The Instigator
Pro (for)
13 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

There is a conspiracy by a group a powerful people to establish a one world government on Earth.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,927 times Debate No: 7845
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
Votes (3)




I will begin the debate by sharing many quotes with the readers, then I will include a link to a short video which gives an overview of the globalist agenda (New World Order), and following that I will list some points (more details can be provided in later rounds). I welcome my opponent and the readers and hope for an interesting debate.

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." - David Rockefeller

"Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." -David Rockefeller, in his book MEMOIRS, page 405

"We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." —(Jewish Banker Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, as he testified before the U.S. Senate).

"Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful! This would especially be true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by a World Government." - Henry Kissinger, Bilderburg Conference, Evians, France 1991

"I think there are 25,000 individuals that have used offices of powers, and they are in our Universities and they are in our Congresses, and they believe in One World Government. And if you believe in One World Government, then you are talking about undermining National Sovereignty and you are talking about setting up something that you could well call a Dictatorship - and those plans are there!" - Congressman Ron Paul at an event near Austin, Texas on August 30th, 2003


Points (Overview):
1 There are many organizations which exist that are actively seeking globalism (New World Order) ex: United Nations, Council on Foreign Relations, Tri-Lateral Commission, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, World Court

"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England (and)... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established." - Carroll Quigley, Professor of History Georgetown University, in his book "Tragedy and Hope".

"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax exempt foundation (i.e. Rockefeller), and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education, and mass communication media, that it should be familiar to every American concerned with good government and with preserving and defending the US Constitution and our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation's right-to-know machinery, the news media; usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities. The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the US from a sovereign Republic into a servile member of a one-world dictatorship." - Congressman John R. Rarick

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas." - G. Brock Chisholm, co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health, former director of UN World Health Organization

2 There are secret and powerful groups which exist that are working for globalism: Bilderberger, Illuminati, Skull and Bones, etc.

3 Many world leaders are in many of the same groups (in globalist organizations and in the secret groups also) ex: most of Obama's staff is in Bilderberger, CFR, and Tri-lateral Commission. As far as recent popular skull and bones members: Bush and Kerry (also both are Bilderbergers)

4 Many have written about the globalist's agenda (Prof. Caroll Quigley - Tragedy and Hope), George Orwell "The New World Order" & "1984"

5 The formation of European Union and the euro currency and the formation of the African Union, and the planned North American Union.

6 Banking Systems

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws" - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

"The one aim of these financiers is world control by the creation of inextinguishable debts." - Henry Ford

(U.S. Federal Reserve System)
"The One-World government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve bank." - Curtis Dall, FDR's Son-in-law (from his book - FDR: My Exploited Father-in-law)

Assassinations (and attempted assassinations) of those who have tried to stop the Federal Reserve System ex: US Presidents: Andrew Jackson (2 attempts),Garfield, Lincoln, JFK, (9 Presidents in total - who opposed a private national bank)

7 Military (coups) Labeling of nations as terrorist nations who do not comply with the powers that be by giving up their resources and power to them.(Venezuela)(and punishing 'successful defiance' - Cuba)

8 "Free Trade" agreements: NAFTA, SPP, FTAA

9 Indebted nations ex: Iceland (due to debt to global financiers, must sell off national resources and companies)

10 Recent G-20 meeting calling for globalism...strongly against "protectionism" (aka. "sovereign nations"), they increased amount of money for IMF to loan (which will keep nations enslaved in debt)

"The Rockefeller File is not fiction. It is a compact, powerful and frightening presentation of what may be the most important story of our lifetime - the drive of the Rockefellers and their allies to create a one-world government combining super-capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control...not one has dared reveal the most vital part of the Rockefeller story: that the Rockefellers and their allies have, for at least fifty years, been carefully following a plan to use their economic power to gain political control of first America, and then the rest of the world. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent". On 31 August 1983, McDonald was killed aboard Korean Airline 007 flight which "accidentally" strayed over Soviet airspace and was "accidentally" shot down. The media reporting was scant and short-lived and not a single mention was publicly made about the fact that McDonald had been heading a congressional effort to expose what he called a dangerous international conspiracy." - In November of 1975, Congressman Larry P. McDonald spearheaded efforts against the New World Order. He wrote the introduction to The Rockefeller File which stated the above.

