Debate Final. TruthWithin v Intrepid: The politics of the NWO (non-pro/con)

This is not a pro/con debate

The topic for this debate is The Nature of the New World Order.

TruthWithin will argue That the NWO is attempting to engineer a global democracy. and will open the debate.
Intrepid will argue That the NWO is attempting to engineer a global fascist state. and will post second.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.


There are no limits on the length of posts, but you may only use 1 post per turn.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations


Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each invidual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceeded by a direct answer.

A new time limit policy is in effect
Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extention of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extention begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extention request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.


Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

I would like to begin by thanking The Vagabond for moderating this debate and for once again running things fairly and smoothly. Thanks to all of the readers and judges who donate their time to keeping us debaters on our toes. Also, a great thanks to my highly esteemed opponent, Intrepid, to whom I wish the best of luck!

It is a real pleasure to be included in this final round and I am honored to be surrounded by such talented and intelligent people.

Enough butt kissing for everyone? Let's get started!

TruthWithin's Opening Statement

This debate is a little different from what we are all used to. Instead of me arguing the pro side of a given statement and my opponent arguing the con side, Intrepid and I must argue two different options for a common subject, in this case it is the NWO.

My side is: That the NWO is attempting to engineer a global democracy.

Ladies and gentlemen, during the course of this debate I will prove that the "New World Order" has been and continues to try to engineer a global democracy.

We will look closely at the term "New World Order" and clarify precisely where the term comes from and distinguish it from various misconceptions about its origin and intent.

We will look at these "origins" of the New World Order as it pertains to pivotal moments in history and in doing so show, through a series of times "global necessity", that it was indeed the intent to engineer the NWO so as to promote global democracy.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Preface

The term "New World Order" is highly vetted here on ATS. In fact, it is such a popular conspiracy theory that it has acquired its own forum here on ATS. That is, after all, what ATS is about; a forum for members to piece together their own ideas about the things that are happening around us in the world. That is why I am here and that is why you, the reader, are here.

In doing so, however, we must pay close attention to what we actually know about something and what we presume to know about something. For this debate, I ask that you, the reader, leave any preconceived notions that you may have behind in order to truly focus on the arguments of the debate.

I ask this because I realize that there is already a total distrust of the NWO here on ATS. This will no doubt serve as an advantage to my opponent, but I think that you will see that by looking at the FACTS about the NWO as opposed to the "theories" about the NWO, you might see another side to our topic.

My job in this debate is to show that the NWO is attempting to engineer a global democracy. That is what I intend to do - not that they HAVE or not even that they WILL - but that they are attempting to.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Origins of the New World Order

We are debating the "nature" of the New World order in this debate. In order to understand the nature of something it is important to understand the origins and context of which an ideology came to be.

The first utterance of the term "New World Order" came directly after World War I. The use of this term was a result of President Woodrow Wilson's plea to the world for a League of Nations and to form a New World Order.

Directly after the war there was a period of chaos and confusion in the world. Governments were still reeling from the tremendous loss, both in human casualties and in national treasure. People were questioning how such a war could come to pass. There was indeed a need for a global solution and President Woodrow Wilson felt that a League of Nations would indeed create a New World Order of sorts to

make the world safe for democracy

Wilson felt that the most crucial element of the New World Order to be the stuff of what he loved about America - democracy - governments run by the people, for the people.

[1]

We all know that the league of nations failed miserably. It is important to note, however, that while it may have failed, its intent and design was to engineer global democracy.

Again, we are discussing the nature of the NWO here. While one can argue all day as to what the RESULTS of something are, results do not always speak to the INTENT or the attempt at something. The road to hell, after all, is paved with good intentions.


In my next post I will continue on with this theme of the NWO and show a clear pattern of intent to engineer a global democracy.

I open the floor to my opponent.

We have come to the end of this tournament. We have a couple of virgins in this championship round, with a new format. I hope that TW and I not only entertain but also give pause for thought with this topic.

My thanks to everyone involved, from the reader to The Vagabond.

My position in this debate is:

The NWO is attempting to engineer a global fascist state.

We will look at who the New World Order is. Is it some obscure concept spoken by a long dead politician or a very real, very adept entity that is guiding policy in todays world?

We will look at the history of global politics. We will see at how different political ideologies evolved and how this has created a backlash that has the power brokers looking for a way to regain the power they once had. After all, it is all about power and control.

What is "fascism" though? Most think of Nazi Germany of Mussillini's Italy. Yes, they were fascist states but there are many types of fascism, like there are many types of democracy. Can fascism and democracy coexist? The answer is yes.

Fascism

The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems.

Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin. It is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state.

For the purposes of this debate we have to change "country" to "world" though. We are discussing global issues, not one country..... yet.

Though a dictatorship is the most common association with fascism, a democracy or republic can also be fascist when it strays away from its Tenets of sovereignty. In the 20th Century, many Fascist countries started out as republics. Through the use of fear, societies gave up their rights under the guise of security.

Fascism dovetails business & government sectors into a single economic unit, while concurrently increasing in-fighting and distrust between the units fostering advancement towards war.

Disdain for
the Recognition of Human Rights -
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc

That's all the space I have for that source but it really is worth reading it all. It lays out fascism very well. The read may be surprising at the scope of what fascism really is, you may even recognize it. It may not be pretty and it may be upsetting to the individual but it is happening.

That's the synopsis, the meat to follow.

It lays out fascism very well. The read may be surprising at the scope of what fascism really is, you may even recognize it.

Indeed!

So, according to Intrepid's definition of fascism, I have prepared a list of countries, regions and continents that could be included under the guise of "fascism".

List of Fascist Countries:



I even found out from Intrepid's article that my elementary school was a fascist state!

