to frame any and all sources offering a contradictory point of view as 'original sources', therefore calling them 'not fit for inclusion' - yet links to HTML 1.0 sites (if at that) are deemed 'acceptable' even though they even lack a professional look in the first place, not to mention that they are personal websites and not in any way affiliated to major institutions, news sources or whatnot. Not wishing to castigate the way things are done around here any longer, the doublestandards on display here are all the same quite self-evident.84.30.39.140 (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
No. Please, assume good faith here. I am pointing you to the valid policies, which are WP:RS and WP:OR. You are connecting Wells to thing happening right now. That is classic original research. You need to find a reliable source stating that conspiracy theorists make this claim. All of the ideological debates you three are having above are quite irrelevant to this article right now. In this case especially, it is necessary and helpful to soberly argue on the ground of sources and scientific research. If you think a double standard is being made, argue your case soberly. 92.77.150.79 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Batvette's reply

Gee do you think it's an accident that the criticisms intelligently voiced by that user, who provided sourcing for his criticisms, more or less echo mine though they center around a different section? One would think he's all alone if one did not look at the archives for this talk page, which the person who assumes to own this page seems to send recent comments to on a near daily basis- out of sight, out of mind. Let me also make clear that as I, this author never stated any belief of a one world socialist (or totalitarian) government being around the corner, yet is portrayed as a conspiracist to attempt to marginalize his edits. This article is still lacking the balance of RATIONAL SKEPTICISM and carries the tone of creating caracitures in which to knock them down as such. While it is undeniable many conspiracy theorists do fit the bill on that, presenting those fringe views of those as that of each group who raise the relevant issues, does them no just service as a presentation. Reiterating the problem is that each section takes the issues believed to be relevant by conspiracy theorists, distorts them into almost comic book proportions to be that which is irrational, stands back and weakly attempts to refute the now ridiculous issues simply on their irrational ridiculous nature, and leave any rational consideration of the real issues on the floor. As wih the CFR issue, the HG Wells argument leaves one assuming because we cannot find evidence of a conspiracy to create a one world totalitarian government, then anyone who looks at Wells' writings and is concerned about transitions toward totalitarian rule with loss of national sovereignty, must be a loon and laughed at for his conspiratorial worldview. Batvette (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL I was counting the days before Batvette would show up on this talk page and seize on User:84.30.39.140's comments to argue that he isn't alone in his frustration over the alleged bias of the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article... He is becoming so predictable that I could set my watch to him! :) Putting aside the fact nothing this user has said supports any of semi-coherent rants Batvette has posted on this talk page over the years and the fact that we now have two other people besides me (John Sandy and User:92.77.150.79) who argue that the current version of the article does have the balance of rational skepticism, I am repeating myself when I say that this article is about CONSPIRACY THEORIES about a New World Order in the form of a socialist/communist/totalitarian one-world government. Rather than creating caricatures, the irony is that this article goes out of its way to make these irrationally paranoid conspiracy theories seem far more sensible than they sound when articulated by conspiracy theorists themselves. Regardless, if Batvette (and User:84.30.39.140) is only concerned about the slippery slope towards a surveillance state in the United States or the loss of national sovereignty due to free trade treaties, how many times do I have to tell him that this article is NOT the place to address these legitimate issues until it gets through his thick head?!?
That being said, I only have one question for Batvette: When you consistently bemoan the United States' loss of national sovereignty, to who or what do you believe this sovereignty is being given to? --Loremaster (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Your question is beneath a reply as it's nonsequitor and it's foolish arrogance to think I'd fall for your distraction. I didn't state those were MY fears, I mentioned this was HG Wells' concepts and the article seeks to ridicule anyone's recognition of transitional states toward it. Yet another attempt to misrepresent the views of potential editors to marginalize them from touching YOUR article. Similarly lacking in intellectual integrity was this falsehood- Putting aside the fact nothing this user has said supports any of semi-coherent rants Batvette has posted on this talk page over the years. Oh, really now? These posts-
I was very keen to note the discrepancy between his 1950s book 'Who Rules The World?' (for which he caught a lot of flak by arguing there is a power elite in America that constitutes a 'conspiracy' in all but name - he even brings up the Council on Foreign Relations and all the other power blocks for God's sake), and then later creating the perception that none of that exists by saying 'There are no conspiracies'. and
Yet this Wikipedia article seems to take pride in calling them all a bunch of 'nuts' with crazy ideas - when even a cursory glance at this book of his would actually prove some of their allegations with regards to the CFR and such correct. and
Finally, with regards to the CFR - Quigley actually goes into the CFR with a lot more detail. For instance, he fails to point out that an Anglophile was behind the mother company residing in England (Royal Institute of International Affairs), and that the CFR is nothing but an American branch of that same institution. By that same token, we now have an European Union edition of the CFR, called the European Union Council on Foreign Relations. Not everything stands or falls with Domhoff's analysis I'm afraid - and his summary of the CFR is very flimsy and leaves much to be desired. It's through 'omission' that crucial opinions get formed
Are so echoing of my entire complaints about this article it would lead me to believe the only thing the acronym CFR means when Loremaster sees it is cannot f***ing read.
I have complaints with this article geared toward improving it. Frankly it should be deleted in its entirety or retitled "comical interpretations of socioeconomic transitions by someone who cannot recognize one editor mentioning CFR a half dozen times in a section might mean the same CFR another editor has been complaining about."
Since that is unlikely I think it would be better to create a link on the NWO disambiguation page "New World Order (global conspiracy)" See: Old World Order (nothing new about this, call it what you like). Which if you would look back in the 2009 archive at my very first post here, is my still valid complaint.
I have always understood your point that this article is about the beliefs of paranoid conspiracy theorists, like Alex Jones, and I agree he is an idiot and I do not share his views. My problem is the continued mislabelling of changing factors in the world being consistently labelled as a NEW WORLD ORDER and every idiot affixing thar label to everything because it's easy and convenient as a catch all term. So they come here to see if there's anything to it all and they have this smarmy insulting article to laugh at and takes the basis of their concern, turns it into a comic book than says "look at this comic book isn't it funny?" Why yes it is, I hope you had fun writing it now where is that encyclopedia I clicked on to find out if there really is something behind what that idiot Alex Jones was ranting about. That's what I thought wikipedia was about, a vehicle to satisfactorily inform people who are honestly seeking information.
Here is a question for YOU- Top 25 censored news stories of 1977- Jimmy Carter's Trilateral commission White House. Top 25 censored news stories of 2010- Obama's Trilateral commission White House. Tell me why it's paranoia for people to wonder if something is going on, and why this article does not seek to satisfy their quest for knowledge? Batvette (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
So it seems that I was wrong since both Batvette and this anonymous user share the same conspiratorial POV but also seem unable to read the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article or any book or essay written by Domhoff without completely misinterpreting it. I therefore stand corrected.
However, I will say this for the record: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission are essentially lobbyists for a transnational capitalist class that can and will try to consolidate their power though treaties, like the (failed) Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which threatened national sovereignty and democracy, and force participating nations in a "race to the bottom" in environmental and labor standards. Such treaties establish a new body of universal investment laws to guarantee multinational corporations excessive powers to buy, sell and undertake financial operations all over the world, severely diluting national laws, e.g., on environmental protection, regulation of labour standards and human rights established in developed countries. When trying to wrap their heads around the changing factors in the world brought on by the globalization of capitalism, paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorists make two mistakes: 1) they argue that this is some kind of secret plot when in reality the CFR and TL have always be open about these goals despite public relations spin to make it all seem as ifwhat they want will contribute to the common good, and 2) they accuse these corporate internationalists of conspiring to create a socialist authoritarian one-world government when it should obvious to any rational and well-informed person (whether he is left-wing or right-wing) that a world where multinational corporations can do whatever they want wherever they want is the furthest thing from world socialism/communism one can possibly imagine. The great irony is that not only did Marx, Lenin and other communist philosophers predict almost a century ago the changing factors in the world we are currently experiencing but they would roll over in their grave at the absurd notion any of it is leading to the establishment of a socialist authoritarian one-world government by rich capitalists!
So I will ask Batvette one question: How can you read the following passage from the Alleged conspirators section of article (which I actually wrote in reaction to the Alex Jones gang's criticisms of the article!) and seriously argue that the article gives the impression that people have nothing to worry about changing factors in the world and should simply move along?
Progressives, who are skeptical of right-wing conspiracy theories, also accuse the global power elite of not having the best interests of all at heart, and many intergovernmental organizations of suffering from a democratic deficit, but they argue that the superclass are plutocrats only interested in brazenly imposing a neoliberal or neoconservative new world order—the implementation of global capitalism through economic and military coercion to protect the interests of transnational corporations — which systematically undermines the possibility of a socialist one-world government. On the other hand, Marxists and anarchists, who believe the world is in the middle of a transition from the American Empire to the rule of a global ruling class that has emerged from within the American Empire, point out that right-wing conspiracy theorists, blinded by their anti-communism, fail to see is that what they demonize as the "New World Order" is, ironically, the highest stage of the very capitalist economic system they defend.
American intellectual Noam Chomsky, author of the 1994 book World Orders Old and New, often describes the New World Order as a post-Cold War era of super-imperialism in which "the New World gives the orders". Commenting on the 1999 US-NATO bombing of Serbia, he writes:
The aim of these assaults is to establish the role of the major imperialist powers--above all, the United States--as the unchallengeable arbiters of world affairs. The "New World Order" is precisely this: an international regime of unrelenting pressure and intimidation by the most powerful capitalist states against the weakest.
--Loremaster (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Sir, just stop it. You're embarassing yourself. Personally, I think there's some ulterior motive to your halfway reach-around with regards to addressing this 'power elite' - you admit some of it, then say 'no conspiracies exist', refer to one single figure as the ultimate figure of authority, when I could list dozens right out of the bat that instantly refute that guy, such as Jacques Attali, yet then you can't even get the name right - or know him, probably - and you say 'I don't care what an idiot such as Sarkozy says'. And this song and dance with you keeps going back and forth. Yet you keep dishing out the pejoratives, the slander, the 'misinterpretations' of not only my own character but Batvette as well. Who really is the rationally minded here?
Like I said before, you're discredited. When you can't distinguish between Sarkozy and Jacques Attali or don't have the slightest idea who Attali is, it's Game Over as far as any intellectual debate goes. I can only conclude you're a lightweight on this subject and are following low-grade propaganda from people who want to soothe people into believing there's no threat to their national sovereignty. I now make an appeal to any rationally minded moderators to please question the validity of all the edits Loremaster has made to this article and do a full independent review where every claim out of this guy's mouth is fact-checked.84.30.39.140 (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

User:198.150.52.18's reply

"the irony is that this article goes out of its way to make these irrationally paranoid conspiracy theories seem far more sensible than they sound when articulated by conspiracy theorists themselves." (emphasis added) Be careful Loremaster, your bias is showing. I really don't care about this article or conspiracy theories but twice I attempted to neutralize a biased statement that was undone within minutes... I simply tried to change "misinterpreted" to "interpreted". There are several other similar instances in the article but there's obviously no sense in wasting my time pointing them out. The funny part was that after I indicated that the cited references did not support the statement you actually removed the more neutral of the two and left in the citation from a biased blog! If you want to retain the statement as it stands, at least try to find a legitimate source. Anyway, I'm done here... have fun with your sandbox guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.150.52.18 (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to be careful about anything because regardless of my personal bias I am simply repeating the description of these conspiracy theories used by our reliable sources. Furthermore, there is nothing biased about the word "misinterpreted" if this is what a source says or implies. Although I will replace it with the word "fear" to resolve this recurring minor dispute once and for all, you should know that Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. That being said, the source I removed is a factually incorrect article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, a controversial journalist known for not only having a strong bias on many issues but actually being a conspiracy theorist himself! Regarding the blog, you should know that the reliability of a source is not contingent on it being bias-free. However, you are correct that we need a better source than just one blog post if the obviousness of a claim is disputed so I will find one as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I've rephrased the entire sentence dealing with global current conspiracy theories and I provided a more reliable source. --Loremaster (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
because regardless of my personal bias Let's all remember you said should you ever again attempt to block anyone from editing your article based solely upon their conspiratotial world view.Batvette (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Everyone, including the most respected scholar, has a bias. The issue is whether or not we are able to overcome our respective biases when editing an article in order to respect Wikipedia's policy requiring all articles having a neutral point of view. You and other people with a conspiratorial point of view have demonstrated that you seem unable or unwilling to do this. That being said, since I am not a Wikipedia administrator, I don't have the power to block anyone from editing this article. However, I have the right and the duty to protect it by reverting edits which seek to push a conspiratorial POV into the article or suppress valid content. And when I consider that someone is being disruptive, it is also my right and duty to request that a Wikipedia administrator blocks this person. --Loremaster (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Illuminati does not know they are Illuminati

Like a saint does not know they are a saint. This is a much deeper subject than anyone on here can actually comprehend. This subject only leads to arguments and that is why free speech tears this country apart but then thats communication. This should not anger anyone. We shall only be enlightened.Cosmos0001 (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see the talk page guidelines shown at the top of this article's talk page. We often have heated or otherwise tense discussions that often result from posts that are started in order to discuss the article's topic, rather than the contents of the article and ways to improve it. By using this talk page for what it is intended, we can avoid much of the rigamarole and focus on discussions that pertain directly to improving the article. Conversely, if we continue to have people start discussions that don't directly pertain to the article, or that attack editors or fail to assume good faith, then NWO believers and NWO skeptics will have a much more difficult time collaborating. If you have suggestions for the direct improvement of the article, we are all ears - but I'm afraid what counts are reliable sources, not enlightenment. John Shandy` • talk 04:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Arguments above and the purpose of a talk page.

It seems that the arguments above are either too personal, engaging in petty fights and rhetoric, or are not primarily intended to improve the content of the article. As things stand right now, large portions of this page should be deleted for personal attacks. Enough with the ideological infighting!

So I suggest if there are any relevant points above which need to be discussed in a civil and sober manner, could we please put the central arguments here, and discuss each on the basis of WP:RS with regard on the impact and improvement it would sustain to the article. As I understand it, there seems a basic opposition by both batvette and the IP to the title itself, as well as to the content. How do we go about to make this debate fruitful to the article without laying down ideological positions? Bring out the RS?

PS: I fully intend on deleting any new personal attacks, regardless of whether the same edit makes content arguements from now on. And as for the attacks and rants above, it is my opinion that they may be left here for a few days (however long it will take to condense the main points), and should be deleted as well. This is a disgrace to wikipedia, let's try to keep it civil, alright?92.77.150.79 (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Who has engaged in attacks so far? This is very much a 'negative feedback control loop' being applied here. It is 'impossible' to deconstruct Loremaster's lies and twisting when all another 'mod' has to do is claim one or the other resorts to 'petty infighting' and threaten to remove all posts - when all I'm trying to do is to illustrate the leaps in logic Loremaster has made and the ways in which he purposefully misrepresents information and sources.
This is indeed a disgrace to Wikipedia - but not for the same reasons you seem to think necessarily.
You want to maintain impartiality and NPOV? Simple solution: block Loremaster from this article momentarily as well as myself, and scrutinize the entire article. This article amounts to snide characterizations of certain segments of the population and deliberate misinterpretation of certain works (such as HG Wells and his 'New World Order'). It can not be taken seriously at the moment, and much of that is conceivably due to Loremaster's edits.84.30.39.140 (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
When these issues are finally resolved, rather than deleting any of the above discussions, they should be archived to the 2010 talk page archives. Future contributors will then be able to see what the issues were and how a resolution (or consensus) is reached. Since there seems to be an interpretation discrepancy, perhaps we could even engage in an exercise whereby we post the contents of some of these disputed articles/essays on this talk page in bold lettering, and then everyone read through and post their comments on each passage, beneath and indented. This may not be conventional, but at least we could drill down to the core of each disputed assertion. Totally unconventional, but then again maybe innovation could benefit us in this circumstance - just some food for thought. John Shandy` • talk 18:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the recent discussions were more or less that they focussed on persons, not content, and thus turned to unproductive rhetoric. I would once again like to remind everyone, that these talk pages are for improvements of the articles, not for personal attacks, ad hominems and attempts at "exposing" other users as CTs or liars. That will get this thing nowhere. If you want something changed, argue on the basis of WP:RS. This is especially important in controversial topics such as this one seems to be. And let me make it clear: that means all participants. 78.55.7.237 (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Albeit a fair amount of personal attacks cast by the IP were mixed into the discussion from the get-go, the discussions did focus primarily on content at the end of the day, but mostly focused on two opposing interpretations, one commonly shared by the sources cited by the article, and one apparently shared by both Batvette and the IP. Aside from that, I disagree with your removal of Loremaster's response to this section (though I understand the removal of the IP's, since it was a blatant personal attack and unfounded allegation), however I did not revert your deletion. I think you (IP:78.55.7.237) may be overstepping boundaries and perhaps getting too excited in trying to moderate these recent heated debates. I assure you there have been much more heated debates on Wikipedia that have withstood personal attacks from random IPs. We haven't reached a boiling point, and whether the IP continues to cast personal attacks or not, both reviews (the external review and the GA review) of the article were positive and constructive - the article is on the right track. John Shandy` • talk 14:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with John. For the record, I have archived the unproductive threads of discussion. I will no longer engage User:84.30.39.140 or Batvette in discussion. They are free to express themselves on this talk page as long as they respect Wikipedia guidelines but I will simply ignore them and protect the article from any attempt by them or anyone else to push a conspiratorial POV into the article and/or suppress valid content. --Loremaster (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

173.52.124.5's edit in the lead.

I didn't want to revert this edit, only question it. I've only glanced very briefly at sources 3 and 8 cited near the line that was edited. However, does the author think these effects would be devastating? Have they stated so? If so, it is entirely appropriate to channel their word choices so long as we meet WP:NPOV - Attributing and specifying biased statements (if I am interpreting policy correctly). In essence, if political scientists do make such a claim - that such effects would be devastating rather than merely different - then we should undo this edit and restore devastating. Thoughts?

And at that, is the author of the sources (Chip Berlet) suggesting that the rise of a Third Position is merely a new political party in the sense that we view current or historical political parties? Is the author suggesting that a subversion of established political powers means simply shaking up the U.S.'s two-party system, or suggesting that it means something else (such as an insurrection or full-blown overthrow or coup of the government)? The IP seems to have taken the Third Position to mean a simple political party, and the subversion of established political power to mean a simple shaking up of the two-party system. The IP's opinion is irrelevant, and if the authors do think that the Third Position or the subversion of established powers is more than what the IP thinks they mean, the edit should surely be reverted. John Shandy` • talk 14:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello John. I've reverted 173.52.124.5's edits to the lead because:

1. The term “devastating effects” comes from Barkun's book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America which Daniel Pipes quotes in his must-read short review of the book entitled Michael Barkun on Old Conspiracies, New Beliefs:

What does this craziness all amount to? Mr. Barkun, who reads widely in this backstairs literature, argues that in recent years "ideas once limited to fringe audiences became commonplace in mass media" and this has inaugurated a period of "unrivaled" millenarian activity in the United States. He worries of the "devastating effects" this frenzy could wreak on American political life — and by extension, around the world.

So I have re-added this review as a source for the first part of the last sentence of the lead.

2. As it is clearly explained in the Criticism section of the article, Berlet is not talking about a new third political party shaking up the U.S.'s two-party system (despite the existence of the American Third Position party which seeks to do just that). He is in fact suggesting an insurrection or full-blown overthrow or coup of the government by fascists. The Third Position movement is a neo-fascist movement that is quite skillful in attracting both right-wingers and left-wingers.

