Talk:NESARA

Note: The article with a "delete" consensus, "National Economic Stabilization And Recovery Act", has been deleted, with some of the material (not much) merged into this one. This article never had an afd discussion that resulted in a deletion decision, the below template is misleading in this respect. - Sednar (talk · contribs)

Is this article serious? Rlove 03:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The question has been asked before, you can find overly detailed answers in the VFD logs. Someone summed it up as "it's a real conspiracy theory, believed by real dolts". One of these dolts, 68.81.49.81 (talk · contribs), seems to have been vandalizing the NESARA article yesterday. Check out the references on this article, particularly the series of articles from the Tacoma Tribune[1], for info about the woman who created and continues to promote the conspiracy theory. - Sednar (talk · contribs)

Page must be watched carefully for creeping POV

I have a suspicion that NESARA believers are editing this page and removing, in bits and pieces, any material that refers to NESARA as a conspiracy theory. See recent edits by 84.59.58.218 (talk · contribs) and 68.81.49.81 (talk · contribs), and more blatant edits on the NESARA page in the past few days. The article should be carefully watched for such edits. If I'm mistaken, 84.59.58.218, then please use this discussion page to justify your recent edits. - Sednar (talk · contribs)

• I've been noticing too an increase in edits by the conspiracy theorists over the last month. Thankfully the wikignomes have outnumbered them. I see no justification posted on any page regarding NESARA for these Pro-NESARA Conspiracy viewpoints. Keep up the good work and vigilance. Thanks to the gnomes that have stepped in to help. inigmatus 18:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

the ones who claim NESARA is a hoax are the real tricksters

The people who claim this is a hoax are only afriad because to admit this is true one must change the roots of their beliefs and go against the grain of society. Unfortanately they do not understand that they have been purposely mislead down the wrong path. They have been placed in a fog of missinformation for their whole lives making it nearly impossible to accept or learn any outside truth.

Unfortanately your college education ($$) means nothing, so dont pull the whole "intellectual" card on me or anyone else who chooses to believe in things you choose not to accept.

Many of you disbelievers are consumed by darkness. I hope that one day you will learn to love and accept light.

To the tricksters, your time is up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.150.161 (talk • contribs) on 12 April 2006.

This language, complete with unusual spelling is typical of the internet messages that are posted by 'Dove of Oneness' and other NESARA Supporters. Wikipedians should be aware that the root of this hoax is an ongoing finanical Con called Omega Trust which to date, has bilked people out of over &20 Millions dollars. Please work to keep this article safe from vandalism. Thanks. Lisapollison 19:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Nesara.us" logic is clearly flawed!

I can't imagine anyone would fall for it (Circular Reasoning) - "Criticism of us is evidence of Government misinformation and propaganda and proves our point." "You can only get the truth here(Nesara)."

Another logical flaw: If the Government is so powerful and regularly incarcerates people (who are never heard from again) without a warrant, why don't they make Shaini Goodwin disappear?

If the Government cannot control the media, then why isn't this relavent information covered by API Newswire, The Christian Science Monitor, or other main stream publications?

Flawed Promise: Debt Forgiveness - The banking system is a financial intermediary between savers and borrowers (people), so if all debt is forgiven, guess who's holding the bag? - Answer: the people.

Flawed Promise: Removing money from the economy to buy gold would create a shortage of money, drive up interest rates,increase the cost of capital and tighten up credit - wages would be the 1st to depreciate followed by capital thereby perpetuating the possiblity of a recession. How would this benefit us?

Flawed Promise: Vagueness - Just what does "Restores Constitutional Law" mean? At what point does one decide to ignore Amendments. What about "Free Speech," "Women's Right to Vote," what will stay and what will go? Who decides?

The whole thing is ludicrous!

