Blow to the NWO: France votes NON!

Its nothing to do with the New Word Order , Europe will never be a united force the people who inhabit this so called Europe have different agendas that they can never agree upon , so the Eu is a dead duck.

Originally posted by iksmodnad
A global dictator is just paranoia,

i never said a 'dictator' did i?

it will most likely be ruled by a council of presidents and rulers from other countries all around the world that will vote on the issues.

errr did i say the select and un select few, i think i did. The next dictatorship wont be a figurehead but a faceless groupe of elitists. thanks mate you have just reasurred me that im right.

Originally posted by stumason

Anyway, whats so bad about the EU/NWO whatever? Why would it be so bad to have a one world government for example? Are you that racist you want to live on our piddly little island ignoring everyone else?

Here's my fear:

The only way a "world" centralized government could maintain control over a planet filled with people of different cultures, outlooks, and ideals; is to do it through totalitarian means.

We, as human beings, should be trying to find ways to limit the need for government, not making ourselves more reliant on it.

Originally posted by rustiswordz

Originally posted by iksmodnad
A global dictator is just paranoia,

i never said a 'dictator' did i?

it will most likely be ruled by a council of presidents and rulers from other countries all around the world that will vote on the issues.

errr did i say the select and un select few, i think i did. The next dictatorship wont be a figurehead but a faceless groupe of elitists. thanks mate you have just reasurred me that im right.

I wasn't talking to you directly but the whole group, I was simply stating my own theory. When I said "Point missed" it was in context to my own theory, not directing my post toward you, sorry if it sounded that way.

it will most likely be ruled by a council of presidents and rulers from other countries all around the world that will vote on the issues.

I have to disagree with the whole "select few" thing, I don't think the worlds leaders are dumb enough to isolate "non impotant parts of the world" in a one world government thats why In my opinion the idea of the one world government is logically debunked, just think about it.

[edit on 30-5-2005 by iksmodnad]

Heh, bye bye European Union.

Excuse me? We have witnessed many times, people find power and then find corruption. Secularists to religious leaders.

Unless I break a rule, do not tell me what to say. Especially when what I say has been witnessed.

The exact opposite has been witnessed too - people find power and do not find corruption. If you're going to make pseudoscientific claims about something as baseless as "man is evil by nature", then you should really back them up before doing so.

[edit on 31/5/05 by Yazman]

Well, Screw France and their french fries. Boycott all of there business transactions !

Don't forget to boycott these French business for advancing the technology as well as materials to Saddam in Iraq:
www.boycottwatch.org...

Peace Out !



[edited cut and paste, which has also been posted in another thread -nygdan]

[edit on 31-5-2005 by Nygdan]

French "non" to this version of Constitution is not a blow to NWO in any way.

NWO is still a covert group of people who rule the world by ruling the economy.
The Constitution doesn't affect their work.

The "no" on it means that the things will remain exactly the same like they are now at this very point in time. EU still exists, it is exactly the same like it was before the French vote. The French vote just temporarily stops a NEW thing to become a law, but it doesn't in any way affect things that ALREADY exist.

My guess is, they will wait till elections are over in France, Britain and Netherlands (so the Constitution cannot be used as an election leverage of the oposition to play on simplified emotions of people like national pride) then change a few bits and pieces and vote again.



As for the idea of NWO being good or evil...

I've seen a lot of religious people opose the NWO, but not for the right reasons and not the actual NWO that currently exists on this planet. The reason why many see united world in peace as evil, is because only Jesus can do that.
If anyone else tries to establish peace, he must have some other motives and he is the Anti-Christ, even if his actions have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anti-christ.
On the other hand, if you want to further an agenda with religious folk, all you have to do is say that you go to chuch every sunday, that Jesus blessed everything you do and nobody will ask any questions, even if your behaviour IS anti-christ (oposite of what Jesus did and aproved). It might help to tie in national pride with it too.

It is more difficult to manipulate non-religious folk, but that can be done by dumbing them down with TV and apealing to their sense of "patriotism".

Two perfect tools to control the people: religion and patriotism.

Note: no offence meant to INDIVIDUALS who are religious/patriotic and can still use their minds to question and opose decisions their leaders make.

Truthisoutthere,
is there really a need to post the same thing twice?

Originally posted by Yazman

Excuse me? We have witnessed many times, people find power and then find corruption. Secularists to religious leaders.