--Loremaster (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought so - thanks for the clarification and for cleaning up the edit. I'm still working my way through the article - I'm about 65-70% through, but then I think I'll want to start trying to read some of the key sources (hopefully time will afford me that chance soon). John Shandy` • talk 00:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Perfect. --Loremaster (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

World government - let's debunk the naysayers once and for all

I'm getting really tired of the fallacious arguments Loremaster has been peddling here, and his contention that there 'exists' a 'body of work' that argues against world government ever taking place - and that only a small minority call out for world government.

OK, let this be the thread where his view is finally ascribed to a small minority (such as Loremaster - a World of Warcraft nick coincidentally, which shows us with what kind of purposeful things he chooses to fill his free time with) that can't handle the facts.

Choose Life: A Dialogue By Arnold Toynbee, Daisaku Ikeda

Arnold J. Toynbee talking about the need for a 'world government', 'world police force', and so on. I assume all of you know who Arnold J. Toynbee is and what his relevance is to history.

What's next, Loremaster? 'Toynbee is an idiot' as well??

Want me to dig up more stuff? How the hell does somebody like Arnold J. Toynbee pale against the irrational screed put forth by (say) Domhoff who says there has never been talk of world government? That is delusional crazy talk right there - I could give you 200 more books easily where a world government is discussed about by very wealthy and influential people - and from a perspective of 'we need to do this'.

This thread needs to be 'fixed' and all of the disingenuous arguments concerning world government (that 'it's a conspiracy theory promulgated by the right-wing') needs to be retracted, because what Loremaster is saying just DOES NOT correlate with documented history. Wikipedia is in full obligation here to 'fix' this article. No pussy-footing about here - I will continue to give more evidence over the coming days and if this article's contents does not change accordingly, I will derive my own conclusions from that as I will see fit. Needless to say, it doesn't look good. 84.30.39.140 (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Loremaster is actually a common moniker for "a wise person with knowledge of history, genealogy and ancient poetry" - as well, a quick Google query shows that Loremaster is the name of an achievement/title, and also of classes in games such as World of Warcraft, but also Lord of the Rings Online, etc. Simply because the Loremaster title is used in some fantasy MMORPGs, does not mean that there is necessarily a player using the nickname Loremaster, or that such a player is indeed the Loremaster that contributes to this article. Yet again, you are personally attacking Loremaster with only a non sequitur to stand on. Even if Loremaster were wrong, as you are positing, it wouldn't mean he is deliberately skewing the article to misinform the public. You are too hasty in your emotionally-charged posts to allege an agenda on Loremaster's part. I assure you he is not conspiring to misinform readers or induce bias in the article. Nevertheless, I think you should consider that global governance and world government are two different (though related) subjects. Aside from that, just because someone calls for a world government and perhaps thinks there should be one, doesn't mean that there is one - and the same goes for global governance - a call or desire for greater global governance doesn't mean that a one-world government (as defined by one-world government conspiracy theories) exists or is impending. I don't think there's any dispute about people (many people) calling for: more global governance, or a world government, or international organizations and cooperation, and we can certainly include such calls so long as they're sourced (like Toynbee's), but what we can't do is use such calls as evidence of the existence or rise of a one-world government on behalf of a plot by a secret elite, because that would be original research if we made such a claim ourselves instead of having an article to reference where such a claim is made. John Shandy` • talk 16:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
As usual, John Shandy is absolutely right. For the record, I have never played and will never play World of Warcraft. When I was in the mental process of choosing a name for my Wikipedia user account, I remembered reading and liking the description of a “loremaster” in the Dungeons & Dragons complete bard's handbook many years ago when I used to play the game as a teenager and thought it perfectly described what I aspire to be for the Wikipedia community. Furthermore, I work for a research institute and, in my free time, one of my main hobbies consists of editing Wikipedia articles that interest me to make sure they are well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable as possible. That being said, all the arguments made in the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article (specifically that right-wing conspiracy theorists believe that there is a conspiracy by a secret elite to create a socialist one-world government) are based on reliable sources, which simply cannot and will not be dismissed simply because someone thinks they are wrong. Ultimately, none of the information User:84.30.39.140 has provided or will provide (which I freely admit could be useful to improve the World government article) will require substantial changes to be made to the New World Order Conspiracy Theory article. --Loremaster (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. The more User:84.30.39.140 engages in personal attacks the easier it will be to make a case that all the IP addresses he uses anonymously should be blocked. --Loremaster (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

84.30.39.140 I share your sentiments but I must remind you of the way things work. For every piece of genuine information that shines a light on the trajectory of civilisation and the forces behind it there are copious more that attempt to deflect attention from what should be obvious. Loremaster is one of the many that places his faith in the disinformation that is crumbling at an increasing pace. You must realise not all disinformation has mal intent, most is simply spouted by atomotons that have not stepped out of Plato's cave and cling to the way they beleive things to be. They defend their views and refer to the countless sources that posit the same views. They cannot process the relevent information for their minds are still running the original programming. The words I write are for 84.30.39.140 for automotons still in the cave cannot understand. I would also advise against any personal attacks for reasons that loremaster outlined. Loremaster and the like would rather silence and threaten you than beleive they have been lied to since birth by every organisation and institution they have come into contact with (Not in a Truman show way, more of a blind leading the blind way). The psychological term used to explain this is cognitive dissonance. As the pace of the modern enlightenment quickens those holding onto their old beleifs will start to get more boisteroius and desperate. Keep that in mind when dealing with people that still maintain their delusion to be reality. I cannot speak for you but not that long ago I was exactly what I pity now. If circumstances do not arrive in one's life which force one to re-evalute then they will maintain the delusion and fight for it. Fortunately (or unfortunately) as the tyranny and corruption has been growing (or is more visable and obvious) and more and more people are affected they are more open to re-evaluation. This is what is currently happening, so don't loose heart and do not waste too much energy on those not there yet. I too used to get infuriated and frustrated trying to penetrate the minds sealed to all but sanctioned propaganda and have realised that there is not much you can do even if you lay it out in unquestionable terms, some simply refuse to open their eyes.

Loremaster, If you read the above and feel it as an attack or you feel like you should berate me, feel free. I can only assume that as you read the above the only conclusion you can make is that I am a nut job of some sort perhaps a paranoid schizophrenic that dons a tinfoil hat. Please let me know as it would plese me no end and do me no harm. I am sure you are a well educated and succesful person, I wish you the best and commend your devotion to wikipedia editing. `` Norman Franklin . Peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.57.17 (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Norman, putting aside the fact that my political views are identical to those of Noam Chomsky, who co-developed a model to understand how propaganda functions in mass media and co-wrote a book about it called Manufacturing Consent, I am only going to respond to your well-written but factually incorrect and logically fallacious rant by suggesting you read an essay from an anti-Establishment source entitled Marxism vs. Conspiracy Theory to get a possible insight into how I really see the trajectory of civilisation and the forces behind it... Ultimately, both you and User:84.30.39.140 need to stop embarrassing yourself with your armchair psychoanalysis and focus on suggesting improvements to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy or get lost. --Loremaster (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Norman, I'm pretty sure that what's really going on here is that Loremaster understands what it is considered an acceptable viewpoint or consensus in academia and wants to see the article is a quality piece of work that reflects the knowledge of that mainstream view. Changing the world is likely not on his list of agendas, even if he could change it and even then if it needed to be changed. Yes there is tyranny and corruption behind the scenes, there always has been and there always will be- but the article is not about muckraking society's villains, it'a about paranoid conspiracy theorists' wacky beliefs. You may be neither wacky nor paranoid, but as you educate yourself on the issues behind all of this you will run into plenty who are, and eventually see why this all looks so amusing. It'd be hard to make it look any other way. Batvette (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Batvette for your sensible words. :) However, I would like to clarify that what I believe or want doesn't matter. It is Wikipedia which demands that the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article be based on reliable sources. It is Wikipedia that considers mainstream scholars and news organizations as the most reliable sources. That being said, from my Chomskian perspective, I do believe human civilization is headed towards social and ecological disaster and I do want to change the world to prevent that from happening. However, like the Criticism section of the article explains quite well, I think that “conspiracism leads people into cynicism, convoluted thinking, and a tendency to feel it is hopeless even as they denounce the alleged conspirators. The activities of conspiracy theorists (talk radio shows, books, websites, documentary videos, conferences, etc.) unwittingly draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from serious criticism and activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background.” So, even though the sole purpose of this article is to inform people about New World Order conspiracy theories from a neutral point of view, perhaps the article can unwittingly convince some people to stop getting distracted by all these paranoid conspiracy theories about one-world government involving Freemasons, Jews, Illuminati, aliens or the Antichrist and start focusing on the real threat to human civilization, namely neoliberalism and the globalization of corporate capitalism. --Loremaster (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I read the conspiracy vs. marxism article and found it quite interesting. I see the points about the conspiracy mindset painting a dire picture with little solution. I don't think you can write off conspiracies by employing marxist theory though. I agree that there is not a single unified entity working against the masses but I do beleive that there has been quite some consolidation going on since marx penned his work. You are obviously a well read intelligent person, I do not plan to sabotage your wiki works and will happily get lost. Neoliberalism and globalization of corporate capitalism ay, so you beleive we can change things through politics? I'm not sure if thats any more deluded and pointless than a paranoid conspiracy theorist that has lost hope. You know what is really sad about the whole thing, we all wish for the same yet we seem to speak a different language. Perhaps humans are meant to be in a constant state of conflict. You detest hot headed conspiracy nuts who beleive sensational claims of grand contrived schemes to control the world. Conspiracy nuts hate pompus intelectuals who ignore writing from such authors as Carrol Quigley who lay it out in simple terms. Something will go down in the near future that is quite certain, some will beleive it was planned long ago others will explain it as a result of simple political forces leading to a point. Keep up the good work. Peace `` Norman Franklin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.57.17 (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

  1. The point isn't that that Marxist theory writes off conspiracies. As Domhoff explains, it is true that “the CIA has been involved in espionage, sabotage, and the illegal overthrow of foreign governments, and that the FBI spied on and attempted to disrupt Marxist third parties, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Ku Klux Klan. But careful studies show that all these actions were authorized by top government officials, which is the critical point here. There was no “secret team” or “shadow government” committing illegal acts or ordering government officials to deceive the public and disrupt social movements. Such a distinction is crucial in differentiating all sociological theories of power [whether they be liberal or Marxist] from a conspiratorial one.
  2. Since I believe the political system is broken, I think only revolutionary anti-authoritarian politics can change things (as opposed to the revolutionary fascist politics advocated by many right-wing conspiracy theorists).
  3. None of the intellectuals we use as reliable sources for this article necessarily ignore the writings of Carrol Quigley but they explain that paranoid conspiracy theorists from both the left and the right selectively use Quigley's information and analysis as evidence for their kooky, paranoid fantasies about one-world government.
  4. Many things may go down in the near- and far-future that will certainly be disastrous but they will have nothing do with some sinister plan by a secret elite of capitalists conspiring to impose a socialist one-world government. Recognizing that these things are the logical result of the evolution of capitalism doesn't mean that they are any less wrong or that we shouldn't struggle to prevent them from happening. With that said, read this essay by Joe Licentia entitled The American Empire and the Emergence of a Global Ruling Class
--Loremaster (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

O.K. Government officials ordered all the questionable actions that bring us to today. So that proves it then cause if a politician orders something then no one and nothing can be behind it except his autonomy. Politicians are owned, bought and paid for. If you think that their decisions are made off their own back then you really are hangin onto a thin line of rhetoric. Back to Quigley for a sec, how do you rationalise his statements that the international bankers have been planning this for quite some time and that what is unfolding today,(Global recession, bank bailouts, IMF Austerity everywhere you look, talk of collapse of U.S. $ as reserve to be replaced by a global currency etc.) He must be a nut to have predicted this in 1966, what a Kooky weirdo, oh wait he was a priveledged insider and wrote about these plans as a positive. But thats selective so lets ignore it. I also beleive there are many conspiracy theories that are whacky and kooky, but the one world government one makes a lot of sense if you don't approach it from a 'must debunk at all costs cause its not scholoraly acceptable otherwise'. Like I said I was just like you, narrow minded and closed to possibilites outside what I beleive to be possible. Conspiracies are real, not all of them, but there are many that deserve attention. There are bad people with a lot of power and influence out there, if you think that they wouldn't get together and conspire then you are naive and a good slave. Keep beleivin what they tell ya and don't you dare listen to any of those crazy conspiracy people. Peace. P.S. Don't bother replying we are in different places and may aswell be speaking different languages. What ever works for you , do it, but putting others down for beleiving what you cannot understand is just sad. Look after yourself and your family.

``Norman Franklin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.57.17 (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me but, did you not just spend half of your post putting down Loremaster, in a sly condescending fashion? You more or less just called him narrow minded, insinuated that he's a naive slave, and that he simply believes what he's told. The irony... There's also no point in suggesting that he cannot understand what you believe - whether he fully understands what you believe or not, doesn't provide your beliefs with any more or less truth. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - events inappropriately strung together, so-called prophets and their premonitions, and suspicions are not sufficient for anything other than speculation. John Shandy` • talk 17:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I know it's hard, but all of you please again read WP:TALKNO. This page is for improving the article.--Oneiros (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

When people hear about New world order and to see what it is about, are searching it on wikipedia, they come to this article. And this article is about "New World Order", yes, but its about one part of NWO(or at least the conspiracy theory). I dont believe in reptilians, aliens attacks or that kind of stuff but I firmly believe in The Bilderberg Group. When people say Bilderberg Group they say "nwo" and they say "conspiracy theory". I dont think this is a good article as long as its all critical and all about freaks with zion etc. I personally dont know a wikipedia reliable source for bilderberg group but that doesnt meen its fringe. Its all very clearly and logical, just to inprobable for a person who think all whats been debited by the media and all whats learnt in schools about democracy, the perfect state. Laincoubert (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Credibility section?

Perhaps there should be a section that would discuss the credibility of the theory to make sure the reader is aware that it isn't backed by any rationnal proof or evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.174.151 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Both the Alleged conspirators and Criticism sections of the article demolish the credibility of the theory so the new section you suggest is not necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Go head. I was trying to figure out how to do just that! :) However, I would like to keep the first two threads (To become a Featured Article and External links) here permanently. How can we do this if automatic archiving is set up? --Loremaster (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo#Delaying or preventing archival of particular threads.--Oneiros (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done--Oneiros (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

David Rothkopf on the Superclass

TYouTube videos which contains information that could be useful for improving the Alleged conspirators section of the article:

Rise of the Super Class

The Superclass

--Loremaster (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

These are YouTube videos, I dont think they can be taken as quotes. And its an opinion when the narrator (David I think) says that the 6000 people wouldnt agree with each other on decisions. Or that they are 6000 and not 130. When we can put YT videos as quotes, then I gladly put "Wake up call" or "Zeitgeist".:D Laincoubert (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am already aware that YouTube videos are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. However, we can use them only to better phrase statements attributed to Rothkopf by reliable sources. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with reporting opinions in an article as long as they are properly sourced. --Loremaster (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

KAL007

I just noticed the brewing edit war starting here. Please explain why KAL007 does not merit a section, it seems like it would be appropriate. Replacing, please bring your discussion here first.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the above. I can't understand why it doesn't merit a section. I am amenable to changes, edits, etc. but that a section on KAL 007 just to be deleted is beyond meBert Schlossberg (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I jusr saw the edit saying that I should have discussed here the edit before posting. I did not know that that was the required procedure. Here is the section I had edited in and which was deleted as a whole. What was not fitting, requiring amendment, etc. or that warrented deletion as a whole?

Are you two just pulling our leg, or what? I didn't take those edits seriously and was happy to see that someone reverted the unsubstantiated addition of that section. Instead of explaining why KAL 007 doesn't merit a section, maybe you guys should explain why KAL007 does merit a section, since it was a sudden substantial change to the article that was not first discussed on this talk page. The burden here is on the claimants that claim this section has merit - not on those of us who've seen no reasonable merit for its sudden, unexplained addition. If you look up at the top of this talk page, you see the following notice:
As well, the KAL 007 section that was added was not well written and was not even written in a way that ties in with the article. It just tells a story about KAL 007 and towards the end it said something like and this signals a conspiracy at the highest levels!. If you feel that KAL 007 is relevant to the Round Table section of the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article, you need to provide reliable sources that speak of how it relates to the content of the Round Table section. Then, maybe add a blurb about the incident, and link to the KAL 007 article. Providing sources that merely describe the KAL 007 controversy is not the same as providing sources that tie the incident into the New World Order conspiracy theory.
@Kintetsubuffalo, since the addition of the KAL007 section took place first without a talk page discussion, we should restore the article to its state before the addition of the section, then discuss whether or not it should be added and whether or not it is substantiated by reliable sources, then and only then should we proceed to add it to the article. John Shandy` • talk 16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the text from the article. It lacked references, was poorly written, including suggestive phrasing and violations of NPOV. As John has already said: please discuss an edit as substantial as this beforehand, especially if your fellow editors take issue with it (e.g. undo your edit). Please bring forth RS so that the matter can be discussed constructively. 217.187.225.101 (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)— 217.187.225.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The downing of KAL 007 and the assassination conspiracy theory

This theory involves the meaconning of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in order to bring it into Soviet territory. Meaconning is the term to describe the interception and the rebroacasting of Navigational signal inorder to confuse the sending aircraft as to its true location. This is a prelude to the deviation such as experienced KAL 007 in its intended course from Anchorage Alaska to Seoul Korea. Meaconning had been used frequently during the Cold War. This theory often entails the following points which are shown to be true from the transcripts of KAL 007's black box tapes, or assumed to be true by the holders of this theory:

The pilots of KAL 007 clearly believed that they were on another course than that they were actually flying; Democratic Congressman Larry McDonald was known to be aboard KAL 007 and he was considered the chief anti-Communist in Congress as well as the second head of the John Birch Society; Other ant-communist lawmakers were understood to have been with Larry McDonald aboard KAL 007 and were not known to have opted for another flight, KAL 015; These congressmen were North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms, Idaho Sen. Steven Symms, and Kentucky Cong. Carroll J. Hubbard Jr. The intended destination and purpose of all these congressman was ostensibly the Seoul celebration for the 30 year anniversary of the U.S. Korea Mutual Defense Treaty, but in actuallity, the main purpose was for the furthuring the anti-Communist coallition, and activity. It is sometimes posited that the Soviet meaconing of KAL 007 was with the tacit approval or with the active participation and planning of leftist and socialistic power centers of the U.S. Government and economy, including large banking interests and supporters of the Federal Reserve System; and finally, this information that surfaced during the ICAO investigation: At 28 minutes after takeoff, civilian radar at Kenai, on the eastern shore of Cook Inlet and 53 nautical miles southwest of Anchorage, with a radar coverage of 175 miles west of Anchorage, tracked KAL 007 more than six miles north of where it should have been. Where it should have been was a location “fixed” by the nondirectional radio beacon (NDB) of Cairne Mountain. The NDB navigational aid operates by transmitting a continuous three-letter identification code which is picked up by the airborne receiver, the Automatic Direction Finder (ADF). Flights emanating from Anchorage, Alaska, traveling along route J501 had to pass Cairne Mt. Cairne Mountain was KAL 007’s first assigned navigational aid out of Anchorage Airport. That night, Douglas L. Porter was the controller at Air Route Traffic Control Center at Anchorage, assigned to monitor all flights in that section, recording their observed position in relation to the fix provided by the Cairne Mountain nondirectional beacon. Porter later testified that all had seemed normal to him. Yet he apparently failed to record[56][57], as required, the position of two flights that night—and only two: KAL 007, carrying Democratic Congressman McDonald and 268 others, and KAL 015, carrying Republican Senators Jesse Helms of North Carolina and Steven Symms of Idaho, Congressman Carroll J. Hubbard Jr. of Kentucky, and others, which followed KAL 007 by several minutes. To holders of this theory, the above seem both curious and ominous and evidence of conspiracy at highest of levels.

