Would you go along with the NWO?

We should be relying on local economies and local products (especially food, energy) as much as possible.

With that I agree with you, even though it does cause less
interconnectivity with the world, it's better for both the people
and the environment.

I’m more interested on the international patent laws and how
you one-world government supporters wishfully think that
corporations would suddenly release their patents to the world
in order to improve science and technology.

Well, dpending on who you have in the ogvernment, it would depend on what would happen.
I myself would tell the corporations they no longer have any authority to hold such patents, and if they did'nt comply, they would be forcefully dissasembled.

Where will political refugees go? The moon?

Well, by the time a single world government was formed, they probably would go to the moon.

Tell me the advantages of a one-world government? We have plenty of coordinating bodies between countries already, why do we need another one?

No more countries/governments commiting atrocities/human rights violations, no more having to worry about places like Iran and N. Korea, no price rises because of the economies of other governments, a more equal distribution of labour., no more having to worry about a dozen countries with nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I myself would tell the corporations they no longer have any authority to hold such patents, and if they did'nt comply, they would be forcefully dissasembled.

I nominate you for president of the new one-world government.

No more countries/governments commiting atrocities/human rights violations, no more having to worry about places like Iran and N. Korea, no price rises because of the economies of other governments, a more equal distribution of labour., no more having to worry about a dozen countries with nuclear weapons.

But this is a very utopian notion. There's no way you can know this would happen, and if it doesn't there are no alternatives. (monopolized government)

Do you believe the Israel issue will suddenly be resolved because of a one world government? If anything it would solidify the status quo, (which is probably exactly what the elite want) and the Palestinians will be left as they are with no way to reclaim their lands. Should the west still continue to drain’s the poorer countries’ natural resources, with almost no local retribution? Will all these ongoing atrocities be permanently solidifies under a one-world government?

about a democratic one-world government…

Let me put it this way… Do you really believe that rich nations such as Singapore with a population of 4,492,150 will willfully allow Zimbabwe with a population of 12,236,805 to have 3 times the political voting power?

A democracy in a one world government is improbable. A pseudo-democracy with copious use of gerrymandering is probably what we’re going to get.

And you said it yourself here…

If in the creation of the state, or whatever you want to call it,
you add in certain things into the constitution which can never
be changed that would prevent a power grab, like equally
sharing the power with multiple branches of the gov. like the
American gov. is supposed to be, than you would'nt have the
problem.

(emphasis mine)

As you point out above, the US was designed to keep this from happening. However, over the years (approx. 200) the moneyed interests have found ways to dominate. They will again with the one-world government.


[edit on 17/8/06 by ConspiracyNut23]

But this is a very utopian notion. There's no way you can know this would happen, and if it doesn't there are no alternatives.

I don't know, I'm just saying those would be some of the positive benefits, since you did ask.

Do you believe the Israel issue will suddenly be resolved because of a one world government? If anything it would solidify the status quo, (which is probably exactly what the elite want) and the Palestinians will be left as they are with no way to reclaim their lands. Should the west still continue to drain’s the poorer countries’ natural resources, with almost no local retribution? Will all these ongoing atrocities be permanently solidifies under a one-world government?

Well, in a single world government there would'nt be nationalistic land disputes liken that of Israel, Lebanon and the Palestinians, it would be like how the U.S. states are set up now, albeit with a bit more power.
The west would'nt really exist the same way anymore, it would be everyones natural resources, that would be owned by government companies to be split up equally.
There would be things set into place to make sure no such atrocities could occur.

Let me put it this way… Do you really believe that rich nations such as Singapore with a population of 4,492,150 will willfully allow Zimbabwe with a population of 12,236,805 to have 3 times the political voting power?

Well I have no idea what things would be like in 30+ years from now, so I don't know.

As you point out above, the US was designed to keep this from happening. However, over the years (approx. 200) the moneyed interests have found ways to dominate. They will again with the one-world government.

That's because the U.S. constitution was'nt made for our society, so there are'nt as many rules and exactnesses in it as would be required for a society today.


I feel I should say this to, I'm not naive enough to belive a perfect single world government is going to just come into existance tomorrow or even in the next 2o years, but eventually we will ahve a global government, and there's a good chance it will be a democratic and just/free one.

[edit on 8/17/2006 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well, in a single world government there would'nt be nationalistic land disputes liken that of Israel, Lebanon and the Palestinians, it would be like how the U.S. states are set up now, albeit with a bit more power.

But the USA was setup under enormous violence. The local population was killed or displaced.

The west would'nt really exist the same way anymore, it would be everyones natural resources, that would be owned by government companies to be split up equally.

So if you have 2 cars in the states, there should be 2 cars in every garage in India? Sort of each country would have limits on how much they can import?

That's because the U.S. constitution was'nt made for our society, so there are'nt as many rules and exactnesses in it as would be required for a society today.

And in 200 years the new blueprint will also be corrupted. A one-world government is just not the answer.