It would indeed be convenient for my opponent for me to agree to such a vast, all encompassing definition of fascism, but that is a convenience I cannot afford to grant.

Here is the major flaw in my opponent's definition of fascism; It is so vast in it's scope that the definition defeats the relevance of the term itself. Intrepid's definition puts all countries on the same level as Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy and thus give no "bad" connotation to the word "fascist".

The other major flaw in this definition is that it describes fascism as more of a method and not a formal form of governance or structure, either on a national or global scale. This is important because in order to engineer something, there must be a tangible structure to it. Fascism lacks that structure.

Socratic Question #1 - Do you think that, because it was the authors clear intent to draw parallels to the US and the method of fascism, perhaps the author's definition would be intentionally loosened and broadened to suit her comparison?

Socratic Question #2 - Can you compare the United States to Nazi Germany in 1938ish?

We will indeed need a more concise definition of fascism because otherwise there will be no "distinguishing" element of fascism to rely on in our debate.

Scholars maintain that fascism is difficult to distinguish because many of its characteristics are shared with other actual structures of government. It is, again, important to note that it is very difficult even to consider fascism as an actual structure of government because there is ultimately no way to implement is features autonomously.

Here is a very concise definition of fascism:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

[1]

This definition is apt for this debate because it lists distinguishable features that we can use to debate the topic.

Fascism is the extreme of things listed in the above definition. While one can argue that the US is perhaps moving towards a more fascist type of state, the reality remains that the President still must Answer to Congress and the House and none of the above mentioned criterion are in extremes in the US.

Also, the reality is that Intrepid and I can debate openly and freely about our governments. Fascists wouldn't stand for it.

My point is that we can always find an exception to the rule by cherry picking the facts, but the US is still a far cry from a fascist state.

It is also a reality that, regardless of whether or not the US becomes a fascist state, it was a democracy first and foremost. In other words, the US was engineered as a democracy.

Again, we are discussing the nature of the New World Order. My opponent must show that the NWO is attempting to engineer a fascist state and must show the intent to do so. My opponent's definition does not show any viable way to govern a group of people, therefore the question follows:

Socratic Question #3 - What would be the purpose of engineering a fascist state if there would ultimately be no way to govern its principles?

Back to my argument...

_________________________________________________________________________________________

We will look at who the New World Order is. Is it some obscure concept spoken by a long dead politician?

Woodrow is alive! He is in a UFO right now spraying chemtrails through the atmosphere!

No worries, my friend, I am running up to the current, very real status of the NWO - I just wanted to look at the origins of the NWO and show their relevance for today.

When we last left off, the world was still reeling from the devastation of WWI. The League of Nations was a formal document, but little more, and had failed to be accepted multilaterally. It had no teeth. The only thing that was agreed on was the Treaty of Versailles, and if that only went so far.

Two critical parts of the treaty were that Germany had to lose roughly 13% of its territory and was limited to keeping its military to under 100,000 in numbers. Hitler followed those guidelines about as well as a horse can fly. He, in fact, ignored the treaty, pulled out of the League of Nations and began to rearm the Rhineland and set out to invade a and conquer most of Europe. Italy, at the same time, pulled away from its agreements with the French and began to assist the Nazi agenda. You have to wonder if the League of Nations did have any teeth, what impact it may have had in Europe.

WWII lasted for 7 years, and afterward the world was even more confused than they were after the first war, although many argue that WWII was simply an extension of WWI. The world needed a comprehensive plan to monitor world governments in a more effective way and prevent another such catastrophe.

Enter the next version of the New world Order: The United Nations.

The UN, an extension of the League of Nations was set forth by 50 or so charter members. The US had a big stake in the success of the UN as it could help its central foreign policy goal which was to promote and work with democracies around the world. The UN is considered a major role in this New World Order.

In a lecture for the Institute of International Law and Politics at Georgetown University, Robert Lagon speaks to the UN's role in promoting democracy. Lagon says -

In trying to implement our vision of democracy, we frequently receive criticism about the aim of the United States to utilize the United Nations to fulfill our own foreign policy goals. We actually agree this is our aim, but we neither consider it to be a criticism nor do we feel others should characterize it as such. After all, why would we be such an active participant in the work of the United Nations if we did not see the United Nations as part of our larger strategy to achieve our foreign policy goals? Especially when those foreign policy goals are wholly consistent with a decent and stable world order, and with positive-sum gains by other UN Member States.

Then Lagon gives a shout out to my boy, Woodrow, and his League of Nations.

As Tony Smith of Tufts University writes in the preeminent book on the subject, aptly titled America’s Mission, "The American idea of a world order opposed to imperialism and composed of independent, self-determinating, preferably democratic states bound together through international organizations dedicated to the peaceful handling of conflicts, free trade, and mutual defense has been with us in mature form since the early 1940s."

In fact, Smith continues to say that, "…the ingredients of this world view had been put in place during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921), and its origins in American history lie even further back." Smith brings to light great leaders as Thomas Jefferson, who had been the "first to insist that a peaceful world order in which America could fully participate needed to be one constituted by democratic states."

Here we have clear and verifiable intent to engineer democracy.


In my next post we will discuss the continuing trend of verifiable instances where a New World order was called upon and thus attempted to engineer democracy throughout the world. We will also discuss the NWO in its current state.

We will not be discussing Woodrow any more.


Poor Woodrow...


I open the floor to my opponent.

First off I would like to answer the Socratic questions.

Socratic Question #1 - Do you think that, because it was the authors clear intent to draw parallels to the US and the method of fascism, perhaps the author's definition would be intentionally loosened and broadened to suit her comparison?

What I think of the persons work is irrelevant, we are here to debate facts, not my thoughts.

