NWO: Lets be serious here....

If it is about money, when you control the world you can have anything and everything anyway.

If it has been going on for a number of years, then what's the point? It's like trying to conquer a country but you'll be dead before it's been taken over. If the NWO is full of corrupt people, I doubt they would do something that's taking so long that not a lot of them living now will be alive by then. There's no point them wasting their corrupted minds to spend time taking over the world for someone else.

Took awhile to get back to this one. Mashup makes a good point, however he forgets that in the process of taking over the world slowly over several generations, the people perpetrating the takeover are themselves made more rich and powerful. Therefore their own personal greed and lust for power is satiated while building for what they may consider to be a "higher" calling. Just a thought.

ive recently come to conclude the new world will consist of privated corperatized security contractors bassically policing every piece of glorified NWO corperate infrastructure on the globe. multi national networking systems.

[edit on 4-12-2005 by sturod84]

and if (thats a big if) they have attained a sort of underground infrastructure with the ET's they have raised substantial ammounts of technological resourcfullness that will give rise to underground governments in every country of the world one at a time. increasing technological out put to incrementally quantifying the worlds militaries into network of logical communications, stiffeling all former barriers creating information quasars!



<~~~ ET's

Personally, I feel the conspiracy is too unified for it to be real.

First problem is the generational difference, which I believe was mentioned before, in that supposedly, the NWO has been an agenda for many generations. A good example of how the opinions of one generation can differ greatly from the next is the mafia. During the middle of the 21st century we saw the mafia go through a turbulent "growth." newer dons where doing things that were outright unthinkable to the older dons.

Another example of this is the constitution; Americans have a document that clearly objectifies the will of its founders. Yet today, the constitution must be interpreted. Moreover, the president has to be careful who he nominates because they don't want people to be too liberal in their interpretation.

The U.S. and the mafia are good examples that trans-generational policies don’t work. Once the supervising party leaves, things change.

Second... the rule of thumb with a secret is that the less people know about it, the better. There is no way one person could be orchestrating it. A council, or member body is more likely to be pulling the strings of the nwo due to the fact that many facets have to be monitored in order to make it work.

Having it run by a multiple person committee that is subject to disagreements and personal dislikes across a multi-generational platform seems to me unlikely if not impossible to keep a coherent and unchanging "goal"

Then there is also logistics. By logistics, I mean money. Looking at 9-11 and how the republicans have been running the country, I tend to believe this is a move towards fascism more so than the NWO. The U.s. policies seem geared more towards scratching corporation’s backs, then handing the U.S. to the NWO

That’s my opinion anyway

I don't know whether anyone on this forum has ever come up with a definition of "new world order" which most people here can accept.

Certainly, when President Bush came up with his phrase, I think he was talking about an order of westernized, democratized, free-marked countries in the Near East a la Turkey, which would be amenable to internationalism and trade, which means, among other things, a stable source of petroleum for us and the rest of the First World. I certainly don't have any problem with that. If you believe in a "new world order' being just that, what's your objection?

There are a few other comments I'd like to make, gleaned from what I've read.

First, I don't buy any of this "secret bloodlines' stuff; there's simply no real evidence for it. And in the few cases where you did have rulers of different countries who were related to each other, what was the result? King Edward of England referred to Kaiser Wilhelm II (correctly) as "cousin Billy" and both were related to Nicholas and Alexandra. Yet these cousins, members of the same bloodlines, practically destroyed their respective countries fighting against each other during the time period 1914 - 1918 in what was probably the stupidest and most horrific war in history.

Second, I take issue with my esteemed colleague Skadi the Evil Elf, who says:



History shows the opposite to be true. In just about every case in history, countries which expanded to a point where there were significant differences in race, religion, language, culture, or mores fell into disrepair and ultimately collapsed. Countries which had a unified population did not.

Think about if for a minute. Most countries expand (either through conquest or assimilation), and then, as a result if internal dissensions, get into trouble.

In only one case that I can think of there was an Amerind Pagan culture invaded and "conquered" by White European Christians. Within a hundred years of so, the races and religions combined into a synthesis and the resulting country (which, of course, is Mexico) has been politically and culturally pretty stable for almost a century.

Look at Japan. One race, one language, and one culture. Absolute stability (outside of political coonflicts among noble families) for 800 years until a new religion (Buddhism) invaded and fought for supremacy with the 'aboriginal' belief (Shinto). Horrible conflicts for a couple of centuries, until the Japanese adopted them both (marry as Shinto, bury as Buddhist) and here we go -- another 900 years of a racial, religious, cultural, and mores unified country until the advent of Commodore Perry in 1857.

