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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luap
the people in charge do NOT have the interests of ordinary folks in mind .


why would they need to? do you have their interests in mind? I dont have Rockefellers interests in mind, and I dont require them to care about me.




posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Skyfloating
I am all for justice and inquiry into the doings of those in power...of course. But it is not their job to give you recognition, attention, money...these are things one can give to oneself. They cant be held responsible for life, much less for your life.

While the elite could do better, certainly, I think some of them HAVE done more for the world than the gun-toting, sofa-researching anti-nwo theorist.
I know a few rich people that work VERY HARD for the good of society...sometimes to have their good work destroyed by fanatics.

Look, I will summarize my viewpoint: If I had the choice to spend my weekend with the educated elite or some paranoid religious fanatic who spends his life in front of the internet-screen, I would choose the elite.

And Ive come to this conclusion after studying the anti-nwo books.


I’m not trying to put the burden of society’s betterment on the shoulders of those that influence world affairs. (Actually, I think that would lead to even worse authoritarianism.) I’m saying that for those wishing for this betterment—rather than theorizing about future police states and opposing all things “global”—we must take on that burden and become influential in world affairs. As for your opinion on who you would want to spend a weekend with, I would pick the same option.


Skyfloating
why would they need to? do you have their interests in mind? I dont have Rockefellers interests in mind, and I dont require them to care about me.


My statements about justice-seeking and recognition were too broad. Of course, I don’t expect large businesses and financial institutions to have the interests of the public in mind. These are money-making machines, and their responsibility is to their shareholders and owners. The problem is that these large concentrations of wealth have the power to entirely upset peoples’s lives without the latter having any say. This is authoritarianism, and I oppose it. But this just brings us back to what I said above: we must take on that burden [of bettering society] and become influential in world affairs, to a point where institutions representing other interests can compete with institutions representing more powerful interests. When NGOs, trade unions, activist groups, etc., gain that influence, maybe we can bring a touch of democracy to global decision-making.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luap

However, your opinion of the corruption of First World society (with things like alcohol, pornography, and other less controversial material things) is obviously not shared by everyone. People like to buy and consume things; across the globe people want these sorts of material goods. Your "workable utopia" that does not contain these things is, for others, a dystopia. When it comes to matters of material, social, and/or spiritual wealth, opinions vary greatly of their "true worth." Some scoff at the idea of family tradition, some scoff at the idea of the soul, some scoff at the idea of a Mercedes-Benz. IMO, it will be a bright time indeed when people across the globe can tolerate these differences (not necessarily accept opposing beliefs, just tolerate them).


I wasnt talking about the first world. I was talking about primitive tribes who have not been able to adapt to First World Immoralities. Look at the Aborigines for instance. The introduction of massive amounts of liquor, drugs, and pornography have devastated their society.

Consumerism is one of the problems with the state of the world. Its rampant consumerism and growth that got us where were at now.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luap
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.


aquarmis.fcpages.com... - All the answers you need on why the NWO is a negative thing!



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
yes, of course we have to BECOME that power. Thats the whole message. Only by being influential yourself can you compete with those who are influental. And we CAN be influental in positive ways. So instead of complaining about NWO and the Elite, become the Elite and steer things in better directions. Yes, agreed.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
I wasnt talking about the first world. I was talking about primitive tribes who have not been able to adapt to First World Immoralities. Look at the Aborigines for instance. The introduction of massive amounts of liquor, drugs, and pornography have devastated their society.

Consumerism is one of the problems with the state of the world. Its rampant consumerism and growth that got us where were at now.


I should have said corruption by things exported from the First World. Either way, your "Immorality" may be my hobby, and what I see to be wrong may be the purpose of your life--my point is that most of human experience is subjective. You say consumerism is one of the problems with the state of the world--I agree to a degree, but what if I said consumerism is the greatest phenomenon ever? You can't "prove" me wrong or right either way--its subjective. We have to get by these black-and-white, moral-and-immoral mindsets to really have an analytical conversation, IMO.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aquarmis
aquarmis.fcpages.com... - All the answers you need on why the NWO is a negative thing!


Maybe I'll read your link, maybe I won't. I'll admit that I scanned over it VERY quickly, but all I see so far is just an advertisement.

"Do you feel there is injustice in the world? Do you think you may be exploited by forces beyond your control? Do you think conspiracies exist? Well, THEY DO! And fortunately, for ONLY $19.99 (plus S&H) you can UNCOVER these horrific, inhumane, and harmful TRUTHS!!"

I've seen plenty of that garbage; I'm not saying you're link is just like that, but I do see it trying to sell something. If you care to summarize this website's view on why a world federal government is a bad thing, I'd appreciate it very much.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Luap]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
yes, of course we have to BECOME that power. Thats the whole message. Only by being influential yourself can you compete with those who are influental. And we CAN be influental in positive ways. So instead of complaining about NWO and the Elite, become the Elite and steer things in better directions. Yes, agreed.


We seem to think alike.
Except, I have no desire to "become the Elite" but rather cut down the disproportionate influence they have. I really have no expectations of a truly egalitarian society where rich and poor don't exist, but rather where wealth is less commanding in the political (decision-making) structures.

It's a tough subject, really, when the real meat of the discussion is brought up. Just how do we become influential in world affairs? Some say the barrel of a gun is the means necessary. Some say that manipulating public opinion is the better route. Some say, etc. I plan on studying sociology and politica science and other related topics; but that will never provide all the answers to above question. Have you come across any sources that contribute to the debate?

