It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I am pro-New World Order and pro-globalism & anti-separatism, anti-nationalism and anti-patriotism

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
This is my opinion since I was looking into the "Georgia Guidestones" yesterday and found that many conspiracy people are "against" what the Georgia Guidestones say. With many (conspiracy) people saying the messages are "anti-christian" and promote globalism, ergo they promote the NWO...and ergo the Georgia Guidestones are evil, need to be torn down.

What a sad world we live in!

Some often on the conservative side of things say they are anti Globalism, and I say straight out I am PRO globalism and even, if you will, for a world government. (Of course, a lot of water has to run down the Mississippi until such will actually happen or would be accepted).

The recent events in Scotland just made that entire topic come up again...

When EVER has nationalism, patriotism, separate states, borders, separate government and separate political systems benefited ANYONE? Not at any time, ever.

In fact that we have borders and different "nations" is the main reason for wars and violence. We see, say, Russians or other nations still as "enemies", based on not more but the fact it's another nation and (allegedly! lol!) another political system. Of course it's not. Do you seriously believe that there is a logical reason why we should still see Russia or China even as enemies, now since it's obvious that even those states are as capitalistic as it even gets! So obviously...it cannot be a question about "capitalism against communism"...the reason why we still see Russia or China as "enemies" is simply made-up BS, it does not exist.

Separatism..uhm..who profits from it? GOVERNMENTS. Because a "new world order" would of course mean the collapse of many governments. And of course the elite of many governments will never give up their power.

People say they are against a "new world order"....as if in previous times everything on this planet WAS in order and a "new order" would be a bad thing. In previous times, and still today, there is NOTHING "in order". If this world needs something it IS a "new world order".

You would also not get things in order by creating MORE states, more nations, MORE political systems, more borders. Haven't you learned anything? It's the reason for most conflict. Patriotism/Nationalism are outdated concepts which have no justification today, in my opinion.

Imagine a hypothetical world government, a "New World Order". Imagine there is really only one central government for the entire planet.
Now what are the disadvantages supposed to be?

You will have a government NEVERTHELESS. Whether you are a part of one country with a government amongst hundred nations with separate governments, why would you assume that globalism, a NWO with only one government would be worse? (I in fact would see it as an advantage since things can likely be managed better with ONE government. Same laws everywhere.)

Do you THINK that globalism and sacrificing governments for a "NWO" would cause a disadvantage for the individual, that, say, someone from the UK, from Spain, from the US or elsewhere would "lose their identity" or their pride about their home-land..BECAUSE there would be a new world order with only one government?

Asked differently: You think your individual country, even if it is as tiny as Austria, Scotland, Luxembourg whatever NEEDS its own government because without it, any Spaniard, Brit etc. would not have a reason to be proud about their heritage anymore? RIDICULOUS.

What has the government to do with this? Nothing whatsoever. A German will still be a German, a Brit still be a Brit with all their culture, history and uniqueness. Do you think that a single hypothetical world government, a NWO, would erase all individual culture and that it would lead to people losing their identity? (Whereas this "identity", this "national pride" is a nonsensical thing anyway, one of those outdated concepts which very real only creates conflict and troubles).

So, yes, I am pro globalism, I am pro "NWO" (oh no!!) ...but of course this is still very, very far in the future since our planet is not even remotely ready for it. The vandalism of the guidestones IMHO is evidence for this. SOME people are against globalism but THINK an intolerant world with more "patriotism", more religion, less "reason" and more nationalism would be better. ABSURD. It would not. It has been proven throughout centuries and millennia it doesn't work, this world in-fact NEEDS a "new world order" since nothing IS in order right now.

edit on 9/20/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
if we are ever to join a galactic federation, we have to possess the capacity to act/speak as one planet at any given moment. even if that only means a one world government for the entirety of one hour out of every five decades.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

If you would be so kind, could you help me to better understand how you really feel about this?

Would you say that you are fine with one set of rules for every person on the planet to live by?

Would you say that you are fine with one group of "leaders" having total control of the entire word's economics?

Would you say that you are fine with one religion for every person or the planet to believe?

Would you say that you are fine with one set of social customs for every person to follow?

These are but a few of many questions which I have, so I will await your answers to these before I ask more. I would not want to keep you from having time to respond to others as I am sure there are others who may also have some questions about your positions.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

The term infinite diversity in infinite combinations springs to mind. If indeed there were ever to be a one world government I imagine our society would stagnant and decline. Due to the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely, individuality and freedom of choice are hardly going to flourish under any ordered one world nation. But that's just my two cents.

edit on 20-9-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Okay john Lennon, so you get your global government, but what will your government do when I want to secede and start my own country? Because I don’t want to follow your laws or pay your taxes?

There will always be war/disagreements/violence. The only way to achieve a total global government is by conquering.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
What levels of authoritarian/totalitarian bureaucracy will this take?

How many prisons and internment camps would be necessary?

They already have the worldwide central banking system.

What's next?






posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

i dont see why uniting the upper most echelons for representative purposes would require a global penitentiary system, with or without internment camps.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Sure! Sounds like rainbows and unicorns to me!

But just how will "they" choose to eliminate 80% of the world population? Hmmmm, who knows, maybe this ebola outbreak might prove to be just the tool they need to wipe us all out?

Then for those that are left, eat out of their hands or die?

Be careful what you wish for, because those elitists who come up with these plans are most certainly doing so with out coming close to having any compassion or benefits for the common man/woman......



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I get what you're saying in theory, but...

Yes, a one world government could do away with the division that causes wars, such as different ideologies and religions. But given that all governments currently in power have proven corrupt and definitely not representative of the people's wishes what if... the end result is something like North Korea????

