[RUS] [MONEY] Fw: Your guide to some bullshit - was Re: Your Guide to the Operational Launch of the NWO in 2016 (Update 3.1 - Putin's Drive to Militarize the UN)

[juan]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 23:22:09 +0000
Sean Lynch <seanl at literati.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:07 PM juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 22:34:32 +0000
> > Sean Lynch <seanl at literati.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Now there's one I hadn't heard before. Usually you hear about the
> > > "NWO" from people pushing UFO theories and new age bullshit, or
> > > from Christian conspiracy theorists who think Obama is the
> > > antichrist trying to create the NWO or some such crap.
> >
> >         So, you want to associate serious political analysis with
> > that kind of lunatics because you have zero argumentes against
> >         serious politcal analysis.
> >
> 
> I think I may not have been clear. I was referring to the crap on the
> " redefininggod.com" web site more than Zenaan's reply. And like it
> or not, the concept of the "New World Order" is inextricably linked
> with conspiracy theories,


	Again, "conspiracy theory/theorist", they way you are using it, 
	is a smear term. 



> so it's probably best to avoid using the
> phrase if you want to be taken seriously. 


	Correct Conspiracy 'theories' are dead serious and they refer
	to real world events and criminal organizations.


> Of course, Zenaan was
> addressing someone who uses that terminology anyway, but I wasn't
> intending to criticize him.
> 
> 
> >
> > >
> > > It seems to me the most likely explanation is that we all love a
> > > good conspiracy theory and there in fact is no NWO.
> >
> >
> >         So 'institutions' or gangs like the IMF, the world bank, the
> >         WHO, the UN, WTO, etc, etc, don't really exist.
> >
> 
> Did I say that? They obviously exist. I just don't think it's
> particularly meaningful to talk about them collectively as part of a
> "New World Order". 


	But that's exactly what it is. A 'new world order' based on
	'world government'.


> It's a charged term that means different things to
> different people and implies a vast conspiracy that doesn't really
> exist.


	It should be obvious that all people involved in the
	'institutions' I mentioned work in concert. That implies
	criminal conscious organization, that is, a 'vast conspiracy'.


> 
> 
> >         And transnational US military contractors like google don't
> >         exist either.
> >
> 
> The only military contracts I'm aware of were inherited from Boston
> Dynamics.
	
		Come on. Google is nothing but a branch of the NSA.


> AFAIK no new ones were negotiated while Google has owned
> them, and Google is selling them.
> 
> But this is clearly just a dig at me rather than being intended to add
> anything to the discussion anyway, so whatever.


	It's not just a dig at you. Apart from all the 'institutions' I
	mentioned whose nature is that of 'official' governments,
	there's a vast network of highly corrupt transnational
	corporations (google being just a child poster) and these
	highly corrupt transnational corporations are nothing but the
	'private' facet of a world government. 

	Sounds like a "new world order" to me despite the fact that
	the term is used by people of dubious reasoning abilities.




> 
> 
> > > The stability of any
> > > conspiracy is inversely proportional to its vastness because
> >
> >         And now, after trying to smear people whom you can't refute
> > and tried to deny reality in the most stupid way possible you start
> >         to babble pseudo academic nonsense.
> >
> 
>         With 'libertarians' like you Sean freedom needs no enemies.
> >
> 
> This is a strangely vehement response to my message. Who, exactly, am
> I trying to "smear" here? 


	Any 'conspiracy theorist' who correctly points out that people
	inside governments and private corporations act consciously and
	in concert. And althouh part of the conspirators' plans are
	quite public, their planning isn't public at all. If that's not
	a 'conspiracy' then what the hell does conspiracy mean.



> I have often written agreeing with Zenaan's
> accusations against the US government. Mostly I've disagreed with him
> on the "goodness" of Russia and Putin.


	Yes, putin is a worthless scumbag, just as despicable as any
	american psycho and the russian state is hardly better than the
	american one. Not what I was getting at though.


> Literally the only thing I was
> disagreeing with him on was the existence of something it makes sense
> to call the "NWO" from his line accusing redefininggod.com and Belle
> of being "intentionally or unintentially, puppets of the NWO itself."
> But now I see he was probably just being somewhat tongue-in-cheek
> anyway.
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > > of the
> > > prisoners' dilemma. That doesn't mean powerful individuals or
> > > small groups can't apply just the right pressure at just the
> > > right time to take advantage of opportunities, and it certainly
> > > doesn't mean that there aren't vast alignments of incentives that
> > > make people act as if they are involved in a conspiracy (military
> > > industrial complex, prison industrial complex, drug war, etc). It
> > > doesn't even mean it's not sometimes easier to talk about an
> > > alignment of incentives as if it were a conspiracy. Or perhaps
> > > this latter thing is what you mean?
> >
> >