the World Peace Paradox

You always hear people talking about the dream of "World Peace". Sounds like a great idea. For example, Miss America contestants always say that if they had one wish, it would be for "World Peace". Protestors of many different walks of life always pushing for world peace. Well what exactly is "World Peace"??? Hopefully it doesn't mean "World Police"!...From everything I've ever heard or read about the New Word Order, my impression is that there is an agenda / plan to move humanity towards a "One-world Government" where the whole world is under the complete control of one united governing body...Is this World Peace? Would the world really be free of the tyranny of war, if it was completely policed by one ruling collective? I personally believe that world peace can only truely be achieved through tolerance and understanding, not through "Security" and imposed forced rules. I read up on a very interesting momument in Georgia,U.S.A commomly known as "Georgia's Stone Henge" this creepy(imho) monument lists instructions in several different languages on how to further the "United World" / "World Peace movement" / NWO, the inscriptions contain some alarming instructions on how to go about achieving world peace. One of the instructions on the monument is to drasticly reduce the population of the Earth. Killing off millions doesn't sound very peaceful to me! Is a peaceful "Utopian Future" even possible for humanity? Are radical actions such as martial law a necessary means for ultimately achieving harmony? It's almost like a paradox of sorts, I mean think about it...who wouldn't want world peace? Opposers to world peace must support world war, right? Yet at the same time, the N.W.O's agenda seems to be to use world wars as a means to bringing about a controlled 'peaceful' world. It's a catch 22...N.W.O = World Peace, But at the most expensive cost of all, FREEDOM. Peace with out freedom is the recipe for revolting to get back freedoms...thus starting wars and ending the peace...To conclude my cynical ranting...I feel tolerance and understanding may be the only way to avoid the NWO-"World Peace paradox". any thoughts?

you are perfectly correct mate.

Peace is no longer a free decision and agreement of hearts and minds and souls among all people of the earth, the down to earth. It has solidified into the obscure fortified concrete of Courts and Parliaments. What are these buildings?

Peace by law is a tyranny of peace, meaning peace is no longer a free and honest decision and agreement among people, but is enforced from 'on high'. Enforced peace is tyranny.

Peace by Law denies the power of Christ's resurrection and victory over sin and death.Christ's salvation from sin and freedom from the Law of Moses means we live by the law in our hearts alone, having no need and paying no heed to laws written by men in high places and undisclosed offices.

The institutors of the laws of 'peace' and 'security' and 'international community' are actively subverting the message of Christ by building upon the foundations of ancient empires founded upon law and its enforcement. They are placing us back under the yoke of the law which God freed us from through Christ. This is not Jewish though. It is Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Syrian, Greecian, Roman, Brittish and American. The Mosaic Law was not inteded to be a 'universal' or 'eternal' law, as the Lord says through the Prophet Jeremiah, "The time is coming when i will make a new covenant with Israel and Judah" Jer 31:31. That new covenant is freedom from the law through Christ - "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts" Jer 31:33.

These nations promoting peace by enforced law seek to de-Christianise the world, meaning they seek to remove the power of Christ from the hearts and minds of people and slide them back under the strick yoke of State law.

A Christian would look like a model citizen under the world's laws of peace. Surely it is only criminals and murderers and bickerers and others who step outside the boundaries and 'disturb the peace'. Yet this peace cannot be seen as genuine because it is not the reflection of the free and honest choice of people in love and worship of their Creator. Instead, this peace is just the reflection of the decisions of a few men in obscured places and of their ability to stir the waves of the sea and summon armies, dislocate nations and even speak into every household and living room world wide, at will. Who are these people?

NO. Peace is not really peace if it is a legal obligation. peace is a free choice not a law! otherwise its not genuine.

its like george bush saying to the world "be peaceful or i'll uffk you up!" that's Satanic contradictory lies.

Nonsense... A non-police state world peace can be achieved if it is wanted bad enough but you have to totally shift your paradigm away from nationalism and centralized authority.

One way of doing it fragment the existing nation states into smaller ethnic, cultural and even geographical entities or autonomus states with just enough of a military to enforce their borders. The United States could be broken up into 7 distinct regions (it has been proposed before in a book called I believe the 7 nations of north America). Each state or region would have 1 vote in a world body that would deal with issues that effect the whole and leave everyday things up to the regions.

The predatory capitalism of the corporate state would have to be done away with in favor of a more main street variety and of course militaries would have to be scaled back, disarmed and or cut down to size until no state would be a serious threat to another and if one does become a threat, the model of the first gulf war would work fine.