Unless I break a rule, do not tell me what to say. Especially when what I say has been witnessed.

The exact opposite has been witnessed too - people find power and do not find corruption. If you're going to make pseudoscientific claims about something as baseless as "man is evil by nature", then you should really back them up before doing so.

[edit on 31/5/05 by Yazman]

You should really step off your high horse, pal, as I do not recognize you as an authority of how to communicate.

As you seem to be needing a memory jogger, let's go back in history - just a small step back. Remember a little guy named Adolph? This little bugger wanted to rule the world and wanted no counter to his power. He was a bit on the rude side, wouldn't you say? As a matter of fact, there was another little fella on the other side of the world trying to do the same thing! As I recall, human rights weren't on his mind, either. Fortunately for the world, there were other powers still free from the control of those two loonies that we were able to stop them.

A little later, another type of government with another bunch of ruffians came about to show us how a totalitarian government could really lower the population level of some regions. Stalin is the most memorable of the ne-er-do-wells of that particular bunch, but I'm very glad that there were nations standing against them getting control of the world.

Now that we didn't have to travel too far back in history to give enough examples to show that people in power have a tendancy to develop God-Complexes, let's think of another angle of this dilemma; just who's form of government would you prefer? Your own, I'm sure. Well, no surprise. Not me, my government is a soup sandwich with the politicians out for themselves and the "law enforcement" becoming more authoritarian every day.
No, I'd say that the best way would be with the concepts written about by the Founding Fathers of the united states of America. You know; limited government, the people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all that stuff. It doesn't work too well, though, as it didn't take humans long at all to screww up this little experiment in society, and there's no way that such a concept would work in a world where tyranny and despotism is more the rule than not.

Originally posted by yanchek
This was only round one. Round two starts on 1. of June when Dutch have their referendum.

But, even if every other group voting votes 'yes' in overwhelming numbers, the constitution fails and doesn't go into effect. Every state voting has to ratify it, or else it doesn't go into effect. The french NO vote ends it.

There is some purpose in these other countries voting tho, maybe if there is otherwise broad support for it, then the thing can be edited and changed, and then submited for a new vote.

stumason
World War? Against who? Why? When? Eh?

This is actually an example of the 'good' of the 'nwo' (tho it seems silly to say, since the NWO is almost exclusively conceived of as a defactop evil global empire). European countries, like the ones in the EU, aren't very likely to go to war with one another as in the past. US States, too, aren't likely to organize armies and invade each other. The 'conglomeration' process, whats really just Globalisation writ large, has a definite positivie aspect to it. Image a Federated African Union, wherein there's one continental government that taxes the public and used that tax money to build Inter-State Highways, drain malarial swamps, and provides anti-viral aids treaments, and the like, rather than petty states that are constantly fighting each other and supressing internal mobs.

But again it seems strange to say 'good side of the NWO'. The NWO is almost exclusivley a Totalitarian World Dictatorship. We can talk about the ups and downs of globalisation, but the NWO? I mean, I guess there are good aspects to having the world population turned into industrial slaves *shrug*.

Do the NWO theories not come out of the US originally, where they are naturally sceptical of foreigners/UN etc?

Interestingly, and infinte knows more about this than I, but intersetingly the NWO was for a time concieved of as a Utopian Future State, I think thru HG Wells and the like, but this quickly became 'The Commies are going to Take Over the World", or, if one is a leftist, its 'The Fascists are going to Take Over the World.' "McWorld" is what people often used to derrogatively refer to extreme american-slanted globalistation, if we want to split hairs.

ThomasCrowne
the problem is, man is evil in nature. Give us a little power and we turn into tyrants. Power corrupts, total power corrupts totally.

But good men have been able to come along and correct that imbalance. Perhaps man isn't necessarily evil or good, but that Power itself is what can corrupt good men.

And don't think that your military will cut you some slack because they are your countrymen; it'll be the forces of another country that will "police" your nation.

Indeed, this is the "UN is the big step in the NWO" variation. Foreign Peackeepers patroling america, enforcing ultra-liberal far-leftist, 'internationalist' policy.

Infinite
you cant blame them seeings the world is turning in the direction of which these theories are becomng fact.