Socratic Question #2 - Can you compare the United States to Nazi Germany in 1938ish?

No, I wouldn't compare the US to Nazi Germany of 1938. I WOULD compare the US to Germany circa 1933.

The Enabling Act was passed in March 1933, with 444 votes, to the 94 of the remaining Social Democrats. The act gave the government (and thus effectively the Nazi Party) legislative powers and also authorized it to deviate from the provisions of the constitution for four years.

en.wikipedia.org...

See the Patriot Acts:

The draft legislation, which has been dubbed ""Patriot Act 2,"" would grant sweeping powers to the government, eliminating or weakening many of the checks and balances that remained on government surveillance, wiretapping, detention and criminal prosecution even after passage of the USA PATRIOT Act.

www.aclu.org...

Yes, NOW I see a parallel. Breeches of the Constitutions are very apparent.

Socratic Question #3 - What would be the purpose of engineering a fascist state if there would ultimately be no way to govern its principles?

That would be futile but who says that there is no way of governing this state? Seems like they are doing a very good job of it so far. Are they not? Rhetorical question, not a Socratic one.

Some history and the outing of the NWO.

Democracy is a relatively new type of government on the world stage. It has only been a few centuries that a voice has been given to the people, or taken by the people via revolution. See France and Russia. Before that the main system of governance has mainly been by monarchy or military decree, ie: warlords.

In these systems it was the few that have had control. The nobility, military, religious rule and powerful business people. They held sway over the masses. The people fought for their voice and democracy was instituted. The lesson of the French Revolution not being lost on many countries. The power of the few was then diminished but not gone.

Is there still workings in effect of these power brokers? There is indeed. See Bohemian Grove:

In mid-July each year, Bohemian Grove hosts a three-week encampment of some of the most powerful men in the world.

*snip*

The Grove motto is "Weaving Spiders Come Not Here", which implies that outside concerns and business deals are to be left outside. However, there is demonstrable evidence of political and business deals having been developed at the Grove. The Grove is particularly famous for a Manhattan Project planning meeting that took place there in September 1942, which subsequently led to the atomic bomb.

*snip*

The Bohemian Club is a private club; only active members of the Club (known as "Bohos") and their guests may visit the Grove. These guests have been known to include politicians and notable figures from countries outside the US.

en.wikipedia.org...

Check out what the Camps entail. Big business, oil companies, defense contractors, Presidents, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Another rhetorical question, does this seem that there is an "inner working" in this picture? Powerful people from around the world getting together to discuss/make world policy. Does the average voter get a say in what is discussed/implemented there? THAT doesn't sound like "democracy" to me.

My opponent has put forth that the UN is the NWO. The New World Order is actually the OLD World Order. The powerful taking back what they lost in the past couple of centuries. They are doing it quite efficiently too.

A fascist "country" pits the middle class against the lower class and those different. For the purpose of this debate we have to think globally. Yesterday's Jews are todays Arabs. Not just Muslims but Arabs. You only have to look at the media or scan this board to see how they are being demonized. I have seen too many posts here calling for the Middle East to be "turned into a parking lot", "Sheet of glass", whatever. AND, they are making YOU pay for it as well. Think about that the next time you're wondering why gas is so expensive.

My opponent still has faith in the system. "The President has to answer to Congress." Really? Haven't seen that in a while. Besides, what if there is NO difference between the different parties? Only one party with 2 faces? The agenda remains the same.

Why the US you may ask. Not only is the US a HUGE military power but an industrial and economic one as well. Perfect country to be used in the forefront to regain the control that was lost.

In my next reply I will show that there are historical connections between fascism of the past that is still influencing matters of today.

My Patriot is Acting Up

Originally posted by intrepid
See the Patriot Acts:

ex

The draft legislation, which has been dubbed ""Patriot Act 2,"" would grant sweeping powers to the government, eliminating or weakening many of the checks and balances that remained on government surveillance, wiretapping, detention and criminal prosecution even after passage of the USA PATRIOT Act.

(my emphasis on "would")

The only problem with my opponent's argument is that the Patriot Act 2 never came into existence. Oddly, the US Senate (the same group that my opponent said had no control over the President) did not pass the legislation because of too much criticism from the people.

NPR.org, December 16, 2005 · WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Friday refused to reauthorize major portions of the USA Patriot Act after critics complained they infringed too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders.

The First Patriot Act was a mistake. No doubt about it. People were scared as hell after 911 and were willing to pass anything through the legislature. This has happened before in history, notably after the Reichstag burned down and all of the Germans panicked. The major difference here is that the people in the US saw the BS from the Patriot Act and stopped any forward movement of the act in its tracks.

It does, however speak to the fact that democracy is still working because the Patriot Act 2 failed. Germany did not have this luxury. If fascism was the goal of the NWO, then "they" are sure doing a lousy job.

The ACLU website that my opponent cites also goes on to applaud:

House Rejects Bush's Fear Mongering

On March 14th, the House of Representatives voted to reject President Bush’s demands that Congress rubberstamp unchecked, unaccountable wiretapping on US soil while letting the telecoms that facilitated years of illegal surveillance off the hook.

Other things mentioned on the same site:

- ACLU Commends Senator Feingold for Hearing on Secret Law

- ACLU Applauds Senate Scrutiny of Overbroad NSL Authority

My opponent still has faith in the system. "The President has to answer to Congress." Really? Haven't seen that in a while.

Really? I have. I found three things on Intrepid's very own source. Democracy dead? Hardly.

As for President Bush and his "unchecked powers", I think the people have spoken. With a mere 28% approval rating - the President is virtually powerless.