"[...]Unfortanately your college education ($$) means nothing, so dont pull the whole "intellectual" card on me or anyone else who chooses to believe in things you choose not to accept. Many of you disbelievers are consumed by darkness. I hope that one day you will learn to love and accept light." Man, sufferers of Paranoid Schizophrenia sure are an amusing bunch of people. I keep reading this insane "NESARA" -theory over and over again, and constantly feel the people advocating it are like one paragraph from proclaiming "LOLZ OH AND THE JEWS WERE BEHINDS 911 TOO, LOLZ!!!1!!". The people behind this "theory" are clearly severely mentally ill. In all honesty; shouldn't this page be deleted? 83.233.169.208 16:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two NESARA sites one is Dr. Harvey Barnards' site and the other NESARA site is the product of a woman who calls herself "dove of oneness" and makes ludicrous claims such as NESARA secretly being signed into law by Bush along with stories about spiritual "Masters" or aliens and other crazy conspiracy theories. She likely found NESARA after it was posted online setting off delusions of grandeur. Either that or it is a ploy to gain attention in order to attract a niave audience to get donations from. The quote above "Criticism of us is evidence of Government misinformation and propaganda and proves our point." is not on Dr. Harvey Barnards' site and is likely due to the person who usurped Dr. Harvey Barnards NESARA document in order to push a website or get donation money from wherever possible. The first page that comes up on google is not the website of the Author of NESARA it is someone else's site.

While the usefulness of this proposed bill is questionable as far as how well it would work at least the Author was attempting to devise a more prosperous monetary system rather than apathetically accepting the status-quo which seems pretty pathetic when the current state of the American economy is considered. The state of the American economy is a minor strike against the current monetary system in comparison to the argument which could be made based on the disparity between debt riddled 3rd world countries where many people cannot even afford mosquito netting which can potentially save their lives by counteracting malaria vs one of Americas top problems which stems from gluttony which is so bad one of the top health concerns is to reduce the high obesity rates which are due to sedentary lifestyles combined with overeating. Anyone who does not consider that a very good reason to drastically improve upon the current wretched monetary system must be completely lacking the ability to feel any empathy. There is something fundamentally flawed in the current system.

The article has been twice nominated for deletion. The most recent debate ended in late March 2007, apparently, with the result that the article has been kept. Famspear 19:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion concern

I'd like to remove the "lack of notability" concern for deletion. I believe these concerns were adequately addressed as can be seen in the request for deletion logs of almost a year ago. Here's an excerpt (note: the John Shimkus link is no longer active and I can't find a mirror. The Gorenfeld link also has moved, but I found a mirror and updated the link):

• The News Tribune, a newspaper in Tacoma, Washington, did a large multi-story exposé on NESARA [2], (which is very interesting reading in and of itself). The news tribune website ranks 24,687 on alexa [3]. As a newspaper, it has a weekend circulation of 144,000 [4] (the first part of the exposé was published on the weekend). Quatloos.com has an alexa rating of 63,753 [5] and has several pages debunking NESARA. NESARA has been discussed on radio on the Jeff Rense program. NESARA people often hold public protests and show up at other groups' protests, (see [6] for an image of a NESARA protester standing next to Ralph Nader, also [7] and that entire page for more), have carried out expensive truck billboard campaigns in Washington DC ([8] for images, and see "The Trucks" [9] for more detail and verification that they're not photoshopped images). They also hold protests outside the world court in The Netherlands (see [10] for the images of these protests - yes, the site is crazy, I'm posting the link for the images). They frequently send postcards to the world court, and to members of congress - one congressman, John Shimkus, had to point out in his newsletter to constituents that it was a scam [11]. Although Snopes.com doesn't have a NESARA page, other sites about urban legends do [12] [13]. Journalist John Gorenfeld (who has previously been published on wired.com and salon.com) recently put an article on his webpage about NESARA called "The Clinton Cargo Cult". [14]. I believe this addresses your criticism of unverifiability (discuss). - Sednar (talk · contribs)
• Actually I think the wikipedia proposed for deletion policy [15] makes clear that this article cannot be a candidate for being proposed for deletion, "articles that have been previously undeleted or discussed on AfD are clearly contested and are not candidates for {{prod}}." so I'll just remove it. - Sednar (talk · contribs)

Incorrect verbiage removed

I removed the following verbiage:

The Constitution also states that bills must be signed within ten business days of passage by Congress, or they automatically become law if Congress is currently in session. According to this, it would not be possible for Clinton to sign the law seven months later.

Under Article 1, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, the passage of a bill by Congress does not start the running of the ten day period during which the President generally must sign a bill, etc.

Instead, the ten day period (actually, it's ten days excluding Sundays) begins running when the bill is presented to the President. This is traditionally done by physically delivering the signed copy of the bill (generally signed by the Speaker of the House and the Vice President of the United States, or by other congressional officials duly appointed for that purpose) to a designated employee of the White House or the Executive Office of the President. The date of presentment under Article I, section 7 is the date on which the ten day period begins to run. This has nothing to do with the date of passage.