Here's why I think that the above belongs in this section. This section speaks about the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and Larry McDonald. And of course the general subject is conspiracy theory to the New World Order. McDonald and KAL 007's downing has certainly been linked with New World Order conspiracy specifically by non other than Cong. Ron Paul http://www.youtube.com/user/rescueKAL007#p/a/FD3DE4F0642C350C/0/1c8v-kgLvhM but also by others http://old.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1197/pg1/index.html., and "There is a real question in my mind that the Soviets may have actually murdered 269 passengers and crew on the Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in order to kill Larry McDonald." – Jerry Falwell, The Washington Post, September 2, 1983. I think that it is entirely apt that the above be an edit to the section in questionBert Schlossberg (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It could use a bit of a rewrite and a spellcheck, but John, you're wrong, editors write, removals are discussed on the talkpage. It's not great journalism, but it's not a crap junior high fanboy edit either. As to the IP, and you are...?--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Bert, putting aside the fact that conspiracy theorists link everything to the New World Order conspiracy in a process known as “fusion paranoia”, the Conspiracy Theories section of the article focuses on “systemic conspiracy theories” which concisely explain the Five Ws behind the New World Order conspiracy. The KAL 007 downing is obviously an “event conspiracy theory” about how the Soviets allegedly downed a plane to kill a prominent anti-communist therefore it cannot have an entire section dedicated to it in an encycopledic article focusing on New World Order conspiracy theories (regardless of whether or not a few lunatics like Paul, Fahey and Falwell think it is connected to the New World Order conspiracy). However, if there are reliable third-party sources that mention that conspiracy theorists see the KAL 007 downing as a major event in the timeline of the New World Order conspiracy, a brief mention can be made in the Round Table section of the article when discussing McDonald. --Loremaster (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Chris, it's poorly written for the purposes of this article because hardly any of it pertains to the New World Order conspiracy theory, and it isn't even written in such a way that it ties in with the New World Order conspiracy theory - rather, it is written like a story that alludes to "something more," except that the "something more" is unsourced. Aside from that, other event conspiracy theories that are sourced to be tied in with a conspiracy to create a totalitarian one-world government, such as 9/11, only have a brief mention and are linked to their respective articles. There's no reason to shine an exceptionally large spotlight on KAL 007. If Bert wishes to merely tell the tale of KAL 007, there is an article for doing just that. Until reliable sources are provided that confirm that conspiracy theorists see KAL 007 as being a ploy by the same secret elite that allegedly conspires to create a one-world government, it does not belong in this article - as Loremaster has essentially stated. The burden is on the claimants (you and Bert). If you wish for it to stay, you need to be able to reference reliable sources that substantiate it. Then we'd be more than happy to include it, but even at that it should not be included in a disproportionate manner. I certainly appreciate Bert being bold - there's nothing wrong with that and I commend him. However, this was a rather substantial change to the article that added a section that editors saw as a red flag, and it would have been better to discuss it prior to avoid the multiple reverts that followed. Please see the top of this talk page, as this article is a very controversial topic. John Shandy` • talk 22:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Guys. I was afloat in the air wing in a front line, actively deployed F-4 Phantom II fighter squadron VF-21 Freelancers in Reagan's Canoe Club USS Coral Sea (CV-43) when that incident happened and can tell you it had zippo zilch nada to do with the Round Table and everything to do with a tragic sequence of events that began with a longstanding practice of our Air Force's spy planes "ghosting" the passenger flight routes in the region, pretending to be airliners just like KAL007 straying off course so we could get a closer look and use the expected reluctance of the Soviets to not shoot down a passenger plane for fear of retribuition internationally- and knowing if they did, and they did, we could use that to greater advantage in the PR battle of the cold war.
My personal experience is limited to knowing our job in policing the North Pacific (when we weren't on West-Pac cruises) was intercepting nuclear armed Tupolev Tu-95 Bear Bomber Aircraft in scary wingtip to wingtip encounters, hoping neither side blinked- and hoping even more if one did we could get the Russians to make a really stupid mistake.
The reason we were ghosting the passenger flight routes is because many were drifting nearly where we wanted to see, our spy planes came before and after their schedules times and went further, clearly over Soviet territory. KAL 007 was not an anamoly shot down because of its own actions, but for the repeated incursions of the Air Force- and was a mistake we knew could happen and weren't overly concerned that it would.
There is no conspiracy there. Only pawns in a Cold War polical game that were lost. Batvette (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Batvette,
Related to the above, you might be interested in these personal observations, one from an airman on the fly back from that RC-135 mission, and another related to the "intelligence bonus" you refer to. If you have anything you would like to share please contact me at webmaster@rescue007.org:
Here is the first - http://www.rescue007.org/RC_135.htm . The second http://www.rescue007.org/RC_135_cont.htm
This Wikipedia article also relates Korean Air Lines Flight 007 alternate theories. --Bert Schlossberg (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article. I suggest this conversation be continued on Bert Schlossberg's talk page. --Loremaster (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, though perhaps it is best to briefly end any controversy here and now rather than fuel any concerns that the truth is being obscured. (adding that my comments were scarily resembling that of Domhoffs: there is no conspiracy, only the way things are and quite reality based but can be interpreted if one chooses to be paranoid and search for deeper more lurid explanations) The Air Force declined to declassify its data on the C-135. That is interpreted by conspiracy theorists to suggest we were involved in the event yet if one were to make any inquiry about any C-135 operations at the time they would get the same answer. What makes this not appropriate for this article is that it is not part of NWO CT as expressed by notable NWO CT's and is merely a singular event. Do I have this right? (and a note to Bert, no I have not crossed over to the "dark side" just spent enough time reading the ideas of those who thought they had "the force" explaining how Yoda taught them to raise their x fighter from the swamp floor using it... when everyone but they could see the crane lifting it) The fact is those aren't even really "personal observations" much more informative than my own- they are hearsay citing the hearsay of undisclosed indivuduals, and even if you were able to provide them referenced from a reputable source- which you won't specifically due to their nature as hearsay- they would be excluded as such. The second seems to confirm my explanations and take it, as conspiracy theories do, to another speculatory level unsupported by academic consensus, let alone available facts. It is an accepted fact Reagan's policies against the Soviets included dangerous standoffs and incursions knowing a mistake on their part could be of benefit. It is conspiracy theory to assert the whole thing was intentional, if I did not make that clear. See add'l comment on your page.Batvette (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
For the record: When Domhoff says “there are no conspiracies”, he simply means that it is true that “the CIA has been involved in espionage, sabotage, and the illegal overthrow of foreign governments, and that the FBI spied on and attempted to disrupt Marxist third parties, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Ku Klux Klan. But careful studies show that all these actions were authorized by top government officials, which is the critical point here. There was no “secret team” or “shadow government” committing illegal acts or ordering government officials to deceive the public and disrupt social movements. Such a distinction is crucial in differentiating all sociological theories of power from a conspiratorial one. --Loremaster (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

However let's not forget that those FBI and CIA `activities were secret and would have long remained so if not forever had not a tip of their iceberg been revealed by mistake. So while I see your point about `a distinction it is not a clear one. One top government official did not come up with the idea to set up the Black Panthers for ruin or try to get MLK to kill himself as an official policy action of government- this would have been an idea arrived at with others, and they never intended anyone to know about it once it was done. Indeed, when the Church Commission convened and gathered up all the evidence they could they found the CIA had mysteriously "lost" whole rooms worth of files concerning their MK Ultra activities to conceal them. The people who elected those top government officials you speak of surely did not divulge those activities as being part of their campaign platform, it was never stated as policy once in office, so their status as "government officials" really is irrelevant. Thus they did it in secrecy with others. What was the agenda? "National Security"? It was not the will of their constituants nor official policy. It's hard to look at the CIA's secret testing on human subjects with mind control, on population centers with simulated bioweapons, and the FBI's blatant constitutional violations that served only to let the status quo of government power tighten its grip, and not see there are more similarities with the goals believed in by those with paranoid conspiratorial beliefs than there are to any official definition of "National Security". . While over time exposure to so much of this idiocy has bred contempt on my part toward the alarmist cries, I still cannot ignore the many facts which show that there are so many psychopaths in positions of power in our recent history that only fuel the CT's suspicions. I believe I don't cross the line into CT'ing simply because those are all facts I am analyzing and I stop short of any speculation upon what cohesively forms it into some grand plan. Also note I am not commenting in absolute rebuttal to anything you said, just offering a different interpretation of Domhoff's comments you offer. Anyway I have taken on a not so concerted individual campaign of telling anyone I hear mention New World Order in the context of the way Alex Jones does, that there is no such thing and they should open a book and do some real research. Corruption, tyranny, oppression and transition are the way things have always been- as is the idiocy of simpletons making tenuous connections between them and concluding a deeper insight than that which the facts actually allow. Batvette (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, neither Domhoff, I or anyone else is disputing that government agencies, especially the FBI and the CIA, use secrecy to commit illegal or, at the very least, unethical acts that the public would not approve of. No one is disputing that these acts would have remained secret if it wasn't for whistleblowers and congressional commissions. However, the status of FBI and CIA directors - who all answer to the President of the United States - as "government officials" is important because conspiracy theorists often speculate that secret societies (Freemasons, Illuminati, Elders of Zion, aliens, demons, etc) are behind these acts (as part of a master plan to overthrow the U.S. government and/or create one-world government) when in reality they were conceived and committed by government officials (as part of a "Cold War" or "War on Terror" strategy). So, although it is true that government agencies engage in activities that fuel the suspicions of conspiracy theorists, the problem is that the paranoia and wild imagination of conspiracy theorists leads them to attach irrational claims to these reprehensible activities that should be exposed, denounced, prosecuted and stopped forever. Do you understand? --Loremaster (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
"However, the status of FBI and CIA directors - who all answer to the President of the United States - as "government officials" is important because conspiracy theorists often speculate that secret societies (Freemasons, Illuminati, Elders of Zion, aliens, demons, etc) are behind these acts"
That's true enough, but many of these activities (COINTELPRO, to use an example you alluded to) spanned several or more different administrations, and while the high level bureaucrats who directly oversaw them may answer to the President that certainly doesn't mean they tell him all these things nor that the President was the one who dictated their architecture in the first place.
I do see the distinction though and I will say I'm in agreement with your last point and that's something I often tell all the bonehead "9/11 was a controlled demolition" clip owners on youtube, where I've wasted plenty of time arguing with those who must have skipped science class in sixth grade. Intelligent people are so turned off by the idiocy of claims like "he said pull it" and mini nukes and thermite, that whatever the gov't isn't being truthful about will stay that way. It's too obfuscated by absurdity. Which is kind of where I was at a year ago deleting the aliens part of this article. LOL.Batvette (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Even if new Presidents are not always aware of all the activities that every agency is engaged in, the point remains that these activities were and are conceived and committed by high level bureaucrats — government officials — not some all-powerful secret society. That's all Domhoff is saying. And on your point about being turned off by the idiocy of the claims made by conspiracy theorists, Domhoff told Berlet in an interview the exact same thing: “Conspiracism is so contrary to what most everyday people believe and observe that it actually drives people away because they sense the tinge of craziness to it.” --Loremaster (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem with the caption of the main picture

Materialwise, my problem is with the caption of the main picture. It says that the pyramid is "improperlly interpreted." I think this should be taken out because unless there is some written evidence by its creator that explains its significance, then it cannot be improperlly interpreted, as its intentions are unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.136.3 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read the text more carefully, as it refers to the phrase "novus ordo seclorum", not to the pyramid. And you will notice that this is referenced, for more detail you can go to the article on that phrase. 77.10.179.234 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
User:77.10.179.234 is right. That being said, I suggest you read S. Brent Morris's essay The Eye in the Pyramid. It explains the intentions of the creators of the pyramid. --Loremaster (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 83.249.209.156, 26 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

"Thus, New Age conspiracy theorists, such as the makers of documentary films like Zeitgeist, the Movie and Esoteric Agenda, claim that globalists who plot on behalf of the New World Order are simply misusing occultism for Machiavellian ends, such as adopting 21 December 2012 as the exact date for the establishment of the New World Order in order to take advantage of the growing 2012 phenomenon..."

Whoever wrote this claims that the maker of Zeitgeist the movie (Peter Joseph) believes in NWO and New Age conspiracy. I dont know why the writer got the idea of that, but it is false nevertheless. Peter Joseph has said numerous times that he does not believe in the NWO, an elite or anything alike.

Here is one of many sources: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/peter-joseph/2010/06/30/the-zeitgeist-movement-weekly-report-63010-with-pe

83.249.209.156 (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. In the source provided, Peter Joseph rejects the Illuminati conspiracy theory but he doesn't explicitly reject the New World Order = One World Government conspiracy theory.
  2. According to the Zeitgeist: the Movie article, Part III of the movie claims the creation of a North American Union is a step towards the creation of "One World Government", which would be formed by the merging of the North American Union, the European Union, the African Union and a hypothetical Asian Union. Even if Joseph doesn't use the term "New World Order", the claim in his film is what some versions of the NWO conspiracy is all about.
  3. The "New Age conspiracy" is the focus of Esoteric Agenda but you are right that it isn't the focus of Zeitgeist: the Movie.
  4. It is clear that Joseph is a conspiracy theorist. However, if he isn't a New Ager, his film should not be mentioned in the New Age section of the article. Therefore, I have deleted it.
--Loremaster (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Masonic God?

The reference to a "Masonic God" in the Freemasonry section is incorrect. There is no Masonic God. Masons believe in the Grand (Great) Architect of the Universe, but there is no set god, just a higher power. The current link links to Jahbulon who is a person...not a god. source: I am a Master Mason. Acalltoreason (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Acalltoreason. You are absolutely right that there is no Masonic God and Jahbulon is not the God of Freemasons but we are simply reporting what conspiracy theorists believe. That being said, I will remove the internal link to the Jahbulon article to avoid creating any confusion. --Loremaster (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Really just wanted to comment on how impressed I am with this article. It's hard to be objective on topics like this and I think this article does a very impressive job of it. That said, and in response to Acalltoreason, conspiracy theorists would likely rationalize such statements by saying that there are secret societies WITHIN secret societies and that the ostensible purpose for their existence amongst the groups own members is often yet another layer of secrecy to hide the true origins and goals of the organization.--Cybermud (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Cybermud for your comments on the article. Regarding your response to Acalltoreason, the problem with the rationalization that most Freemasons are unaware of the existence of a secret society within Freemasonry that worships a (non-Christian) Masonic God is that either there is no evidence to support such wild speculation or it is simply based on hoaxes manufactured by anti-Masons. --Loremaster (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank You. All in all I am very impressed with how objective this article is, considering the subject matter. A job very well done. Acalltoreason (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Acalltoreason. --Loremaster (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

mongering

mongering - 'a person promoting something undesirable or discreditable'. It is pejorative. - Crosbie 17:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be pejorative but it is accurate. The word “racist” can be interpreted as pejorative but is nonetheless accurate when describing the views and rhetoric of a neo-Nazi. That being said, since I hate disputes and edit wars over trivial issues even when I am right, I will replace the word “mongered” by something else. *sigh* --Loremaster (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Anti-militia bias

Phrases such as "These unfounded fears would fuel the Bircher campaign" are OBVIOUSLY biased. I love a good counter argument, but I am extremely disappointed with this article, in that it is clearly written by a biased author who is completely unable to refrain from adding his biased views to this piece. (Waveylines (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

Waveylines, as the person who wrote most of the content of this article, I freely admit that I have biases. However, I have strived to write this article from a rational skeptical perspective by summarizing or paraphrasing content from the most reliable sources on the subject. If, for example, these sources (which are books and articles of notable scholars and journalists) think that unfounded fears fueled the Bircher campaign, we have no choice but to report their informed judgement regardless of what our personal opinions might be. That being said, to avoid someone disputing that particular phrase again, I will replace “unfounded fears” with “anti-globalist conspiracism”. --Loremaster (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable improvement to me - I concur with Loremaster though in reinforcing that we report the whole of what the reliable sources have to offer - that means we take the authors' text, assertions, and biases altogether in a package deal. To do anything else would be letting our biases drive the article. So most of the biased statements you'll find derive directly from the sources and are not necessarily representative of the article contributor's views. John Shandy` • talk 17:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced that you're able to report the facts objectively. "[...] the rise of the militia movement, which spread its anti-government ideology through [...]". Were I an uniformed reader, I would come to the conclusion that militias either are, or are akin to, anarchists. While obviously any group will always be a mixed bag, and always have some percentage of undesirables, militias are mostly composed of people who want to follow the ideology set by founders of the U.S.A.. They are for limited government; they support more power to local governments and less power to the federal government. This is why many people fly confederate flags. Many people believe the confederate flag stands for slavery, but many who fly the flag see it as standing for the rights of individual states in the union. So similarly, if you're going to cast a certain light on the militia movement, I think you should do so objectively. I for one, have never known of a single militia group which advocated anarchy, so I find your claims to be unfounded. You could have easily excluded "anti-government" from the sentence and avoided casting a bias. (Waveylines (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC))
Although I am not suggesting you are confusing militias with the militia movement, I think you may be blurring the two. If you take a look at the Militia movement article, it is very clear that the movement(s) have carried what can indeed be described as an anti-government bent, especially if drilling down to further look at individual Militia movement groups, such as the Posse Comitatus (organization) and Hutaree militia movement (under the Christian Patriot movement). These wikipedia articles, and the sources from which they derive, all appear to note criminal acts, standoffs with law enforcement, and in some cases violent nature of these groups that are viewed as subsets of the militia movement. As well, the source cited for the quote you mentioned, does have anti-government written all over it - it may be biased, but it's our job to channel the assertions of the reliable sources, not alter or sugar coat them (beyond reason, of course). The source notes people like Timothy McVeigh's drive to increase the aggressiveness and anti-government stint of the militia movement, and it also emphasizes anti-government sentiments within the Christian Patriot movement that I've mentioned (under which we have violent-natured anti-government groups like Hutaree). Indeed, the Christian Patriot movement's lede cites a source verifying that this militia movement group explicitly maintains that the federal government has already turned against citizens and civil liberties. As much as anyone might like us to refrain from mentioning the anti-government sentiments of the militia movement, that conflicts with what the prevailing reliable sources are suggesting. John Shandy` • talk 05:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Although I don't care whether or not you are convinced I am able to report facts objectively, you continue to fail to understand that I am simply summarizing or paraphrasing facts as the reliable sources report them. As for the rest of you rant, John Shandy has refuted it so I won't bother repeating what he said quite incisively and eloquently. --Loremaster (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
To say that the militia movement carries an anti-government bent is like saying the African American civil rights movement carried a militaristic bent by making note of Malcom X and not noting Martin Luther King Jr.. Whether or not you think Malcom X advocated violence or not, I could argue it, call it fact, and use it to characterize the entire movement. Hutaree was an isolated incident involving 9 arrests under allegations. That's hardly evidence. And the situation involved an FBI provocateur, which is admitted fact. It is fact and common knowledge that the FBI tracks all militia groups and places provocateurs in every one of them. For this very reason, militia groups are only successful when their leaders are clearly not advocating violent acts. As for the Posse Comitatus organization, note that the article clearly says, "[...] opposes the United States federal government and believes in localism. There is no single national group, and local units are autonomous.". Follow the link for localism. What does it say? "Localism describes a range of political philosophies which prioritize the local.", "Generally, localism supports local production and consumption of goods, local control of government, and local culture and identity [...]". So in other words, the Posse Comitatus organization (named after the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878) supports one type of government ideology (like what I described above), and opposes the current type of government ideology (which is one of centralization). Meaning, they are a pro-government organization, just not in favor of the current governmental system. This is completely the opposite of being anti-government. As for the characterization of my argument as being a "rant", I refer you to some definitions I found online. From wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn: *harangue: a loud bombastic declamation expressed with strong emotion *talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner *bombast: pompous or pretentious talk or writing. I truly fail to see how my writing fits this definition. Either you are viewing it as such because you don't like my position, or you're reading it wrong.
The point is, the militia movement has only isolated incidents of violence which have involved FBI provocateurs in every case. The groups have rather unanimously held support for local law enforcement; the right of state governments and sheriffs, and they believe in self-reliance and the right to bear arms. Calling the movement as a whole, "anti-government", is to label the majority based on a minority. Lets make this article unbiased and simply present the militia movement as being what it is: a movement of people who practice military drills, support the 2nd amendment, and support localism ideology. --(Waveylines (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC))
Regardless of whether or not you, myself, or Loremaster consider the movement to be anti-government, the sources cited for that part of the article do paint the movement & subgroups in that light. However unfavorable that may be to anyone reading, it is verifiable. It seems your quarrel is with Chip Berlet's view (which he wrote about in the source) that the militia movement embodies anti-government sentiments - that is something you must take up with him. Don't confuse biases of a reliable source with biases of the wikipedia article. John Shandy` • talk 04:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true... --Loremaster (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Anti government sentiment through informing fellow Americans about the activities of part of the government is a patriotic thing that only improves the country needed for change and improvement. Violence is something altogether different. re McVeigh ::Oklahoma City Bombing RARE footage and don't miss General Ben Partin (ret.), explosives expert. If you're looking for video to support the official version it was never released by the Federal government. Interesting commentary [1][2] 207.119.116.241 (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article not debating about whether antigovernment sentiment is patriotic or promoting Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