As far as the use of many quotes, and my only giving an overview of points, this is simply an introduction to the topic, I will wait to see what my opponent wants to focus on and then we can go from there. I look forward to the debate, thank you for reading.


Thank you for this post and I will gladly debate the topic with you.

In order to address the majority of your points I want to start by first defining the term "conspiracy". According to the term "conspiracy" has 5 definitions. The first four of those definitions have a negative denotation that requires, or indicates, the use of unlawful action. The fifth, and last, definition simply means a concurrence. Considering that the majority of the definitions are negative and that the term "conspiracy" has a negative connotation, I can only assume that your post is based off of that type of definition.

Point 1. Although you are correct that there are a number of organizations that are working toward a "one world government", there has been no unlawful activity in regards to accomplishing that goal. The UN is the closest, and only, entity to formalizing a "one world government". However, the UN is conducting meetings with world leaders to address that issue and would only form into a "one world government" at the agreement of representatives of each nation.

Point 2. By your own admission groups such as Skull and Bones are secretive. Thus, any information obtained about those groups by former members is invalidated based on the fact that those members would have been sworn to secrecy. If a member, sworn to secrecy, gives information about the organization then they are of questionable character and cannot be trusted by their word.

Point 3. Obama was an elected representative of this country and would not have the power to appoint people, even people associated with organizations desiring a "one world government", without it first being the will of the American people.

Point 4. There are many writings about a globalist's agenda. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion and some people will have the opinion that a "one world government" is the most viable option for the world. Considering how tightly knit the world's economies are, it isn't surprising that people fell that way. However, believing in an idea and acting unlawfully to achieve it are two separate ideas.

Point 5 & 6. Prior to the Civil War states in the United States were using different forms of currency, some of which weren't even accepted in neighboring states. The United States benefited by consolidating currency into 1 form as it allowed settlers living near state lines to purchase materials from the easiest place to get them. The Euro was essentially the same thing. With their being a "global economy" a single monetary unit could be debated as the preferred system.

Assassination Point. Can you provide any evidence that all attempts on each of those presidents were for the sole purpose of stopping the Federal Reserve? If not, can you show the successful attempts were able to hinder the Federal Reserve in any remarkable way?

Point 7. How does labeling a country a "terrorist" nation promote a "one world government"? By all logical means, labeling a country as a "terrorist" nation would cause a greater divide between those two countries.

Point 8. "Free Trade" agreements are a natural part of having a global economy.

Point 9. Iceland would not be in debt if it did not need to borrow money or if it did not ask for money from global financiers. Just because global financiers were willing to lend money doesn't mean that it was Iceland's intent to promote a "one world government".

Point 10. G-20 called for a lawful meeting, the results of which, are still being debated and considered. Debate and considering negates the idea of "conspiracy".
Debate Round No. 1


I welcome my opponent and thank him for debating me. I accept my opponent's definition of conspiracy 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

1 Pro does not have to prove if it is unlawful or not, but only that there are forces at work trying to establish a one world government. It is plain to see that those forces are there.

But I would argue that establishing a new world order is unlawful in that it violates national constitutions and oaths of the leaders and the governments to represent the people of their particular nations.

Ex: In the USA the supreme law of the law is the constitution, and the President when taking the oath of office promises to uphold the constitution of the United States. If the president, or any entity in the USA puts global considerations ahead of upholding and obeying the constitution then it is in violation of the supreme law of the land and therefore illegal.

CFR - In round 1 my quotes explained how the CFR is really seeking that "national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established" and that it"is dedicated to one-world government".

UN - The UN is basically the same thing, being founded by at least 47 CFR members. "This is the group which designed the United Nations — the first major successful step on the road to a World Superstate. At least forty-seven C.F.R. members were among the American delegates to the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945" (about 1/2 way down page)

Trilateral Commission - co-founded by David Rockefeller, I probably don't need to elaborate more than that.

It is actually illegal (Federal Crime) for various leaders in the government (USA) to meet in secret and discuss US world policy decisions with non-federal workers. They are committing a crime simply by being there at these meetings.

I can go into the motives and foundations of other groups as well if desired, but basically the fact that these groups exist at all proves the point. By doing and allowing these things, nationalism is being undermined by globalism and therefore is illegal.

2 If my opponent himself had been in one of the said secret organizations (and taken an oath of secrecy) but then later renounced them and came out speaking against them, would my opponent's words be "invalidated"? I don't think so. So why would it be different for any other person? I think a person should judge each person individually.