….a global government, and there's a good chance it will be a democratic and just/free one.

If you’re talking a star trek-like federation, I’m all for it. The optimist invents the airplane; the optimist the parachute. We need both.


[edit on 17/8/06 by ConspiracyNut23]

Would you go along with the NWO? Of course you would since the alternative entails embracing the end of the world in a Soviet Union all-at once-collapse. Economic wars are like that don't you know i.e. the economies of Asia refusing to plateau...

A ONE world government could never exist!, more likely that the "moneyed interests" will take over regions/states and will rule them whilst having to pay a "TAX" to the overall "World rulers" which will be a sort of gov/Un type thing in the same way ppl pay taxes to there councils/states/government.

Imagine the state of Walmartb warned

[edit on 17-8-2006 by marcopolo]

Here is my new take on this: A One-World Economy is sure possible. A One-World Government will be the problem as the political ideals are far too apart to compromise. A One-World Legal System is possible, we are already seeing that with the UN.

Originally posted by MasterRegal

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Originally posted by MasterRegal

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor

Originally posted by MasterRegal
Why is it that every NWO concept makes the world such a sci-fi movie. In every concept it makes the place look like there will be no freedoms and life will be the same for everyone. Why is that?

Because people read it on some sites and repeat it, and then scare themselves into believing that it will 100% definitely be like that.

You see, that's what I hate about people. They are willing to believe ANYTHING, even if there are no FACTS to back it up.

Now, a some people said, I support a World Government as long as it is a free democratic system. Certain freedoms I could do without or they can be modified, but it must be a free system.

It may start as a democracy, but who could resist to seize power and rise to rule the world with an iron fist?

All the worlds democracies will one day become despots of the future, no one can resist the tempations of power and over time the collective consolidtion will erupt and a tyranny will begin. I believe if you watch any news and don't live in a box you can see the effects of that now.

That's why there are checks and balance. The U.S. government is one of the more stable government in the world (despite what people may think of it). Sure there could be some fine tuning, but in the last 230 years we have yet to see someone like Hitler take over our country and rule with an Iron fist. If people think Bush is that kind of person, think again, he is far from it.

A World Government should be based on the U.S. government. Let there be a President, a Vice President, a Cabinet, a Governor representing each former nation, Representatives representing the people and even a Senate. The only problem we will have is a two-party system. It will NOT work especially when you have the poltical views of the Middle East conflicting with the Western World which conflict with the East which conflict with the South.

The world is already integrating into a one world government. The European Union is moving closer to sovereignty, the South American Community is under development so is the African Community and I'm sure the former Soviet states will eventually be part of the greater Russian Federation... the world is getting smaller.

MmmmMmm..
Lincoln declared Marshall law, he had anyone who disagreed with him thrown in jail.

FDR, broke the boundaries of the constitution so bad we have yet to repair them (Ex. Welfare, Health care, government assisting in getting people jobs) all of that is against the constitution, but is now common belief the gov should provide that.

The Federal government destroyed state rights. Seize property from States, force them to change laws.

Bush and many before him using write offs as a form to consolidate power. Bush uses "Only the president can do this. Only the president has the authority. No one may undermined the President." in his write offs giving him the power. He is famous for never vetoing a bill. Except stem cell.

Mass private wire tapping's. That isn't against the law?

Government intrusiveness into private lives - Ex. Gay marriage - not the govs business, and banning it goes against natural rights, which is the ONLY reason it exist in the first place. Going against abortion = same thing. Taking private land away under value and selling it to developers.

Agencies like FEMA under the constitution is illegal.

The President can now pretty much wage war without ever actually calling it a war, but new nifty titles like "Operation Desert shield/storm, Vietnam, Korea" these are all illegal unless the congress declares war, only then can the president order troops out.

Any government involvement into school affairs is actually against the constitution, go ahead and read it, Congress nor the President was given authority over education, it is a state matter.

Free Education. Why am I paying for college? At a public university? Universities profiting? = illegal.

Joining the affairs of the international community when it does not pose a direct threat to us. Illegal. WW1 WW2 illegal. All current day foreign policy = Illegal.
it was a big deal back then, only after pearl harbor did the people consent to a war. Which was an accident... right?

If you believe the 9/11 conspiracy as I do....

I think but il look again that murdering 3,000 of your own people to finish off a Project North woods (illegal by the way!) is against the constitution.

The government suppressing technology for the sake of profiting, such as clean burning fuels and alternative fuel sources. To go along with that, keeping anything secret from the American people is unconstitutional, we provide the funding and the president is supposed to deliver the budget to us for review (through representatives) however, black budgets, top secret, they prevent that even though it consumes a mass portion of our budget.

The governments disbanding of the Gold standard - illegal. The government giving the right to print money to the Federal Reserve - illegal.

Even National parks are illegal...

Using federal offices for personal financial gain is against the law, though our reps are immune to the law.