Bohemian Grove is a T-H-E-O-R-Y

While I think it is reasonably convenient, and easy to think that there is one evil, secret meeting place where all of the oppression of the world is calculated with extreme precision, the fact remains that Bohemian Grove is still just a theory. Is it possible that our country's elite just want to go get drunk in the woods? Maybe catch a show? While I doubt that is what is happening, it is just as plausible as what my opponent suggests.

The Grove is particularly famous for a Manhattan Project planning meeting that took place there in September 1942, which subsequently led to the atomic bomb.

I did a little reading into this, and the only place I could verifiably find where the Manhattan Project was planned was, ironically, in Manhattan. Not a very creative title I know, but apt none the less.

Again, I would love to believe that there is some dark, evil place where all of the bad men go to further my woes, but there is just no legitimate evidence. All that is known is pure conjecture.

A fascist "country" pits the middle class against the lower class and those different. For the purpose of this debate we have to think globally. Yesterday's Jews are todays Arabs. Not just Muslims but Arabs.

You could take out "fascist" from this statement and apply any number of governments or political ideologies. You would get the same result. This concept of wealth and power existing only in the hands of the few while the middle and lower class duke it out is certainly not a new concept or reality.

This has happened for thousands of years and does very little to suggest that this result is unique to fascism, and it is an even GREATER stretch to suggest that it is some "engineered" ploy of the NWO. Unfortunately, it is just business as usual.


On with my argument...

____________________________________________________________________________________


We all know of George Bush's famous New World Order speech given in 1990. There were other occasions around that speech as well that discussed setting forth a New World Order.

The first press reference to the phrase came from Russo-Indian talks, 21 November 1988 when Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi used the term in reference to the commitments made by the USSR through the Delhi Declaration of two years previous. The new world order which he describes is characterized by "non-violence and the principles of peaceful coexistence."

*snip*

Three days later, a Guardian article quotes NATO Secretary General Manfred Wörner as saying that the Soviets have come close to accepting NATO’s doctrine of military stability based on a mix of nuclear as well as conventional arms. This, in his opinion, would spur the creation of "a new security framework" and a move towards "a new world order."

NATO, being an extension of the NWO's UN, is still dealing with the challenges today of how to "spread democracy". This article, posted LAST MONTH, says:

NATO, created as a post-World War II balance to the Soviet Union, is grappling with issues at the heart of the Bush agenda: the conflict in Afghanistan and the effort to spread democracy. With the Iraq war, they make up the tightly woven elements at the center of his foreign policy legacy.

In response to some of the answers to my questions...

I have to say I was a little disappointed in the answer to my first Socratic question.

Originally posted by intrepid
Socratic Question #1 - Do you think that, because it was the authors clear intent to draw parallels to the US and the method of fascism, perhaps the author's definition would be intentionally loosened and broadened to suit her comparison?

What I think of the persons work is irrelevant, we are here to debate facts, not my thoughts.

While it is clear that there is no direct response here, I am willing to overlook that minor violation of the rules and wonder why the question was so blatantly avoided by my opponent.


In my next post we will take a close look at democracy to understand why it would be a viable tool to spread the NWO agenda.



Thanks for reading.

I open the floor to my opponent.

I request the 24 hr extention, however I may not need all of it.

In my next reply I will show that there are historical connections between fascism of the past that is still influencing matters of today.

We now look at 2 individuals, from different ends of the political spectrum if you believe such a thing exists, that may have been members of Bohemian Grove. They were powerful business people with extensive political connections. Certainly fits the criteria from the definition above. While neither of these two were elevated to the most powerful position on the planet, that of President of the United States, their progeny did.

Prescott Bush

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

*snip*

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

*snip*

There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH - including UBC and SAC - in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act. What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.

www.guardian.co.uk...

3 different archives have fingered Prescott as helping the Nazis come to and maintain power. It only stopped when the federal government came in and stopped it themselves.

Later in the article it hypothesizes that Bush was just in it for the money, he wasn't a Nazi supporter. How do we know this? We don't. His involvement is not in ANY doubt though.

Does the apple fall far from the tree? See the legislation that his grandson attempted to enact while in office, the Patriot Acts. Reducing freedoms and privacy. Fascist? The very name "Patriot Acts" are fascist. Remember, fascism places the nation before the individual. Why not "Home Security Act"? Nope, something that is MUCH more nationalistic and speaks to the individual. PATRIOT!!! I will go into more detail on these acts at the end of this post.

Joseph Kennedy Sr.

Shortly before the Nazi aerial bombing of British cities began in September 1940, Kennedy sought a personal meeting with Hitler, again without State Department approval, "to bring about a better understanding between the United States and Germany."[8]

Kennedy argued strongly against giving aid to Britain.

"Democracy is finished in England. It may be here,” stated Ambassador Kennedy, Boston Sunday Globe of November 10, 1940.

*snip*

"...I know more about the European situation than anybody else, and it's up to me to see that the country gets it."

en.wikipedia.org...

He knows more about the European situation than anybody else? How? Does he have connections? Similar to Prescott? "Democracy is finished in England" he said. Was that an observation or a prediction?

We still have both of these royal families active in the politics of our time.

My Patriot is Just Fine

The only problem with my opponent's argument is that the Patriot Act 2 never came into existence. Oddly, the US Senate (the same group that my opponent said had no control over the President) did not pass the legislation because of too much criticism from the people.

NPR.org, December 16, 2005 · WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Friday refused to reauthorize major portions of the USA Patriot Act after critics complained they infringed too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders.

I know that we are not supposed to rebut directly but clarification is needed on this point. Let us revisit my position in this debate:

That the NWO is attempting to engineer a global fascist state.

