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.


What's so bad about NWO?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on May, 14 2006 @ 04:26 AM
So what exactly is so bad about having an NWO? What's wrong with 1 world government? In some ways, having 1 world government would be a good thing think about it. Wouldn't that stop all wars and finally unite the earth? People say that having an NWO would mean that freedom would no longer exist but that is just untrue. How would freedom not exist? If anything, not only would it exist, but it would spread to the rest of the world as well.

posted on May, 14 2006 @ 05:51 AM
your right, at least IMHO.

trouble is, those that seek control of this NWO seem to be the ones that are the most corrupt, disinformative, and in some cases out right evil. granted us peacfull common folk probably would not get around to taking control of the world population anytime soon. the ones that are pushing for this global control, are the ones that want control, and they appear to have been struggling for this control for generations.

if a wold government is something that the working people of the planet want, then it is something that they sould speak up and ask for, otherwise when it is all over they are going to get want wanted but wish they never had it.

i dont know where you live, but here in canada i have to work 9 hrs a day, plus spend 3 hrs driving to and from work. my income goes to pay for taxes, energy, water,frood, shelter, transportation to and from work, and few entertaining luxuries from time to time. if i save for 50 years i will be able to afford to purchase a house out right, but since property value will rise many times more than my income over the next 50 yrs, it is more profitable for me to spend double the value of the property now on interest to a loan that is given by a bank. A bank; that is more powerfull than my government, is going to require me to establish credit before it can trust me with a loan large enough for a house. this will require me to take smaller loans at higher interest (high risk interest) in order to establish credit with a bank. so while spending money on financed purchases, i will notice that my savings per month has deminished considerably to the point where the down payment i have available by the time i have enough credit is practically valueless considering the amount will never touch the principle of the loan. oh well, there is always a time every 10-15 years or so where the bank will decide that people like me will less money and little credit finally deserve a home, so they will lighten the requirments needed and give out money and the tight budget people like me that rarely get to go on a good vacation can finally sleep under our own roofs. but while i sleep all i will be thinking about is " when are they going to raise the intrest rates" because if i dont lock it down at the right time, i could likely end up in a spot where i wont be able to pay my morgage and i will no longer own a roof. so much for a good night sleep.

here in canada, i dont do the things in life that i think i would enjoy. instead i have to learn to "play the game" or else i will end up to be what people here refer to as low lifes, bottom feeders, losers, and bums.

if the nwo plans to get rid of this jailed way of life, then i say bring it on. but it seems to me that this nwo had a lot to do with why life is wasted here the way it is.

posted on May, 14 2006 @ 06:18 AM
What if the leader or leaders of this One World Government weren't big fans of freedom, and felt a dictatorship was more their scene?
There'd be no alternatives.
There'd be no need for war because there's nothing left to conquer.
You know what they say about absolute power.

Ever played the board game 'Monopoly'?
When one person gets too rich, the whole balance of the game changes. The rich players goal is then to bankrupt everyone else out of the game. He/she is untouchable. The one on top prospers at the expense of those below who are without hope.
A One World Government could only work to the benefit of all if this was a perfect world and corruption didn't exist.
As this world is far from perfect and corruption is a reality, an Orwellian outcome could/would possibly be the result.

posted on May, 14 2006 @ 06:41 AM
The way it is being brought into place, or if you sit on the other side of the fence, is not being brought into place.

Get it over with, enough fiddleing around. Time is a wasteing and so is money for that matter. $500 billion dallors for the worlds BIGGEST "em bassy" ooooo.

Enough jibber jabber, stop the presses the world is corrupt...

Point, you remember Bush saying if it was a dictator ship, it would be easier? Might be on to some thing there, and yes, I have played mono poly.

Nice, sort of "sets the stage", as all the world...
Ever looked into the Omega Agency, not too bad. Goes into world groups, and individuals manipulating global events.

As for one "world", government. Not going to happen, some where there is going to be some one, or worse, a group of some ones who think it can be done better. Proven by history, or so it shows any way. Different topic though.

Competition and or rivals will exist and throw the proverbial wrench into the works. Sans (?) Mr Murphy, as always you can depend upon him to do his part.
If it is too good to be true.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 12:13 AM
what if we just establish a world wide republic? make it impossible for any one person to gain absolute power.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 01:20 AM
Wasn't Germany republic before the thrid reich?

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 02:24 AM
a lot of countries that aren't republic claims to be republic. For example, china considers themselves to be a republic, which is obviously false.