One Editor Article

It's a shame my attempts to make minor improvements to this article have been rebuffed. It doesn't take long to look at this article's edit history and to realise that this is a 'one editor article'. The best articles on WP are collaborative efforts based on consensus and collaboration. I'm not going to waste my time here trying to change this, but I would suggest that any claims this article has to encyclopedic quality are undermined by this failure to accept other editorial input. Riversider (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As I explained in a section above, I am interested in collaborating with anyone who has created a user account to make the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough to meet featured article criteria. Beyond a few exceptions who eventually lost interest or moved on to other things, the vast majority of people who have wanted to edit this article are true believers in a New World Order conspiracy who want to turn this article into a vehicle to promote their paranoid point of view. I've been the only editor who has had the dedication to watch over this article to make sure it remains neutral in the face of such attempts. That being said, as you can clearly see, your minor improvements (deleting the word “only” and replacing the word “mongered”) have been accepted (after one of them was initially rejected) so I'm unsure as to what your complaint is. Furthermore, collaboration doesn't mean that all your editorial inputs must and will be accepted by other editors. Some of your edits will but some or even many won't. That's a part of the process you need to accept otherwise you won't enjoy the Wikipedia experience... --Loremaster (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is shamefully biased and unbalanced, has distorted citations along with blatant omissions and the notion that this article exhibits neutrality is absurd. The editor(s) of this article clearly has a one sided and self righteous agenda to push on this subject. This article reads like an attack rather than an objective source of information, and resounds with deep ignorance. Many people who read this article won't realize this however, and they are then being done a disservice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.193.92 (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

New World Order (conspiracy theory) is a good article that is being improved by supporters of WikiProject Rational Skepticism, whose “agenda” is to improve the quality of articles dealing with counterknowledge. Therefore, although remaining neutral, this article will be written from a rational skeptical perspective. Futhemore, most of the content of this article is a paraphrasing of reliable sources on the subject of New World Order conspiracism.
That being said, it is very easy to make such strong accusations (anonymously) when you don't provide clear examples to support them. In other words, put up or shut up. --Loremaster (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
96.242.193.92, as soon as you annotate here on the talk page those sections you feel have distorted citations, blatant omissions, shamefully biased and unbalanced wording, that result from the article's editors and not from the authors of the sources from which this article is derived, we may move forward to improve the article. You are welcome to bring our attention directly to those statements or sections that are one sided, self righteous, deeply ignorant, or attacking, so that we may revise or explain as necessary. Please remember that all content of the article should be verifiable (published in a reliable source). John Shandy` • talk 02:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are you not interested in contributions from IP addresses? Seems a bit elitist doesn't it? Of course notwithstanding the fact that this is not your article and your consent to cooperation is not required. a_man_alone (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to contributions to the article from anonymous IP addresses. However, if someone takes pride in their work, enjoys improving Wikipedia to make sure that it is a reliable open source encyclopedia, and doesn't appreciate it when people question your intentions, I strongly recommend that he creates a user account since it is extremely useful for an editor (such as giving him the ability to more easily watch over multiple pages he is interested in) but it also contributes to a culture of accountability on Wikipedia. Despite the fact a registered editor will probably use a pseudonym, it will be easier for other editors to discern his good faith and intentions when a track record of contributions is attached to his user account. Lastly, as this article gets closer to becoming a featured article, it will most probably become a target for vandalism by cranks so an administrator will have to put a semi-block on the article which will prevent these cranks as well as good anonymous contributors from editing it.
As for the accusation of ownership, I don't apologize for having taken responsibility for this article and many people have applauded me for doing so. That being said, although you don't need my consent to contribute to this article, Wikipedia does require that you seek consensus with the editors who watch over this page (even if there is only one) when your edits are being disputed.
--Loremaster (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
a_man_alone, you must understand that unregistered users will forever have their motives called into question due to the plethora of anonymous vandalism that Wikipedia endures day in and day out. A legitimately interested IP is difficult to distinguish from a trolling or vandalizing IP. While there are plenty of trolls and vandals with registered accounts, their motives are well-identifiable by being able to check their edit history (IPs change hands frequently and their edit histories are unreliable). IPs are welcome to contribute, but they're far more likely to be embraced if their desire to contribute is paired with a desire to hold themselves accountable for their edits (on articles and on talk pages). John Shandy` • talk 01:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by WalkingInTheLight2

I'm not going to do 5 back-to-back undos - I'll let someone else revert them. I think they should be reverted - even if just temporarily so they can be cleaned up. Some of them seem to be dodgy and unsourced. Others seem to be written with what I consider to be biased verbiage. I'm at work right now, but maybe later I can find time to break down the added content with my comments. John Shandy` • talk 15:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted them all. New World Order conspiracy theory is a subject that is controversial and is often in dispute. So new contributors should discuss substantial changes on this talk page before making them, supplying full citations, to acheive consensus with other editors who have taken an interest in this article. That being said, User:WalkingInTheLight2's contribution is not only original research of poor quality but it disregards the existing structure of the article which has had consensus for a long time. Therefore, I am opposed to its inclusion even if it is cleaned up. --Loremaster (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I do not see it reverted. My concerns/requests: 1. The article insinuates that Christians who considers this conspiracy theory all support this anti+Christ to come endtime doctrine of disaster. That is a lie. I know Christians who are preterists meaning they interpret the prophecies mostly to have already been fulfilled for example with Nero etc. They believe things should just get better as we apply the authority as Christians that we have in Christ. Yet that doesn't make them blink to the schemes of the enemy. 2. All these arguments - criticism about why governments or people would not have an incentive to co-operate in such a scheme, to me is irrelevant, if they themselves are being controlled, manipulated etc. Especially if they themselves are high degree Freemasons who had systemtaticaaly given by contracts and rituals all the more right to demonic forces to conctrol them, without really knowing what they are doing at the time - but still. I don't see the true issue addressed, which is a spiritual warfare between darkness and light. 3. I would like some of the facts represented in this article to be made public, so the world would know about what is going on.http://www.illuminati-news.com/ufos-and-aliens/html/covenant-with-death.htm A covenant with death Would you allow me to make changes accordingly?

Note With regards to the structure of the article - it is assumed there are different conspiracy theories and they are listed one by one. It doesn't make sense. There is one conspiracy theory : a world take over - ONE GOAL

In order to accomplish that, there are different supportive goals, to align with this central goal. These goals would include things like

  • 1. Decreased world population - especially blacks or those considered by them as "useless eaters". (with categories such as healthcare, genecides, wars etc as various strategies).
  • 2. A one world religion (also with various strategies).
  • 3. Financial collapse and finances for the project (also with various strategies).
  • 4. Mind control (also with various strategies, for example music).
The strategies (of the various goals) includes things like
  • to make use of secret societies such as the Freemasons to impliment goals.
  • to work with pharaceutical companies (food and drugs)
  • to get puppets like Mogabe in Zimbabwe to impliment their goals.
The strategies however is not the main focus. The stategies could rather be listed under the main goals, but they are not in itself a conspiracy theory as suggested?????
As another category (not with regards to goals and strategies) it could be discussed who is behind it and who is involved.
It just doesn't make sense to discuss it as various conspiracies, if really it is one. (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC))
Note With regards to the structure of the article - it is assumed there are different conspiracy theories and they are listed one by one. It doesn't make sense. There is one conspiracy theory : a world take over - ONE GOAL
You're incorrect. The New World Order conspiracy theory is a superconspiracy theory comprising numerous systemic conspiracy theories and event conspiracy theories, but it still has different iterations and interpretations, just as there are different religious denominations or different schools of thought. Though NWO conspiracists tend to share common beliefs about many different kinds of event conspiracy theories, the article clearly demonstrates that they do have vastly different views regarding who they identify to be the "culprit" behind any aims to establish a one-world government. There are no "assumptions" being made here - as you can clearly see by sorting through the article, each of these different views are documented by reliable sources. It makes sense to anyone who reads the entire article or who simply keeps themselves aware of the many different variations on a perceived establishment of a "New World Order."
The strategies however is not the main focus. The stategies could rather be listed under the main goals, but they are not in itself a conspiracy theory as suggested????? As another category (not with regards to goals and strategies) it could be discussed who is behind it and who is involved. It just doesn't make sense to discuss it as various conspiracies, if really it is one.
Each of those "goals" or "strategies" you listed are featured in the article already as component conspiracy theories of the New World Order conspiracy theory set. As systemic conspiracy theories & event conspiracy theories, these theories do collectively form the topic of the article appropriately. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so if you are indeed going to make a strong argument for why these theories should be reduced to strategies or goals and presented differently in a restructuring of the article, then you need to provide plenty of reliable sources to make your case. So far the only source you've provided is certainly not a reliable one. It's clearly someone's personal website and the author of the content clearly accepts that claims of UFOs, aliens, mind control, and spirituality are factual... yet there is no scientific consensus that supports these claims. These are false premises on which to produce anything that could be considered truthful or reliable. We would only be able to use this source to demonstrate that conspiracy theorists make these claims, but not that these claims hold any water - because the evidence against them is too great and is accompanied by an abundance of reliable sources.
As well, you seem to be fixated on Christians although I'm not sure why. They are not the only NWO conspiracy theorists, and their class of theories about an NWO (millenialism, etc.) are not the only views. John Shandy` • talk 04:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Noted. With regards to the leading paragraph to this article

Prior to the early 1990s, New World Order conspiracism was limited to two American countercultures, primarily the militantly anti-government right, and secondarily fundamentalist Christians concerned with end-time emergence of the Antichrist.[7] Skeptics, such as Michael Barkun and Chip Berlet, have expressed concern that right-wing populist conspiracy theories about a New World Order have now not only been embraced by many left-wing conspiracy theorists but have seeped into popular culture, thereby inaugurating an unrivaled period of people actively preparing for apocalyptic millenarian scenarios in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. These political scientists warn that this mass hysteria may not only fuel lone-wolf terrorism but have devastating effects on American political life,[8] such as the radical right wooing the radical left into joining a revolutionary Third Position movement capable of subverting the established political powers.[3][9]

the impression is given in a subtle way that the conspiracy theory in itself is not true and the people who believe it, they are the problem. Spesifically is mentioned about fanatic Christians with this end time theology of a coming anti-Christ or military people. Now, wince the 1990's this "dangerous" theory has spread further like a bad virus. I know it doesn't say that, but it implies it. That was why I stated about the Christians, and the long section later on about the end time theology as well. It's like making rediculous the people that considers this theory, making the reader already non-neutral before he even starts reading the articles.I understand what you say about the reliable sources, that can be arranged. (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC))

PS: the source that I provided is not just somebody that believes other peoples claims of so called visitations. It is loaded with facts and actual pictures. I ask you kindly to read it. (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC))

The quote you've drawn attention to is sourced, and I see you perceive it to be inducing a bias in the article. That's okay however, because reliable sources do carry their biases - but those biases have to be channeled to the article proportionately. Wikipedia cannot give undue weight (either too much weight or too little weight) to the biases of the authors who publish the sources cited for an article (see the WP:UNDUE section of WP:NPOV). For example, evolution by natural selection is supported by scientific consensus in the scientific community - there are indeed alternative views to evolution that people hold, but those views are not represented as having equal weight because in reality, those views do not have equal weight. Such is the case with reliable sources on NWO conspiracy theories. The topic overall is heavily criticized by the majority, and almost all of the skeptics and critics of the theories regard conspiracy theorists as cranks who ignore evidence and instead appeal to emotion, etc. That's not the bias of whoever edits this article though, that's the bias of the reliable sources, and Wikipedia's purpose (the purpose of any encyclopedia) is to guarantee verifiability, rather than truth - verifiability meaning published in a reliable sources (peer-reviewed publications are the most favored). We have had several editors such as yourself come here and note what they consider to be non-neutral or biased content in the article, but most often I find that they are confusing the biases of the sources' authors, for biases of the editors who contribute to this article. Every editor has to do their best to remember the distinction when evaluating whether or not an article is written from a neutral point of view. This article has scored well on its NPOV factor as evidenced by its approval for Good Article status (see the top).
As for that source you provided... You're telling me it's loaded with facts and actual pictures. If so, there should be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the claims are supported by empirical data. Such is simply not the case and never has been. UFOlogy is not even considered to be a scientific pursuit of extraterrestrial life - SETI is a much more promising endeavor. UFO photos can be fabricated, as can photos of aliens and so forth (those are the photos I immediately see on the specific page you linked to). Not everything we see is real, otherwise here's a strange animal I photographed on a Texas farm. John Shandy` • talk 06:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments would have lots of weight in my view, with regards to most articles but particularly not this one. There is not a conspiracy theory to withold scientific evidance away from people with regards to evolutionary development, so you can't compare it. The point is : If there is a conspiracy. Then scientists would not be able to openly verify on the facts found, as it would not be relased to them to investigate. Everybody "in" on it would be sworn to secrecy. Whatever scientists are working on related projects would be forbidden to reveal anything, at the expense of their own lives and their families. The only sources we would have would be government offitials leaking information, as per my source. But then you would consider it invalid. So we are left with a catch 22 situation and because of that the article will only cater for the options that leans towards suspition of the theories. I therefore urge you, for the sake of this particular article, to keep that in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkingInTheLight2 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

leading paragraph

With regards to the leading paragraph as quoted : why is it there and not under criticism? Placing this non-neutral source right at the onset of the article in preparation of the reader for the rest, already creates a negative perception from the onset. If it was for example placed under criticism it would make the wiki article neutral. (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC))

To balance the introduction, say rather then something like : Supporters of the conspiracy theory typically see either demons, aliens or a self-serving elite to be behind the conspiracy. Opponents of the nwo conspiracy theories are concerned that it could lead to mass histeria, and tend to want to protect the public thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkingInTheLight2 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WalkingInTheLight2, here are my answers to some of your specific questions and comments in this entire thread:

  1. By “reverted” I mean that your contributions were deleted when I reverted the article to the version that existed before you began contributing to it.
  2. Although you may be right that there are preterist Christians who believe in a New World Order conspiracy, it doesn't change the fact that scholars who have studied the history of New World Order conspiracy theorists argue that prior to the early 1990s New World Order conspiracism was limited to two American countercultures, primarily the militantly anti-government right, and secondarily fundamentalist Christians concerned with end-time emergence of the Antichrist.
  3. The notion that our political leaders do not know that they are being manipulated and controlled by the forces of darkness in a spiritual war against the forces of light is obviously your opinion but not a fact. However, if a reliable source reports that some or many conspiracy theorists share this opinion, only then could you make changes accordingly.
  4. Putting aside the problem that illuminati-news.com is not considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. Therefore, all content hosted in Wikipedia cannot be propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to “let the world know what is going on”.
  5. The article already has a section called Postulated implementations which focuses on some of the various strategies and/or supportive goals you listed. We could improve or even expand this section but only with information coming from reliable sources.
  6. Even if there really was a New World Order conspiracy that prevents mainstream scholars and journalists from publishing information that would confirm and prove this conspiracy; we have no choice but to respect Wikipedia guidelines that demand that the content of Wikipedia article only be based on the work of notable mainstream scholars and journalists. In other words, Wikipedia has rules. If you can't accept that, you should stop contributing to it immediately.
  7. Regarding the article in general and lead section in particular, Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint even if creates a negative perception from the onset. Furthemore, the lead section of an article is an overview of the entire article therefore a good lead section must include a summary of the content of the criticism section.
  8. Regarding your suggestion for the lead, beyond the problem of poor writing, I would be opposed to it since reliable sources already tell us in the second paragraph of the lead who most conspiracy theorists typically see as being behind the New World Order conspiracy.
--Loremaster (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre conspiracy theories requires bizarre types of evidence, which can not be dismissed simply because they are so bizarre

Also, you state that wiki is not that much concerned with truth as with having verifiable sources behind claims.

Then when I provide claims from a source, that doesn't sound true, you dismiss it is an invalid source. But if claims are made that fits in with what is considered reasonable, it is considered valid.

The catch here is,that the entire conspiracy theory, is a bizarre theory, with bizarre elements, and bizarre allegations, so some rope need to be given to facts provided that doesn't gel with what everybody tend to consider to be "truthfull".

Facts provided from the article I sourced for example (The manuscript, which ties together certain aspects of the "Secret Government" and the "UFO Phenomena", was titled: THE SECRET GOVERNMENT (The Origin, Identity, and Purpose of MJ-12. May 23, 1989. Updated November 21, 1990):

...I originally wrote this piece as a research paper. It was first delivered at the MUFON Symposium on July 2, 1989, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Most of this knowledge comes directly from, or as a result of my own research into the TOP SECRET/MAJIC material WHICH I SAW AND READ between the years 1970 and 1973 as a member of the Intelligence Briefing Team of the Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet. Since some of this information was derived from sources that I cannot divulge for obvious reasons...

  • the atomic bomb torn wholes in the space time fabric providing entry points for other beings..."Other indications suggest that they may be 'para-physical' entities of some sort, perhaps those allegedly released, according to Kenneth Grant and others, by the Illuminati from another 'dimension' via holes torn in the space-time fabric by the early atomic tests in the Nevada underground, New Mexico, and elsewhere - Branton)."
  • "Between January 1947 and December 1952 at least 16 crashed or downed alien craft, 65 bodies, and 1 live alien were recovered. An additional alien craft had exploded and nothing was recovered from that incident. Of these events, 13 occurred within the borders of the United States, not including the craft which disintegrated in the air. Of these 13, 1 was in Arizona, 11 were in New Mexico, and 1 was in Nevada. Sightings of UFOs were so numerous that serious investigation and debunking of each report became impossible, utilizing the existing intelligence assets."
  • Special Scientific projects was launched ""A special group of America's top scientists were organized under the name Project SIGN in December 1947 to study the phenomena. The whole nasty business was contained. Project SIGN evolved into Project GRUDGE in December 1948."
  • It was and is still a well kept secret. "DURING THESE EARLY YEARS THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY EXERCISED COMPLETE CONTROL OVER THE 'ALIEN SECRET.' In fact, the CIA was formed by Presidential Executive Order first as the Central Intelligence Group for the express purpose of dealing with the alien presence. Later the National Security Act was passed, establishing it as the Central Intelligence Agency. "
  • People who wanted to leak information lost their lives. Details are provided. (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC))
WalkingInTheLight2, just because you believe a bizarre claim contained in an article is true, it doesn't mean it's a “fact”. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion. So you will have to explain to us how you know the claims you choose to believe in are factual.
That being said, the article you provided is not considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards and you seem to have never considered the possibility that the manuscript it mentions is a hoax created by a bizarre conspiracy theorist desperate to make a bizarre conspiracy theory he believes in more believable to others by manufacturing false evidence for it. Listen, neither John Shandy nor I make the rules so we cannot give you the rope you need even if we wanted to give it to you. So you should seriously consider starting a blog or visiting a forum if you want to “let the world know what is going on”... --Loremaster (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I do understand where you are coming from. It just sounds like there is a loop, and I need to make peace with it. The loop goes something like this.