The fact that these groups exist has been documented. For example to prove the existence of the Bilderberger group I would use: "The Obama Deception" (29:30)

3 What I believe my opponent is implying is that Obama had to be elected in the first place. This implies that the people should have known the kind of advisors he would pick, therefore they are ok with Obama appointing members of Bilderberger, CFR, and the Trilateral commission, because the people obviously would not have elected him if they were not ok with that.

I don't believe that the various advisors a president chooses is known to the public before they vote and elect the president. Therefore the general public may or may not be ok with the advisors he chooses. In this link it talks about his advisors and their connections to various organizations: (40:30)

Also if a particular group of people had control of all the major media/ news, I believe it would be quite easy for them to get whoever they desire to be president to get elected. Just because people chose a particular candidate doesn't mean that they were not led into that decision by other powerful forces such as through controlled media.

4 I would again say that Pro does not have to prove whether it is unlawful or not, but rather that the plans have been made for globalism to happen, and that it is indeed happening.

If the powers that be which are pressing forward the globalist agenda are doing it legally, it doesn't matter. If they are doing it illegally, it doesn't matter. If they are doing it in secret, or in the open it also doesn't matter. All that matters is that this agenda to promote globalism exists and it is indeed working for a new world order. That Wells and Quigley have written about it simply reinforces the fact, that "There is a conspiracy by a group a powerful people to establish a one world government on Earth." and they have pointed this out.

5 My opponent has not addressed the formation of the European Union or the African union. I would state that the fact that these exist is evidence of globalization. I also would add that there has in fact been talk of merging Canada, the USA, and Mexico into a "North American Union" and I would say that this is further evidence of a push for globalization.

6 Whether or not a one currency system is preferred or not, is not the point, but rather whether or not it is happening. The pros/cons of if globalism would be better than separate nations is a separate debate.

The fact that the "Euro" exists now as a common currency in Europe is evidence of monetary globalization. Therefore it is happening.

As relating to the establishment of the Fed and the associated assassination attempts I would refer you to this source:

Not mentioned on that site is also the engraving on Andrew Jackson's tombstone which reads "I killed the Bank." It was important enough to him that he wanted to be remembered for it on his headstone.

7 Labeling a nation as "terrorist" is a tactic used to bring pressure to bear on a nation which is not "in the club" so to speak. It is used to coerce them into accepting the demands of the globalists (ie. economic slavery). Basically this kind of labeling is known as "Vilifying".

In order to implement their "solution" (getting the nation into debt to them) they can vilify the nation. By doing this they can create fear in the general population (fear of nukes etc.) this causes the masses to demand that "appropriate" action be taken against the "terrorist" nation. This allows the use of force or sanctions against the country to be acceptable. Eventually the nation may give in, thus coming under globalist control.

8 How NAFTA works is basically that a rich corporation in a rich country goes into a poor country and sets up shop. The locals are competing fine for a while, then the rich corporation simply lowers their prices far below the locals, then the locals go out of business, then the corporations raise the prices back up, as now they have a monopoly. How the rich corporations can afford this is through the "Free Trade" benefits that they get from the government. The rich corporation is able to collect a subsidy for what profits they "should" have been making but weren't for some reason (hmm, I wonder why).

9 Nations are coerced into borrowing from the IMF. This can be done through "economic hit men"

10 I would say that the fact that they can talk this openly, threatening countries outright that practice "protectionism" (ie. not buying into their global system) doesn't mean that globalism is not taking place, it is simply being pushed for openly under the guise that it is needed or that there will be something terrible that happens if people don't comply with their demands. See a pattern here? They create the problem, generate fear which gets public support, then they offer the solution (the thing they wanted to implement in the first place but couldn't until conditions were right). The more they can get acceptance for their policy of globalism and world government the more they will be allowed to talk about it openly.


I appreciate your rebuttal and will continue to establish your addressed points as they are needed.

My opponent's profession of acceptance of the given definition of conspiracy should be considered invalid due to his implication of the term made known in his first post. He presented a "new world government" as an idea that was undesirable and built up a debate, using quotes such as "Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States". Due to the context of my opponent's debate, the definition of conspiracy can only be assumed as unlawful desire or activity.