Is this not why we promote individual values? So we have alternative models for when the sht. We are not evolved enough as a species to put greed and corruption aside, especially since those qualities drive people in politics while the rest of the population, singing Kumbya, are sitting ducks.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
worlders, pfft.

when ever i read a op or any post such as this, the first thing that comes to mind is a bunch of folks standing around in a circle, holding hands and singing
Kum Ba Yah.

one world government goes against freedom, in as much if i don't like your government your not free to move where it is not the government in control.

there is good government and bad, there are some that have both, take the U.S. for example. there are things that are great then there are thing that suck.
edit on 20-9-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
The real issue is that any world government that isn't created by including everyone will by necessity discriminate against those who aren't. That's why so many are against the western world. The USA is founded on freedom for all and over two hundred years later it still discriminate against most of the country's citizens and most of the world.

How would a global government founded by primarily westerners ever going to be anything besides Nazi utopia?



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Who gets to be in charge? Who gets to decide who's in charge?



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage
Who gets to be in charge? Who gets to decide who's in charge?


The ones with the abilities to maintain an authoritarian/totalitarian bureaucracy.

"Wars" would become localized police actions.




posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage
Who gets to be in charge? Who gets to decide who's in charge?

I was about to ask the same thing? So elected person/s from each country/state perhaps? like IS, for feck sake, their member/s will be running around dismembering all those NWO colleagues who disagree with them

Lovely idea NWO..one world government, but who gets to be top dog? you always need one of those puppets. Would it do away with the spy agencies? I don't think so, we know now that the NSA/NCTC... blah blah are not just spying for the government, they have made it a commercial enterprise for a 'few' bob on the side. Shi'te you could go on like I'm doing for ever, and that's just about as long as it will take to form a one world government.
edit on 20-9-2014 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Tell me this:

How will these people be able to adequately make decisions for me? Or you? Or someone in Timbuktu?

How will those decisions be humane and just for all three of us? What happens when those decisions work for two of us, but override what's good for the third?

What happens if there should ever be an event that causes widespread breakdown in the world economy? How will areas suddenly disconnected cope?

You understand that when it comes right down to it, the best formula for survival is localism and self-determination at the local level which flies in the face of centralization at any level?



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: teamcommander
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

If you would be so kind, could you help me to better understand how you really feel about this?

Would you say that you are fine with one set of rules for every person on the planet to live by?

Would you say that you are fine with one group of "leaders" having total control of the entire word's economics?

Would you say that you are fine with one religion for every person or the planet to believe?

Would you say that you are fine with one set of social customs for every person to follow?

These are but a few of many questions which I have, so I will await your answers to these before I ask more. I would not want to keep you from having time to respond to others as I am sure there are others who may also have some questions about your positions.


In my OP I did not imply that only one religion would be "allowed". Even in a scenario where we only have one gvt (which admittedly at THIS point seems extremely utopical)..why should individuals not be allowed their faith? As said, this is NOT in my "proposal", HOWEVER the elimination of religion *within* politics would. But this is an entirely different topic.

Of course, also, at THIS point, "one set of leaders" without a question would imply lots of problems...this is also why I say that my utopian idea of a world gvt is very far in the future. I don't deny that.

But if I were to speculate, THIS is a matter of how it is implemented. ONE single government is possible. I am NOT talking about a tyranny and not about a dictatorship. Would you say that a "united government" would be impossible? It could comprise of members of different cultures and "nations".

Also...if you're opposed to the idea...why would you say that your (or anyone else's) government would be "better" than a hypothetical one-world government? (Or asked differently, what is the worst which would happen that you think we all need separate governments?)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

The term infinite diversity in infinite combinations springs to mind. If indeed there were ever to be a one world government I imagine our society would stagnant and decline. Due to the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely, individuality and freedom of choice are hardly going to flourish under any ordered one world nation. But that's just my two cents.


We already HAVE "absolute power" governing us, each nation has its very own "absolute power". In fact, THOSE gvts actually thrive of the fact there are different nations and governments...go even so far as to lie to us there are differences such as the lie that China and Russia is still communist : ) Why would you think that ONE world-government would be worse than your current one?



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Sure! Sounds like rainbows and unicorns to me!

But just how will "they" choose to eliminate 80% of the world population? Hmmmm, who knows, maybe this ebola outbreak might prove to be just the tool they need to wipe us all out?



I am pretty sure you are referring to the first line in the guide stones. I am of course against any "elimination" of people. I also don't think that this line at the stones means any elimination.

HOWEVER, whether you want to accept this fact or not...a "limited" number of people would be beneficial. Do you think that our current over-population is a positive? It sure is NOT. Fact: Less people on this planet would be a good thing. (Obviously I don't have a solution how to create "less" people on a planet...I am talking about the principle here that less people are better than an overcrowded planet).



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

"We already HAVE "absolute power" governing us"

Hence the stagnation and decline regarding rather a few aspects of our society. And i wouldn't call it absolute power, just yet.


Only thing humanity seems to excel at these days is breeding like rabbits while devising new and interesting ways of destroying ourselves and surrounding environment. And that's while TPTB aka our Illuminati overlords remain in a shall we say convert capacity and operating from behind the scenes. Bringing about any One World Government that operates overtly in the open is not going to end well and most lightly with a whimper rather than a bang.
edit on 20-9-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: caterpillage
Who gets to be in charge? Who gets to decide who's in charge?


The ones with the abilities to maintain an authoritarian/totalitarian bureaucracy.



Because authoritarian/totalitarian regimes don't exist today? : )

I think a large, global government that would be controlled/observed by members of different "nations" has less a chance to become totalitarian. Because once differences (which are mostly subjective, irrational, emotional etc. anyway) FALL AWAY, there is no reason for a totalitarian regime. Saying: Separatism etc. would benefit totalitarianism more than a global government, IMHO.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join