how to quickly de-bunk the "New World Order" belief / cult

[El Rojo]

I met a really nice young lad in london, but as we got onto politics, I could make no headway against his belief in the New World Order. Aside from "this is obviously complete crap", it couldn't find an easy way to argue against it. any ideas?

[Drace]

Noam Chomsky seems to have a lot on the New World Order. Search for it on Youtube.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

One question that conspiracy nutters never seem to answer is: why is this "New World Order" any worse than the Old World Order?

[El Rojo]

why do i never think of this? tis the obv answer to the question

[ckaihatsu]

I met a really nice young lad in london, but as we got onto politics, I could make no headway against his belief in the New World Order. Aside from "this is obviously complete crap", it couldn't find an easy way to argue against it. any ideas?


I run into a fair number of these types, and my overall impression is that their NWO political worldview comes from a subconscious herding-instinct kind of group behavior. The biggest telltale indicator of this is their continuous "Chicken Little"-"the sky is falling" kind of anxiety -- the latest one that I recall, from about a year ago, was about some kind of imminent martial law that they said would be declared in the U.S.

Really, because of the lack of a scientific or clear-headed thought process behind their politics their corpus is much better analyzed with the tools of *psychology* rather than as a political program.

We might even call them 'politics roadkill', because their myopic libertarian-nationalist outlooks have combined with their Ayn-Rand-ish individualistic orientations to produce people whose circles of political understanding have collapsed down to the very ground they're standing on.

It's unfortunate that their overly focused psychological fervor creates so much smoke instead of light, in the realm of politics -- but it's probably because their ranks come from the petit bourgeoisie and so are fairly well-funded.

(To their credit I continue to support the validity and efforts of the 9-11 Truth movement, on its merits, but that's the *extent* of overlap I have with that ilk.)


Chris



--



--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Tearing up more shit than a weightless astronaut on the toilet --

[The Idler]

One reason why the NWO-conspiracy analysis persists is because the claims it makes are, by their nature, unverifiable either in their favour or to the contrary.

I suppose a good question to ask is why are the standards of proof lower for a conspiracy involving a secret organisation than a conspiracy involving a publicly known organisation.

[ckaihatsu]

I like to just point out that "they" are nowhere nearly as *omnipotent* as the NWO people posit -- if they were then how come they can't control the 'invisible hand', the capitalist markets? The current empirical reality is the *best* argument we revolutionaries could ever hope to have on our side.

[puke on cops]

You can't punch a shadowy clandestine puppet-master.

You can punch your boss.

[gorillafuck]

It's hard to argue against NWO believers because there's nothing to indicate that what they say is true, but you can't really concretely disprove them. I'd say the best thing to do is just ask them to prove all of what they say and point ou8t that the burden of proof lies on them, not you.

[ckaihatsu]

It's hard to argue against NWO believers because there's nothing to indicate that what they say is true, but you can't really concretely disprove them. I'd say the best thing to do is just ask them to prove all of what they say and point ou8t that the burden of proof lies on them, not you.





One reason why the NWO-conspiracy analysis persists is because the claims it makes are, by their nature, unverifiable either in their favour or to the contrary.

I suppose a good question to ask is why are the standards of proof lower for a conspiracy involving a secret organisation than a conspiracy involving a publicly known organisation.


We *could* also look at all of this in terms of *semantics*, except that at the same time the intentions of the purveyors of the NWO worldview are nowhere near so naive or benign in pushing their propaganda -- we *could* simply say that it *doesn't matter* whether we call it a 'common bourgeois class interest', or the 'collusion around an elitist leadership conspiracy' -- the objective result in the world at large is still the same.

[Kayser_Soso]

Ask them what the hell is taking so long with that NWO/UN invasion/total gun ban/martial law/civil war/etc. When you point out that these same exact conspiracy theories have been peddled for in some cases more than 50 years, and it was always "just around the corner", it might inspire them to do some research and think twice. That is excluding the mentally ill ones of course.

[ckaihatsu]

After a recent less-than-welcome exchange with one of these types I now feel "inspired" to make an addition to this topic....

Whether their bullshit is solely for public consumption only or whether they catch a big whiff of it themselves, the way it *manifests* is always the same (and this goes for the soft-left, too):

In lieu of expressing *actual* material politics we see a sinking down to the use of (nationalist) anxiety-mongering, moralizing, personifying, and all sorts of other psychological-oriented gimmicks.