My opponent proclaims that, and in support of my given definition of conspiracy that assumes unlawful behavior, that President of the United States would be acting unlawfully if he pursued global consideration. Not only is this simply untrue, but impossible considering the design of the government. The United States government was designed to prevent in single part of the government from becoming too powerful or acting outside of the will of the people or constitution. To say that the president, alone, could submit the Unites States to a one world government without the approval of congress or the supreme court is unreasonable and not valid.

The UN was created with the purpose of protecting law, human rights, social progress, and peace on a global level. ( By mandate, the UN would seek to peacefully and lawfully seek to form a one world system. This is not a conspiracy, but the purposeful intent of the UN.

Although it may be illegal for various leaders in the government to meet in secret and discuss world policy, there is nothing of that nature occurring. The summit meetings are not in secret and are well-covered by media outlets around the world.

My opponent proclaims that a person who would be willing to break a vow is be considered credible. I do not agree that someone who willingly violates moral or ethical law should be considered as trustworthy. Since this debate is not focused on the trustworthiness of a particular person and neither side is willing to agree, I will not continue on it.

Anyone who votes for something as significant as the President of the United States should, by logical assumption, studied into his philosophy and intentions. Anyone who studied Obama's intentions would know the goals that he wished to accomplish and anyone who studied his philosophy would have an understand as to the kind of people that he would recruit to accomplish his intentions.
My opponent also stated that people could be deceived if a group of people had control of all of the media outlets. This point is accurate, however, that was not the case. NBC vs Fox for example.

Labeling nations are terrorist may be used as a tactic, however, the results of labeling nations as such has strained relations between countries like the USA and North Korea. Diplomatic strains such as this are counter-productive toward a goal of "one world government".

I have established the point that, considering the context, the term conspiracy acknowledges unlawful activity.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for his rebuttal and insights.

There has been a misunderstanding of the definition of "conspiracy". I apologize and concede this point.
"The United States government was designed to prevent in single part of the government from becoming too powerful or acting outside of the will of the people..."

Congress does act against the will of the people often, how else would an all time low approval rating of Congress (9%) be achieved? Congress is working hard, but WHO are they working for? (NWO) Most people were strongly against the bailouts and against the spending bill (with pork filled projects), as evidenced by the national TEA party, yet these bills passed. But if in fact they do need the will of the people, I have also shown how these groups work to actually get the approval of the people by creating the problem, waiting for the people's reaction, then offering their solution, this leads back perfectly to my quote by Kissinger in Rd. 1 which proves my point "...if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated...when presented with this scenario, individual rights will be WILLINGLY relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by a World Government".

"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." - David Hume
"the UN would seek to peacefully and lawfully seek to form a one world system. This is not a conspiracy, but the purposeful intent of the UN."

I think the real origins of the founding of the UN (especially by whom it was created) needs to be carefully considered in order to understand the real reason it exists. In rd. 2 I exposed that many of the creators of the UN were members of the CFR (47) and I also reemphasized what the goals of the CFR are (global government). By this a person can infer a lot as to the ultimate goals of the UN.

"President Bush said that the New World Order was in tune and that was what they were working for, and the UN is part of that government, they are working now very significantly for a North American Union, that's why there's a lot of people in Washington who don't care too much about our borders, they have a philosophic belief that national sovereignty is not important. It is also the reason I have made very strong suggestion that we need not be in the
United Nations for our national security." - Ron Paul (Congressman)
from Endgame - Blueprint for Global Enslavement
"Although it may be illegal for various leaders in the government to meet in secret and discuss world policy, there is nothing of that nature occurring. The summit meetings are not in secret and are well-covered by media outlets around the world."

My opponent must not have noticed in my link I cited in rd. 1 which exposes the Bilderberger group (Bernake is spotted at the meeting, at the time being chairman of the Fed). I will also give another example: the list of Bilderberger attendees (2007)
It included: Timothy F. Geithner, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (USA), William J. Luti, Special Assistant to the President for Defense Policy and Strategy, National Security Council (USA),also Robert B. Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State (USA). Pro would argue that it is in fact happening.

Indeed, at the G-20 The New World Order was openly talked about. The fact that they can openly talk about it now doesn't mean that there wasn't and isn't a conspiracy to establish a one world government. What it means is that they are having success at it and are able to talk about it openly now. This actually proves that the conspiracy is REAL and is now being implemented. We are simply able to see the evidences of it more plainly now as it is becoming impossible for them to hide.

