It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why is a new world order bad?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
The acronym “NWO” has been used in a negative sense so much that it baffles me, and it makes me question where all this negative sentiment comes from. I have a feeling I can predict the answer to my question, though: the NWO is bad because authoritarians that wish to destroy individual liberties and enslave the world population are engineering the change. Now, I may even be inclined to agree with that answer, but one still needs to prove that these architects will succeed in creating a world police state. The international ruling class is a strange thing—the curious social cohesion like that found in the Bohemian Grove, closed-door meetings at the IMF and among World Economic Forum members, the tentacles reaching into international military-industrial complexes, involvement with intelligence establishments, global guerrillas, and transnational organized crime, the curious role of ancient royal and modern merchant families, the prominence of multinational corporations and media conglomerates, and the infinite mysteriousness surrounding stories of cults like the Illuminati, et cetera. Face it: the international ruling class is a prime target for theories of sinister plots and wicked deeds.

But as much as I try to keep an open mind, I also try not to be a gullible fool. Therefore, I ask those of you who say a new world order will inevitably be bad: prove it.




posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   
It isn't inherently bad. The problem is that those pushing for the NWO right now do not have the best interests of the general population at heart. It could be a good thing, if the right people led it, but the people pushing for it are some of the worst our society has to offer.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   
If you have to ask, youve already proved it...

why dont you take a look into the rabbit hole? do you feel the need for us to verify it for you? its very easily seen if one were to open ones eyes and gaze into the right places...

and before you attack me, I have not said anything that advocates in any one direction or another...

but it is definately there to see for those who look...



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I think you hit the nail on the head when you say these global architects do not have the best interests of the general population at heart. The only interests being represented are those of the most wealthy and politically-connected people in the world, and whatever institutions they are a part of (like multinational businesses, media empires, or trade and finance ministers of the largest economies).

This is why I'm challenging the general "anti-NWO" bias. As long as individual citizens, laborers, and consumers like us view global integration as a step toward world authoritarianism, of course we aren't going to participate; however, it is precisely that lack of participation that will allow the current rulers to continue developing a new order that won't represent our interests.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grock
If you have to ask, youve already proved it...

why dont you take a look into the rabbit hole? do you feel the need for us to verify it for you? its very easily seen if one were to open ones eyes and gaze into the right places...

and before you attack me, I have not said anything that advocates in any one direction or another...

but it is definately there to see for those who look...


I don't plan on attacking anyone, firstly... that said, this may be the most vague response I've ever encountered to any question I've ever posed. Are you suggesting that I go and do the research on my own to see authoritarian tendencies in the formation of a global decision-making apparatus? I could do so, and have done so to a limited extent; but that is not the question I'm asking. I've seen some references to the NWO here as if a reconstruction of the world order could never be a positive development, and I'd like to know how anyone could arrive at this opinion.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I've asked myself the same question. We know that the current NWO doesn't care too much about civil liberties so we know that is bad. But if they are actually able to form a world goverment will it be bad? Lets say they actually form a world goverement, maybe then they can be overthrown and get a normal leader in there.

I really think we need a world goverment to get past this hump we are in. Country borders, wars, arms race this is all a disaster. In all of the wars, the military soldiers i bet didnt hate all of the other soldiers... the large govements were in a tiff about stupid # and they convinced us that we need to kill them. There will always be bad people in the world and we will need some sort of police. But spending all of this money, energy and blood just because some people in 'power' are fighting like little girls.

Even the technology sector, the goverment needs to delay the release of technology to the public because they need a leg up on our 'enemy'. Seems like such a waste.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by aquarius3733]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Please research the news from the people of the EU, not the media giants, but the people. The socialized health care is broke, and the people are being systematically categorized by risk factors, as to whether they will be eligible for health care, or left to die. First was smokers--acceptable exclusion, you may say, but it opened the door to incremental ism. Now it's to the point that if your meds are too expensive, you are denied treatment. And the taxes on the people to run this system by un-elected officials is breaking the working class.
The EU is the first stage of a four stage process. The NAU is next, and the AU ( Asian union---not sure of the acronym yet) is the 3rd stage.
Lastly, the Unified Peoples--the whole planet. What it's name will become is determined by the winner of the last conflict.
The rhetoric seems to imply that the powers behind the powers-that-be believe that several billion people is to many to control, and 1/2 billion would be much preferred.
This is the "New World Order".

America will cease to exist as a separate country soon after the next election when a democratic liberal will be "elected" (selected) to further the NAU ideals. Bush is already stepping on some toes trying to further the liberal ideal under a "supposed" conservative administration. The dollar is being devalued daily in preparation for a new currency the "amero", but has much further to fall to be acceptable to the Mexican govt. The Canadian govt. will follow without much resistance besides in Quebec, and socialized medical will be mandatory, run by the second largest industry behind oil---medical insurance companies and pharma.