  1. Bizarre conspiracy theory gets identified
  2. The only way to prove it is true, is to list sources where the silence is broken.
  3. When such sources are provided, they are not considered valid, because they have not been opened up for enough criticism and counter evaluations.
  4. Because of the nature however it cannot be opened up to all scientists to come and openly evaluate. If that option was available, there wouldn't have been a conspiracy to start with.
  5. So the only option is to assume the conspiracy theory is not true, and to reflect that accordingly. Rules are rules.

I do respect rules, but the value of information is indeed in the truth it can provide. If truth is compromised due to rules, then the entire purpose of an encyclopedia, my view, is compromised.

I suppose I have no other choice but to just leave it all at this. (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC))

Good call. Take care. --Loremaster (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I will make one final note: I agree that the value of information depends on whether or not it's true, but an encyclopedia doesn't exist to service truth. Instead, an encyclopedia exists to provide a collective and thorough overview of what all information is available, without declaring one thing or another as true - only ever declaring what is held by consensus to be provisionally true and what is held by consensus to be provisionally false. An encyclopedia serves to provide you with the information - it is up to each individual to discern what is true, and people pursue truth with different approaches - some of us stick to the empirical world, others look for something beyond. An encyclopedia doesn't show you what to look for or how to look for it, instead it shows you an array of things to look at and consider. For example, even though evolution is held by consensus to be provisionally true, we certainly still have an article on creationism. Best wishes, John Shandy` • talk 18:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well said. --Loremaster (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
As you stated before, the general public opinion gets preference. Regardless if the general public opinion had been mind controlled to believe what the NWO wants them to believe. Somebody that had first hand access to secret information, revealing it, should get the greatest weight my view, but they are considered unreliable. So we get back to, people will hear what they want to hear, and they will believe what they are programmed to believe. And they will get evidence for that everywhere. Particularly in wikipedia. For that is how the system is designed. Those who really seek truth, should go up stream, especially if we are engaged in a psychological warfare, a mind control warfare, a worldview warfare. (See the war we are in. (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC))
There are certainly conspiracies out there, many of which have been brought to light by whistle blowers. However, the evidence they "bring out into the public" must withstand scientific and academic scrutiny nonetheless. Most of the people coming out with "evidence for aliens" aren't simply ignored - it's that their evidence fails the tests of scientific scrutiny. Many of these people claiming that they have evidence won't even open their evidence to public scrutiny, or will reject the scrutiny when it comes. If you're interested in releases of acclaimed classified documents, you should consider WikiLeaks. John Shandy` • talk 15:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
WalkingInTheLight2, whenever I have conversations with true believers, my simple question is always this: Even if there is a conspiracy, how do you know the person who claims to have first-hand access to a secret information revealing this conspiracy is telling the truth? --Loremaster (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Truth

John: agreed that it is necessary for whistleblower claims to be tested. But why can't an article state for example: whistleblowers like such and such has claimed this and that based on such and such. These claims have however not been confirmed by government and mainstream scientists. Then the reader can make up his or her own mind and consider these potential claims. But then we will need to provide sources which have already been labeled "unreliable" and not "wiki standard material". Which restricts such findings to be even mentioned. And this is part of the loop that was referred to earlier.

Loremaster: we don't know it is true. We just consider it as potentially true. We don't want to discard things before even considering it just because they appear to be bizarre or because it doesn't come from a book with a proper ISBN number.

What I personally do believe is not that here is necessarily alients or not. But I know there are forces of darkness, because I believe in God and His Word, and this faith is a supernatural knowing, that goes beyond mental reasoning. And because I know God is real, I know also the forces of darkness are real and evil, and a New World Order Conpiracy and any kind of bizarre thing that goes with that would not surprise me at all. But it wouldn't scare me either, because I know also God is more powerful. It would really have surprised me had there not been a wicked evil plot of destruction, knowing how hard working, incredibly evil and deceiptful and sly the forces of darkness is. Just from what I have seen in my life, how deception has crept into the church, defiling it with Gnostic thinking, and luring people away from the cross unto another kind of Gospel, which the bible warned against, I know their wicked scemes extends far greater. Just imagine how did Hitler manage through mind control and satanic craft to change the worldview of an entire nation, to accept and embrace his satanic ideas as truth and admirable. This is the kind of war we are in. To the believer centred on God, everything is about the Glory of God. If there were no distressing situations, how would God be able to reveal His glory as the great deliverer. If there were no powerful enemy, how would God reveal His Glory through His Strength and His kind of Wisdom. If people were not as broken and wounded, how would He reveal His glory as Comforter and great healer. If the world were not as lost, He could not reveal Himself as the Great Redeemer. On and on. It's not about living in a world were there is no resistance, its about looking up at the only One who always is our Hope in all things. And also I think people who still walk around with an escapism mindset awaiting an evil anti-Christ and dreaming of being raptured out of here, scared of being left behind, has a twisted concept of the glory of God and the finished work of Jesus on the cross. And I also am an evangelical Universalist, believing as Ephesians 1 says, that Gods ultimate plan is that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He will gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth - in Him. That's my world-view, and I believe there are many like me, and for us a New World order Conspiracy is very likely, but it doesn't rock our boats. For God will eventually turn all things around for His glory. The real issue at hand is an issue of world-views, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. This is what this entire New World Order thing is all about, because to the extend that we can see God as He really is, we can be like Him, and His glory will be revealed to and through us, and the enemy don't want that.

(PS: I followed your advise, and I did write a blog ;) Yessica7's blog )(Yessica7 (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC))

The article satisfied a neutral point of view already - it is not easy to attain Good Article status, and this article required 2 reviews before its NPOV was solid enough to merit GA status.
I disagree with your claims about Hitler. Hitler was a Roman Catholic, and he accomplished many of his goals not through mind control or Satanic craft (again, he was a Roman Catholic). Rather, he accomplished his goals by being an effective leader and an effective motivator. He did so with a good application of fascism (particularly religious fascism - and keep in mind the economic status of Germany at the time, as well as the fact that Jewish people are allegedly responsible for crucifying your Jesus).
Regardless, this page is strictly for discussing improvements/changes to the article - it's not intended to serve as a soapbox or a debate forum. Loremaster and I do not share your views on religion, and although religious beliefs have nothing to do with an editor's ability to contribute, I do not think we're going to be able to fully convey the importance of verifiability & reliability, or the importance of empirical evidence. John Shandy` • talk 17:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hitler and satanism is interconnected. See Hitler and the secret Satanic cult at the heart of Nazi Germany and WW2 - The Real Adolf Hitler and The Thule Society. The Jesuits who started the Illuminati originated from Roman Catholic monks (see the Jesuit conspiracy theories). That is what this whole New World Order is about, the enemy masquerading as friends even as Christians. But, like you said, we are going off the point here, unless this could form part of the article. (Yessica7 (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)) (PS: Jesus gave His life, it wasn't taken from him. And for all means it was our sins that nailed him to the cross, the Jews were just the implimentors. And also Jesus was a Jew, and Jews used to be God's special people, that's why Satan hates them particularly much) (Yessica7 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC))
I don't have the time nor the interest to debate with a true believer like Yessica7. However, I suggest that she reads the Nazism and occultism article and consider contributing to it using reliable sources instead of wasting our time here. --Loremaster (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nazism, Occultism and the New World Order

There are many people that links together Nazism, Occultism and the New World Order. The article Nazism and Occultism even includes a section about New World Order. Yet it is strange that a potential discussion of including anything of this on this article is considered somebody wasting time? I again question the neutrality of this article. It seems purposeless even to propose bringing any further contributions. When the article is developed to a point where it considers contributions implying that the New World Order Conspiracy is a satanic plot, just like the Nazi movement was, you may also refer at this stage to the book I include as source below.

Main article: Nazism and occultism

Speculation about Nazism and occultism has become part of popular culture since 1959. Aside from several popular documentaries, there are numerous books on the topic, most notably The Morning of the Magicians (1960) and The Spear of Destiny (1972). The first examples of this literary genre appeared in the occult milieu in France and England in the early 1940s. These books have been discussed by the historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke as "the modern Mythology of Nazi occultism" or "the Nazi Mysteries". The recurring element of this "occult historiography" is the thesis that the Nazis were directed by occult agencies of some sort: black forces, invisible hierarchies, unknown superiors, secret societies or even Satan, who is supposed to have possessed Adolf Hitler. Since such an agency "has remained concealed to previous historians of National Socialism,"[1] Goodrick-Clarke and the German historian Michael Rißmann have described the genre as cryptohistory. However, there also has been academic research on the potential influence of occultists and paganists on Nazism. This is part of an ongoing debate among historians and political scientists about the religious aspects of Nazism.

Conspiracy theory "cults frequently identify German National Socialism inter alia as a precursor of the New World Order."[4]

(See also: Black sun : Aryan cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the politics of identity, Author: Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke Publisher: New York : New York University Press, ©2002 "Black Sun examines the new neofascist ideology, showing how hate groups, militias and conspiracy cults attempt to gain influence. Based on interviews and extensive research into underground groups, Black Sun documents the new Nazi and fascist sects that have sprung up from the 1970s through the 1990s and examines the mentality and motivation of these far-right extremists. The result is a detailed, grounded portrait of the mythical and devotional aspects of Hitler cults among Aryan mystics, racist skinheads and Nazi satanists, Heavy Metal music fans, and in occult literature. Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke offers a unique perspective on far right neo-Nazism viewing it as a new form of Western religious heresy. He paints a frightening picture of a religion with its own relics, rituals, prophecies and an international sectarian following that could, under the proper conditions, gain political power and attempt to realize its dangerous millenarian fantasies.") (Yessica7 (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC))

If you had actually taken the time to read and understand the entire content of the New World Order section within the Nazism and occultism article, you would have realized that it actually refutes the notion that there is a link between the “New Order” of Hitler and the “New World Order” of paranoid conspiracy theorists.
If you had actually read the the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article in its entirety before hastily questioning its neutrality, you would already know that the End time section discusses the link between anti-Satanism and New World Order conspiracism while the Fourth Reich section discusses the link between Naziphobia and New World Order conspiracism. “Nazi occultists” are also mentioned in the Occultism section of the article. Although we are open to contributions that could improve and/or expand these sections, no original research, especially the kind that pushes a fringe Christian POV, will be accepted.
With that said, I am done with this debate. --Loremaster (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
That had been my entire point from the beginning, and up to now, a world view that allows for an understanding that there are a loving God and there are evil occult forces behind world take over conspiracies, does not necessarily have anything to do with weird end time theology. And for you to associate it in the article as such, is not projecting it accurately.
Your world view is, I assume, "there is no God, there is no devil" and any entries that comes from that base is questionable, either coming from somebody waisting our time, or using unreliable sources. You can not prove there is no God and no devil, yet because the world view through propaganda of much of the world has changed towards that understanding, that is considered to be a "neutral" view. It isn't. I leave you with that. (Yessica7 (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC))
Although I freely admit to being an ignostic, my opinion of God and the Devil has not, does not and will not influence what I think should or should not be included in this article. The only thing that influences my judgment are Wikipedia's three core content policies: "Neutral point of view", "Verifiability", and "No original research".
That being said, your point of view - a Christian world view that rejects end-time eschatology but embraces demonic New World Order conspiracy theory - is not shared by a majority of Christians who embrace New World Order conspiracism according to notable mainstream scholars and journalists who have studied the subject. However, if you can find reliable sources that find it noteworthy to report that there are some or even many Christians who reject end-time eschatology but embrace New World Order conspiracism, it will be my pleasure to include a brief mention of this interesting fact in this article. Until then, give it a rest. --Loremaster (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Bible believing Christians all believe in a conspiracy, that the thief (the devil) comes to steal, kill and destroy, but that Jesus came that we can have life. (Source is bible John 10:10) This stealing killing and destroying is everywhere, in homes, in business and in government. Even in schools and especially in churches. Lies is the primary weapon used, along with deception, manipulation, control and fear. This is the widespread belief and mindset of Bible believing Christians, and thousands of sources can be given to support this. Some of the Christians that believes this, however also believes that it is possible that Satanic plans can be interrupted. (See example Joyce Meyer, Interrupting Satans plans, Publisher Joyce Meyer Ministries ​ ISBN 2901008534 ) Other Christians however has been conditioned to believe by their interpretation of certain scriptures that a world take over is supposed to happen, organized by evil forces, and that there is nothing that Christians can do to prevent it. There is thus a divide among Christians. Some believe that all authority has been given to Christians to resist the enemy, and others believe we should accept a New World Order, due to their end time theology. But all true bible believing Christians believe in wicked plans of Satan, who constantly try to overthrow everything wholesome and good, to steal, kill and destroy as much as he can, and that this is done on as great a scale as possible for him, strategic, crafty and sly. This is not just something that I personally have some odd idea about. The majority of mainstream Christians share this world-view and mainstream Christian books is written along these lines. Those of us who believe that Jesus Christ died and overcame all forces of darkness so we could rule in Him over it, tend to ironically enough to consider those with end time theology that insinuates Christians should merely accept a world take over and hope for a safe escape for they can do nothing against the crafts of the enemy because God somehow "wants" it to be like this, we consider such believers to be deceived, by the very same enemy that wants to accomplish world dominion and wants to paralyse believers with teaching of fear and escapism. (See also End Time Dilusion) (Yessica7 (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC))

Spare us the sermon and just supply us with full citations from reliable second- or third-party sources that explicitly report that there are some or even many Christians who reject end-time eschatology but embrace New World Order conspiracism. In other words, your sources cannot simply explain that many Christians reject end-time eschatology but still believe that supernatural forces of evil rule the world. They must clearly state that these people believe that something called the “New World Order” is or will be controlled these forces.--Loremaster (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If I'm going to hell at the mercy of a satanic one-world government, there had better be refreshments... John Shandy` • talk 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That is where we keep missing one another. It's like you are telling me to get a nature activist animal lover that explicitly said that he believes people who deliberately hurt animals have done something evil. He doesn't need to say it. It is implied. Everybody knows that if he is an animal lover he believes that. Now I give you a source for example, that states the end time delusion, but now because he didn't say somewhere that he believes there is a devil and that he believes John 10:10 is true that the devil comes to steal kill and to destroy and that the wicked plans of the enemy extends even to governments, now he is not a valid source. He believes that, because all bible believers believes that. It was done through Hitler, it is done through the food and drug association (stealing from our health), it is done through destructive music, it is done through the school system, it is done through religious deception, it is done through dictators like in Zimbabwe, it is done through financial ruin, it is done through the destruction of family values. Call it a New World Order, or call it just the god of this world, satan, running loose to bring destruction where he can, call it what you want, this is the conspiracy of the enemy, to destroy us all, in as many ways as we can, and that is why we Christians believe we have the good news of Salvation in Christ, and that is why some of us are deeply concerned about our brothers that somehow got misguided to believe that somehow our loving Father "wants" such disasters to happen, has actually pre planner for it. I don't know how I can put this plainer. Christians believes in this conspiracy, it is their very world-view, the war they are in every day. Is it then really necessary to get a source that uses your exact words, if your stating the absolutely obvious?(Yessica7 (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC))

Nope. The Bible is a primary text, interpreted in various ways. Not suitable as a source for what Christians actually believe. Even your sermons here are merely interpretation of what Christians should believe. Wikipedia is not going there. Now read WP:NPOV, WP:RS or something. 92.76.140.144 (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Yessica7, what you seem to miserably fail to understand from the beginning is that Wikipedia has rules. Please take the time to read and understand these rules otherwise your suggestions on talk pages will be ignored and your contributions to articles will be deleted.
That being said, I am quite aware of the fact that there are many Christians who reject end-time eschatology yet believe supernatural forces of evil rule the world. However, the “New World Order” isn't some vague synonym for “global evil”. It is a specific right-wing populist conspiracy theory which speculates that there is a secret elite of rich capitalists plotting to establish a communist one-world government. It would be extremely presumptuous to believe such an idiosyncratic conspiracy theory is obviously implied in the beliefs of the Christians you represent when many would argue that it isn't. So Wikipedia demands that you find a reliable second- or third-party source to support the inclusion of such a claim in the article because it isn't obvious.
By the way, a first-party source would be a book written by a Christian theologian who argues that Christians like him believe XYZ based on their restorationist interpretation of the Bible. A second-party source could be a mainstream journalist who, having read the Christian theologian's book, writes an article in which he reports the “intriguing” or “weird” beliefs of Christians who share the same world view as this theologian. A third-party source could a respected scholar who, having read the Christian theologian's book, the journalist's article and many other writings on the subject, writes an essay for an academic journal on religion in which he explains why the Christian theologian (mis)interprets the Bible the way he does and how his idiosyncratic beliefs are (mis)interpreted by the journalist. Wikipedia obviously prefers third-party sources. --Loremaster (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way, you may want to read Christians & Conspiracy Theories: A Call To Reptentance and The Grand Conspiracy. --Loremaster (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Quotes by notable people

Husband of the queen of england, has indeed made comments that would coincide with this article quite well, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3908588.ece. "In the event I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus to solve the problem that is human over population". http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh K3nluminati (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if it were true that this facetious comment from Prince Philip is an extension of his serious comments in the Times Online article, one would have to be extremely paranoid to believe that is proof that either Prince Philip or members of the global power elite are secretly plotting to release a deadly virus to stop overpopulation. Regardless, you need to find a reliable source that states conspiracy theorists believe Prince Philip's comments are proof of the population-control agenda of people plotting on behalf of the New World Order. --Loremaster (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
That quote is from Agenteur Press in 1989. Ted Turner: “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95 percent decline from present levels, would be ideal.”, this wikipedia article, suggests Turner put up the georgia guidestones which calls for population <500m, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_guidestone K3nluminati (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. What is “Agenteur Press”? It might be more useful if you gave us the name of the book and the name of its author in order to help determine whether or not it is a reliable source.
  2. Many important people like Turner are concerned about the very real problem of overpopulation. Many of them also speculate that a significant decline from present levels of population would be ideal. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are secretly plotting to release viruses to achieve this goal.
  3. Van Smith is a not a reliable source. He shouldn't have been been used so extensively in the Wikipedia article on the Georgia Guidestones.
--Loremaster (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