"Countless people will hate the new world order and will die protesting against it." - H.G. Wells (The New World Order)(1939)
"Anyone who votes for something as significant as the President of the United States should...understand...the kind of people that he would recruit to accomplish his intentions."

I would make the "leap" that many people are uninformed who vote. Also just because one candidate is voted for doesn't account for the fact that maybe they are just seen as the "the lesser of two evils". However, my main rebuttal is that if both candidates are globalists and placed there by the powers that be, then there are no options in the Presidential election to choose a non-globalist (McCain was also).
"My opponent also stated that people could be deceived if a group of people had control of all of the media outlets. This point is accurate, however, that was not the case. NBC vs Fox for example."

Hmmm, this idea leads right into the heart of my points of monopoly/ central control/ globalism (especially through the media)

This reminded me of the monopoly "break up" of Standard Oil (owned by John D. Rockefeller)(1904). Due to anti-trust laws Rockefeller had to break up Standard Oil. So now today we don't have a "monopoly" by Standard Oil, but what do we see today? Is the free market hard at work with many major players keeping the oil prices low (or allowing new technologies)? No, the prices are discussed and set (this has been a topic of discussion at Bilderberger meetings even). So instead of a monopoly with 1 company name we have a monopoly with 5 company names."ExxonMobil, the direct descendant of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil company. It is now the world's largest company by revenue, at $477.359 billion for the fiscal year of 2008. It is also the largest publicly held corporation by market capitalization, at $391.672 billion on January 29, 2009. Currently, the company ranks #1 in the world in net income, which was $45.220 billion in 2008."

Media ownership is an important concept. A similar thing is happening in the media (monopoly)(obviously Rockefeller knows how to work around them). Many things are allowed on their stations to get profit but nothing is allowed which will remove their power. For ex: GE (the NBC parent company) Is NBC going to report on GE scandals? (ex: of them moving to Mexico for cheap labor, or that they are a major polluter?) Perhaps that is why they BOUGHT the network in the first place (damage control). Other connections exist as well. (CBS/Disney etc.). My point is that many conflicts of interest exist in the media, don't count on them to be fair and balanced. It may very well be (read "it is") what they are NOT reporting is the actual problem (ie. NWO).

"Propaganda is to democracy what force is to totalitarianism" - Noam Chomsky (6:00 = quote)

"We falsely think of our country as a democracy when it has evolved into a mediaocracy. Where a media that is supposed to check political abuse is part of the political abuse." -Danny Schechter

"These commercial entities now vie with the government for authority over our lives, they are not a healthy counterweight to government, they are as big as or bigger than government and they work closely with government." - Mark Crispin Miller (Professor of Media Studies at New York University)

"The most powerful special interest in Washington today is the media, not only do they give money and lobbying and all the things that industries do in Washington, but they of course control whether a politician's mug gets on the tube, now that's power, that's the ultimate power in the political realm, controlling perceptions."- Charles Lewis (Former 60 Minutes Producer)

From "Orwell Rolls in his Grave" (0:00 =3 quotes)


Hylion forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I see that my opponent has forfeited the last round. I can only hope that he will continue the debate next round. In my last debate, my opponent forfeited a round and I did not seize the opportunity to introduce new material and gave my opponent the time and words to address all my previous points. In spite of that opponents lack of a round 4 he still won the debate. So in the interest of trying to not underestimate my opponent or the perceived benefit of having a
free round I plan to continue to strongly establish the case for Pro.
Having plenty of words and nothing to refute, I would also like to interject a clarification for one of my links in rd. 3 - the link associated with the Noam Chomsky quote is from the documentary "Manufacturing Consent" and it talks in detail about how the people are "made" to consent. I list this only for the benefit of informational purposes to the readers and I am not making any other points from it at this time.
In many places during the debate it seems as if my opponent agrees with my point that there is a push for one-world government, but only seems concerned that this is being done openly and not in "secret" and argues that therefore it does not fall into the definition of a conspiracy. I would like to address that issue (7 points below), and I would like to point out that my opponent is not even seeming to disagree that a push for a one-world government is happening, which proves almost all of my original contention.

1 I would re-emphasize my round 3 points of the evidence of the Bilderberger group working in secret.(Bernake caught on film at Bilderberger and Bilderberger attendee list 2007) which was not rebutted by my opponent.