I could go on for several hundred pages, with links both pro and con, but you can make up your own mind and find the info yourself----it's everywhere if you choose to look.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by aquarius3733
I've asked myself the same question. We know that the current NWO doesn't care too much about civil liberties so we know that is bad. But if they are actually able to form a world goverment will it be bad? Lets say they actually form a world goverement, maybe then they can be overthrown and get a normal leader in there.


I think we can take it a step further. There is no "current NWO," and we do not have to wait for some infrastructure to be built so we can only overthrow it. The world today is in a constant state of change, the new order is being decided right now; the direction of that change is disproportionately being steered by the global elite, but I'm confident that a lot of public pressure can put some of the control in the hands of the global civil society. With that control, we may be able to push for democratization of the UN and try to dismantle corporate management of globalization.


aquarius
I really think we need a world goverment to get past this hump we are in. Country borders, wars, arms race this is all a disaster. In all of the wars, the military soldiers i bet didnt hate all of the other soldiers... the large govements were in a tiff about stupid # and they convinced us that we need to kill them.


One author, John Robb, referred to "residual nationalism" as one of the biggest problems our world will be facing this century. In the context of his book, Brave New War, the term seems to encompass tribal, local, religious, and national loyalties that create cycles of fragmentation and war. I attack your tribe, your tribe attacks mine, and the disorder feeds itself. Instead of naively thinking that we could ever get rid of these primal loyalties, though, Robb suggests instead that we create a simple international system of trade that would withstand these nationalist shocks and further promote global integration socially and politically because of its resiliency. The current system of trade, much like systems of foriegn policy and security, is still enslaved to these loyalties, and all the progress of globalization in the past decades could be set back in yet another World War.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by gotrox
Please research the news from the people of the EU, not the media giants, but the people. The socialized health care is broke, and the people are being systematically categorized by risk factors, as to whether they will be eligible for health care, or left to die. First was smokers--acceptable exclusion, you may say, but it opened the door to incremental ism. Now it's to the point that if your meds are too expensive, you are denied treatment. And the taxes on the people to run this system by un-elected officials is breaking the working class.
The EU is the first stage of a four stage process. The NAU is next, and the AU ( Asian union---not sure of the acronym yet) is the 3rd stage.
Lastly, the Unified Peoples--the whole planet. What it's name will become is determined by the winner of the last conflict.
The rhetoric seems to imply that the powers behind the powers-that-be believe that several billion people is to many to control, and 1/2 billion would be much preferred.
This is the "New World Order".

America will cease to exist as a separate country soon after the next election when a democratic liberal will be "elected" (selected) to further the NAU ideals. Bush is already stepping on some toes trying to further the liberal ideal under a "supposed" conservative administration. The dollar is being devalued daily in preparation for a new currency the "amero", but has much further to fall to be acceptable to the Mexican govt. The Canadian govt. will follow without much resistance besides in Quebec, and socialized medical will be mandatory, run by the second largest industry behind oil---medical insurance companies and pharma.

I could go on for several hundred pages, with links both pro and con, but you can make up your own mind and find the info yourself----it's everywhere if you choose to look.


This assumes that all continental unions will follow the same exact trends of the European Union. There is no way of knowing if this is the case. Each international continental union may follow its own market policies of degrees of regulation. Another assumption you make is that the EU is going to survive the early trials of this century. I think it will, but I'm no prophet.

Anyway, I agree that a North American Union will some day occur (depending on the fate of the EU, that is). After the next election seems far too soon, IMO; unless something catastrophic happens. Rather than more North American integration, we see a giant wall being built between Mexica and the US. The formation of continental unions will likely be a fragmented process.

I disagree that this epochal change away from the nation-state can accurately be called a "four step process." There are similar regional unions occuring not only in Europe and North America but also in Africa, South America, the Pacific, East Asia, the Middle East, and so forth. The geopolitical lines are hardly in place yet. I agree that the national governments of these regions will eventually integrate though, into something new; I've heard the term "market-state" used, but I don't know much about its theoretical background. Anyway, there is nothing certain about the formation of a powerful and centralized world federal government; for all we know, it could turn out to be no more authoritative than the current UN bureaucracy.