Look at Canada. Stable, democratic, 'civilized'. laid back -- yet threatening to break up into two (or three) countries because of language!

From an historical point of view, "diversity" is a failure, regardless of what lip service we pay to it here in politically-correct America. You want a 'melting pot'? No problem! But diversity, despite its dynamism (and yes, I am bilingual, like many of my fellow Arizonans), is a recipe for long-term disaster. Anyone here heard of "la Raza"? Do you know what it means in Spanish? Have you ever googled "MEChA" (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan"?

What I do agree with Skadi on is the fact that the bigger the government, the greater the chances of it taking away our individual freedoms. This is the main reason why I consider the UN to be a danger that we should get out of.

In the long run, though, I don't think we really have much to worry about. There's no Huge Bilder-Burger or Egyptian Mormon Masonic Cabal Meeting in the Deepest Basements of the International House of Pancakes behind all the warring thugs who make up our respective coutries' governments.

And I don't think tha we're going to merge into sume Uber-nation, since we're simply too different for that to work.

I do think we will see more free trade a la NAFTA and, hopefully, a move to a free-market economy, which is great.

But the real problem isn't the Fourth Reich conspiracy; it's why, despite ten generations of players and coaches, the #$%&*)&)(*_%$@ Arizona Cardinals can't even break .500!

define definition.



how about, the dismantling of north american demockracy being a bad way to start a world demockracy? how about, many countries having their own way of doing things(it's called 'culture'. something that the nwo wants to put into a giant meat grinder to make a world monoculture).

what's the problem with that? well, there is a certain gekko that reproduces by cloning itself. if a transmittable fatal disease hits one gekko, they all die.



can you show me this no real evidence? i mean you said there was no real evidence, and then gave a perfect example of the modus operandi of the bearers of the sang grael.
did you know bush can be traced back to the egyptian kings bloodline? and he's related(cousin?) to the queen of england(they even share a huge joint bank account that they use to transfer ill gained cash through(source, sherman skolnick))



so, then, this fabulous world wide demockracy which would be so wonderful, would require everyone to drop their silly old cultures and languages and speak the PROPER language, english? some things are better left unsaid when you are trying to deny ignorami.



'civilised' in quotes? nice.
canada has been threatening to break in two since the battle on the plains of abraham, where the french were defeated by the english.



if there is no NWO, you would be an excellent candidate to start one. i live in perhaps the most culturally diverse city in the world(toronto), and i assure you, it's no failure.



but not the recently grotesquely bloated dept. of homeland security? would you be insulted if i said i think your a little farsighted?



have it your way. where's the beef? the fact is, once a year, the bilderbergers(the world's most rich and powerful) get together and have a secret weekend getaway where they discuss how they will shaft the peons over the course of the next year. the CFR meets all the time, the WTO is always open, bohemian grove isn't just a frat club, the G8 meetings are not representative of a free and open society(like they should be according to the SUPPOSED mores of the member countries' charters and whatnot), and the list goes on.



hey! we agree on something! a toast to you! it won't work. try and convince the morons upstairs, now, who will be trying to do it anyway.



not 'free'. not 'great'.



yes. it is.



[edit on 4-12-2005 by billybob]

NWO.

Good or bad?

Utopian or realistic?

Posters on this thread are pointing the good and bad sides of NWO.

Let's say that everything goes well, and we achieve prosperity and real equality among ourselves.
Wouldn't this be boring?

And one more thing. This society will become society with no more secrets.
Can you live in the wold with no secrets? Is this even possible to achieve?

Cheers
yanchek

Remember people, every form of Utopian is a concensus theory. Be it functionalist or Marxist, they all in the end force one view point onto the people at the expense of free-will which is never a good thing.

They will always result in a system of stagnation and discrimination. We need to allow for change, for society to shift and for people to create laws and for people to shape deviance, not society and the State.

There is no specific, organized, traditional, monolithic, longstanding, secret-society "conspiracy" to lead us to the New World Order.