2 I will also argue that it is still secret (or a "conspiracy") because there are no (or not any significant) groups or people in the mainstream at this time proclaiming boldly that they are trying to submit all governments into a one world government. Yet at the same time there are people taking the very steps needed to do this. Therefore it is still being done in "secret".

3 Pro will also argue that what is started secretly (as a conspiracy) must at some point come to light in tangible, visible actions that can be seen. It is simply the interpretation of these events at that point as to whether they occurred due to normal, natural reasons or if they occurred because a conspiracy caused them to happen. So Pro would argue that just because certain actions can be seen, does not mean that they were not caused by a conspiracy to make them to make those very things happen.

4 David Rockefeller also thanked the newspapers for not exposing them early on (this shows it was done in "secret"). "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years... "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government." (1991)

5 There are also pictures of world leaders who are making strange hand gestures to each other (secret signs), this is probably done to let the other world leaders know that they are "in the loop" or part of the group.

6 "The Revolution will not be televised"(this video is an interesting documentary on the coup attempt in Venezuela)- it shows how what is shown on TV is not always reflective of what is happening (what really is happening is secret), bits and pieces of clips were taken for instance, that showed the Chavez supporters firing on people, and they inserted a clip of peaceful marchers below. But that is not who was actually there at the time the Chavez supporters were firing (as shown by the documentary, but not on their public TV - or in the USA probably either) at that time they were being fired upon! Also there is another part in the documentary where the public TV station has been seized (by the coup attempt) and they are saying that things are peaceful at the palace. Then the cameraman from the documentary swings his camera around (from his location at the palace) and shows many people marching on the palace (1 million
people total, I think, but it has been a long time since I watched that). The points for pro are that: the media is "controlled" and if they don't want something sensitive that would hurt their plans to get out, then they will use the media to stop it, by either reporting on something, or not reporting on something, or even they will splice film to make things appear differently than they actually happened. This also is evidence of how things are happening in "secret" even though there is some reporting done on the topic, due to the bias in some reporting, it is as if what is "really" happening is done in secret.

7 There are also other evidences which are secret, but hidden in "plain sight", so to speak, for ex: It is ignored that half the world's population lives on less than $2/day. The fact that this is not widely known or made to seem important (through controlled media) is, in a way, making certain things "secret". A "It's not news unless we say it is news" kind of operation is in effect.

"There is something morally repellent about one group of people seeking to gratify itself psychologically, pursuing novel and rarified pleasures, while the majority of mankind lives in wretchedness or starvation."- Dietrich Bonhoffer

"The American government is not so concerned that the rest of the world knows what they are doing, but they are concerned that the US citizens not know what they are doing."-Noam Chomsky
Now to further the case of Pro, I would like to quote a bit from "Tragedy and Hope" by Professor Carroll Quigley. But I want to first point out the extensive research that went into this book. There are over 1,300 pages. The Book took over 20 years to write. The Jr. editor Michael L. Chadwick wanted to confirm the reality of this information, so he looked in over 25,000 books and over 50,000 documents, as well as conducted over 1,000 interviews, and he states in the Intro to the book that he found the information and conclusions to be true. This book is available to read online as well.

"...[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less
than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the
political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. this system
was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in
concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The
apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle,
Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which
were themselves private corporations....

"It must not be felt that these heads of the world's chief central banks were themselves
substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians
and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised
them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial
powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called
'international' or 'merchant' bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own
unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and
national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of
their agents in the central banks..."
I thank the readers and my opponent and wish him good luck.


Hylion forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


It looks as if my opponent has forfeited another round, which is unfortunate. I hope my opponent is ok, and I also wish him better luck in other debates. I don't think my opponent will be back for the final round, but I suppose I should still post some information here for the Pro side of the debate.
I wanted to touch on the overall big picture for a moment. If a person was to just look at each item I have listed one at a time, then they could probably be explained in a number of different ways and that they happened for any number of reasons. BUT what Pro has attempted to do is to show a "Pattern" of what is going on, and to show that all of these seemingly individual happenings are actually related and connected. And what all these many things are connected to
is the foundation of a New World Order, a global government. For example if you just take one happening like that in 1963 the look of the dollar bill was changed, and on the back it was written (in Latin) "Announcing the birth of the New World Order"

"Annuit Coeptis" = announcing the birth of
"Novus Ordo Seclorum" = new order of the world (new world order)

