So a New World Order is ok, just as long as it's not tyrannical?
I don't get it. Zeitgeist basically says the same New Age baloney, and look at all the people it has conned.
The NWO is bad, and will always be bad, whether it's painted as tyrannical or peaceful. A shiny coat of paint doesn't change the fact that a piece of junk car is a piece of junk, does it? So why on earth would the "coat of paint" change the fact that the NWO is an evil thing?
So it was an evil thing to overthrow Nazi Germany who were the most powerful militaristic nation in the late 30's and early 40's...Because that was declared a "New World Order"
That's the problem with idiot conspiracy theorists...They completely neglect the fact that there is a vast gulf in difference between the conspiracy definition of NWO and the political definition of NWO.
Believe what you want, I won't argue with you, but I know what I believe and you can either agree or disagree. It makes no difference to me. I'm not gonna debate with you. I know you'll say I'm avoiding you, but tbh with you, I don't think there's a "vast gulf of difference" in the "political version" and "conspiracy version". At least, not with the version of the conspiracy that I've researched.
Both call that the world will cooperate and unite. Both say that the world's religions will do the same. The thing about the "political" version is that it neglects to share some of the things that are said under the veil.
A prime example is Alice A. Bailey, who wrote the following:
Alice A. Bailey was an occult channeler that created a company called Lucifer Publishing Company to publish the bulk of her writings, which make up the foundation of modern New Age belief. This company became Lucis Trust, which prints much of the United Nations materials and is a member of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. Just sayin'...
Besides, I'm not sure they meant "the political version" anyway...
Where did you read that? If you actually read my post you'd see I made not a single mention of Nazi Germany or that they shouldn't have been overthrown. I didn't imply it either. I don't know where you got that from.
You probably barely read my post at all and just attacked me because you couldn't back up what you were saying to begin with.
Guess that says all we need to know about you, eh?
Well let's see. I may have got it from this quote.
Seeing as when I tried to point out the difference between the conspiracy idea of a new world order and a political idea of a new world order you responded with
Given that the term "New world order" was explicitly used in years after WW1 by Woodrow Wilson to describe the formation of the league of nations and was again used after WW2 to describe the formation of the United Nations and NATO as well as the outcome of the Yalta conferences between Roosvelt, Churchill and Stalin to determine the reorganisation of Europe after WW2 then you are presumably calling the events that brought about these things as evil...Which means you are saying that fighting against and defeating Nazi Germany and bringing about the explicitly named "New World Order" was an evil thing.
I'm not misrepresenting you here. You claim there is no difference between the 2 definitions of the term when clearly you have no idea what you're even talking about which brings into serious question your bizarre claim that you've "researched" these things.
Clearly you've not...Clearly you're an idiot that is out of his depth and have no clue what you're talking about.