This is about what was "attempted", not achieved. The Patriot Acts ARE fascist in every way. Pat 1 passed and Pat 2 WAS ATTEMPTED. I am encouraged that my opponent has seen the parallel between Nazi Germany and today himself:

The First Patriot Act was a mistake. No doubt about it. People were scared as hell after 911 and were willing to pass anything through the legislature. This has happened before in history, notably after the Reichstag burned down and all of the Germans panicked.

*snip*

It does, however speak to the fact that democracy is still working because the Patriot Act 2 failed. Germany did not have this luxury.

A clear parallel. Not only does my opponent draw this as well as I could but by saying the "Patriot Act 2 failed" proves that it was "ATTEMPTED". THAT is the meat of this argument.

Sweet, Sweet Prescott

3 different archives have fingered Prescott as helping the Nazis come to and maintain power. It only stopped when the federal government came in and stopped it themselves.

Later in the article it hypothesizes that Bush was just in it for the money, he wasn't a Nazi supporter. How do we know this? We don't. His involvement is not in ANY doubt though.

His involvement with fascism or the Nazi party IS in doubt. In fact, that seems to be the point of the article. The only thing they have on Prescott is that he was a shareholder in the company.



Sam and Al would be very flattered by my opponent's Quantum Leap of logic. Intrepid is asking us to make some pretty big assumptions here.

First, Intrepid has only shown us that a firm that Prescott Bush was a shareholder in made money off of the Nazi's. There is nothing to suggest that he conspired with the Nazis and certainly nothing to suggest that Prescott is the father of some movement to spread a fascist agenda.

Basically what my opponent is saying is that we are to believe that from 1942 (Government says no to trading with the Nazis) to 2001 (Signing of the patriot act), nearly 60 years, we are to perceive that the Bush's have been attempting to engineer a fascist state? Well, I guess they are not trying very hard then, because that isn't much to speak of and it in no way illustrates even an attempt to engineer a fascist state.

As for Kennedy Senior, we are then supposed to believe that Kennedy and Bush were in cahoots? Really? I wouldn't want to be at that dinner table if my life depended on it. You couldn't point to two idealistically different families.


The Patriot Act 1 & 2

This is about what was "attempted", not achieved. The Patriot Acts ARE fascist in every way. Pat 1 passed and Pat 2 WAS ATTEMPTED. I am encouraged that my opponent has seen the parallel between Nazi Germany and today himself:

A clear parallel. Not only does my opponent draw this as well as I could but by saying the "Patriot Act 2 failed" proves that it was "ATTEMPTED". THAT is the meat of this argument.

No, the "meat" is that we are arguing our points to show that there is a concerted effort to engineer various ideologies and forms of government. My opponent cannot point to 2 pieces of legislation, one that failed, and expect us to believe that this is a concerted effort to create a fascist state.

On with my argument...


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The NWO, Globalization and Democracy

People often associate the term NWO with globalization - and rightly so. The UN has served as the right arm of the NWO since it's inception - and if the UN is the right arm, then globalization is the left. One of the big components of globalization is, of course, free trade. There have been numerous studies conducted regarding the benefit of free trade on countries around the world. I will get to these in a moment.

The question remains: How can the spread of democracy benefit the NWO?

My opponent and I seem to be in agreement that those propelling the NWO agenda are interested in power and money. That is granted. But what is the best way to achieve those goals?

The spread of democracy through globalization actually perpetuates free trade and provides far more economic opportunities for "the powers that be".

In the aftermath of September 11, the foreign policy dimension of trade has reasserted itself. Expanding trade, especially with and among less developed countries, is once again being recognized as a tool for encouraging democracy and respect for human rights in regions and countries of the world where those commodities have been the exception rather than the rule.

Political scientists have long noted the connection between economic development, political reform, and democracy. Increased trade and economic integration promote civil and political freedoms directly by opening a society to new technology, communications, and democratic ideas. Economic liberalization provides a counterweight to governmental power and creates space for civil society. And by promoting faster growth, trade promotes political freedom indirectly by creating an economically independent and political aware middle class.

[1]

Far from a fascist concept.

The lesson learned from World War 2 was that Hitler and Mussolini went for the power grab by trying to dominate and invade the world through military might. As you probably know, that did not work out too well for Hitler or Mussolini. Hitler committed suicide and Mussolini was publicly executed. For those seeking power and control, the spread of democracy through the globalization of free trade seemed like the next best thing. This was a way to quietly and subtly make a fortune and control the way the trade was dictated.

Is free trade perfect? Not at all. Is globalization painless and without cost? Not in the least. But in order for these elements to exist, there must be the pressure and promotion of democracy. Besides, I am not here to argue the effectiveness of these practices. I am here to argue the the NWO is attempting to engineer a global democracy and all of this background and information shows a clear intent to do just that.

John Micklethwait, editor of the London-based weekly news magazine (The Economist), told a Minneapolis audience of 400 people that shuttered U.S. steel plants and antitrade rhetoric resonate more with voters these days than do the inexpensive imported goods that they enjoy thanks to liberal trade policies.

Micklethwait uses what he calls "provocative paranoia" to underscore how a reversal of these free-trade policies would cripple the world economy, with the heaviest burdens falling, as usual, on the poor.

Resentment toward the unpopular Bush administration, stagnant wages for the working class and technology that has replaced some U.S. jobs, Micklethwait said, have been lumped into political attacks against global trade that has precluded a good deal with Colombia and revived protectionist talk in Washington.

But he is no America-basher and this country, Micklethwait said, is about democracy and capitalism, innovation and entrepreneurialism.

"The world needs more of that. And there's a difference between that and pushing around other countries," he said.