My bad, this seems to the direct source of Prince Philip's quote, If I were an Animal: http://www.amazon.com/If-were-animal-Fleur-Cowles/dp/0688061508 . One doesn't show concern for over population by having 5 children with 2 different women, like Ted Turner. Bishpenol A which is used in most plastic has been linked to sperm count reduction in humans. It is estimated that there has been a 50-70% reduction in sperm count since the 1950s. http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/10/28/high-exposure-bisphenol-linked-low-sperm-count/ . I'd recommend you watch the film Children of Men , a great insight into what Alan Watt calls, predictive programming. Alot of these elitists are influenced by philosopher Thomas Malthus, who has been debunked especially on the so called "carrying capacity of the Earth" to be at 3b. K3nluminati (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  1. Ok. The quote comes from a book by Prince Philip... So what? How is this relevant to the New World Order conspiracy theory article? As I explained before, you need to find a reliable source - an article or book by a notable maintream scholar or journalist - which explicitly states that conspiracy theorists interpret the Philip quote as evidence of the population-control agenda of New World Order conspirators otherwise you are engaging in original research, which Wikipedia guidelines forbids.
  2. Many people had tons of children before embracing and publicly expressing a concern about overpopulation so using this fact against them is obviously unfair unless it can be show that these people had tons of children after embracing and publicly expressing a concern about overpopulation.
  3. I don't see how Bishpenol A in plastic being linked to sperm count reduction in humans proves there was a conspiracy to intentionally place Bishpenol A in plastic specifically in order to reduce sperm count in humans. You do realize that someone has to be bat-shit crazy to believe something like that, right?
  4. I've seen Children of Men and loved it but, again, someone has to be bat-shit crazy to believe this movie was a subtle form of psychological conditioning provided by the media to acquaint the public with planned societal changes. I know people in the movie industry and the only thing they care about is making money by making movies based on ideas floating in the general cultural, intellectual, ethical, spiritual, and/or political climate of the time. Although some movies have a utopian political or social message, they are not part of some conspiracy to brainwash the population.
  5. You may or may not be right that some people like Turner and Philip were influenced by the discredited theories of Malthus. However, it doesn't mean they would be willing to conspire to release viruses or whatever truly evil act you or I can imagine in order to reduce population numbers. Furthermore, just because Malthus's theories about overpopulation were discredited it doesn't mean that overpopulation isn't a real problem.
--Loremaster (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
"You know you have to be bat-shit crazy to believe this..." Yeah, keep up with the baseless insults, without providing any tangible proof to discredit my claims. K3nluminati (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Dude, I didn't say you were bat-shit crazy. I said someone has to be bat-shit crazy to believe the weird claims you are reporting. Obviously, I am assuming you are sane enough not to believe these claims and are simply reporting what some paranoid conspiracy theorists believe for the sake of adding more content to the article. That being said, you do realize that you haven't provided any tangible proof to validate these claims since one silly quote from Prince Philip's book (who everyone knows is a crank) and a blog post by some fringe researcher obviously isn't proof of anything, right?
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you or I think. What's important is that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's three core content policies: "Neutral point of view", "Verifiability", and "No original research". After you've done that, please discuss substantial changes you want to make to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article here on this talk page before making them and supply full citations from reliable sources when adding information. Can you do this? --Loremaster (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

K3nluminati, you will be happy to know that I edited the Population control section of the article to take into account some of your comments. --Loremaster (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I was away on a cruise to Cozumel, Mexico, I just wanted to chime in and say that I too enjoyed Children of Men. I also think Loremaster's edits make sense, but I second his concerns over there not being a notable link between content (books/movies/etc.) with an overpopulation theme and conspiracy-esque plots to exert population control. Ba de ya, say do you remember? Ba de ya, dancin' in September... John Shandy` • talk 23:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

  • Nice. I clicked on this article with trepidation, expecting a lot of mouth-frothing mania and endless lists of evidence and counter-evidence for every related theory and sub-theory. Instead I find a great article! Well done to all, keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.190.17 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Really just wanted to comment on how impressed I am with this article. It's hard to be objective on topics like this and I think this article does a very impressive job of it. --Cybermud (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a horrible article and takes the most distorted crack pot theories and gives a misrepresentation of the gradiance of information regarded to this topic. I have researched the richest people in the world, their actions, policy and there agendas. And the most relevant information on giving an authoritic narrative on the New World Order by definition, is blatantly missing from this article. Your attempt at nuetrality may pass for many who know little about the initial information on this topic but for people like me with lots of knowledge on this matter you show an obvious bias in this article. Many reasons why people who want information, pass on wikipedia, wikipedia is often a sorely incomplete, and reputable for leaving things out and manipulating the information available into a context that suites the writer. Usually someone involved with the topic they are writing/adding to. Pass on Wikipedia, because no wants bad information.98.238.165.166 (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Putting aside the fact that this article is about conspiracy theories (which are almost by definition crackpotic) as opposed to academic analyses of the emergence of a global ruling class; no original research is allowed on Wikipedia. Please provide us with reliable sources that support your point of view and then we will talk about changing the article to make it more neutral and comprehensive. P.S. Your criticisms and suggestions will be taken more seriously if you express them while using a registered account. --Loremaster (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
But what if someone who tends to regard brash claims of conspiracy theories with considerable skepticism, yet is logical enough in their thinking to recognize that clandestine abuse of power is highly probably, detects substantial bias in this article? I came in possessing none of the expectations or pre-conceived ideas admitted to by certain other participants of this discussion. But I was overtaken by a sense that the author really intended to deny the existence of all hidden conspiracies universally, with little or no effort to conceal that objective-- as if that conclusion could be substantiated. The article is simply void of even negligible objectivity, falling well short of the level Wikipedia strives to achieve in this area, despite the notably strenuous attempts to assert otherwise. Keep in mind, I "snopes" all chain emails and have found that, not surprisingly, 100% are either outright false or gross exaggerations of facts. Nevertheless, I find it foolish beyond comprehension to so fervently adhere to a stance that categorically dismisses the entire notion that the ultra-powerful, at times, stealthily execute nefarious self-serving objectives with no regard for the welfare of the masses impacted by them. It's an outright blissful forfeiture of one's own diligence over self-preservation to do so. It's one thing to stifle the threat of mass hysteria resulting from unfounded speculation, faulty logic and misinterpreted or otherwise compromised official historical accounts. But I'll be honest, the more I observe the harsh manner in which some indiscriminately discredit all notions of hidden abuses of power, the more I wonder if there really is validity in the conspiracy theory of mass mind-control intended to cause docile surrender of liberty and human rights. I don't know. If I were trying to impose a "New World Order" on a society of content beneficiaries of democracy and liberty, that would be a no-brainer.Mlynn1231 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello Mlynn1231. Let me start off by saying that no rational skeptic of conspiracy theories such as Michael Barkun or Chip Berlet (nor I) deny that clandestine abuse of power is highly probable and actually occuring on a daily basis. On the contrary, they often denounce it! However, there is a difference between realistic and real clandestine abuse of power and unsubstantiated and non-falsifiable conspiracy theories which explain a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning. Therefore the Wikipedia article on New World Order conspiracy theory never suggests that clandestine abuse of power is not highly probable but it does report that New World Order conspiracy theories are “bunk” according to notable mainstream scholars and journalists who have dedicated some of their time to studying conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists.
Futhermore, if you have taken to read the entire article, you would know that there are several passages that acknowledge the “notion that the ultra-powerful, at times, stealthily execute nefarious self-serving objectives with no regard for the welfare of the masses impacted by them”. Here is a good example from the Alleged consirators section of the article:
“Progressives, who are skeptical of right-wing populist conspiracy theories, also accuse the global power elite of not having the best interests of all at heart, and many intergovernmental organizations of suffering from a democratic deficit, but they argue that the superclass are plutocrats only interested in brazenly imposing a neoliberal or neoconservative new world order — the implementation of global capitalism through economic and military coercion to protect the interests of transnational corporations — which systematically undermines the possibility of a socialist one-world government.”
That being said, as it is explained at the beginning of this section, Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
--Loremaster (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I second what Loremaster said. Also, the Undue Weight clause of the WP:NPOV policy is where we tend to have most clashes with editors on this talk page. Many people are simply unaware of it, and unfortunately some of them force themselves never to visit Wikipedia again once they learn of it, because they want their points of view to be represented with equal weight. But yes, there is a tone in the article that undoubtedly highlights the lack of feasibility and lack of evidence in support of a secret elite plotting a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government. That is the scholarly consensus on the NWO conspiracy theory set. That tone doesn't derive from editors, such as Loremaster, but rather from the sources. Furthermore, NWO theory proponents that have visited this talk page or attempted to contribute to the article have given us very little that could be put into the article, neglecting to offer reliable sources in support of what they consider to be the truth. John Shandy` • talk 13:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article is not very good. While I am no supporter of NWO theories, I have studied this topic for the purposes of writing a novel and you could at least improve the Freemasonry part by adding the real facts that the NWO theories contain. There were several irregular Freemasonry lodges (Philadelphes, Mizraim lodge of Paris, in general Grand Orient of France and Italy) that had close connections with revolutionary movements, such as socialists, Mazzini's Free Europe, carbonaries, later with direct personal ties to early communists. Those facts are known to any historian. Maybe you can write some balanced short text about the real connections of irregular Freemasonry to the world revolutionary movement.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.52.63 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I am personally not well-read on Freemasonry, and I don't think the majority of contributors to this article are historians by any measure. So while any historian may know or accept the facts you've asserted, this common knowledge among historians is useless to those of us less familiar with the history of Freemasonry - so what we need are reliable sources. You're very welcome to make contributions to the article or point to some specific sources you consider to be of good quality so that someone else may try their hand at improving the accuracy in the Freemasonry section. Best wishes with the novel. John Shandy` • talk 20:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Even if were true that some irregular Masonic Lodges had connections with revolutionary socialist and communist groupuscules and movements, it would obviously be false to argue that there is an age-old conspiracy that connects Freemasonry as a whole to Communism as a whole. Ultimately, what matters is that Wikipedia guidelines require you to provide a reliable source that argues conspiracy theorists believe the link between Freemasonry and Communism is related to the New World Order conspiracy otherwise these facts are interesting but irrelevant. --Loremaster (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

New World Order, the Antichrist and Islam

Here is an article by Richard T. Hughes, Christian America and the Kingdom of God, which not only connects Christian conspiracy theories about the New World Order with Islam but provides a good Christian critique of New World Order conspiracy theories: Revelation, Revolutions, and the Tyrannical New World Order --Loremaster (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Page move

The article was recently moved from New World Order (conspiracy theory) to New World Order (idea). However I don't see any discussion of the move or complaints about the old title. What do editors think?   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason there haven't been any objections is because I just now noticed - I've been gone the past day or two and the edit appears to have just been made yesterday. I doubt Loremaster has seen it yet, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Shandy` (talk • contribs) 03:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It was a dire error by Steelmate, which I actually find rather obnoxious if not egregious. Renaming an article is not at all an edit people generally make without first establishing consensus among other editors - and certainly not an edit people generally make without even mentioning something on the talk page first. The sources generally hold New World Order in this context to mean the conspiracy theory (whether or not a NWO conspiracy exists, this article is about the NWO theory set - the event conspiracy theories under the umbrella of the systemic conspiracy theory or superconspiracy theory). The NWO theory set, as evident to anyone who bothers to actually read the entire article (whether they are a proponent or opponent of the theories), is clearly a very broad-ranging, but distinctly identifiable topic - calling it an "idea" doesn't accurately describe it. Putting aside the sources, one could hardly define this broad & inclusive theory set as "an idea" - there are very many drastically different (and often clashing) views on a hypothetical NWO, its implementors, its implementation, etc. NWO as an idea would be more along the lines of the New world order (politics) article, which is an entirely different subject.
This is precisely the kind of unsourced bias we try to keep out of the article - yet, we are often accused of inducing bias into the article, when a thorough cross-examination of the article and the sources it derives from will clearly show that the bias actually derives from the sources. The article was reviewed and deemed to satisfy NPOV, and has not drastically changed since it achieved Good Article status in 2010.
There's nothing loaded about the conspiracy theory terminology. People theorize about confirmed and unconfirmed conspiracies all the time, and such theories are called conspiracy theories. That an editor doesn't like the title isn't justification for renaming/moving the article autonomously.
I am going attempt to undo the page move, and we should continue to hash this out until consensus can be reached. What will matter above all is what the sources, in proportion to the real weight of their views, dictate. John Shandy` • talk 02:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the sources back this title. The 'idea' is that it's a conspiracy. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Concur. Steelmate's previous contributions show a strong POV that the ill-advised move was in support of. Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Quotes by notable people

Husband of the queen of england, has indeed made comments that would coincide with this article quite well, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3908588.ece. "In the event I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus to solve the problem that is human over population". http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh Kruger1191 (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* We already had this debate, “K3nluminati”. Give it up and get a life. --Loremaster (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster is a paid disinformation agent. Keep deleting my comments. I'll just keep coming back, and back, and back to let you know how you've already lost this war. Regards, TheIsraelite777 (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2011

Revelation 20:10 (King James Version) And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

TheIsraelite777, if you'll be so competent as to check the revision history for the talk page, you will see that your comments have not been removed by Loremaster, but by Soren (see this edit) and for good reason. All you've done is come here to incessantly chant your personal attacks, baseless accusations, and bizarre paranoid conspiracy theories, all in the name of some fantasy you call truth (a truth you've failed to justify, provide evidence for, or reach by logical reasoning). You are now being blatantly counter-productive, and you keep coming to the talk page to label, discredit, and vilify us with your provocative posts. Please stop trolling and learn how to identify reliable sources that present evidence in support of your claims - find such sources, and then return to the article and we will happily consider editing the article to reflect your findings, if they are indeed reliable and notable. We are not paid off or blackmailed, we are here to protect the neutrality of this article so that individuals such as yourself don't turn it into their own personal soapbox with which to promote their minority views as mainstream views. If you continue to behave in the uncivil manner you have been by personally attacking myself and Loremaster, and threatening us with your ridiculous scriptures, I will refer several admins to this talk page and ask that they block you from trolling the talk page, attacking the editors, or vandalizing the article. John Shandy` • talk 23:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Awww, you don't like it when I use scripture? Who knew.. thing is, you aren't dealing with some Christian hypocrite, this time you are dealing with a true follower of God. I keep all the laws, statutes, commandments, holy days, and the faith in Jesus. I make my ministry full proof. Now, if you want to have a civil debate, we can. Either on my page, or your page. Your pick.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIsraelite777 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

12/12/12 the final false flag operation of the new world order

One theory surrounding The New World Order is that there ultimate goal of one world government will be implemented through consent of the general public after they orchastrate a global false flag operation and create a mock alien attack on the 12th of december 2012.

This theory operates on the premise that secret divisions of the united states military which are controlled by the Illuminati have developed anti-gravity flying saucers.

The theory suggests that for decades the Illuminati who control most of the worlds media have been preparing the world for this event by conditioning the global public with Alien attack scenarios with examples such as Independance day, Battle: Los Angeles ,Skyline ect

The Illuminati also control 'The Disclosure project' and have been generally insighting belief that extertestials do exist so that the public will be even more susecptible to believe that they are infact under a universal threat and therefore justify the one world government which they crave in order to 'save humanity'.

Using the worlds media and remotely controlled flying saucers they plan to trick the world into thinking aliens are attacking when in reality it is the Illuminati behind it all along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous999endgame (talk • contribs) 12:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Might this be your theory? In any case: you will need reliable sources reporting on this conspiracy theory. Also, parts seem to already be in the article, so I'd suggest you give concrete proposals as to how the article could be changed in light of (available) sources. Yours, Sören Koopmann (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Sören is absolutely right. Furthermore, Anonymous999endgame's doomsday scenario sounds suspiciously similar to the end plot of the popular Watchmen comic book limited series... --Loremaster (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, something is going to happen in the month of December on 2012, I just don't know what. TheIsraelite777 (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2011

Of course something will happen - people of reason and rational thought will get together, have barbecues, have some drinks, enjoy the company of friends and family, and then wake up the next morning to laugh at all of the silly people who thought the world would end or drastically change forever, just like we did for Y2K. John Shandy` • talk 00:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

General Pattern of This Article

The general pattern of this article is a paragraph about what conspiracy theorists believe followed by a paragraph of evidences against this by skeptics. A more neutral pattern would list general beliefs then supporting evidence then skeptics evidences in refutation. The article would be far more neutral and of more encyclopedic quality if this were followed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.49.189 (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

To structure the article according to your suggestion will require supporting evidence published in reliable sources. Every time someone comes to us "with evidence" it's always bunk from some terribly biased and unreliable sources written and self-published by cranks who see a conspiracy in everything they look at. Further, Wikipedia's NPOV policy often gets misinterpreted to mean "neutral to all sides," when in fact the Undue Weight clause of NPOV requires that editors not give undue weight to any points of view, meaning we should publish mainstream points of view and significant minority points of view, each only in proportion to the reliable sources on the matter. The sad truth is that there really aren't any reliable sources (or at least not a significant amount) with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy or peer review, that support conspiracists' views. What matters for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability (meaning that you can verify that something written on Wikipedia is published in a reliable source), and notability (meaning that something is significant enough to warrant inclusion - and without this, silly things would be on Wikipedia, such as every person on the planet having their own Wikipedia article documenting their life, for example). John Shandy` • talk 13:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines actually recommend that we incorporate criticisms throughout the body of the article as opposed to creating a Criticism section at the bottom of the article. However, such section can still be justified because of how useful it is for users who are searching quickly for relevant information. Therefore, the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article does both: It incorporate specific criticisms of specific conspiracy theories related to the New World Order throughout the body of the article and has a Criticism section to present more general criticisms of New World Order conspiracism. --Loremaster (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Fact is

If you read John's profile, it's pretty clear he is an atheist. And he is good friends with Loremaster. It's a small world at the top, ain't it? Notice how people who don't believe in God are considered "scholars". I could refute anything you people challenged me with, and all while using the Bible. So try me. You CANNOT refute the Bible. Go ahead, give it your best shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIsraelite777 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So you've decided to continue the path of personal attacks, I take it? Yes, I do consider Loremaster a friend, and when you're trying to learn more about such an encompassing topic like NWO theories, Loremaster is a good friend to have. He's full of links to articles, books, and other resources on the topic at a moment's notice.
Indeed I am an atheist, and I am not at all surprised that you've chosen to take that personal characteristic of mine and use it to tarnish my name and reputation by attacking me with it. I never said I was a scholar, and in fact I would reject such a label especially because I have not published any written works in any academic publications. I do however enjoy reading scholarly works and academic journals on matters relating to economic development, astronomy, and science in general. I enjoy learning, by seeking new information and examining the latest evidence people discover and considering what they have to say about it - is that a crime? I admit wholeheartedly that I would be very afraid in a world full of people like you, ready to hang me from a tree or burn me at the stake for not accepting your archaic, unproven religious doctrine. I'm not going to feed your trolling any more by engaging you in a religious debate - at least not here on this article's talk page, which does not exist for purposes of debate. I will leave you with this chart of contradictions found in the bible that document how the bible contradicts and refutes itself in hundreds of ways. Good day. I will be referring admins to this talk page now. John Shandy` • talk 00:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Do me a favor, stop listening to idiots who don't know the Bible. I challenge you to a debate. Right here, right now. Prove me with your hardest questions. Are you an evolutionist? I can refute that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIsraelite777 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I accept evolution as a biological fact because evidence irrefutably supports it as such. You're clearly looking for pathways to attack me and goad me into a fight. I'm not going to ask you the tough questions because you'll invoke Bible passages (and I don't view the Bible as a reliable source - in fact I see it as one of the worst sources possible, given that it was written by mortal men, each book at different time periods, and passed down and translated and retranslated over thousands of years), and because you'll rely on faith - which is itself "belief without evidence" - I require evidence to justify my beliefs so that I can believe in as many provisional truths and as few falsehoods as possible. I do not have faith, and I do not think faith is a good thing for anyone to have and I view it as a harmful concept. I will not debate you, certainly not here, and most likely not on either of our talk pages, because the last time I asked you to supply evidence of your claims (with regards to "tons of people being killed for investigating the NWO"), you just stonewalled and never bothered to supply any reliable sources or evidence, you just kept chirping "i have tons of evidence!" and never showed even a thread of it. I'm not even sure if you believe the things you write on this talk page - it's quite possible you might just be a troll through-and-through. I can no longer assume good faith with regards to your edits to articles or to talk pages. You have also shown that you'll resort to personal attacks very quickly if not as a first resort. Please go bug someone else. John Shandy` • talk 03:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Fact is: TheIsraelite777 insists on attacking his fellow editors [32], and shows no interest at all in improving wikipedia. Maybe someone can do something about that. Sören Koopmann (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Abolition of Man

The third and final section of C. S. Lewis's 1943 philosophy book The Abolition of Man talks about a coming race of "Conditioners" who seem for all intents and purposes to be the "New World Order" described here. Is Lewis's warning an example of this theory is or it something else? If it is the same thing then it should probably be covered in the article. You can read the book here. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can find a source by an accepted Lewis scholar saying that, I'd say it's not likely. You could interpret it that way if you want, but it would just be your interpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Ian.thomson is right. I would say that you only need to find a reliable source that says conspiracy theorists invoke Lewis's book to describe what the New World Order will look like. --Loremaster (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's my interpretation. I'm not pushing the idea that this is correct, I'm just asking a question. I think I know Lewis's book pretty well but don't really know enough about the New World Order theory to be sure. I'm pretty sure I've heard the term "new world order of Conditioners" used in essays about the Abolition of Man but I'm not sure if the intent of these authors was to associate the Conditioners with this theory specifically or were just speaking generally. Certainly the Conditioners bring an order to a new world, but is that the same thing as NWO or different? I'm not sure but I'd like to find out.