My point is that over time, compared with what was written, and given the fact our fore fathers believed wholeheartedly in the fact that we all have natural rights and that the Federal Governments only purpose is to safe guard those rights, states where to choose what was best for its people as far as what to do with public land, school, all that. the Federal Government has ballooned out of control, it CANNOT and it WILL not stop. Power doesn't decrease easily, it is gained easily.

We are pen stroke from dictatorship, the means to do it are in place, the means to control us is in place, it is possible, we are not immune. We are 200 some years old, a child in the world and yet we think we figured it out, we force others to adapt our ways when it is still a mere theory. Tell me that the Federal Government isn't to fat! All it takes is the wrong man with to much ambition to get put in at the wrong time surrounded by the wrong people. Bush. Anyone like him, PNAC, these guys want the power.

All i know is that i support the NWO if it even is real, so lemme ask you this, is there any first hand evidence, that the NWO is even real? cause ive just heard talk and no proof of it,i would think you should first become the president of the U.S to know about these things, im not trying to force ppl to believe me but just saying that there is no evidence. sure there are papers about the NWO, but any crackhead could have written it, and im sure the government wouldnt release any NWO papers. overall im kinda disapointed that there is no actual evidence from a first hand source.

The problem with Utopian ideas is that everyone believes they will be in the elite wealthy ruling class and not in the 99.9999 percent of the population of commoners. The only way the NWO can exist is as a facist empire. My understanding is that each current nation would developed specialized economies. Japan would become the center of technological innovation, The US would become the worlds police force, ..etc.
Most of the economic policies used today will be useless, as they are based on money flow as a result of changing exchange rates. In a one world government, there would be no exchange rates, since there will be one currency, and only monopolistic corporations will rule.
The NWO will bring such things as consumption quotas, where the government will require consumers to buy items of face legal actions. ( I don't care if you don't drink tea, you will buy it or go to prison!)

By the way, the word Utopia means "Place that doesn't exist"

I hadn’t thought of that. There’s no way the elite would ever go with a single currency! Their ability to control (or as least influence) the currency international exchange rate is part of their controlling mechanism. It keeps resources flowing towards the rich. Through strategic currency speculation, they can destroy a nation’s economy. (some 59 out of the 100 top economies are corporations, not countries)

Originally posted by niklaus
By the way, the word Utopia means "Place that doesn't exist"

If your refereeing to my use of the word earlier, I used it as an adjective. which can mean“Excellent or ideal but impracticable; visionary: a utopian scheme for equalizing wealth.” Or ”Proposing impracticably ideal schemes.

Would you go along with taking micro-chips in your bodies that could control your mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual processes?

* Only if I had a say in what my field of contribution to the greater community would be, and be given certain allowances for personal pursuits. COMMUNITY REQUIRES UNITY.

Would you accept surveillence cameras in every room in your house?

* Sure - why not. I voluntarily do so when I am on the internet already.

Would you put up with security cameras EVERYWHERE you go?

* I already do. And I usually smile and wave to them.

Would you go along with biometric scanners that can single you out from a crowd of people and identify you by certain facial features?

* You mean kind of like living in a small town where everyone knows you? Already there, my friend.

Would you go along having to biometrically scan for everything, either by eyes, fingerprints, voice, or face scans?

* I'm sure this wouldn't be a constant thing once within the confines of the city I plan to live, work and play in. So once again, yes.

Would you go along with being forced into a work camp, being separated from your family and friends, and forced to work for the rest of your life?

* Sounds like the job situation for the modern American Worker in their 30's already. I don't think that's feasible, given the psychological breakdown that would occur to anyone subjected to this sort of treatment and how their performance would suffer as a result. But as long as I thoroughly enjoyed my work and was treated well, sure - I'm game.

Would you go along with having to do anything the NWO says, or else be labeled a terrorist and be secretly executed?

* That's a bit extreme - if they're taking the time to invest so many resources to insure my genetic viability, intellectual aptitude, etc...why would they be so eager to execute a contributing member in it's service? Hell, I wouldn't have signed up to begin with if I wasn't into the whole idea in the first place. Besides, most people who would flip out like this wouldn't pass the inital psychological screening for entrance.

Would you you accept the NWO owning EVERYTHING, and controlling all aspects of your life, and of the planet itself?

* Of course. I don't need "security blankets" of material possessions I can label "MINE". As long as I was provided for with the tools I needed and personal requirements for day to day functionality.

Would you accept having your THOUGHTS monitored so any thought deemed "inappropriate" will result in imprisionment or death?

* Impossible in my field of study. Free thought and new ideas are always welcome in the commercial/entertainment industry.

Would you let your kids live in a hell on Earth? An Orwellian, big brother, total surveillence society where any dissent against anything will result in death or imprisionment? Would you be a willing slave to the New World Order?

* I'm afraid I'm not allowed to breed. Good thing I've already been programmed not to want children and the same applies to my spouse.


- These are just a few quick personal answers. More than happy to delve into any specifics in greater depth at your lesuire.