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Luap]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   
The NWO is a bad idea for this reason. There are many more, but this one takes the cake in my opinion

To allow a NWO is to basically give up all personal freedoms and liberties in favor of a one-minded fascist agenda which is devoid of all individualistic thoughts.

We would all be slaves to the system with no way out. That is unless you decided to become a survivor and resist the NWO by turning into Bear Grylls, metaphorically.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Don Wahn
To allow a NWO is to basically give up all personal freedoms and liberties in favor of a one-minded fascist agenda which is devoid of all individualistic thoughts.


Why? We allowed a "NAO" (new American order) with the ratification of the United States Constitution, and yet Americans are still very much concerned with personal liberty.

Why would a new world order not be concerned with individual rights and opinions?

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Luap]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Luap


I should have said corruption by things exported from the First World. Either way, your "Immorality" may be my hobby, and what I see to be wrong may be the purpose of your life--my point is that most of human experience is subjective. You say consumerism is one of the problems with the state of the world--I agree to a degree, but what if I said consumerism is the greatest phenomenon ever? You can't "prove" me wrong or right either way--its subjective. We have to get by these black-and-white, moral-and-immoral mindsets to really have an analytical conversation, IMO.


Alcoholism and Drug Addiction are serious problems. Porn addiction not necessarly the Pornography itself is a problem just as serious as Gambling addiction or Compulsive Buying. Addictions are what Im talking about. I consider them immoral, but regardless of moral implications addictions are a real problem. Many primitive socities have grown addicted to first world liquor, drugs, and porn resulting in the break down of families, communities, crime, abuse, and neglect. If you want a good example look at Australia where the government had to send in their military into Aborigne towns. This is not subjective. Do some research on studies of the impacts of these kinds of addictions on society.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Alcoholism and Drug Addiction are serious problems. Porn addiction not necessarly the Pornography itself is a problem just as serious as Gambling addiction or Compulsive Buying. Addictions are what Im talking about. I consider them immoral, but regardless of moral implications addictions are a real problem. Many primitive socities have grown addicted to first world liquor, drugs, and porn resulting in the break down of families, communities, crime, abuse, and neglect. If you want a good example look at Australia where the government had to send in their military into Aborigne towns. This is not subjective. Do some research on studies of the impacts of these kinds of addictions on society.


Ah, I see your point. Addictions are destructive forces, and it is really hard for any of us to say one sort of addiction is legitimate (alcohol) while another is illegitimate (sex).



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   
In case you missed the Bilderberg 2007 meeting and it's link to the NWO here is a link that explains what was discussed. Very interesting.

www.nexusmagazine.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   
One of the greatest balances of a government/institution's power is the existence of other governments and world powers. If one person wrested control of the United States and went insane, even with the control of the US military he couldn't fight the whole world.

But if one group had control of all the world's resources, there's no way to keep them in control to ensure that they act in the best interests of humanity. And, as we all know, it's human nature to revere the individual welfare over the group welfare...



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Luap
the NWO is bad because authoritarians that wish to destroy individual liberties ..

just that.
thats it about democracy.

america has a lack of direct democracy.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Luap

It's a tough subject, really, when the real meat of the discussion is brought up. Just how do we become influential in world affairs? Some say the barrel of a gun is the means necessary. Some say that manipulating public opinion is the better route. Some say, etc. I plan on studying sociology and politica science and other related topics; but that will never provide all the answers to above question. Have you come across any sources that contribute to the debate?

[edit on 9-8-2007 by Luap]


Well, the more people our decisions and words and actions reach, the more influental we are, right? no mystery there.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by oldone
In case you missed the Bilderberg 2007 meeting and it's link to the NWO here is a link that explains what was discussed. Very interesting.

www.nexusmagazine.com...


I think the actual quotes of the people were interesting, even insightful; I also think that this guy's interpretations were "interesting," but more in the sense I find a fictional story interesting. His interpretations are one of many possibilities and based upon outside sources, which he apparently refers to as God-given facts.

I'm going to see if I can find an actual transcript of the meetings. I expect it would just be the closed-door realpolitik practiced by societies's elites in the past, except that this particular group represents the interests of Western Europe's and the US's elites, who may not necessarily have the interests of each region's "nation-states" in mind (though I hardly think that makes them evil or desiring a fascist government).



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter
One of the greatest balances of a government/institution's power is the existence of other governments and world powers. If one person wrested control of the United States and went insane, even with the control of the US military he couldn't fight the whole world.

But if one group had control of all the world's resources, there's no way to keep them in control to ensure that they act in the best interests of humanity. And, as we all know, it's human nature to revere the individual welfare over the group welfare...


Just because the label "US government" exists does not mean that anything and everyone involved in it is entirely compliant. The same would be of the term "world government." If someone got control of a federal government (be it a world or the American one) and started going on an ideological rampage, he or she would face external and internal resistance. Factions in the government would break off, regional cohesion would split, non-state actors would mobilize. That's just one scenario.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Well, the more people our decisions and words and actions reach, the more influental we are, right? no mystery there.


Making our words reach other people is the easy part, given communications today. The hard part (what I was getting at before) is how do we get our decisions and action to reach more people?



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Luap
 


I would say that NWO is really mostly here already. NWO to me means corporations ruling the planet. Right now they do so more covertly than anything. There are still rogue states like Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, N Korea etc who are not conforming to their agenda. Some of these (like N Korea) for instance are not necessarily good but they feel they can get something out of being a thorn in the side of the globalists.
In any case, I don't see the NWO being much different from what the world is now sans the figureheads who pretend they are independant in most countries but behind the scenes follow the globalist/corporate agenda.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join