The key is decentalization and disarmament. I think it is a national shame of epic porportions that we are not in the fore front of the elimination of such things as mines, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Our rhetoric is that we are a force for world peace... BULL CRAP on that.... not so long as we are the world's largest arms dealer we aren't.

If violence by a police state, cowars a population into slavery it is not peace, even though no war occurs. Peace is more then an outward action it is also an inner feeling, living in fear, and being controlled is not peace.

Peace is two sides not wanting to hurt each other, control is two sides not being able to, but still living in fear and hate.

A crying 2 year old is not at war, yet he is not at peace.

Peace Out

When I made my above post i was thinking of a map of the world's bio-geographical provinces by Dr. Miklos D. F. Uvarady that was published on the inside of the front cover of 1981's Next Whole Earth Catalog. I dug my copy out to refresh my memory. it was refreshing to see the world, not divided by artificial borders of nations but by its biological and geographical regions. A similar map could be made of its cultural and ethnic regions as well.

I searched and searched and could not find a copy of it on the web but I am sure it is out there somewhere.

Nation-states with their massive wealth and power are the problem. The solution is either one massive state that controls everything... but such constructs are inherently fragile and rarely last long. Or go the opposite direction to small automonous cultural and ethnic regions that are part of a loose federation of equals.

It's a catch 22...N.W.O = World Peace, But at the most expensive cost of all, FREEDOM.

sorry, youve made a leap of reasoning which i see all too often. Like people saying that Nazis were evil, its not a given. Nazism is a political belief system, just like the American demorepublic

So, where does it say that a One World Government removes your freedom?

Nation-states with their massive wealth and power are the problem. The solution is either one massive state that controls everything... but such constructs are inherently fragile and rarely last long.

Only because they were led by morons. The ONLY way to have a long lasting, stable and powerful government and nation is by having greater control over all the aspects of society.


[edit on 13-9-2007 by Octavius Maximus]

reply to post by Octavius Maximus



I may get what your saying, It is not evil just for being a one world goverment but I believe a one world goverment by self proclaimed elites, non elected with self intrest as there main motivation is evil.

A world goverment built representing all peoples in a fair republic system would be a different story.

I see NWO as one dollar one vote, not freedom. I believe it sets up a monarch serf relationship with the peoples of the world.

reply to post by Octavius Maximus


I have to disagree. massive Centralized systems are inherently fragile constructs and it has been the case from the Assyrians on. They may last for a time but it is the top heaviness of the structure that ultimately leads to their downfall. And for this I am grateful.

Its because the leaders of such systems have been unable to grasp the power they weild.

Also, the economic and social society of today is quite different than that of the Assyrians, A democratic Kingship (its a true theory) would work quite well in this day and age, as long as the right leader is found.

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
Its because the leaders of such systems have been unable to grasp the power they weild.

Also, the economic and social society of today is quite different than that of the Assyrians, A democratic Kingship (its a true theory) would work quite well in this day and age, as long as the right leader is found.

Your comment could be true, but we have to admit that those right leaders are hard to find, and history shows us they are quite rare. So lets not set up a system that depends on a key element that is so rare. Our founders set up a system that challenges authority. Yet they have changed the teaching in schools to one where we should be patriotic and follow the leader.

As long as we have politicians disagreeing, people fighting over beliefs, greed, hate, lies, deception, and etc. Then we will never see peace. Peace will only feel right when everyones lets go of their fear and dishonestly, while learning to trust other individuals, and learn to work together as a whole nation.

my 2 cents

Screw leaders... if we are to have a unified world at peace then it has to rise from the ground up. Leaders are part of the problem not the solution; no matter how wise or knowledgeable, by the nature of their profession, they have a vested interest in power.

Peace is mostly just the absence of aggression, conflict, war...

even a law suit, quarreling neighbors, sporting competitions
are degrees of non-Peace.

the answer is as elusive as the cat chasing its tail,
and just as rewarding...
Wot?

[wot = waste of time]

One guy said:

So, where does it say that a One World Government removes your freedom?

AND

The ONLY way to have a long lasting, stable and powerful government and nation is by having greater control over all the aspects of society.

in the same post.

Mind like a steel trap. Democrat?

There is one (1) conflict in the universe:

"You have to do what I tell you because I'm the boss over you. So There."

Every conflict is the result of one person attempting to assert domination and control over another person.

War is: "You over there have to do what we tell you because our glorious leader is the boss over everybody. So There."