Rather, there is a relatively close-knit, but variable, network of people who simply have more money and/or power than the rest of us, and they are members of the same clubs and foundations and councils and organizations. They talk and argue and gladhand each other and make and break alliances in order to promote their own interests, which are often, though not always, mutual interests. As seekers of wealth and power, they at least tend to agree on any idea that centralizes that wealth and power in their few hands. This protects them from the potential depradations of having too many newcomers in their ranks, and just makes it easier for them to manipulate that wealth and power. This dynamic, when viewed from the outside, makes it appear as if they're deliberately conspiring toward one world government, while the truth is that, while that's certainly a goal that many if not most of them would support, it's not central to their machinations. They're simply trying to centralize wealth and power as much as possible to make it easier for them to avail themselves of it.

The "New World Order" is like Wal-Mart. It doesn't have to arise by design-- the human tendency to do things the easiest and most convenient way will bring it about anyway.


The fundamental problem with one world government is illustrated by the qualified statements that have already been posted on this thread-- that such a government would be okay so long as it's done right, is responsive to the will of the people, has limitations placed on it, does the right things, doesn't abuse its power...

One world government wouldn't have to do any of these things. As the exclusive and unchallenged power in the world, they could, and therefore would, do absolutely whatever they wanted with impunity.

People don't climb to positions of power in order to do nice things for everyone else. They climb to positions of power because they're driven to do so by their sociopathic desire to wield that power over others for their own gain and glory. The only thing that even begins to protect us from the machinations of these power-drunk scumbags is all the other power-drunk scumbags who are competing with them. As it stands, the power-drunk scumbags in the US, for instance, have to at least try to appear to be better than the power-drunk scumbags in, say, Iraq. Under one world government, they wouldn't have that sort of competition, and could simply do as they please, since we would have nothing to which to compare them, and no recourse to their power-mongering.

Billybob says:


A definition is a short phrase that people agree upon which describes a situation or thing. For example, here are several definitions of “NWO’:

NWO: A global corporate fascist state
NWO: A global society under a Caliph with Shari’a as the guiding law and light.
NWO: A global society where each nation has unique laws and culture but shares basic beliefs, such as democracy, equal rights for people, free-market economics, and an abnegation of war.

These, of course, are only three definitions, all different, yet all valid. Since you have not chosen to share with us what your definition of “NWO” is, I can’t very well argue it with you -- or anyone else.



I am not in favor of dismantling any ‘demockracy’. I certainly would be against any “NWO” which takes away my right to choose my own culture-group, administrators, etc. This is why, if I were pushed to accept a definition of “NWO” which I could live under, I would pick the third of the examples above.



Well, you still haven’t formally defined “NWO”, but I seem to think that you look at it as something other than the third of the examples above. I would certainly be against an entire world sharing a mono-culture, but, as I mentioned in an earlier post, different religions, languages and other items, including race, mores, and even physical height, tend to divide a society, usually to its detriment.



I assume you’re discussing Bynoe’s Gecko, but the facts are quite different from what you state. While I do agree with you that monoculture can lead to rapid transmission of endemic diseases, I cannot see any culture (being made up of inherently different humans) ever becoming so static as to succumb to an outside disease, whether political or physical. Indeed, I’d say the chances of societal (or even species) extinction is much more possible given the present state of affairs, where I will prove that I love God more than you do by decapitating you on television.



Of course I can’t show you “no real evidence” just like you can’t show me absolute proof that I’m not really the Long Lost King of France. If you come up with an assertion which no one else buys, it’s up to you to come up with the evidence that what you’re saying isn’t rubbish.



No, and neither can you. Sherman Skolnick (whom, for what it’s worth, I consider a complete fraud and fool) says this is so in one of the books he’s hustling, but where is his evidence?



Can you say “René Lévesque”, boys and girls?



As a matter of fact, I would, and I am. I do not like your rather smarmy personal attacks, and I suggest you stop them. If you are incapable of discussing things in a rational and courteous manner, find someone else to talk to.

And for what it’s worth, I consider the homeland security outfit as much of a danger to my freedom as the IRS or the UN.



No argument that rich and powerful people tend to get together to work on items of shared interest. But that’s a long way from an incipient ‘new world order’, given these same organizations’ complete failure of having ever implemented one during the years they’ve been in business.



That’s your opinion, not mine.

Exactly.

Wow... umm... jeez.... uh........

Thanks!

i say, define definition, because words are fuzzy. your definition? my definition? the dictionary definition?

how much do the definitions have to differ before they become different definitions?

i think boblaotse said it pretty well, except that walmart IS the nwo, and all these freetrade agreements are the nwo, and religion is the nwo, 'the new age' is the new world order, and 'atlantis' is the new world order, and the 'old boys club' is the nwo, and the new world order has been running the world overtly since the first world war, AT LEAST.

yes virginia, there is an nwo, and we ALL know the definition.

