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: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Veenous
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.


I don't think that one side must be the winner and the other the loser. It is very possible for the weaker contender, who has no hopes of winning, to at least make it a lose-lose situation for everyone. And if it comes to fighting police-state totalitarians, I'd be ready to commit my life to making sure the power-mongers are at least uncomfortable. However, I think peaceful reform in the international arena is MUCH more preferable and also more likely to produce better results.




posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Au contraire, you are discussing the development of a global civilisation based on authority rather than ethics. Didn't you learn anything from Lord of the Rings?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
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.


This is exactly the problem with residual nationalism. Various factions have been trying to fashion "globalization" with the interests of their nationalities in mind (for example, the Anglo-American establishment, the EU, Russia, now China, the whole bloc of developing countries) rather than fashioning globalization with the interest of all of humanity in mind. All this global "integration" is really just different geopolitical spheres competing with each other over larger shares of the world--as John Robb said about globalization as managed by agreements like the WTO, IMF, NAFTA, etc., "if they were really agreements about free trade, they would be less than a page long."



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Au contraire, you are discussing the development of a global civilisation based on authority rather than ethics. Didn't you learn anything from Lord of the Rings?


How does one build a global civilization based on ethics rather than authority? Would you consider the "rule of law" to be akin to the "authority of ethics"?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luap

Originally posted by andy1033
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.


This is exactly the problem with residual nationalism. Various factions have been trying to fashion "globalization" with the interests of their nationalities in mind (for example, the Anglo-American establishment, the EU, Russia, now China, the whole bloc of developing countries) rather than fashioning globalization with the interest of all of humanity in mind. All this global "integration" is really just different geopolitical spheres competing with each other over larger shares of the world--as John Robb said about globalization as managed by agreements like the WTO, IMF, NAFTA, etc., "if they were really agreements about free trade, they would be less than a page long."


So what system would you have for the nwo. The angloe american syetm wants democracy. Putin said himself not everyone wants that. What happens when the people vote in someone the west does not want, and then they do not talk to them.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luap

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Au contraire, you are discussing the development of a global civilisation based on authority rather than ethics. Didn't you learn anything from Lord of the Rings?


How does one build a global civilization based on ethics rather than authority? Would you consider the "rule of law" to be akin to the "authority of ethics"?


You do it by inverting the pyramid, so it becomes a V. You let each autonomous community determine its own affairs. You merely provide a forum for the free exchange of ideas.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
In a purely platonic, idealistic sense, a Global order where everyone shares the same law, the same religion (or lack of), the same goals etc seems perfect. Imagine no wars, equal opportunity for all the world's people, no borders, no off-limit countries, no need for international diplomacy...

Unfortunately, in the real world, it would be nothing like that. The whole ideal is corrupted by one thing in my opinion. Ironically and perversely this one thing is the one thing that Globalisation/NWO/whatever is built on.

Money.

History has taught us this. Look at the British Empire for example. Who benefitted the most? Why did they bother in the first place? Its all about the rich getting richer. They move into new lands, forcefully if need be, exploit the natural resources, local labour and profit massively.


An NWO would just be a licence for huge corporations to plough on through the rest of the world, exploiting, profitting. Keeping us all working for them for their profit, and consuming from them, also for their profit.
The world is already like that, but an NWO would just consolidate the staus quo, and cut a fair bit of red tape for them.


If they have to curtail our freedoms, instill fear and hatred, or pit us against one another in war, it will be to line their pockets, and little else.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
lol!

yea whats wrong with world domination??

hmmm... how about everything!? is wrong with it.

i dont know about u .. but i would prefer to live freely.. opposed to letting these 'governments' or so called leaders control everything.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
The concept of a new world order only appears dangerous when applied to the world we currently live in. There is currently a considerable imbalance of power - with a disgruntled majority being muzzled by an elite minority. I think this adds to a certain subconscious fear of "order" as our civilization defines it; order that brings to mind images of servitude and being "shepherded".

A World Government would have to do away with any nationalism - as has been said earlier. This wouldn't be bad, as it does away with the primary cause of war -- national pride. At that point, perhaps leadership could be handled on a community level, increasing in a (visible) hierarchy that extended to the "world" level. I say "Visible hierarchy" because it would also have to do away with the hidden closets that bureaucracy richly provides.

We have come to associate this "NWO" with shady, totalitarian governments (usually with really nice suits). Perhaps this is what we really fear: the concept of living in fear in a highly-policed world... or being answerable to "one leader".

A real world government would not be answerable to one leader, but to a large committee that itself represented the world. Sadly, I don't know what active steps are being taken to this effect. There's always that little... "nationalism" thing, isn't there?

