Talk:New World Order conspiracy theory

To become a Featured Article

New World Order (conspiracy theory) is a good article that is being improved by supporters of WikiProject Rational Skepticism, which seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with counterknowledge. 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 paradigm shift 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 scholars because they contrast with institutional analysis of historical or current events, and are rarely supported by conclusive evidence.

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.

That being said, in order for the article to be chosen by the Wikipedia community to become a feature article, 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 featured article criteria. Creating a user account 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 relative accountability on Wikipedia. Lastly, as this article gets closer to becoming a featured article, it will most probably become a target for vandalism by anonymous cranks so an administrator will have to semi-protect it to prevent them from editing it, which means even good anonymous editors won't be able to edit it either. --Loremaster (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

External links

From the Wikipedia:External links guidelines page:

Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. They must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

Some external links are welcome, but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable.

What should be linked

1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. The official site should typically be listed first.
2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

--Loremaster (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Internal links

I have restored the internal links to articles which deal with the various subsections of this article in more detail. No reason, valid or otherwise, has been given for removing these links. Edward321 (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

template {{main}} is not appropriate in this context. That template is used when the section is an exact WP:SUMMARY of the main article. These sections instead deal (or should deal) only with the topic in relation to NWO. In these cases, it is instead appropriate to simply link to the topic within the first sentence of the section. -Verdatum (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Verdatum which is the reason I have and will continue to remove these internal links. --Loremaster (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Literature

I have done some research on literature on the topic lately. Even though I have not yet read all these texts, I though I might just suggest them for review and possibly inclusion into the article. Also, I think it would be a good idea to have a list of scientific literature about this topic as well, not only primary sources by conspiracists.

• Parish, Jane (ed.): The Age of Anxiety. Conspiracy Theory and the Human Sciences, Oxford 2001.

In this book: Alasdair Spark: "Conjuring Order: the new world order and conspiracy theories of globalization", 46-62, Nigel James: "Militias, the Patriot movement, and the internet: the ideology of conspiracism."

• West, Harry G & Sanders, Todd (eds.): Transparency and Conspiracy. Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World Order, Durham and London 2003.

In this book: West and Sanders: "Introduction", 1-37, Daniel Hellinger: "Paranoia, Conspiracy, and Hegemony in American Politics", 204-232, Susie Harding and Kathleen Stewart: "Anxieties of Influence: Conspiracy Theory and Therapeutic Culture in Millenial America", 258-286, Jean Comarof and John Comaroff: "Transparent Fictions; or, The Conspiracies of a Liberal Imagination: An Afterword", 287-300.

The may also be bits on NWO in

• Fenster, Mark: Conspiracy Theory. Secrecy and Power in American Culture, Minneapolis 2008,

as well as in

• Goldberg, Robert Alan: Enemy Within. The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America, New Haven, London 2001.

Chapters 5 and 6 of Rupert, Mark: Ideologies of Globalization. Contending visions of a New World Order, London, New York 2000, may give hints towards the spread of conspiracism.

There also are an entries on the New World order in Landes, Richard A (ed.): Encyclopedia of Millennialism and Millenial Movements, London, New York 2000 and in Knight, Peter: Conspiracy Theories in American History. An Encyclopedia, Santa Barbara, Denver, Oxford 2003.

I thought I'd just put that up here. As soon as I get to read these in depth, I hope to be able to contribute. Maybe others take an interest in some of these texts. If they are not always suited for this article, I guess they are still relevant for adjacent ones, like conspiracism, for example. 78.55.218.66 (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you User:78.55.218.66. Those are very good sources. If you intend on contributing directly to the article at some point, I suggest 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. Despite the fact you will probably use a pseudonym, it's easier for other editors to discern your motivations when a track record of contributions is attached to your 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-protection on it which will prevent them as well as good anonymous contributors such yourself from editing it. So seriously think about it. --Loremaster (talk) 15:28, 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. [1] 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)

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. 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? 92.77.150.79 (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)