Certainly the companion novel That Hideous Strength talks quite a bit about a sort of "power behind the throne" that's going to take over the whole world and place it unde a tyrannical one-world government if it gets it's way. --BenMcLean (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would guess that Lewis was more likely refering to the power possessed by the Antichrist and/or the Beast, since he was clearly influenced by the Bible. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that. In general, Lewis saw himself as defending what he called, "Mere Christianity" and that view includes those fundamentalists or psuedo-fundamentalists who see Revelations as talking about events still in the future as well as those oddballs like me who see it as discussing events which have largely already happened and even those who take a very non-concrete, poetic interpretation. Lewis didn't want to ferment contentions between different Christian denominations and so did not get involved in this controversy to my knowledge. But in The Abolition of Man, he isn't even talking about anything religious; it's strictly a philosophy book. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, the only thing that matters is whether or not there is a reliable source that explicitly says conspiracy theorists invoke Lewis's book to describe what the New World Order will look like. Until one is found, we can't mention this book in this article. Do you understand that? --Loremaster (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jerzyrep646, 8 May 2011

NWO is not a theory when Bush sr. announced it in 9/11/94. when a president says it then how can it be a theory? lol its a fact. theory needs to be taken out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzyrep646 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you've got the date wrong. But you're wrong here, anyway. Sören Koopmann (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Soren is correct about the way Bush Sr. was using the terminology, but taking things further, even if a president using the terminology "New World Order" were describing a secret cabal of evildoers, there's no valid empirical evidence (only anecdotes and sound bites from internet talk radio and self-published sources) that would suggest that the various event conspiracy theories listed in the article are real conspiracies, or that any of them are all linked together under a real superconspiracy. It also would say nothing about "who" or "what" comprises a New World Order, for which there are wildly different views among conspiracy cranks (aliens, shape-shifting reptilian humanoids, Illuminati, Satan/Anti-Christ/Demons, ad infinitum...). People are far better off embracing reality and accepting truths that are empirically supported with strong evidence and logically-reached conclusions, rather than embracing paranoia and seeing a conspiracy everywhere they look. That's no way to live, in my opinion. We will be happy to make edits to the article that are notable, verifiable, and published in reliable sources. John Shandy` • talk 14:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious, Jerzyrep646: What exactly do you think Bush announced when he talked about a New World Order? --Loremaster (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Milton William Cooper's promotion of Aliens as part of a NWO

I think it would be fair that under the section on "Aliens" that information be added that before William Cooper died at the hands of a sherrif deputy that he recanted from the belief that there was aliens and that the idea of aliens was actually an orchastrated deception to bring about a NWO by getting the people of Earth to rally behind a war against "aliens" that did not exist. William Cooper asserted that the United States Government have been engaged in human guinea pig research and planned to present genetically engineered human beings and pass them off as "aliens" that the people of planet Earth needed to defend against by forming a tyranical One World Government. He presented these views in an online article called MAJESTYTWELVE. MAJESTYTWELEVE being the name of a Top Secret paper he alledged to have witnessed while serving in USA Navy Intelligence. William Cooper although denying he was ever a Mason admited that he was a Demolay which is a Masonic youth organization for sons of Freemasons so it could be argued that Milton William Cooper was part of a grander conspiracy to sway public opinion. Milton William Cooper borrowed his later views from an online conspiracy theorist who originally posted to http://www.parascope.com who called himself "Jerry Newport" who's real name is Samuel A Moser. MAJESTYTWELVE can be found at http://www.hourofthetime.com/majestyt.htm and I believe this information should be added to the section on "Aliens". Samuel A Moser posting as "Jerry Newport" was antimilitia and encouraged people to put their trust in YEHOVAH God rather then a gun. William Cooper however promoted gun ownership and joining militia groups. Samuel A Moser E-mailed William Cooper many times telling him that YESHUWA said that those who live by the sword would die by the sword and encouraged William Cooper to stop promoting militias and to give up his guns but he did not listen and ended up being shot in a confrontation with Sherrif deputies. SamuelZior (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sam Moser is a complete nutjob, and he's been community banned We aren't going to accept him as a source. By the way, how do you know that he emailed Cooper? And isn't it funny that you're name also is Samuel? And you talk a lot like him. Huh, funny. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well some of the "Jerry Newport" posts are found on the internet and many lie deep within the Google Groups but can not be found by normal means through keyword search. Most of his posts were on alt.freemasonry and alt.conspiracy and he reposted many Parascope writings to Usenet. For instance here are some of the writings that have been preserved. http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg07401.html and also here http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02179.html - It could be argued that Samuel was a victom himself of the United States Government MKULTRA program which is why he posted these things under the handle of "Jerry Newport". As far as Samuel being a "nutjob" as you put it that could also be said of any conspiracy theorist. Alex Jones of www.infowars.com has heard his share of name calling but unlike Samuel he also promotes guns like William Cooper. Freemason Ed King of www.masonicinfo.com has all of Samuel's posts to parascope archived as well as a conspiracy internet site of a religious nature archived. Perhaps he will give you copies if you be nice to him. SamuelZior (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.art-bell/browse_thread/thread/126e6c0797f4e5a0/9e9437d903b267ee?q=Esoteric+%22Electromagnetic+Warfare%22 Here you can find where he reposted an internet article written by a Japanese man and hosted in Japan. Off this page you will find other writings but he changed his E-mail address often which makes following him difficult. Just go backward and forward through the groups alt.conspiracy and alt.freemasonry and you will find all his posts. Wierd someone called "surveyor" got his posts mixed up with Jerry post. I can tell you surveyor is not him. Someone calling himself "surveyor" got his posts mixed up with Jerry posts. "surveyor" is not Samuel. SamuelZior (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Internet posts by Samuel Moser do not count as reliable sources. What reliable sources are has been explained to you on your talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Literature, 1-2 other books to mention

Future Shock and The Third Wave (Alvin Toffler) have information pertaining to this subject, but I dont know if it is relevant enough to be added to the Litrature list. I suggest a new section titled "Literature and subject matter relevant to the phenomena" or something similiar might be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

His works (while interesting) do not appear to be scholarly examinations of New World Order conspiracy theories and/or those who believe in them, but I do grant that they are materials which believers would latch on to ("they're trying to replace our way of life!") and skeptics ("people that think there's a NWO are just attributing a natural change in society to something imaginary.") However, we don't take original research, and couldn't include it on those grounds. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Ian. --Loremaster (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the two books added by Gizziiusa, both were self-published. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Good call. --Loremaster (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory?

Why is it considered a conspiracy theory when the president h.w. bush said it existed and said I declare a new world order? Also did not several presidents like kennedy and eisenhower warn us of those in the alledged new world order by saying there are conspiratores looking to control the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.18.213 (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is already covered already here. You have this article confused with New world order (politics). This article is about a paranoid idea of a supposed secret society controlling the world, the other article is a reference to a change in the political scene. As another editor (John Shandy) also points out: "even if a president using the terminology "New World Order" were describing a secret cabal of evildoers, there's no valid empirical evidence (only anecdotes and sound bites from internet talk radio and self-published sources) that would suggest that the various event conspiracy theories listed in the article are real conspiracies, or that any of them are all linked together under a real superconspiracy. It also would say nothing about "who" or "what" comprises a New World Order, for which there are wildly different views among conspiracy cranks (aliens, shape-shifting reptilian humanoids, Illuminati, Satan/Anti-Christ/Demons, ad infinitum...). People are far better off embracing reality and accepting truths that are empirically supported with strong evidence and logically-reached conclusions, rather than embracing paranoia and seeing a conspiracy everywhere they look."
Could we incorporate this part of a FAQ? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That's actually a good idea. Maybe we could discuss possible formulations. SK (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
For President Bush, please see New World Order (politics). For Kennedy's speech [33], please read the full speech and consider the cold war context. The problem of conspiracy theorists is that they read their own ideas into other people's words without regard for historical context. SK (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I can understand the urge to keep the 'cranks' from editing, but the whole tone of this article goes too far in the other direction. The edit record shows that it really is just a 'single editor article', and even the talk page gets heavily edited to suppress opinions that disagree with the enforced consensus. I sincerely doubt whether with this approach, this article can ever become a featured article. Riversider (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Could you please elaborate or give specific examples of portions of the article that you feel are toned in a way that is inconsistent with the sources' authors' tones? If you have time, I'd also like if you could cite specific talk page discussions (either presently on the talk page or that have been archived) where we suppressed opinions or denied a suggested edit for reasons inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards for inclusion and reliable sourcing? Disagreement with consensus is fine, but dissenting views on the NWO conspiracy theory set just so happen to be in the minority and Wikipedia is meant to represent mainstream views and minority views in the same proportion they hold in the available reliable literature. It's rare that we receive people on the talk page interested in improving the article without an agenda, so I am interested in greater clarity as to which specific things you're objecting to. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 17:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
For a start the article counterposes the 'cranky' conspiracy theory with another conspiracy theory that is just as ill-founded, but which suits the agenda of the establishment: "These political scientists warn that this mass hysteria may not only fuel lone-wolf terrorism but have devastating effects on American political life, such as the radical right wooing the radical left into joining a revolutionary Third Position movement capable of overthrowing the U.S. government and partitioning America along ethnoregional lines". I've heard of fighting fire with fire, but this idea of a conspiracy between the far right and the far left to destroy the USA is just as laughable as any of the 'lizard' theories. Riversider (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
That section of the article heavily relies on Berlet, AFIAK. While Berlet is a profilic writer on CTs, he is not without criticism. For example, Mark Fenster in his book "Conspiracy Theories" (second edition, see here [34]) criticises Berlet (and others) for reducing the phenomenon of conspiracy theories to paranoid politics, locating it on the right, with the danger of "infecting" the left. This oversimplifies the picture, or rather does not do CTs justice as a cultural phenomenon. This criticism is obviously one about analytical approach, and it is not specifically about NWO CTs. But maybe we can do something with that here or elsewhere.
As for a conspiracy between left and right, I would say there are signs of synergies of left and right in some cases, at least here in Germany. I'm sure there is literature on that, but I'm uncertain whether it relates to this article. But it's not so much conceived as a conspiracy of left and right, but sometimes as ideological overlappings (and you can already see how this interpretation can (but not necessarily does) favour establishment and posit an unideological "middle"). SK (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Sören, I would have to disagree with Fenster's criticism of Berlet since Berlet is actually critical of reducing the phenomenon of conspiracy theories only to paranoid politics despite it being his field of interest (read Challenging Centrist/Extremist Theory). Furthermore, Berlet has interviewed and promoted authors such as Michael Barkun (and Fenster!) who view conspiracism as a cultural phenomenon so he is fully aware of other analytical approaches and the bigger picture. --Loremaster (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Riversider, regardless of Fenster's criticism, Berlet is considered to be a source reliable enough to be used in an article about New World Order conspiracy theories. I suggest you actually read his essay Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected before dismissing what he says as a conspiracy theory. By the way, even if a conspiracy between the far right and the far left to destroy the USA were extremely improbable, the idea is actually far more rational than fictional, irrational, lunatic, or deliberately fabricated conspiracy theories such the notion of a secret alien invasion by reptilians!
That being said, according to Wikipedia guidelines, whether or not a viewpoint is ill-founded or suits the agenda of the “establishment” or isn't even true has no bearing on the decision to include it in an article. The only thing that counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. --Loremaster (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, but do you really think it should go in the lead paragraph? It's really as much of a 'fringe theory' as any of the conspiracy theories, and is maybe a sign that having spent so long studying the conspiracists, the source is beginning to think like them himself.Riversider (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Putting aside the fact that it is nothing more than your opinion that Berlet's viewpoint is a “fringe theory as any of the conspiracy theories”, I really do think it should go in the lead since other political scientists have expressed a similar concern and the sentence summarizes content in the Criticism section. However, I am open to the idea of replacing the last part of that sentence (“overthrowing the U.S. government and partitioning America along ethnoregional lines”) with one of Berlet's less dramatic phrasing of his concern. As for your criticism of Berlet, even if you may still disagree with his conclusions, actually reading his well-researched and -referenced essays would make you realize that he deserves some respect as a political analyst. --Loremaster (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The other point I'd make is that the bulk of the published literature does not take such a sternly hostile tone to the conspiracists as this article does. A recent article on the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13682082 about conspiracies around the Bilderberg group pointed out that there were large elements of truth in what the conspiracists believed, just that they had taken it one step beyond what it was reasonable to conclude. By taking such a hostile tone, and by suppressing any dissent from that tone, all the editor of this article is doing is inadvertently feeding the conspiracists, as he is behaving exactly as he might if a conspiracy actually existed. Riversider (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Riversider, putting aside the fact that I seriously doubt that you've actually read the bulk of the published literature on New World Order conspiracy theories, a recent BBC article is not considered as reliable a source as is the work of scholar such as Michael Barkun. Furthermore, this article is not about Bilderberg Group conspiracy theories in particular but about a wide range of New World Order conspiracies, most of which are based on many irrational beliefs and claims that are not taken seriously by any mainstream scholar and journalist.
That being said, in my humble opinion, the article does a good job of fairly presenting the conspiracy theories and the prevailing criticisms of these conspiracy theories from reliable sources. As it has been said before, since we are simply paraphrasing what these scholars and journalists are saying, the tone of these criticisms mirrors the tone used by these scholars and journalists.
As for your claim that any dissent from the current tone of the article has been suppressed, the “dissent” on this talk page has mainly consisted of cranks, who are true believers in New World Order conspiracies, who want to their worldview promoted in the article without reliable sources to support them and/or want to delete any critical content from the article. By the way, I hope you're not misinterpreting my archiving of dead debates and resolved disputes to prevent this talk page from getting bulky as an attempt to “suppress dissent”.
As for your claim that this article inadvertently feeds conspiracists, it could be easily argued that an article which repeatedly states that “there are large elements of truth in what conspiracists believe, just that they had taken it one step beyond what it was reasonable to conclude” would feed conspiracists even more. However, I suggest you re-read the Alleged conspirators section of the article because it does in fact do just that.
Ultimately, our responsibility as contributors to this article is to report what reliable sources tell us on the subject, whatever their tone might be, regardless of whether or not it silences or feeds conspiracy theorists. --Loremaster (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Loremaster, You haven't justified the placing, right in the opening paragraph, the fanciful idea of collusion between far right and far left against the USA, and the nonsense about a 'Third Position'. This is just as off the wall and paranoid as any of the NWO conspiracy theories decried here. Riversider (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC
This was only my response to your second point. My response to your first point is in a section above. Again, please read the source that is referenced (Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected) before dismissing some claims out of hand. --Loremaster (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Riversider that this material doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. In my opinion, the lead should acknowledge that New World Order is a fringe theory and that there are many critics/skeptics, but keep the details of their criticisms and related theories to the appropriate sections. JRheic (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Putting aside the fact that all of Riversider's arguments were refuted in a section below, the lead must summarize content from all sections of the article, especially content that reports a concern shared by most critics of conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the details of this particular theory (Barkun, Berlet, et al) are necessary to sum up the article. None of the other theories from the Criticism section are summed up in the lead. I don't see why the Berlet theory deserves disproportionate weight. JRheic (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The details of this particular theory are necessary because it is the most significant since it is shared by many experts on the subject, who have expressed a concern that the spread of conspiracy theories may lead to isolated incidents of violence and even major social unrest. The fact that none of the other theories from the Criticism section are not summed up in the lead is not important since they are not as significant or widely-shared. Berlet's theory is shared Barkun and many other scholars. We simply settled on Berlet because his essay is readily available one. We could have easily used Barkun instead. --Loremaster (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


Edit request from Dilairnafoosi, 10 June 2011

UNJUST conspiracy THEORY label

The "New World Order (conspiracy theory)" page is MISCATEGORIZED and the word "theory" in the title is misleading and deceptive. I don't buy the subject supposedly being addressed in the discussion section saying that the word "theory" shouldn't be removed because of lack of empirical evidence. The Bilderberg meeting is going on right now in St. Mortiz, Switzerland, this is REAL (http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/former-steering-committee-members.html). George Bush is a blood relative of current monarchy of the UK (British house of Windsor), this is REAL (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/george_bushjr_13.htm, http://www.shilohouse.org/w_b_genealogy.htm). CHANGE THE TITLE, THIS IS NOT A THEORY, IT IS WELL DOCUMENTED FACT AND A CONCLUSION THAT HAS BEEN REACHED INDEPENDENTLY FROM MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES (EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, REPEATABLE, PREDICTABLE); THIS IS MISINFORMATION AND COMPROMISES THE TRUE INTEGRITY OF WIKIPEDIA! Again, the word "theory" should be removed from the title, and the article should not be categorized under conspiracy THEORIES. Dilairnafoosi (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the article is mistitled and miscategorized. Here is why:
  1. Like most people, you seem to have confused the words “theory” and “hypothesis”. In science, a theory is an analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another, while a hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. Unfortunately, people often misuse the word “theory” when they should be using “hypothesis” to dismiss something as an unproved assumption.
  2. The term “conspiracy theory” is defined as “a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end”. Please note that such a definition does not imply that the conspiracy is not real. So not only does this term perfectly describe beliefs in a New World Order conspiracy but it is in fact the term used by reliable sources, specifically political scientists such as Michael Barkun in their scholarly work.
  3. Your observation that there is a Bilderberg meeting going on in Switzerland or that George Bush is distant relative of the British Royal Family are indeed two facts which no one disputes. What would be described as a "conspiracy theory" is your intepretation of those facts, such as believing that the Bilderberg Group and George Bush are secretly plotting to impose a totalitarian world government.
  4. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Please note that obscure websites like theforbiddenknowledge.com and shilohouse.org are not considered reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines regardless of whether or not they are reporting what you consider to be “The Truth”.
  5. In light of all the arguments stated above, your request for the word "theory" to be removed from the title of the article, and for the article to no longer be categorized under Conspiracy theories is declined.
P.S. Try to avoid writing in capital letters when it isn't absolutely necessary to make your point otherwise it reads like you are screaming which is a violation of netiquette. --Loremaster (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with removal of sourced content from lead