Another interesting aspect to this is that whenever 'internationalism' (ie The UN, the World Court, the World Bank, or Global Soviet Revolution, or Internationalist Communism) and globalisation (world development, WHO, international trade levels, free trade agreements) 'uptick', NWO fears also uptick. So when global trade was really high, before the world wars, and markets were integrating and opening, there was this concern about the NWO. Then, when the world wars destroyed that, and the cold war set it, it was that the soviets were going to to it, or the UN. And now, that, finally, global trade levels are starting to reach that of the pre-world war years, its back to the bankers and capitalist conception.

'Viva la France'

[Behind closed doors the bilderbergers plot some more]
Saying no to the constitution will only unhinge the tanks tracks temporarily, but its a two finger up yours salute to the elite. May Holland reply the same.

All you [dudes and dudettes] out there who want to be part of this wannabee superstate, where corruption is rampant and unelected officialsdictating to to us.

From the UK i say this, be friends with Europe and trade, but get the hell out of there.

[edit insult - nygdan ]

[edit on 1-6-2005 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by infinite
Truthisoutthere,
is there really a need to post the same thing twice?

Didn't realize I did this ?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by Yazman

Excuse me? We have witnessed many times, people find power and then find corruption. Secularists to religious leaders.

Unless I break a rule, do not tell me what to say. Especially when what I say has been witnessed.

The exact opposite has been witnessed too - people find power and do not find corruption. If you're going to make pseudoscientific claims about something as baseless as "man is evil by nature", then you should really back them up before doing so.

[edit on 31/5/05 by Yazman]

You should really step off your high horse, pal, as I do not recognize you as an authority of how to communicate.

As you seem to be needing a memory jogger, let's go back in history - just a small step back. Remember a little guy named Adolph? This little bugger wanted to rule the world and wanted no counter to his power. He was a bit on the rude side, wouldn't you say? As a matter of fact, there was another little fella on the other side of the world trying to do the same thing! As I recall, human rights weren't on his mind, either. Fortunately for the world, there were other powers still free from the control of those two loonies that we were able to stop them.

A little later, another type of government with another bunch of ruffians came about to show us how a totalitarian government could really lower the population level of some regions. Stalin is the most memorable of the ne-er-do-wells of that particular bunch, but I'm very glad that there were nations standing against them getting control of the world.

Now that we didn't have to travel too far back in history to give enough examples to show that people in power have a tendancy to develop God-Complexes, let's think of another angle of this dilemma; just who's form of government would you prefer? Your own, I'm sure. Well, no surprise. Not me, my government is a soup sandwich with the politicians out for themselves and the "law enforcement" becoming more authoritarian every day.
No, I'd say that the best way would be with the concepts written about by the Founding Fathers of the united states of America. You know; limited government, the people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all that stuff. It doesn't work too well, though, as it didn't take humans long at all to screww up this little experiment in society, and there's no way that such a concept would work in a world where tyranny and despotism is more the rule than not.

First of all, why are you telling me about Hitler and Stalin? There was no need to do that as I never disputed that people can do bad things. Let's not forget that Hitler and Stalin were dictators because this was their goal - neither of them EVER had aspirations of being "democratic and just leaders," so I suggest you find some new examples, because both of these men believed in what they did before they were ever in a position to do it.

What I did dispute is your saying that everybody defaults to doing bad things, which is simply not true. Saying "OH MY GOD HITLER AND STALIN WERE BAD" and applying those situations to the whole of humanity is a gross exaggeration and a stupid thing to do, the fact that those two people were the way they were when they had power is not a reflection on the human mind, it's simply a reflection on the way those particular people acted.

Just because one person acts a certain way once they attain power, this does not mean that every other person will act this way. You're exploiting a logical flaw to make your point - you can appeal to the majority all you want, but this does not make it true.

You're delving into the realm of philosophy and not science. There has never been evidence the human mind acts this way (Hitler and Stalin being dictators are not evidence of this because they consciously chose to do what they did, they were not 'corrupted by power') nor will there ever be because it's pure speculation based on the actions of the few "evil" men in history.

You should really step off your high horse, pal, as I do not recognize you as an authority of how to communicate.

I never claimed to be an authority on communication, nor do I recognise you as one. Don't bother to say things like that if their only purpose is to stir people up, because I never said anything with the intention of offending you, and if I did offend you I apologise, but I don't believe you're in a position to make accusations of arrogance when all I did was disagree with you.

[edit on 1/6/05 by Yazman]