Your insights about the population are probably, unfortunately accurate. No international secret society would need to hatch a plan to kill billions of people (for whatever goal), we can that ourselves just fine via ecocide.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:05 AM
link   
I just want to point out something to people fearful of the "NWO," as if it will inevitably be a world-spanning police state. Take a look at Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Chechnya. Look at how these small fragmented groups are taking on the world's most advanced militaries backed by some of the world's biggest bureaucracies (i.e. US, NATO, Russia). And yet, these cumbersome, centralized institutions are incapable of defeating these agile, decentralized insurgents.

Can you imagine a security bureaucracy that must police the entire world trying to take on these mobile guerrillas?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Evil (adjective):
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked.
2. harmful; injurious.

By Their Fruits Ye shall know Them.

JFK. 911. ETC.

nuff said.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Evil (adjective):
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked.
2. harmful; injurious.

By Their Fruits Ye shall know Them.

JFK. 911. ETC.

nuff said.


I agree that organized crime and international insurgents/terrorists don't have the interests of ordinary people like us. But that is exactly the point! Why sit back and let these elements construct a world we all must live in rather than take action to mold the future in our interests as well?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I am an avid supporter of a world government, though I dont fancy it working given our current state of affairs. I think the most detramental effect it could have is that the world might lose some of its diversity so as to conform to a mass social union. It would also be the perfect forum for a greedy politician to absorb world power relatively quikly, without having to fight endless nations for power in a physical engagement. Imagine if a leader that is fairly elected gains a majority support and decides not to surrender power. What would we do then, appeal to the world courts to have him ousted. I could see this eventually bringing endless conflicts between the disenfranchised and the global majority. Its the next logical step for us, though we would have to first adress the issues at hand before we just transfer them to the world scene. I'm sure many would be immediatly solved, but one must anticipate what new problems we would face. The distribution of resources, wealth, and information...I.E technology, could dissolve a newly formed venture as a world government would be for us. How would you decide who gets how much of what, its not like its proportionetly divided now. Besides, with nationalism running rampant in many countries, this one in particular, how would a consensus on anything ever be reached that adequately adressed everyones needs without bias or greed. Yeah, great idea right, but not yet.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by newyorkee
I am an avid supporter of a world government, though I dont fancy it working given our current state of affairs. I think the most detramental effect it could have is that the world might lose some of its diversity so as to conform to a mass social union.


I don't think people will ever completely disassociate themselves from local loyalties. For example, I believe in humanity as an interconnected global community, but I also put my family before the families of people ten thousand miles away, a thousand miles away, even ten miles away. I don't think conformity will ever encompass the entire human race, fortunately, but there will need to be much more social cohesion if a "global village" is to be realized for the sake of our future. This may be the single most important achievement of the UN, the formation of a global civil society.


Originally posted by newyorkee
It would also be the perfect forum for a greedy politician to absorb world power relatively quikly, without having to fight endless nations for power in a physical engagement. Imagine if a leader that is fairly elected gains a majority support and decides not to surrender power. What would we do then, appeal to the world courts to have him ousted. I could see this eventually bringing endless conflicts between the disenfranchised and the global majority.


I agree; any bureaucracy can become centralized in nature and a clever bureaucrat can manipulate that. This situation can be applied from a local scale to a global scale; apply it to the "national" scale and look at our modern states, and cases of corruption and abuse of power are plenty. Apply it to the UN bureaucracy too, and the same arises.

The partial justification for this, IMO, is human nature. We're social creatures that gather in groups, and these groups need to make decisions--thus, we're political creatures. Bureaucracies with their organization and rules are necessary for effective decision-making; it is when one person or one interest group gains control of decision-making that the welfare of everyone else is threatened. We have to come up with mechanisms (like representational democracy, local activism, and independent media) to make sure this centralization and exploitation doesn't occur.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by newyorkee
Its the next logical step for us, though we would have to first adress the issues at hand before we just transfer them to the world scene. I'm sure many would be immediatly solved, but one must anticipate what new problems we would face. The distribution of resources, wealth, and information...I.E technology, could dissolve a newly formed venture as a world government would be for us. How would you decide who gets how much of what, its not like its proportionetly divided now.


A world government (federal republic, I would hope) would certainly introduce new problems just as it would solve old ones. However, what you're delving into here is about economics. I don't really believe in large redistribution of wealth or command economies, but I'm sure the degree of government interference in the market will be a heavy political debate for years to come on national and global levels. A lot of people seem to assume that the "NWO" will necessarily be communist, but I don't see why this has to be so. In fact, I would work against such a development.


Originally posted by newyorkee
Besides, with nationalism running rampant in many countries, this one in particular, how would a consensus on anything ever be reached that adequately adressed everyones needs without bias or greed. Yeah, great idea right, but not yet.