A functional Global system is inevitable for the survival of humankind.
As to what form this system will take... well, that remains to be seen. I believe there is nothing to fear, though.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by divine chronic
yea whats wrong with world domination??
hmmm... how about everything!? is wrong with it.


IM not a right-winger but this is a good link here... whats so evil about communism?

The NWO is nothing more then global communism.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul
In a purely platonic, idealistic sense, a Global order where everyone shares the same law, the same religion (or lack of), the same goals etc seems perfect. Imagine no wars, equal opportunity for all the world's people, no borders, no off-limit countries, no need for international diplomacy...

Unfortunately, in the real world, it would be nothing like that. The whole ideal is corrupted by one thing in my opinion. Ironically and perversely this one thing is the one thing that Globalisation/NWO/whatever is built on.

Money.

History has taught us this. Look at the British Empire for example. Who benefitted the most? Why did they bother in the first place? Its all about the rich getting richer. They move into new lands, forcefully if need be, exploit the natural resources, local labour and profit massively.



Ahhh. But alas we come back to Ethics. Morals. Self Discipline... Do you not think that the world as one could not decide even on a simple question of Ethics?

Money is the root of all evil we say. Yet we continue to print it just as the Romans once did. Devaluing every coin (even the penny) by using using aa filler that is not precious metal. Devaluing the dollar with no federal reserve gold to back it. Give me a press and I would be wealthy too.

The fall of the Roman empire is historically similar to our own. We have now arrived at the precipice of our own downfall by those who pretend to speak for us. Who recklessly will their designs upon us at our expense. Yet we still allow it.

There are no ethics when money is the rule of a nation. Topple those who control the money then build a world based on common FREE trade. NO tariffs, no rule by anyone other than those agreed upon all persons/all nations/one world.

"But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in the past centuries.” [David Rockefeller, in an address given to Catherine Graham, publisher of the Washington Post and other media luminaries in attendance in Baden Baden, Germany at the June 1991 annual meeting of the world elite Bilderbeg Group]

Live, love, be free, and think of your neighbors and friends in all pursuits - Me



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
To those thinking that it would be impossible due to the current middle east war, a small country holding off a major super power, I think you may be in error in assuming that these regional conflicts are meant to be won.
They are not, war to win is not a profitable venture.
I am supremely opposed to a regional government run by self appointed officials, not elected by the populace. Could a "NWO" actually work?
Of course it could--1 world, one language, 1 monetary system, 1 set of universal laws, 1 set of universal rights. But I seriously doubt that could be accomplished with x-billions of people in any forseeable future.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luap
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.


This says it all. I just wouldn't like some of the methods they would use to attain their goals. One good thing is that crime would probably decrease heavily. I'd glady give up some freedoms to have ZERO crime in the U.S.
Just not all of them.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Yeah, i dont think that a NWO would be a bad thing... but to get there, either bad things have to happen, IE: wars, etc... OR a world unifying even that cancels out any debate on religion etc... IE: an alien species coming to earth and telling us they out us here or some other god making his presence known



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo

IM not a right-winger but this is a good link here... whats so evil about communism?

The NWO is nothing more then global communism.


I was not going to post in this thread, but this caught my eye. I ran into this at work the other day.

The so called Right Wing in the United States is the exact opposite of Communism. Its foundation is based in Capitalism. The beliefs of the Right Wing do not allow for Communism. True Conservatism is based on a belief that the people who learn the most, work the hardest and make the best decisions earn the most and live the best lives.

Communism is a belief that everyone should live the same lives no matter how much they participate. That is why Communism is a worthless concept that leads to complete control by a few people and a two class system. Communism relies on the fact most people are too lazy to fight back if their basic needs are met. Its very existence depends on citizens following the path of least resistance.

Pure Communism is not possible. As a system it would self-destruct under the weight of human nature. If nobody is productive and there is no motivation to be productive, there will eventually not be enough resources to support the population. Only if everyone studies hard and works hard can Communism succeed. We are Humans so to even try is an exercise in futility. Because of this there must be incentive for a system to work and that brings us back to Capitalism.

The Left Wing in the United States claims to want the same things espoused by proponents of Pure Communism, not the Right. It is the Left that wants things like Cradle to Grave support from the System. It is the Left who wants Welfare, Free Medical Care, Guarantees of Housing and Food Stamps. All of which are by definition elements of Communism. Socialism is a weaker form of Communism. Say Communism in a room full of Right Wingers and you will get hateful glares. Say it in a room full of Left Wingers and you will get a lively conversation about its possibilities.