[2]

I would also like to apologize to Intrepid, the readers and judges for not posting my sources in the last post. It was my own bone-headed fault and was certainly not intentional. Here they are in the order from top to bottom in my previous post.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

I open the floor to my opponent.

That the NWO is attempting to engineer a global fascist state.

So far we have looked at the NWO,, who may be involved, fascism, domestic fascism and now it's time to look at the global picture.

Nicaragua

en.wikipedia.org...

Nicaragua has seen many interventions by the United States. It has also experienced long military dictatorships, the longest one being the rule of the Somoza family for much of the 20th century. The Somoza family came to power as part of a US-engineered pact in 1927.

*snip*

Somoza used the National Guard to force Sacasa to resign, and took control of the country in 1937, destroying any potential armed resistance.

This fascist regime, mainly controlled by the Somoza family, stayed in power until 1979 when the Sandinista led revolution ousted them from power. How did this sit with the puppet masters? The Reagan administration levied full economic sanctions but it didn't stop there?

His administration authorized the CIA to begin financing, arming and training rebels, some of whom were the remnants of Somoza's National Guard.

These rebels were called Contras. My opponent has said that the President has to answer to Congress. Well it didn't happen in this case:

After the U.S. Congress prohibited federal funding of the Contras in 1983, the Reagan administration continued to back the Contras by covertly selling arms to Iran and channeling the proceeds to the Contras.

This would be the Iran/Contra scandal. One that was caught by the system. How many float under the radar that are only known by the power brokers? Surely this is an aberration though, right? No, this isn't the case.

Iraq

I have many cases to look at here and limited sentences of external source to work with. I'll save them in this case as it's common knowledge that the US supported Saddam until he started to think for himself. A picture is worth 1000 words:



That's Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam. Another example of support of a fascist state. That HAS to be it though. Um, no.

The Philippines

Let's look at how Ferdinand Marcos was treated.

As Philippine president and strongman, his greatest achievement was in the fields of infrastructure development and international diplomacy. However, his administration was marred by massive government corruption, despotism, nepotism, political repression and human rights violations.

en.wikipedia.org...

Did this stop the US from dealing with him?

One of the ironies of the neocolonial relationship between
the United States and the Philippines is that leaders in Manila
are as dependent on Washington for their power as they are on
any of the sectors of.the Philippine population. No-ruler of the
Philippines was more aware of this than Ferdinand Marcos
during his more than two decades in power.

The chief means by which Marcos secured the backing of
Washington was by serving U.S. political, economic, and mili­
tary interests.

www.questia.com...;jsessionid=LjlPRJXjJzplrfL2ZX8n91BRLcmFMKFZ8dgL8S2D7JvrqKbNJGJ1!-548055756?docId=98570320

What is being spread here? Democracy? If democracy is what is being spread why was Somoza, Saddam and Marcos not only tolerated but supported? That's it? No, it isn't.

Pakistan

Pervez Musharraf is the President of Pakistan. He has suspended their constitution, imprisoned judges, is alleged to have killed political opponents. Surely this fascist is someone that shouldn't be dealt with. Let's look at that:

He seized power in 1999 by effecting a military coup d'état and has suspended the constitution of Pakistan twice; since then, after announcing his intention to combat extremists, Western countries (including the United States and the United Kingdom) have switched from sanctions to active support through military and monetary aid.

en.wikipedia.org...

That's but 4 examples of support, economic and military support for fascist states. What about fascist states that aren't supported? Is democracy being spread in those? Iraq was invaded because Saddam had WMD. No, wait, to remove a dictator. No, to bring democracy to the people of Iraq. Sounds fairly vague. What about others?

Has North Korea's Kim Jong Il been replaced? What about Zimbabwe's Mugabe?

Surely democracy could be spread to Cuba. It has about 1/3 of the population of Iraq and being right off of the continental US would be a logistical dream.

Socratic question 1 If democracy is what the PTB want, why has the Castro's Cuba not been liberated yet?

Ladies and gentlemen - We have reached the end of yet another exciting debate tournament. A great thanks to all involved - particularly The Vagabond and my peer debaters. You guys ROCK. Intrepid - this has been a real blast. Good luck.

TruthWithin's Closing Statement

I want to briefly go through Intrepid's arguments to see what has stood up and what has not. He set out his argument in his opening post:

We will look at who the New World Order is. Is it some obscure concept spoken by a long dead politician or a very real, very adept entity that is guiding policy in todays world?

Who? Prescott and Kennedy? THEY are the NWO? That's stretching it a little, no?

We will look at the history of global politics. We will see at how different political ideologies evolved and how this has created a backlash that has the power brokers looking for a way to regain the power they once had. After all, it is all about power and control.

What backlash, and who lost power? The US? There was no argument made for this.

What is "fascism" though? Most think of Nazi Germany of Mussillini's Italy. Yes, they were fascist states but there are many types of fascism, like there are many types of democracy. Can fascism and democracy coexist? The answer is yes.

My opponent's definition of fascism was incredibly fanciful. You could, by his definition, include ANYONE under the label of "fascist". I rebutted and my opponent did not defend his definition. I can only assume, then, that my opponent concurred that his definition was inaccurate.

Then something interesting happened. If you exclude my opponent's cited sources and quotes attempting to define fascism, you will find that the term "fascism", or any version thereof, does not appear a SINGLE time in the rest of his sources or quotes. I encourage the readers to cross check this because it reveals my opponent's greatest flaw in his argument.

Here's the problem-

Intrepid does a nice job about bringing up "hot button" issues that are very popular topics here on ATS. But remember the prefix in my opening post? I said:

In doing so, however, we must pay close attention to what we actually know about something and what we presume to know about something. For this debate, I ask that you, the reader, leave any preconceived notions that you may have behind in order to truly focus on the arguments of the debate.