I find it hilarious that people I talk to who are smart and open minded and willing to admit corruption and the negagtive, flagrant, reckless wielding of power of a few people working towards global government think that this act of world unity will be a utopia. I try to get them to realize that if the power structures now are negative, then how are they going to become heavenly by the time it is global.

no wars they say!

only because a world army will have no countries to fight, just civilian uprisings.

I don't think there is a valid argument in the fact that some think that these people would be unable to think on a long term scale. Even an evil scum bag would think of their young ones, even if it is only for selfish family legacy reasons. Like a previous poster mentioned, it's not like they are being righteous by planning something they will not be alive to see come into fruition. They make themselves and those around them rich and powerful while they are at it.

the thing I have trouble getting past with the illuminati/nwo scenario is that let's say the CEO board of the NWO consists of 50 people at the most. The infighting would be horrendous, and you'd think it would have disbanded a long time ago to become competing factions, but on the other side of that:

Maybe that is why you hear multpile countries leaders mentioning the term NWO, the CEO's work together but any of them will take the oppurtunity to get the upper hand if they can get it.

I wouldn't say that I find it hilarious, but I've seen and wondered at the same thing.

It's like the partisans who decry the "abuses" of the current government (or the former one, or the one before that, or whichever), then, in the next breath, speak of the things that they think the government should control or limit or outlaw. As far as I can tell, they don't actually have any problem with the government being oppressive, so long as it's somebody else that's being oppressed.

The simple truth, as has been demonstrated over and over, is that the more power a government has, the more it will use that power to oppress the people. And there's no government that could possibly have more power than a one world one.

Okay, the New World Order sounds like a good thing, & theoretically it is a good thing, on paper at least. The problem with it is, when it goes from paper, to actually making it happen, the people who hold the power corrupt it. It's been seen throughout all of the Worlds history.

Power corrupts, & absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you've seen any of My comments on here, you'll understand what I'm saying. Having a New World Order, or One World Government, is not a good thing, because only the people with power have the power, & we as citizens will have to bow down & be slaves eternally to these people. They call all of the shots, not us.

Are you telling Me, you like when the FCC tells you, that you can only listen to certain words on the radio, or view certain images on TV? I sure as Hell don't. See, this is where good parenting comes in...& the Federal Government, or NWO when it comes to it's ulitimate goal of total power, needs to step out. I do not want a governing body to tell Me how to raise My kids, or how to live My life. When I grew up as a kid, My parents always knew where I was, always knew who I was with, & always knew what I was up to, that's called being a resposible adult.

If you're listening to the radio, & something comes on that offends you, turn the station, or turn it off. What the Hell gives you the right to tell everyone else what they can & can't listen to? The same goes for the eventual NWO rising from the ashes of a 2nd Civil War in America. I just used the FCC as an example of one of the NWO's governing bodies over the masses.

By the FCC, or whoever else it may be, telling you that you can't listen to something, you take away a parents right to show their children the difference between right & wrong. To show their kids the difference between good & evil, the difference between socially accepting of other races & racial ignorances that are socially bred into society.

You must learn how to raise your kids, & not let the TV be the babysitter like in the movie "The Cable Guy", I was raised like this, but I also picked up books to read. I had a 13 inch, black & white babysitter, but I knew enough to read a book or two along the way. I love to read now, can't get enough of books, & then I turn around & spread the knowledge I learned to other people.

Do you know what they want you to learn, the New World Order? How to be a better slave, how to be a better servant, & how to bow down to anything & everything they say.

Things like OnStar, Sirius, & XM radio, will be turned into ways to track "terrorists", those who are supposed to be a threat, because they want to stand for their individual rights & freedoms. The "Amber Alert" signs will also be used for it, that's already been proved how successful it can be used to find a little lost girl, what's to stop them from turning around & using it to find one "Lone Wolf Terrorist", like a Timothy McVeigh? Sorry, he was a patsy, just like Lee Harvey Oswald, plain & simple.

As soon as I heard about the OK City bombing, I knew they were trying to tie him to being a "terrorist", so they could find Lone wolf Terrorists. Terrorism is such a broad ranged definition, it isn't just an Arab with a towel on his head & a bomb in his backpack, at least not by the governments definition. The definition will be expanded upon, to include rebels against a tyrannical government, but first it will start with something simple, like a computer hacker, or a protest group who gets a little unruly, or even a little old black woman who won't go to the back of the bus like Emma Parks, or a man standing up & preaching racial unity like Martin Luther King Jr. See, they only want unity, under their thumb. They don't want society to unite without them controlling society. That would leave them powerless.