I suspect (without doing a formal study of the matter) that Acts passed by Congress are generally presented to the President within a couple of weeks of passage, so the basic critique is still valid. You usually wouldn't have a Act passed by Congress with the Congress then sitting on it for months and months without presenting it to the President for signature. I'm not saying it's never happened, though.

Of course, the NESARA conspiracy theory itself is nonsense, and is based in part on misconceptions about how our political and legal systems work. Don't get me started. Yours, Famspear 20:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

In the nominated for deletion discussion, some people thought the facts in the article were not supported by reliable sources. I think they are, it's just a lot of reading required to find it, so I put the template on. I'm going to go through and try to change the wording of the article to make it more obvious, i.e., using phrases like "according to the Tacoma Tribune". If anyone sees a particular fact you think isn't sourced anywhere, please put a citation needed tag. - Sednar 08:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the sourcing is more then adequate now - in fact the sources could probably use a little pruning to reduce redundancy but I'd prefer someone else do that. - Sednar 07:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone speak Japanese?

Apparently there is a book about NESARA but it's in Japanese, if anyone who can translate is interested in updating the article with information about this[16]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sednar (talk • contribs) 07:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Suzanne Ward & Matthew Books on NESARA

Hiya

I just noticed this page about NESARA (National Economic Security and Reformation Act).

I was wondering why you it does not mention Suzanne Ward, the writer of the Matthew Books (http://www.matthewbooks.com)? Her fourth book, "Voices of the Universe" (ISBN: 0-9717875-4-9) has an entire chapter on NESARA. WIthin that chapter, she references the character "Dove of Oneness" (Shaini Goodwin) several times (Suzy appears to be supporting her message). There is also a reference to http://www.nesara.us at the end of the chapter. The Matthew Books, including thus one, are fairly well known, and have been translated into many different languages around the world.

A basic summary of the chapter (I cannot retype it for copyright reasons) is that NESARA was developed by "extraterrestrial" "light beings" for increasing spirituality on Earth, that the work of "Dove" is credible, and that the "Illuminati" is working to stop this, with help from "dark" "extraterrestrial" beings. Suzy also states that the actions of September 11, 2001 is an internal act of the US government (but that is talked about from other supporters of NESARA as well). She closes by saying that NESARA is part of the planet increasing to a "higher light density."

There is a "Special NESARA Edition" on her site at: http://www.matthewbooks.com/mm/anmviewer.asp?a=61&z=2 Doing a quick search will find more messages about it.

In addition, there are several references to NESARA in her "Messages from Matthew" section of her site (http://www.matthewbooks.com/mattsmessage.htm).

It would seem that given the popularity of her books and messages, and since she talks about NESARA, that you would have said something about it in your investigation.

Anyways, just wanted to inform you. Thank you.

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral way of describing something

I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with this one being renamed NESARA, but this article is about a conspiracy theory, and it wouldn't be notable if it weren't a conspiracy theory. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is complicated because it means both literally a hypothesis involving people coordinating and it also connotes that the hypothesis is unworthy of being taken seriously which is inappropriate to do especially in a neutral encyclopedia article's title. Titling something with "conspiracy theory", perhaps inadvertantly, is akin to choosing sides in any debate, it is inappropriately discrediting. All subjects in a neutral encyclopedia have to be presented neutrally. zen master T 23:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A little history on this article. I believe it was originaling called NESARA conspiracy theory to distinguish it from a legislative proposal called NESARA (as an acrnoym for something-or-other). This NESARA related to the theory that something like the other NESARA secretly passed Congress (possibly under Clinton), and the current President was refusing to administer it. This "NESARA" also provided for trillions of dollars to be distributed to the American people.

The "real" NESARA was found not notable, and merged here. Now, I have no objection to the article being renamed NESARA, but conspiracy theory needs to be in the lead. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My proposal only has to do with article titles, though please note how "conspiracy theory"'s secondary definition subtly connotes that a subject is unworthy of serious consideration. How about NESARA theory or NESARA is good? zen master T 23:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the name change to NESARA, whether or not your proposal goes through, but WP:RM seems the appropriate venue for this, particular, article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not object to the proposed name change, and I think editors Zen-master and Arthur Rubin have highlighted both sides of the problem. I don't think you could properly completely delete all uses of the term "conspiracy theory" in Wikipedia in places where the term denotatively describes the "thing being described" in an accurate way. On the other hand, the connotative sense of the term "conspiracy theory" is very negative in the minds of many people, so its use should be tempered to avoid appearing to "take sides."

