On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:07 PM juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 22:34:32 +0000 Sean Lynch <seanl@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, so it's probably best to avoid using the phrase if you want to be taken seriously. 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". It's a charged term that means different things to different people and implies a vast conspiracy that doesn't really exist.

And transnational US military contractors like google don't exist either.

The only military contracts I'm aware of were inherited from Boston Dynamics. 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.

...

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? 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. 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?

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

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:07 PM juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 22:34:32 +0000 Sean Lynch <seanl@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?