There is one thing I know from debating person's of differing views than I, the debates disappear. So I wanted to get this early spar in my "record books" for memory. Enjoy.
Post #1
I was happy to see Gore confronted, however, the flap about the NWO bummed me out. So I posted my feeling at the We Are Change Chicago's site, but people who cry about others not debating and answering questions didn't allow the following to be posted:
I was happy about this until the NWO stuff started. Too bad. I have about 4,000 books in my meager condo. I started out on my reading career by reading many of the top NWO authors and books. I even became involved in the John Birch Society for a while, met Ezola Foster and Ron Paul… yada, yada. This view seemed to fit my eschatology as well, however, after much deliberation, wrestling with the Conspiracy Show (every full moon for three hours — Michael Medved). Tracking down and the following through the many references used in these books as well as the ideas espoused by many of the charlatans (like bombs being planted in the Oklahoma Federal Building, both parties being the same, etc., etc.), to the most recent ones (the Twin Towers being brought down by this secret cabal, ala Bush, WTC-7, birth certificates for Obama)… proved to me that this idea is bankrupt of anything substantive or that it has explanatory powers that should be taken seriously, and thusly, I have totally rejected this idea. In fact, I would posit that this unstable belief may in fact be the destabilizing factor that undermines governments in the future — since the Left is now the leader in this “conspiracy” arena and anarchy circles as well. What you are seeing in Gore and the U.N. is simply people living out a worldview, an ethos. If they are statists and socialist in their core, then they simply function in that way and fashion their affairs as such. This isn’t a giant conspiracy; it is people living out their existence with a set of beliefs that are shown to not work by shedding truth on them. Bankers in Germany and the U.S. are not the bad-guys. Neither is the Council of Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Commission. Yes there are statists in all organizations (just more-so in the TC & the CFR), hell, there are liberal socialists in my church (the emergent movement ala Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and other liberal influences). You see, it is merely people living out a reality they see… people like Alex Jones (who rubs shoulders with Marxists in case you didn’t know) merely distort the power behind influencing rightly these worldviews. If you do not even know what a worldview is, may I suggest you read a hefty book — you will thank me later in life — by David Noebel, “Understanding the Times: The Collision of Today’s Competing Worldviews.” Although I agree that Al Gore needs more confronting, not only for his skewed PowerPoint presentation, but also for his very left-leaning political views. For this I commend you. However, all the wind left your sails as soon as you connected this to Alex Jones type thinking.
Here is a short synopsis of my understanding as it stands now. Please read the comments as well, some more debate on my thinking happens there:
Here is a good post I did on what a worldview is (connected to the post above this):
I totally understand where you're coming from. I know that about a year ago I would have also balked as soon as NWO talk started up. A year later and a year wiser, I do agree with much of Alex Jones's views, but I can understand where you come from.
The issue is this though: whether the evil is coming from a global NWO conspiracy or is simply the result of people living out their shoddy ethics, the evil still exists. We cannot get hung up on disagreeing with each other, we simply cannot afford it. I believe the NWO exists. However, the important thing is to combat the evil that we both agree exists.
Maybe it's all an orchestrated plot. Maybe it's not. I personally believe the former, but we have to band together to fight it - whether it is a plot or not. Where the evil comes from is subject to debate. Its existence, though, is not: and that is where we must band together and fight.
"We must hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately".
Stay free, friend.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Kevin, may I add to my "Thank you for your thoughts" post. It is important that we arrive at the same place with truth on our side. In philosophy - for instance - you can have a syllogism that is sound, or one that is false but reaches the same conclusion, for instance:
All dogs are animals.
Lassie is an animal.
Therefore, Lassie is a dog.
Here the conclusion is correct as well as the premises. However, the logic or truth of this deductive argument is false. Here is a true syllogistic argument:
All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Truth is outside the realm of personal belief. You may "personally believe" in the former, however, speaking un-truths has no power in the world of ideas, outside of power. Let me explain with a quote from Mussolini:
“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”
This understanding of truth is, unfortunately, the "ethos" of yours and my generation. Professor Allan Bloom agrees when he said that "there is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative." So us walking lockstep towards the same goal is a fantasy that persons like myself, who have read hundreds of books by NWO authors on the NWO just cannot accept. Which is why "Loose Change" has been revamped and altered many times... because their stated propositions just didn't fit the facts.
You don't trust your government, maybe I don't as well (at least in its current form), neither do anarchists. However, I can only join hand-and-hand with people whom define liberty and government thusly:
"Old-fashioned liberalism embraces neither statism nor libertarianism, whether in social and economic policy or on lifestyle issues. Though it insists on constitutional checks on government to protect honorable liberties and the integrity of the family and other institutions of civil society, it does not regard government as an evil. Rather, it understands well-functioning and limited government as indispensable to the common good. While principle dictates government involvement in some matters and forbids it in others, old-fashioned liberalism emphasizes the prudential nature of most policy judgments concerning the regulation of markets or morals. Though they reject unprincipled pragmatism, old-fashioned liberals prize moderation and caution in the vast range of political decision-making that is not determined by principles alone."
(source: http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-is-conservatism-is-it-liberal-or.html)
(In other words, I cannot walk hand-in-hand with an anarchist even though we both do not trust our government.) So again, confronting Al Gore with proper science and "rousting" him in his comfort zone is great. Following it up with clap-trap about the New World Order undermines the entire presentation of him not debating the issues at hand. Truth is powerful, cases built on false logic and facts are not.
"…right and wrong
(Between whose endless jar justice resides)
Should lose their names, and so should justice too.
Then everything includes itself in power,
And appetite, and universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Must make perforce an universal prey,
And last eat up himself."
~ Shakespeare
Papa Giorgio