I believe I've had this discussion at least once in an article where, if I'm recalling correctly, another editor objected to a reference to a particular author as having promulgated a "conspiracy theory" when, in fact, that author had actually used the word "conspiracy" (I think, maybe even in the title of his book). If the author promulgating a theory specifically uses the term "conspiracy," we in Wikipedia would be hard-pressed to justify deliberately not using the same term merely because it has a negative connotation.

Anyway, getting back to this article, I don't think leaving the title "as is" is causing much harm, but I do not object to the proposed change either. (How's that for a gutsy, politician-type stance?) Yours, Famspear 03:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly ok for any article to have a citation and mention that person A believes theory X to be a "conspiracy theory" but you can't do that in a title, Wikipedia article titles shouldn't choose sides in any debate. zen master T 04:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia content does not have to be neutral, and in fact it must contain opposing POV which are obviously far from neutral. It is only our manner of presenting the POV that must not appear to take sides. While most reasonable people will immediately be grateful to be forewarned by seeing a spade called a spade, there are people who don't consider the term "conspiracy theory" as absolutely negative, and they are even drawn to them and cultivate them. Let's face it, critical thinking is not universal or even desired by some people.....;-) If the title gets changed (and I see no reason to do so since so many reliable sources justify that name), then it should be identified as a conspiracy theory in the first (not second!) sentence of the lead, otherwise we are doing readers a disservice by (in violation of NPOV) editorially withholding well-sourced facts that are important for understanding the whole article. -- Fyslee/talk 05:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at 911 Truth Movement. Since the "truth" of the theory described in this article (which is, by the way a conspiracy theory, by definition) is highly debatable, should the word "truth" be removed from the title of the article? Is leaving the word "truth" in the article an example of improper "choosing sides"? Similarly, the idea that merely using the term "conspiracy" or the term "conspiracy theory" violates the Wikipedia rule on neutral point of view is problematic. Yours, Famspear 22:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In a similar way yes that is also POV. Though it seems there is a critical mass of editors that defend the title of 911 Truth Movement just as there appears to be an opposite critical mass of editors that defend conspiracy theory titled articles. Perhaps proponents of conspiracy theories are becoming wise to the connotative language problems with the phrase "conspiracy theory". zen master T 22:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I defend Truth Movement and conspiracy theory for the same reason—because that's what they're called. The fact that "Truth Movement" is a lie and "conspiracy theory" is accurate is irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think all "conspiracy theory" movements should learn about the negative connotative definition of the phrase. zen master T 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think calling it "truth movement" would violate WP:NPOV if anything would, except that that's what it is called. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I call that the noun exception though technically it's not neutral. zen master T 22:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should start a conspiracy theory truth movement. zen master T 02:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what the 9/11 Truth Movement is? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to renaming the page to NESARA, if only for the sake of abbreviation. But if we're talking about any text revisions, then in all our bending-over-backwards for the sake of objectivity and NPOV, let's not lose sight of the vital and obvious fact that there is absolutely not the slightest possibility that NESARA is real, and let's not pretend that there is. It is a conspiracy theory and a scam, and this article should be about the conspiracy theory and scam called NESARA. The possibility that it might be real is, in fact, not worthy of serious discussion. That is not just my subjective point of view, it the objective truth. - User:Sednar

I just don't want Dr. Barnard's work to get trashed by the NESARA cultists, so please do the truth a favor and do everything possible to keep Barnard's "National Economic Stabilization and Recovery Act" separated from attempts to modify the name of the original concept to Goodwin's fictitious "National Economic Secuirty and Reformation Act." inigmatus 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've done some cleanup and summarizing in the first intro paragraph. I think that was the messiest portion. Does anyone see anything else, or can the cleanup template be removed? -Sednar (talk · contribs)

It can be removed. I will remove it. inigmatus 18:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Using luisprada.com as a source

This site fails WP:SPS as it is a personal website for Luis Prada (as show by the public registration records). It consequently fails WP:RS and should not be used as a source.—Ash (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS isn't relevant here, because the cited Website doesn't discuss the thing we're pointing to, it is the thing we're pointing to. Waitak (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The entire site is a personal site for Luis Prada, the requirements of WP:RS have to be met and Luis Prada is not an established expert and the text is not about Luis Prada. I would have thought that this means that the site fails to meet Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources as I cannot see any way of confirming that the text quoted is an accurate reproduction of the original text. The general policy of WP:PROVEIT applies.—Ash (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)