Terms Like:

• Bohemian Grove
  
• Prescott Bush
  
• Joe Kennedy
  

All fascinating topics, all could be debated individually, but sadly NONE of them have anything to do with fascism. And if they did, my opponent did nothing to show any link aside from a "trust me" mentality.

Take Bohemian Grove. Very cool topic. But where is ANY evidence to show that a fascist state was being engineered there? There is none.

Take my opponent's last post. In the sources the word fascist does not appear once. Is this a coincidence? Or does it just show that my opponent is stretching the scope of fascism and relying on the reader to simply take his word on it? Moreover, all of the countries that he mentioned are now democracies.

The reality is that my opponent has shown no cohesive evidence that a fascist state is being engineered.

Are there bad people in the world? Yes. Is there corruption? Always. But just because a country has flaws or problems one cannot simply label it as "fascist", because if we do that, the term fascist loses its power and the crimes of Hitler and Mussolini seem less severe and there is no lesson learned.

My case has been simple and concise. I have shown fact upon fact of verifiable, cohesive data to show that there is indeed an agenda by the "powers that be" to engineer a global democracy.

I close by answering my Socratic Question:

Socratic question 1 If democracy is what the PTB want, why has the Castro's Cuba not been liberated yet?

There is currently a movement to do so. Now is the opportune time because of the current shift in power.

US - Cuba Democracy PAC

A federal Political Action Committee formed to promote an unconditional transition in Cuba to democracy, the rule of law, and the free market.

Well we have come to the end of this debate, it's been, interesting. I've never debated in this format before. Pro/con is the typical format. My thanks to my opponent, the readers and The Vagabond.

Originally posted by TruthWithin
My opponent's definition of fascism was incredibly fanciful. You could, by his definition, include ANYONE under the label of "fascist". I rebutted and my opponent did not defend his definition. I can only assume, then, that my opponent concurred that his definition was inaccurate.

Not at all. In a regular debate I would have rebutted many things spoken of here, especially the ineffectual UN being the NWO. That would have been a peach. This isn't a pro/con debate though and it isn't my job to rebut anything but to build a case for my position. This I have done.

Fascism isn't a gloss that we can spread like margarine. Yes, there can be many aspects of fascism that we can see in daily life, one could say that Memorial Day, which is around the corner, is fascist as it focuses on the military and nationalism. One would be wrong though. It's a salute to men and women that have served their countries with honor. It's when legislation is put forth that is restrictive to the populous and proclaimed PATRIOTic that it becomes truly fascist. Remember, nation first, person second. Hmm, on second thought maybe, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" takes on new meaning. Food for thought.

I have shown what the NWO probably is, with examples. We will never really know unless we are a part of it. Powerful people, business magnates, political leaders, etc who's only concern is "power to the few".

Why the focus on the US? It is a powerful entity not only militarily but also an economic power as well. The lead man on a picket line, so to speak, with resources that are unparalleled. Not the only part of the NWO for sure but the strong arm of it.

I have also shown that there has been a great deal of workings with fascist states like Iraq, The Philippines, etc, while undermining countries that would make their own path, ie: Nicaragua. May I ask where my opponent showed that democracy was brought to any nation? Was one mentioned and I missed it?

This style of debate is about building cases. I believe that the case in this debate that has "the legs" is the one that shows the NWO is supportive of fascism.

Thank you.

Judging is underway. One judgement is in. Results expected tomorrow at the latest.

Intrepid is victorious and is our new ATS Debate Champion


Exhaustive Commentary:

In judging this debate, it was necessary to put aside any and all opinions in regards to the NWO in order to effectively evaluate each debater in their efforts. Once this was accomplished, the “meat” of each opponent and the value of their contributions could be assessed, and not an opinion of the topic.

TruthWithin made an initial error in the debate format; he began with a rebuttal in his second post. This must be taken into account as this was a “non-rebuttal” debate. Each debater’s submissions should have stood on their own merits without comparison to the other. In doing this, he used a major portion of his post, rebutting intrepids post, which is of no value in a Non-Pro/Con debate. While throughout the debate, both debaters did some of this, TruthWithin spent a large amount of each post discussing intrepids posts.

Intrepid did a good job of inserting the conspiracy angle into the debate early on and was able to use this as a base comparison. He did however fail to take advantage of this to the fullest extent. He seemed to end each post leaving the reader wanting more information.

Intrepid’s “Bohemian Grove” angle played out well; however TruthWithin had every chance to dispel this, but missed the mark by only using commentary to argue against his opponents assertions.

TruthWithin had a very good substantive argument going with the League of Nations and the UN, he just simply spent far too much time going back and referencing intrepids material and not capitalizing on these important democratic figures in his own argument. If TruthWithin had spent more time elaborating on the democratic advances of these two organizations, he could have taken effective control of the debate.

In the end, it is intrepid’s use of numerous and varied individual references that he was able to tie into a cohesive representation of his contention that the NWO is engineering a fascist state, that wins the day. TruthWithin had several opportunities to “take the field” and “run with the ball” so to speak, yet spent way too much time discussing intrepid’s issues.

I give the debate to intrepid by a small margin.

The first thing that struck me when I began sizing up this debate was the huge discrepency in star-count favoring what at first-glance would seem to be the "underdog" position in this debate.

The opening statements shed a little light on this. Truthwithin went right at the historical evidence suggesting that important historical figures from democratic nations played an important role in creating the NWO.

Intrepid took an interesting and nuanced angle, suggesting that his position could in essence be true even if his opponent's was as well. While not necessarily a concession, I could see where this would turn readers off.
It is likely that many were expecting Intrepid to go immediately to the role of the Nazis and Communists in geopolitical events which are commonly associated with the NWO (ie: WWII), and suggest that any advocacy for Democracy is a mere facade.