A person could probably shrug that off as just one little thing. BUT coupled with all of the many other evidences of things that are happening (things like: the formation of the EU, all the talk of the NAU...all of the many global organizations: CFR, UN, WTO, WHO, Trilateral Commission, IMF, World Bank, Bilderberger etc..., the economic hitmen talks, the coups that have happened, the bankruptcies of nations (like Iceland), the formation of the FED, presidential assassinations, people writing about the NWO (Quigley for ex),and all the other events and hints and the economic crises where the G20 basically threatens anyone who practices "protectionism" (aka - nationalism) etc...). Then it actually just makes the picture become that much more clear of why that saying is really on the back of our currency, and that reason is not mere "coincidence" it is because it has been planned that way (in secret) as a conspiracy, and now the fruits of the conspiracy are coming into view. And what is coming into view? A New World Order. So what Pro is suggesting is in order to see this clearly one must see the big picture and the inter-relatedness of many events.

Further, there has been a comparison made by Naomi Wolfe of civilizations that have been brought into fascism. She has identified 10 steps that are always taken. These 10 steps are happening in the USA. They are explained in greater detail on the website of how each item relates to what is currently happening in the USA:
1 Create a terrifying enemy
2 Create secret prisons
3 Create a paramilitary force
4 Set up an internal surveillance system
5 Harass citizens' groups
6 Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7 Target key individuals
8 Control the press
9 Dissent equals treason
10 Suspend the rule of law
Pro would also like to introduce the concept of "soft-law". "Soft law instruments are usually considered as non-binding agreements which nevertheless hold much potential for morphing into "hard law" in the future. This "hardening" of soft law may happen in two different ways..."

"In international law, the terminology of "soft law" remains relatively controversial because there are some international practitioners do not accept its existence and for others, there is quite some confusion as to its status in the realm of law"

The UN is actually used as an EXAMPLE of soft law on this site "In the context of international law, the term "soft law" covers such elements as: Most Resolutions and Declarations of the UN General Assembly, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;"

The UN is being set up as a world governing body. By using soft law it can become standard practice to defer to the laws of the UN (having precedence over laws of other nations) and thus make the transition into a world governing body easier to accomplish. This is already taking place.
As far as the definition of "conspiracy", Pro touched on the point of "secret" last round in depth, and now Pro would like to talk in depth a bit more about the concept of "unlawfulness" and show the unlawfulness of what is taking place with regard to what is happening with the NWO agenda.

-In Rd. 2 (under point 1) Pro already talked about how meetings between certain US officials in secret with others about US policy is illegal.

-Pro has also talked about in Rd. 2 that the President when taking the oath of office promises to uphold the constitution of the United States and if the president, or any entity in the USA puts global considerations ahead of upholding and obeying the constitution then it is in violation of the supreme law of the land and therefore illegal.

-There are also various laws that just seem routinely to be broken and at any time could probably be examined in a court of law (but with the way the judges have been ruling it may not be worth the effort). Laws such as 18USC241 which deals with conspiracies to hinder a person's rights (and is a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years). Would not the Patriot Act fall under this law? (illegal wiretapping without probable cause / no warrant needed by a judge). My
point is that however the judges managed to twist and distort the law to get the desired outcome, the fact is that it truly does not reflect the original intent of the Constitutional freedoms which should be kept by the people, and therefore is in fact illegal.

-The Defense Authorization Act of 2006. This act allows the President to declare martial law for basically any reason. "The new law expands the list of pretexts to include "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" — and such a "condition" is not defined or limited"

-We do not have to get into entangling alliances, that is one of the things the founding fathers warned us about to avoid. Their general feeling on the matter of international relations was generally to go by the saying "Trade with all, treaties with none" - Jefferson(?), so the fact that we even have these treaties like NAFTA and the SPP really just because their are ulterior motives. What ulterior motives? Well let's examine the SPP a bit more with a video clip that talks about it. The Security and Prosperity Partnership Act is basically a stepping stone to help create a North American Union.

However, there was some talk about border security...they made sure to talk about the security of Mexico's SOUTHERN border. Certainly placing the USA into a North American Union is in violation of the Constitution, and therefore illegal.