I disagree with this edit by Riversider2008, which removed sourced content from the lead. Taking into consideration the discussion in the Comments thread above, a rewording (as suggested by Loremaster) might be appropriate, but I see no legitimate justification for removal. Chip Berlet is a notable scholar on exactly the kinds of conspiracy theories that are discussed in this article, and the source cited is reliable - further, as Loremaster pointed out, other scholars and political analysts have reached conclusions similar to Berlet's. Albeit with intentions of good faith, I think Riversider2008 is injecting his point of view into the article by espousing his mere opinion that the last line of the lead is conspiratorial (a label which is for reliable sources to cast, not Riversider2008), and suggesting that it doesn't belong in the lead. That line is representative of the concern scholars and skeptics have over widespread embrace of unsupported fringe theories, and the warning they prescribe is quite accurately represented in the lead. That it sounds implausible or that it resembles paranoia or conspiracism on the part of the sources' authors is clearly unsourced and entirely dependent upon Riversider2008's opinion. John Shandy` • talk 23:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I would only add that even if there was a reliable source which disagrees with Berlet's concern or even criticized him for at time sounding like a conspiracy theorist himself it wouldn't change the fact that Berlet's book and essays would still be reliable enough to be used as sources and that his viewpoint is relevant and notable enough to still be included in this article. The only recourse for Riversider would be to counter the viewpoint of Berlet (and Barkun) by finding and quoting critics of New World Order conspiracy theories who are more optimistic, and trust the stability of a mature democracy arguing that Americans have survived previous conspiracist bouts (Salem witch trials, anti-Masonic hysteria in the 1700's, Red Scares, etc) supposedly without much damage. --Loremaster (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
You're both relying far too much on a single source, that has gone far beyond the available evidence to make fairly wild claims about a plan between the left and right to divide the USA on ethnoregional lines. WP should represent the balance of available literature in a way that reflects this balance. Putting such outlandish claims in the lead based on a single source discredits the whole article, and will make it impossible to achieve 'Good Article' status. (Perhaps this alleged plot should be mentioned later in the body of the article, but putting it in the lead gives it far too much credence) The BBC article I quoted earlier is much more balanced in tone, language and editorial judgement on conspiracism than this WP article, which is failing in so many ways to be encyclopedic. Until other editors are allowed to improve the article, I can't see how this problem can be resolved. Riversider (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. Although they may differ on the details, there are several scholars who have expressed a concern that the spread of conspiracy theories might lead to major social unrest. Although we could have used the worst-case scenario imagined by Michael Barkun, a consultant for the F.B.I on the radical right and political violence, we settled on the one imagined by Chip Berlet and summarized his extensive body of work into one sentence because he is also widely-known expert on the matter and his essays are readily available online. (Have you read them?)
  2. You haven't demonstrated that Berlet's claim “goes far beyond the available evidence” or is “fairly wild” or “outlandish” or that it “discredits” the whole article. Furthermore, if you had actually read Berlet's whole essay, you would know that Berlet never argues that there is an actual “plan between the left and right to divide the USA along ethnoregional lines”. He simply expresses his concern that radical right-wingers, who claim to be “neither left nor right” (hence “third positionists”) and hide their desire to overthrow the U.S. government and partition America along racial lines, are using paranoid conspiracy theories to recruit some gullible left-wingers into joining them, slowly converting them to their radical right-wing worldview, and ultimately, their political agenda. Berlet's worst fear is this real problem metastasizing into a full-fledged mass movement capable of achieving said agenda. Even if this worst-case scenario never occurs, it is a legitimate fear for him to express and for us to report in this article. So perhaps your failure to understand this sentence is part of the reason you have objected to it so much.
  3. The expression “the radical left” has been replaced with “some alienated leftists” and the sentence “overthrowing the U.S. government and partitioning America along ethnoregional lines” has been replaced with “destabilizing local, state and federal authorities” so there is no reason to keep disputing content that is no longer present in the article.
  4. You keep forgetting that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth or reasonableness — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true or reasonable.
  5. You seem to not have noticed that the article already achieved Good Article status on 4 April 2010 with a version of the last sentence of the lead section almost identical to the one you dispute. I therefore seriously doubt that the previous and current version of the sentence you dispute will be an obstacle to acheiving Featured Article status strictly on the issue of whether it is reasonable.
  6. The (anonymous) BBC article is a reliable source and it does contain some useful content that we may want to integrate in the body of the article. However, it focuses more on Bilderberg Group conspiracy theories rather than New World Order conspiracy theories. Interestingly, the BBC article confirms that left-wing conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg Group are right (i.e. conspiring to impose capitalism domination) and that right-wing conspiracy theories about the group are wrong (i.e conspiring to impose a socialist/communist one world government). What you fail to realize is that the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article focuses more on right-wing conspiracy theories and theorists because that is what our reliable sources focus on.
  7. According to Wikipedia guidelines, articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting occasionally contains errors. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
  8. Regarding your repeated claims that the article is not balanced enough, I disagree simply because even if there are few journalists out there who think conspiracy theorists are on to something and should be given credit for raising issues ignored by the mainstream press, the reality is that the vast majority of scholars are far more critical and unforgiving, and an encyclopedic article should accurately reflect what the prevailing viewpoint is. So the balance you desire would actually be as unbalanced as giving evolutionism and creationism or climate change science and climate change denial equal time.
  9. One last thing on the issue of balance, here are some comments I archived (or “suppressed” as you would call it) in the past:
  • Nice. I clicked on this article with trepidation, expecting a lot of mouth-frothing mania and endless lists of evidence and counter-evidence for every related theory and sub-theory. Instead I find a great article! Well done to all, keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.190.17 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Really just wanted to comment on how impressed I am with this article. It's hard to be objective on topics like this and I think this article does a very impressive job of it. --Cybermud (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
9. Other editors have always been allowed to improve the article. The problem we have encountered in the past is none of them used reliable sources to support the claims they wanted added to the article. Perhaps you will be the first to the right thing. However, you will need to find better arguments and more sources to support your edit suggestions. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Riversider, you'll be happy to know that I improved the Bilderberg Group article (by, among other things, adding a new paragraph at the bottom of the Claims of political conspiracy section) using content from the BBC article you made us aware of. So thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Masonic conspiracy theories

As John Shandy suggested that I can make some contribution, I try to suggest some short text. The moderator Loremaster can see if it contributes anything to the conspiracy issue of this Wiki page. I do suspect, after studying lots of these books and verifying that many claims in those books actually are historically true, that the present text is not correctly describing the more reasonable NWO theories. I suggest the following text to the Freemason conspiracy. As for references, references to other Wiki pages suffice quite well. The pages to which I refer below are quite correct in my opinion.

"The Freemason new world order theory derives from widespread fears of Freemasons being active in overthrowing the monarchies in the end of the 18th and whole 19th centuries. Such fears were common in France, Italy, Russia and later also in the USA. The basis of these fears was that Memphis and Mizraim Lodges under the Grand Orients of France and Italy had ties to revolutionary activities, see the main articles "Philadelphes" and "Rite of Memphis-Misraim" in Wikipedia. There are clear ties of the Rites of Memphis and Mizraim to socialists, the "Free Europe" movement of Mazzini, "carbonaries", and later to communists. Even from the start, "Joseph Balsamo" aka Gagliostro, the founder of these rites, was involved in the French Revolution, see "Affair of the Diamond Necklace" in Wikipedia. It is a common understanding in NWO theories, starting from the books of "Nesta H. Webster", that the "Bavarian Illuminati" was in close connection with Gagliostro's Egyptian Freemasonry, i.e., Memphis and Mizraim lodges, and that "Jacobins" had a program very similar to that of the Illuminati, Carbonaries (with the supreme lodge Alta Vendita) continued the program, and many of the ideas were contineud by the communists. This historical background is the basis of on the belief of the centuries long conspiracy involving Freemasons and communists - leading to the world described by the Illuminati program that was found, and which has similarities with the communistic program, and by the totalitarian rule in former communistic countries. Thus, it is an interpretation of the movement that took place in Europe and its colonies inspired by the ideas of Enlightenment. In defence of Freemasonry, it can be added that the lodges involved in revolutionary activities were irregular. Notice that "irregular" in Freemasonry does not mean false Freemasonry, only that the rites are not mutally acknowledged, and members of regular lodges are strictly forbidden from taking part in meetings of irregular lodges."

As the present text states that Freemason NWO refers to an effort to create an occult New World Order, I think the following text may do more justice to NWO theories than simply stating that there is no occult connection, as such a claim is actually wrong concerning the irregular lodges involved in the subversial movements that took place.

"The claims of Freemasonry being involved in occultism that were also common, and play an important role in the New World Order theories, have some basis in history. The Rites of Memphis and Mizraim have close connections to Rosicrusian Orders of the Hermetic Order of Light, Hermetic Order of Luxor, and its follower O.T.O., originally intended as Masonic Academy. All of these rites practised occultism and sex magic, the accusations that were directed towards Freemasonry.In defence of Freemasonry, we must again mention that Freemasonry does not have organizational ties to Rosicrusian orders. These ties are personal ties and granting the charter of the Memphis and Mizraim Rite"

I would like to point out to the moderator that in my opinion the involvement of Freemasons in revolutionary activities is past history, but it is true. NWO theoreticians remember even older activities, e.g. of Jesuits, so they have a long memory. Hope this helps you, feel free to modify the text in any way, or to discard it. I only wanted to point out that the article does not do justice to the topic treated but it does seem like a personal opinion with the intent of showing NWO theories wrong or ridiculous, Wiki should only inform. Many NWO theories do have some basis in history, and not all of the books are at all ridiculous, some are written by competent historians. NWO is a difficult topic and while most of these theories are clearly wrong and cranks, it is a case of historical truth. We do not know what exactly happened in the past, and for that reason we do not know where we exactly are in the present, and we should know the past in order to be prepared to the future.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.52.63 (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that, while Loremaster is the most prominent contributor, he's by no means a moderator. However, few other people have made the effort to keep an eye on the integrity of the article from editors who would use it (or its talk page) as a soap box. Furthermore, referencing other wiki articles is not at all sufficient per Wikipedia's guidelines. Here are three areas in which Wikipedia discourages the use of circular referencing via citing Wikipedia articles as sources for other Wikipedia articles (as well as citing external sources that happen to cite Wikipedia, in turn producing a circular reference that may be unknown to the editor - gotta watch out for them): WP:RS states here that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for Wikipedia or other publications., WP:RS discourages citing sources that in turn cite Wikipedia, thereby creating an inadvertent circular reference., These examples are intended to illustrate WP:ATT, and they openly discourage using Wikipedia articles as sources for other Wikipedia articles, due to circular referencing being inappropriate.. John Shandy` • talk 14:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is fine, I do not want to start any fight. You find references to the sources I mentioned from any suitable external source, as they are accepted history and not any fringe theory. If you do not want to modify the text in Wiki, it does not bother me either. Do as you see best.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.52.63 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be hostile, but just bring circular referencing to your attention. I tend to not start editing things I don't know much about or am not very familiar with or interested in. I don't see why you yourself have a problem with contributing. Nobody is trying to prevent you from doing so, but it seems as though you would rather we do the work. I simply would rather refrain from touching that section myself, and I'm sure Loremaster will be willing to help rewrite that section if sources indeed show it to be relevant to the beliefs NWO conspiracy theorists hold. John Shandy` • talk 20:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe your comment was not hostile. I have bad earlier experieces from trying to correct or to contribute to Wiki pages. I have a quite long discussion at some point with some unknown person, who deleted the whole very short, correct and relevant text that I formulated on some purely scientific issue. I prefer not to edit the page as I do not really like to have another quarrel, please, see if you find anything in the following text useful, if not, then discard it. I hope to have verified all of the claims.

The Freemason new world order theory (Freemason NWO) derives from widespread fears of Freemasons being active in overthrowing the monarchies in the end of the 18th and whole 19th centuries. Such fears were common in France, Italy, Russia and later also in the USA. Freemason NWO cannot be separated from the Illuminati NWO, since the Freemason NWO theory claims that inside Freemasonry is another secret society that tries to infiltrate and run Freemasonry, and has a program for establishing the new world order. Books of Robison, John (1798) and Abbé Barreul (1787-1798) popularized the notion of Illuminari-Jacobin infiltration of Freemasonry. No NWO theory seems to claim that all Freemasons, or all masonic lodges or Grand Lodges would be part of any conspiracy. After the Bavarian Illuminati (1776-1785) was dissolved by the Bavaria government after police discovery of documents of a conspiracy, it has been uncertain whether Illuminati continued. The most common theory is that the Illuminati continued as the masonic Societe des Philadelphes 1789-1815. An anonymously authored book [Anonymous], believed to be written by Charles Nodier, describes the conspirational activities of Philadelphes. On page 53 in this book notice the pseudonames used by Philadelphes, like Spartacus, Caton, Cassius. By similarity of the pseudonames used in Illuminati, [Anonymous] seems to suggest that Philadelphes was a direct continuation of the Bavarian Illuminati. Nesta H. Webster [Webster] suggests that after Philadelphes, Illuminati continued as the Grand lodge Alta Vendita of Carbonaries 1814-1848. After Carboraries, the center of revolutionary activities was the irregular freemason lodge La Grande Loge des Philadelphes 1850-1871?. [Philadelphes 1850-1871] gives information of the claims of revolutionary activities and persons connected, see also other sources as this source is from Freemasonry and may downplay the role of Philadelphes. This lodge was established in England by French refugees and was implicated in revolutionary plotting. Both of the Philadelphes lodges belonged to the Grand Orient of France and worked the Rite of Memphis. This rite, a modification of the mostly Jewish Rite of Mizraim developed from the Egyptian Freemasonry of Joseph Balsamo aka Cagliostro. Balsamo’s own involvement in the French revolution is clear from the Affair of the Diamond Necklace of Marie-Antoinette, a plot to reduce the popularity of the queen. The Mizraim lodge of Paris, later claimed as the place from where the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion were obtained, has often been identified as the Illuminati lodge in NWO theories. There is a clear connection to Zionism as Adolphe Crémieux, the founder of Alliance Israelite Universelle, was Sovereign Grand Councilor of the Supreme Council of the Orient from 1868 to 1880 [Jewish Encyclopedia] and in1869 became the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Scottish Rite in Paris [Jewish virtual library]. He was also the head of the Mizraim lodge in Paris. Many NWO theories interpret the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion as documents of Illuminati, but they cannot be from the Mizraim lodge since the Rite of Mizraim has 96 degrees, while the Protocols are signed by Sion 33 degree, implying a lodge either under or developed from Scottish Freemasonry. Therefore some NWO theories suggest the role of Illuminati to B’nai B’rith.

As the Protocols have been declared anti-Semitic hoaxes, many NWO theories make no mention of them, while several NWO theories point out that there is no valid proof of their origin. Almost all NWO theories which consider the Protocols as a relevant document, point out that the text of Protocols does not claim that there is a conspiracy of all Jews or all Freemasons, it implicates a conspiracy of (probably Jewish) bankers in some Freemasonry type organization that has 33 degrees and is not real Freemasonry, as the text distinguishes the conspirators, the lesser brethren (Jews) against which the conspirators create anti-Semitism, and Freemasons that the conspirators use for their purposes and kill when needed.

Apart from plotting revolutions and wars Freemasons are often also accused of trying to create an occult new world order. There is some basis in history to this view, assuming that we mean by Freemasons only those irregular lodges that were linked to revolutionaries. The Rites of Memphis and Mizraim have close connections to Rosicrusian Orders of the Hermetic Order of Light, Hermetic Order of Luxor, and its follower O.T.O., originally intended as Masonic Academy. All of these rites practiced occultism and sex magic, the accusations that were directed towards Freemasonry. In defence of Freemasonry, we must mention that Freemasonry does not have organizational ties to Rosicrusian orders. These ties are personal ties and granting the charter of the Memphis and Mizraim Rite.

The activities of Freemasonry in the revolutionary movement may have ended in the end of the 19th century, or latest during the time between the world wars. After that time, there were political parties and secret agencies, and not much need for secret societies.

Robison, John (1798). Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, Carried on the the Secret Meetings of Free Masons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies (3 ed.). London: T. Cadell, Jr. and W. Davies. http://books.google.com/books?id=t-lAAAAAcAAJ. Retrieved 27 January 2011.

Abbé Barreul (1798). Code of the Illuminati, Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism, tr. by Robert Edward Clifford in http://www.sacred-texts.com/sro/mhj/index.htm

[Philadelphes 1850-1871] Freemasonry and nineteenth-century revolution: Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon. http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/history/revolution/index.html

[Philadelphes 1789-1815] Buchez et Roux, Histoire parlementaire de la Révolution française, tome 39, Paris 1838, p 93 :http://www.1789-1815.com/philadelphes.htm

[Anonymous] Histoire des sociétés secrètes de l'armée, Paris 1815, author is generally accepted to be Charles Nodier.freely available at http://books.google.fi/books. [Webster] Nesta H. Webster (1924), Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, London, Boswell Printing & Publishing Co. London, 1924. Reprints: Boswell, 1928 and 1936 ; London, The Britons Publishing Co., London, 1955 and 1964 ; Palmdale, Christian Book Club of America and Sudbury and Sudbury, Bloomfield Books, 198[?] ; Kessinger Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0-7661-3066-5 [Jewish Encyclopedia] Freemasonry by C. Adler and J. Jacobs, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=361&letter=F [Jewish virtual library] Freemasons, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0007_0_06772.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.52.63 (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll review, and respond to, this suggestion as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

ILLUMANARI

If you want to catch these horrible men all you have to do is look and at the usa presidents first. You will need to look at black and white pictures and the first president picture that came in color. It was F.D.R who’s picture was the first in color. Then you need to look at the 3 presidents before him. So the 29th-president HARDING 30th-COOLIDGE 31st-HOOVER. Why those 3 because in a simple world they pretty much after themselves put the spot light onto F.D.R that’s because color was now in the picture, better introduced to the world. In order to catch them 3 or G🔺>🎤🎤🎤📣🔛🎧👆🏼👇🏼👈🏼🖐🏼👌🏽👋🏽🤙🏼👂🏼👂🏼👂🏼🔈🎶🎵👁‍🗨🎵♾🎦🎵👂🏼👂🏼👂🏼🦾🦿🎤🎵🎵🎵👂🏼🎧👂🏼 In case you didn’t understand these people were the American government but at those men +- they mad a group that would hold onto the controlling of America because of 2 devices one in the ear and one in the vocalcords. You need to look at companies from German that they are invested in like Mercedes anything representing the number 3 or M or 〽️VV A or like the Company Giorgio Armani in the logo you see a GA but when get closer it becomes 3 letters trv something like that but because you say GA you wanted to look further into into but you shouldn’t because the rev are misdirection stay there zoom wise don’t zoom further into looking at it any closer. Trust me I got these people because just trust me. You need to look at images not writing they plan on making a nwo that is gonna be controlling the world but that entire nwo of government leaders is gonna have these 2 devices in their ears and on vocalcords from outside the throat and behind the scene will be the group or society that has gone underground or go as far as they can even the moon to then control that nwo. I have actual evidence which years they began and where they are even now. 9168970414 G31600RS.S1981 (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ McDonald, Lawrence P. Introduction. The Rockefeller File. By Gary Allen. Seal Beach, CA: '76 Press, 1976. ISBN 0892450010.
  2. ^ Quotes by Pat Buchanan and Others on the New World Order. The Internet Brigade.
  3. ^ "Larry McDonald on the NWO May 1983PT2".YouTube.
  4. ^ Goodrick-Clarke 2002: 288.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_World_Order_conspiracy_theory/Archive_4&oldid=1235896005"