I think you meant Fascism?


In reality the Left and the Right are pretty much the same people who want the same things. Only the vocal Bigots in our society keep us apart. Both the Left and the Right have these Bigots among their ranks who work hard to keep us divided in an attempt to control us.

Don't live in fear of this Bogey Man called the NWO. It will self-destruct if it exists. Look to History for the answers. Living in fear means the bad guys have already won. They won't win the war though. As they place more and more controls upon us, they make us more and more volatile and eventually we will explode in their faces. Then the whole cycle starts over again.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy
Yeah, i dont think that a NWO would be a bad thing... but to get there, either bad things have to happen, IE: wars, etc... OR a world unifying even that cancels out any debate on religion etc... IE: an alien species coming to earth and telling us they out us here or some other god making his presence known


I heardf that henry kissinger said once, that we will get a new world order. But to get there bad things have to happen, and its going to be tough on alot of people, but for those that remain at the end, it will be better.

IS the saying "ends justify the means", good enough to create all this bad stuff, or do you think the ends do not justify the means.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Is it a means to an end or an end to a means - only we the people will decide



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
i'm going to play Devil's Advocate.

Sure various corporations and politicians have worked together to push Globalist agendas. There are different factions from very liberal eco fundamentalists to those who are mostly interested in profit and security.

What makes them any different from the rest of us? Other than wealth and influence they are the same as us. They are no more "Evil" than the rest of us. Humanity as a whole tends to be unlawful and unethical regardless of status, nationality, race, or religion.

Whatever imagined group of people or idealists replace these corporations and politicians the results would be the same. Humans by nature are competitive and selfish. Even those who try to expose the "evils" of the elite who dominate politics and trade fall victim to human nature.

How about exposing the human race? Its our nature thats allowed networks of elitists to assume positions of power within our societies. How and why do you think the idea of government and law came about? It came about due to human nature. Humanity's need for violent competition and selfish behavior. Laws and Government helped secure people and resources against rampant Barbarism.

Turn on the news today, look around the world, you'll see Human nature in action. In places like Sudan and Iraq where hundreds of thousands of Christians have been murdered, tortured, mutilated, and violated. They are not the victims of the elite, but victims of fellow humans who are poor and uneducated.

In our own nation the people left behind in New Orleans acted like animals in the aftermath of Katrina. The Peoples of Southeast Asia and Oceania did not act like that after the Tsunami and they were far worse off than citizens of New Orleans ever thought of being.

That at its core is what's wrong. Humanity is the problem. Every World Order has that problem. You can write and create all of the Socialist or Capitalist Utopias you want but they will always fail. Humans whether rich or poor, elite or meek will always be able to break and corrupt all that is just in the world.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUSHumans by nature are competitive and selfish.


True, but humans by nature are also compassionate and altruistic. Human nature is not inherently bad, or good for that matter. Just confusingly human.

I think I agree in principle with the rest of what you are saying...

The problem I see is that the current socio-economic paradigm, mostly through the rule of money, appears to reward the negative characteristics of human nature, like those you mention: greed, selfishness, the will to dominate - to be the alpha male of the pack.
Many of the people who shape the world for the rest of us - either through monetary influence or political power - have reached such a position of influence through greed, selfishness, and ruthlessness. And so what hope does a utopian global order founded on such foundations have?

Surely it would be more constructive to a global-utopian end to reward co-operative achievement, altruism, and compassion?

So, is it human nature that is self defeating, or is it the artificial parameters of money and political authority within which it is allowed to exist that skews our human nature into a self defeating trajectory?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by Luap

Originally posted by andy1033
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.


This is exactly the problem with residual nationalism. Various factions have been trying to fashion "globalization" with the interests of their nationalities in mind (for example, the Anglo-American establishment, the EU, Russia, now China, the whole bloc of developing countries) rather than fashioning globalization with the interest of all of humanity in mind. All this global "integration" is really just different geopolitical spheres competing with each other over larger shares of the world--as John Robb said about globalization as managed by agreements like the WTO, IMF, NAFTA, etc., "if they were really agreements about free trade, they would be less than a page long."


So what system would you have for the nwo. The angloe american syetm wants democracy. Putin said himself not everyone wants that. What happens when the people vote in someone the west does not want, and then they do not talk to them.


A world federal government doesn't necessarily mean that each region is governed the same. For example, California and Texas are two states under the same federal government, but they still have many local differences. A "North American Union" and an "African Union" may be two forms of states under the same federal (world) government, but that still allows for local leaders and laws that reflect the desire of the populations.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join