So after opening statements, despite the seemingly lop-sided reader response, it was very much anybody's fight still.

I was looking for TruthWithin to make a compelling case that any fascist behavior by the NWO is considered a necessary means to a global egalitarian democracy, or that no fascist behavior can be concretely tied to the NWO, or something to address Intrepid's argument, AND also of course to show NWO advancement of Democracy in a reasonably specific way.

I was looking for Intrepid to develop his argument to such a degree that Fascist ends, rather than Democratic ones, were the defining trait of the NWO, even if he continued to argue that fascism and democracy can coexist. In other words, the NWO would have to be less committed to the equality of all members of the chosen group than to the supposed inferiority and oppression of the persecuted group, in order for me to find in Intrepid's favor.


Truthwithin did a good job striking back at Intrepid by challenging where the bar should be set for "fascist", and called attention to the fact that Intrepid really didn't emphasize the defining traits of fascism in his proposed definition so much as he emphasized the general "badness" of scapegoating, which can occur in any system.
He did himself a slight disservice by conceding (i think incorrectly) that Fascism is difficult to distinguish as a specific structure or system of government before going on to select a definition though.
He was firing on all cylinders though for tying the UN to America's pro-democracy agenda.

Intrepid started out by evading the first socratic question. His second answer both helped and hurt him. On the one hand it showed that democracy can be a means to fascism, yet on the other hand the distinction between the Weimar Republic and Third Reich argues against the coexistence of the two concepts. The third answer was fine- the question was fundamentally flawed. Some of his argument was tenuous, ie: the bohemian grove may not have sounded like pure democracy, but it sounded very much like the top-level politics of a Democratic Republic.

Truthwithin's next post was pretty damaging to the idea that democracy in the US is going in the same direction as that in the Weimar Republic.

Intrepid made a good point with the emphasis of "attempted" in response though. He also scored big points by finally going after the Nazi collaborators in US history.

Truthwithin had a harder sell to make after that, and he faltered a bit on it. His argument against the Patriot Act as an attempt at fascism seemed difficult since we'd already seen a bit on the Enabling Acts in Germany. Then there was the issue of Bush only being a shareholder- and yet that is one of the defining traits of fascism- the convergence of business and government.
Preempting the globablization argument, on the other hand, was a good move. Mein Kampf has quite a bit to say on the architecture of fascist trade and foreign relations which could have been VERY good for Intrepid's case, so getting the focus onto the "spreading freedom in the form of dollars" concept was probably good.

Intrepid responded fairly well, though he could have benefited from specifically laying out some of the more nuanced implications. For instance the trade to create freedom thing seems to break down if the US traded with a dictator but stopped after the revolution.

Truthwithin's summation could have been stronger. It should have had a little more to say about a clear picture of a pro-democracy NWO. The criticisms against Intrepids case were alright.

While Intrepid might have done better to preserve shades of pro con by acknowledging the possibility of the two positions being mutually exclusive, he did the right thing by focusing primarily on the case he had built for his own position in the summation.


Ultimately I was convinced of the following points:

1. The United States, which even according to Truthwithin is a primary force within the UN, is not fully committed to global equality and democracy.

2. Entities commonly associated with the NWO have expressed great interest in peace and democracy.

I was NOT convinced of (or necessarily shown) the following points, though they were important:

1. That there is some grand purpose which a clearly structured and evidently existent fascist organization could deliver.

2. That entities commonly associated with the NWO have actually acted to the utmost of their ability to create peace and democracy.


So ultimately it is a very close debate. The preponderence of the evidence does however point to fascism. Intrepid seemed to have saved that point back to the end to avoid a long window of opportunity for TruthWithin to counter it, and although that seemed dirty, it also worked, or rather, was allowed to work.

I congratulate Intrepid on his victory. It was a solid debate and an honor to be matched up against such a fierce opponent.

I do require some clarification on the rules, as I feel like there is some misunderstanding and it may have effected the judges ruling.

One judge said

TruthWithin made an initial error in the debate format; he began with a rebuttal in his second post. This must be taken into account as this was a “non-rebuttal” debate. Each debater’s submissions should have stood on their own merits without comparison to the other. In doing this, he used a major portion of his post, rebutting intrepids post, which is of no value in a Non-Pro/Con debate.

The rules stated: "Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

This is the same language used in all of the other debates and is not excusive to a Non Pro/Con debate. It means that there is no rebuttal after the two closing statements, not after each reply. It does NOT mean that there is no rebuttal during the "3 alternating replies". This is still a debate, and to not be able to refute your opponent's ideas seem to defeat the purpose of a debate.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to be a pain or a sore loser - I just don't necessarily feel that my argument should be of "no value" because I refuted my opponent's argument - particularly when my opponent won by a "small margin". I also feel it important to clarify this for future debates

Am I wrong?






[edit on 11-5-2008 by TruthWithin]

reply to post by TruthWithin


Don't know about that. I do agree that it's not a debate if you can't issue a rebuttal.

Either way, it's not a loss for you. That was a fantastic little argument you two had. I enjoyed it.

When in Rome...

I noticed that one of the judges and Intrepid also came to the mistaken conclusion that direct rebuttal was unnecessary/disallowed.

The intent of this new format was that the positions could be (and in all likelihood would be) chosen in such a way that for one to be true implies the other to be false, and as a result the "con" side would have to build a specific case in the same way that the pro does, not merely preserve doubt, making for a more balanced cousin of the pro/con style.

I don't feel like the misunderstanding was a determining factor though, since the judge who seemed to have the right idea came to the same conclusion.