[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)

[Sean Lynch]

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, 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?
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 4996 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20160823/b4c70e11/attachment-0002.txt>