"We are more concerned about the border between N. and S. Korea than we are about our border between the USA and Mexico." -Ron Paul
I understand if some readers still will not accept the point of view that Pro has provided, but still I would hope for fair voting and also I would hope that there has been at least a slight (if not more) acceptance of the idea that there actually could be this conspiracy taking place. Pro would also offer a standard of proof to consider for the readers: There is no "set" way that a reader has to weigh the evidences, for example: in criminal cases vs. civil cases there are differences in the "burden of proof" ex:"no reasonable doubt" but this heavy standard of proof doesn't necessarily have to be applied to this topic (that would be a very difficult standard to achieve - if not impossible), but if there are a lot of things that are happening that point to a certain conclusion then that is what is probably happening...

I thank my opponent and the readers and would urge a vote for Pro.


Hylion forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PhreedomPhan 8 years ago
Great example!

Exactly what I was talking about!
Posted by PhreedomPhan 8 years ago
This is interesting. For the second time I am unable to vote on a debate because I don't have a mobile phone. Who set this thing up. Mobile service providers? Anywhere else, email is used to confirm identity. What a joke!

BTW, I ran out of space in my earlier comment. I wanted to give the website of the Conspiracy Watcher I was talking about. He has a lot of info in PDF form. It's only a drop in the bucket of his collection, but there is some good material there.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
What an utter ad hominem.

By the way, a document doesn't magically prove things, documents can be forged and so forth. Their value as evidence has to be considered in whether you know who wrote them, who wrote them, what kind of motives they have for truth telling versus lying, etc.
Posted by PhreedomPhan 8 years ago
Years ago I was associated with a man I call a "Conspiracy Watcher." He had a large basement the walls of which were lined with bookcases and an occasional file cabinet. In the middle was an island of file cabinets two deep and placed back to back to allow access from the aisles. All were filled to overflowing with books and documents showing the behind the scenes programs of those determined to destroy this nation and its Constitution. Much of this he accumulated after he left the Marines after WWII. A very little I helped him photocopy at the Philadelphia Library. Much, maybe more, he inherited from a Philadelphia woman who had been a "Watcher" a good part of her life.

An interesting thing about him is that he never used the word "conspiracy." Why is it a man who had a library of proof of the existence of this conspiracy wouldn't use the word? He said that people had been so conditioned to have a knee-jerk reaction to the word. That reaction included a complete shutdown of the mind and elicitation of a flow of programmed giberish such as: conspiracy kook and similar names, tin foil hat comments, where's your proof (this while staring into space beyond the document held in front of them), and of course, a seemingly limitless line of rationalizations deemed to protect the utterer from any harm simply by denying the existence of an organized group bent on destroying his way of life and reducing his children and grandchildren to serfdom under the new moneyed aristocracy that replaced its old landed counterpart.

The only thing that has changed is that the conditioning through the schools and media is almost complete. Still, the advent of the internet and the free exchange of information is threatening those at the top. More people are becoming aware that what is being done to them is not by accident, stupidity, or some sort of Darwinian natural evolution of government. Now the only thing the mindless pawn can say is that all proof is "not credible."
Posted by heart_of_the_matter 8 years ago
I agree that they should be seperate debates...

quoting myself " But as for this debate, please indulge me"

...I could have specified more clearly that by "THIS" debate I meant "There is a conspiracy by a group a powerful people to establish a one world government on Earth" and to let me debate just that seperately...
Posted by PervRat 8 years ago
This debate isn't about whether a one-world government would be good or evil (I'd love to engage someone in a debate on that) but whether there's a secret conspiracy to form one. That's two different debate topics to me.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
The debate wouldn't discuss theories, or conspiracies, but just the effects off one. If it's conclusive one would be positive, then the conspiracy theories aren't bad.
Posted by heart_of_the_matter 8 years ago
I am a panda
I agree that your debate you proposed would be very interesting...I would take the side that the negative would far outweigh the positive. But as for this debate, please indulge me...I have to listen to my girlfriend telling me all the time that there is no conspiracy...all just normal, natural cause and effect going on...I need to work through some arguments and get some ideas to support my point of view...or not...I am open to the truth, but so far I need some framework to explain why things are happening the way they are.
Posted by heart_of_the_matter 8 years ago
thanks for your comment...the different organizations can be protested against seperately though..(ex: Seattle - specifically against the WTO (2000?) )
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
Stop all these poppycock debates. What I would love to see is " That, on balance, a one world government would have positive affects"
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by heart_of_the_matter 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07