It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Quareo, Google, and the NWO?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 10:57 PM
"We must meet the global challenge of the American giants Google and Yahoo," Chirac said in an address last week laying out his policy priorities for 2006.
[emph. added]

Some interesting things in that statement and article.
Chirac seems to be wanting to set himself up as an opponent of globalism.
Odd that he considers good things like google and yahoo as challenges.

Odd that he'd be urging his people to get together and 'beat google'. Google, while undoubtedly american, is still a private creation, it wasn't brought about by the efforts of the state, which is what chirac is trying to do here. Seems that his effort against globalism in general would be doomed to failure then if this is the route it wants to take. Look at bloated giants like Microsoft and MSN. They're still private, but they can't compete with google, so what hope can the french government have of it? If the ingenuity and desire to make a 'google killer' isn't there "naturally", how's government resolve, backing, and/or unding really going to make a difference? Is socialism chiracs answer to globalism?

I can see a certain logic here, but also a hefty dose of irony. Socialism is really something of an internationalist movement, so its odd that its being attempted here to work against globalism. There's also a definite nationalist idea here no? That 'we' have to stop this foreign world spaning threat, no? Dubiously ironic then that a frenchman is espousing a mix of nationalism and socialism. But lets not take an off handed parallel like that too far, and keep in mind that Chirac's big opponent is a man named LePenn, an actual nationalist.

It seems like the reaction to globalism is, well, just that, a reactionary political movement, almost a conservative one (just one wherein that which is trying to be conserved used to be progressive and radical). That the movement against globalism will probably not being something at all centralized, and that it will incorporate lots of different political ideologies, even when there is a contradiction.

Perhaps this contradiction is most stark in seeing labor unions come out against globalism.

I also can't help but feel that something like this has happened in the past. Consider that global trade and movement of people's and goods is only recently, in something like less than the last decade (from what I understand) reached the levels that it was at prior to World War One. And a lot of the political organizing at that time was anti-capitalist, anti-market, and something of a hodge podge of other political ideologies.

This is illuminating (couldn't go without an illuminati refernce) on the past insofar as it shows, perhaps, why things like fascim and communism can seem so similar, because of what they were reacting to and radicalising against.

How do some of you here see this fitting into the various NWO conspiracies? How much of the NWO as concept is organized and how much is just spontaneous and/or 'inevitable'? Is globalism in this light an accurate parallel to the NWO? Better than internationalist communism or world-wide fascism?

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 10:59 PM
Another article on the program

again touting it as an intended google killer. Who'd want to buy a program because its a 'google killer'? Why buy a product for a cause? Its like the old urge to 'buy american'. Why? American products often suck. People want to buy whats better, not what conforms to national(ist) identity or social(ism) bonds.


log in