Or better yet, make EVERYONE part of the government.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by NegativeBeef]

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 03:21 AM

Originally posted by NegativeBeef
a lot of countries that aren't republic claims to be republic. For example, china considers themselves to be a republic, which is obviously false.

This is not correct. People often associate republic with democracy and this is wrong. We must know that there are several types of democracy and several types of republic. For example we have enlightened republicanism, proletarian republicanism, islamic republicanism etc. I suggest you read explanation of the Republic on Wikipedia. IMO it is very well written short summary.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 09:12 PM

Originally posted by NegativeBeef
what if we just establish a world wide republic? make it impossible for any one person to gain absolute power.

personally i think it is the problem that one person is not acountable and there is not one with absolute power. if the king or leader steps too far out of line then the people rise up and kill his punk#, next king. Traditional hierarchies had a king in control of an army, but what if the king needed a majority vote from the people before he could use the army, in other words, the Peoples Army.

power split between to many people and branches just makes everything more complicated and takes forever to get anything executed. plus it leaves too much room for snake politicians to play the complicated system and gain power for personal gain. if there was a king in charge of every aspect then there would be less of class race to appear like you could be a great political leader.

alowing media and major commodities to operate in public hands is a huge mistake, and then giving the owners of these media's and comodities the right to support campain races is even a bigger mistake.

democray works only for the banks and the greedy, which i guess are the same thing

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 10:57 PM
It's pretty simple why it wouldn't work, Because the only ones with a chance of actually coming to power and leading the new world order have gotten such high status by currupt acts, lies, slander, Ect.

It would only work if everyone agreed on it, however it will not work if we are scared into letting our guard down as they impliment it.

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:28 PM
Heres whats so bad about it (I hope this is the right video)

police state

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:07 PM
I see two possible outcomes: one where we let the NWO succeed and the other where they don't.

The first outcome involves a one world government and currency. Everything will be "technologically advanced" just like you see in those blockbuster Tom Cruise movies. People will be like cows, tagged, and herded along to be used for energy, and if you believe it, all will gradually become zombies because they will have your souls (this is a spiritual battle isn't it?)

The second outcome involves the entire world populace evolving spiritually, and we will not think of death the same way we do now. We will get rid of old systems, and earth will become the paradise it once was. There will be no need for anything unnecessary, there will be no need to work because there will be a barter system.

Now if you ask me, I would rather live in a world described in outcome number two. A world that can live in peace, without a government, without money...a world without the NWO.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:38 AM
Okay let's say the NWO doesn't happen and we will still be divided up into nations. What would happen to the human race? I think we are screwed if we continue to remain segregated and can't see past our differences. What if aliens invaded? ( and that is a big IF) That would kinda FORCE us into forming some kind of NWO if we win (if winning is even possible). If you look at the history of civilization, it first all started out as small tribes and as time progresses, they merged one way or another into bigger tribes, and then into states, states into countries. It only make sense that the next logical step is to become a global civilization. And we should also have only 1 race, but not by killing or mass genecide but by continuous interbreding of every race.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 12:43 AM
They want to kill 80% of us. nuff said

Now that might not be a bad idea, for earths sake!

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:44 PM
well... that was really wierd... you just contradicted yourself if I'm not taking it the wrong way...

also If aliens invaded we'd need a world government yes and a world government wouldn't neccesarily be so bad now. The problem with this one is:

If its so great why is it so secret
as you said, killing off 80% of the population (I can agree with some kind of control on the population but honestly...)
I like my privacy
I like the constitution

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:09 PM
I never said anything about killing 80% of the population. How did I contradict myself?

[edit on 17-5-2006 by NegativeBeef]

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:17 PM
not you, vision amunition! he said the stuff about killing 80% of the population and then said that it was neccesary.

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:55 AM
Take the worst nightmare you've ever had, multiply that by a thousand. That isn't a quarter as bad as the NWO will be. No freedom of any kind, including speech and thought. No privacy. No way to get ahead no matter how hard you try. It will be a TOTAL, COMPLETE enslaving system in every sense of the word. It's COMING SOON to a theater near you.

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:13 AM
Like Ghost of Isis said, scenario 2 sounds pretty good. In the end though, regardless of when or what the end is, the last people left will be the ones who can be independent of anything preoduced by industry, that is if there's any organic-farmable land left at that point.

There should be one border, extending out to the edge of the van-allen belts.

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:49 AM
no one has addressed what I said previously. And how do you know that there won't be freedom, privacy...etc?

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in