This is their "straw adversary", the man who would fight for his freedoms, will be defined as a terrorist.

The man who doesn't want to be just like everyone else & follow all of societies rules. I am not saying doing something heinous like bank robberies, or child molesting, I'm talking about one simple man who disagrees with the government & stands up on his soapbox, telling it to other people out loud. He will be seen as a troublemaker, labeled as troublesome & unruly. When he doesn't stop, then it will turn even worse. The lable of "terrorist" will be applied to him.

Is this what you want, in the New World Order? To not be able to stand up & speak his mind against a corrupt government? I have nothing to hide, but there's something to be said about privacy. Why doesn't the government want you to have privacy? Because if you can keep secrets, you can rebel, & they don't want that. Look up some of My other replies on here. I'm spelling it all out in black & white.

History is written by the victor, not the vanquished, & the vanquished have long been unheard. Listen to both sides of the story, analyze the data, & you will see the whole truth.

It is better to die a rebel than to live a slave, at least you live & die free.





[edit on 5-12-2005 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

[edit on 5-12-2005 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

It seems to me that you people are arguing about nothing at all.

The title of this thread is "Let's be serious here..." and called for a reasoned discussion of something called "the NWO"-- without even saying what "the NWO" was. No one seemed to think it important to ask "well, what NWO are you talking about? Everyone just seemed to agree that "the NWO" is whatever they happened to dislike and fear.

I certainly agree that some versions of "the NWO" can be Bad Things, but so far, none of you have even said what "the NWO" is. In a previous post, I suggested possible definitions of "NWO" which I shall reiterate (with some amplification) here:

NWO: A global corporate fascist state
NWO: A global socialist state
NWO: A global Islamic society under a Caliph with Shari’a as the guiding law and light.
NWO: A global society where each nation has unique laws and culture but shares basic beliefs, such as democracy, equal rights for people, free-market economics, and an abnegation of war.

I suggested that one of the more vocal critics of "the NWO" to tell me his version of what "the NWO" was; if he were to do so, I might find myself in compete agreement with his fears.

He did not do so, except to imply, in an almost incoherent response, that everything was "the NWO".

Indeed, it seems to me that none of you have even tried to define "the NWO".

Maybe everyone (except me) knows what "the NWO" means, but I don't think that's so. I believe that the lefties afraid of "the NWO" see it as a free-trade, laissez-faire capitalist society; the righties see it as a socialist one. Racial apologists of competing stripes see it as the White Man's Club or the Club to Eliminate the White Man. Competing nationalists see it as The Insidious Plot to Destroy of the United States or the Insidious Plot to Make The United States the New Evil Empire...

... and so on.

In other words, you can all have a good time bashing "the NWO" because it all means what you individually want it to meean -- "the Boogey-man" -- and nothing else.

What is the point of even having a discussion if no one can agree what it is you're talking about?


[edit on 5-12-2005 by Off_The_Street]

That is because the NWO is a vague concept at the best of times. It may mean different things in the finer details to different people, but I think at the broad level everyone is in agreement that we are talking about the dystopian vision not the utopian one.

To me the NWO is the one-worlders who want a global country club for themselves and a fascist world for the rest of us. Anything beyond that I am unwarare of, ie) religous/racial prejudicial agendas. I think when it all comes down to it they don't care who they have to step on.




I find technology fascinating(although personally I find the possiblility of natural and mind based technologies more appealing) and i am not a luddite but I had the same discomfort with onstar type programs. In and of themselves they are fine but I can't help but think these 'illuminated ones' will have a field day with them. Another thing they do besides give more excuse for terrorist hunters is create people less and less independant and more and more useless. I just started training for a minacs call centre, the outsourcing company that also has the onstar contract. A big company hires a big company to train people with specialised knowledge to make other people's lives easier, while making everyone more dependant on the system in the process. Look at New Orleans, I don't see us as a functioning civilisation when no one can take care of themselves in a crisis, no coming together of the community, only the surfs looking up with praying hands to the government lords to save them. It would happen in any city, in the US or Canada.

jenkwater says:



So it seem to me that just about everything you don't like -- whether it's a capitalist society, an islamofascist state, or anything which has one group of undetermined people which have stuff and you and others which don't -- is "NWO".

What's the difference between your "NWO" and the way things are now?