Nationalism right now is the tinderbox it was a century ago, ready to set the world ablaze. Whether the spark is unintentional, provoked by policy-makers, or a plan gone awry is up to debate, but the stage is scarily similar to what it was prior to World War I.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I used to sincerely believe Global Government was the only solution to the world's problems. That was until I realised how manipulated we all are. We are being encouraged to think that way, and it's simply not true. It's a logic disconnect.

Global Forum, yes. Global Government, no.

NEVER forget the maxim: Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Never should such power be allowed to accumulate in the hands of a few. Never. It is the antithesis of freedom, and it is not necessary. The source of wars is not for lack of world governance. Wars are the enterprise of Governments and Business, not the people.

Ethics are the fundamental building blocks of civilisations, and peace flows from adherence to those ethics. We are never taught to understand ethics or rights at school. We are dumbed down and simply taught to obey authority without understanding ethics. Straying from ethics through blind obedience to authority has lead us into war. If you want world peace, then rediscover ethics, don't cede even more authority to the hand of those who would bring you ever more misery.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by Shar_Chi]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Pour Moi its the thought of the extreme lengths that a NWO would go to to completely revoloutionise the world is no small feat and it cant all be done positively- someones going to lose out.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Even mr putin said it best. Why does usa nad uk, think that the world wants what they have to offer. Do americans really believe that everyone wants what they have.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
I used to sincerely believe Global Government was the only solution to the world's problems. That was until I realised how manipulated we all are. We are being encouraged to think that way, and it's simply not true. It's a logic disconnect.

Global Forum, yes. Global Government, no.

NEVER forget the maxim: Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Never should such power be allowed to accumulate in the hands of a few. Never. It is the antithesis of freedom, and it is not necessary. The source of wars is not for lack of world governance. Wars are the enterprise of Governments and Business, not the people.


I agree that a world federation (or any government) would have to be dutifully watched by its citizens, since the "mission creep" and centralization of control tend to create authoritarian structures with little concern for the average individual. I also agree, essentially, that such power shouldn't be allowed to accumulate and that its "necessity" can largely be engineered by those that want it to happen (via wars, depressions, so forth, though I think history proves human violence is not the sole product of conniving powermongers). That's the problem though with scoffing at this centralization: it's going to happen whether we like it or not, because those in power right now know that further centralization will increase their power over international and global affairs. If that centralization is directed only by the elite, this unfortunate scenario is plausible. Therefore, I say we upset their agenda by putting our own agendas on the table for discussion rather than withdraw from the process.


Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Ethics are the fundamental building blocks of civilisations, and peace flows from adherence to those ethics. We are never taught to understand ethics or rights at school. We are dumbed down and simply taught to obey authority without understanding ethics. Straying from ethics through blind obedience to authority has lead us into war. If you want world peace, then rediscover ethics, don't cede even more authority to the hand of those who would bring you ever more misery.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by Shar_Chi]


For all that can be said about the foundatin of civilization, the source of peace, ethics, national education curricula, and indoctrination, I don't think this is fit for discussing these things.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
I used to sincerely believe Global Government was the only solution to the world's problems. That was until I realised how manipulated we all are. We are being encouraged to think that way, and it's simply not true. It's a logic disconnect.

Global Forum, yes. Global Government, no.

NEVER forget the maxim: Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Never should such power be allowed to accumulate in the hands of a few. Never. It is the antithesis of freedom, and it is not necessary. The source of wars is not for lack of world governance. Wars are the enterprise of Governments and Business, not the people.


I agree that a world federation (or any government) would have to be dutifully watched by its citizens, since the "mission creep" and centralization of control tend to create authoritarian structures with little concern for the average individual. I also agree, essentially, that such power shouldn't be allowed to accumulate and that its "necessity" can largely be engineered by those that want it to happen (via wars, depressions, so forth, though I think history proves human violence is not the sole product of conniving powermongers). That's the problem though with scoffing at this centralization: it's going to happen whether we like it or not, because those in power right now know that further centralization will increase their power over international and global affairs. If that centralization is directed only by the elite, this unfortunate scenario is plausible. Therefore, I say we upset their agenda by putting our own agendas on the table for discussion rather than withdraw from the process.


Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Ethics are the fundamental building blocks of civilisations, and peace flows from adherence to those ethics. We are never taught to understand ethics or rights at school. We are dumbed down and simply taught to obey authority without understanding ethics. Straying from ethics through blind obedience to authority has lead us into war. If you want world peace, then rediscover ethics, don't cede even more authority to the hand of those who would bring you ever more misery.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by Shar_Chi]


For all that can be said about the foundatin of civilization, the source of peace, ethics, national education curricula, and indoctrination, I don't think this is fit for discussing these things.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join