War is the result of one group attempting to assert domination and control over another group.

You need two things to start a war: A group and a leader. An ambitious leader who wants More.

The leader has nothing to lead if he doesn't have a group. If he doesn't have a group he has to manufacture a group. Or he can hijack an existing group.

The way to manufacture a group is to give people a common cause. A cause that gets people riled enough to interrupt their peaceful productive lives and go to war to satisfy the leaders needs.

The way to manufacture a group, or hijack an existing group, is to give them a grievance. Make that grievance the fault of another group. Insist that the only way to solve the grievance is to dissolve the other group.

You want World Peace? Put an end to ambition, and the desire to dominate and control others. Put an end to the desire to be a part of a group, which makes your decisions for you. Put an end to insecurity and greed and selfishness.

Good luck with that.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by Researcher]

Your comment could be true, but we have to admit that those right leaders are hard to find, and history shows us they are quite rare. So lets not set up a system that depends on a key element that is so rare. Our founders set up a system that challenges authority. Yet they have changed the teaching in schools to one where we should be patriotic and follow the leader.

yes, so what does this teach us?

That creating a rigid system means that people find ways around it. Then the system cannot cope because noone is breaking 'the law' but they are breaking the spirit of the law.

Creating a system where the laws are not rigid, where they can be changed. This means that inventive ways around them can be found and plugged, stopping murderers and rapists getting out on technicalities.

Screw leaders... if we are to have a unified world at peace then it has to rise from the ground up. Leaders are part of the problem not the solution; no matter how wise or knowledgeable, by the nature of their profession, they have a vested interest in power.

So you believe power is evil?

Hmm...odd.

One guy said:

So, where does it say that a One World Government removes your freedom?

AND

The ONLY way to have a long lasting, stable and powerful government and nation is by having greater control over all the aspects of society.

in the same post.

Mind like a steel trap. Democrat?

No, you are just short sighted, it seems.

I will need to go into greater detail.

You are not reading my posts, you are simply seeing words and reacting to them.

As an American, the word 'Freedom' gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, while the word 'control' makes you retch, a knee Jerk Reaction.

You are applying the American concepts of freedom to the word 'freedom' which is NOT the same thing, the amount of times i have to repeat this on this site is phenomenal.

I say, the government needs more control over society, you see the word 'control' and dont like it, because you see 'control' as being the opposite of 'freedom', which isnt the case.

I say i want CCTV throughout my city so i can catch criminals and keep a police presence where police arnt actually present.

You say "This infringes my right to privacy"

I say "Your right to privacy is an American concept claiming to be a devine given right, and as Religion has no place in politics, your right to privacy has no place."

Although i say this, does that mean i will place cameras in your house?

Of course not. This is unethical, nothing to do with religion.

just sit back and think for awhile, remove the mental blocks your culture has put in place.

You want World Peace? Put an end to ambition, and the desire to dominate and control others. Put an end to the desire to be a part of a group, which makes your decisions for you. Put an end to insecurity and greed and selfishness.

um....why dont we just lock ourselves in small boxes while we are at it. People can be controlled because they are fearful. I would assert my own dominance for the purpose of making people live without fear of anything except breaking the law. The law which is created by the people themselves.

What is the old saying... "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

It is not so much power that I am object to, its the notion that we need leaders to do it for us.

We've had 5,000 years of leaders... the act has gotten rather old if you ask me.

What is the old saying... "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

It is not so much power that I am object to, its the notion that we need leaders to do it for us.

We've had 5,000 years of leaders... the act has gotten rather old if you ask me.

Ive heard many platitudes in my time and that one annoys me the most because of its sheer stupidity.

Power does not corrupt all the time. Not all people are corruptible.

Do you prepose that we have no leaders? The world will stagnate, nothing will be organised, nothing will get done, as soon as an epidemic or something threatens, boom. Humanity gone.

Its old because it works.

reply to post by Octavius Maximus


It works because people are guliable.

are you saying because you question it your not gullible?

Many times i see on this site lots of elitism amongst Conspiracy theorists, i hope your not one of them.

No, people arnt gullible. They are actually intelligent. To have a functioning society, you need a leader. Even if you dont intend one, one appears.

People know that a world with society is preferable to one without it.

They arent gullible, they are making the choice which appeals to them, the one which allows advancement.

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
are you saying because you question it your not gullible?

Many times i see on this site lots of elitism amongst Conspiracy theorists, i hope your not one of them.

No, people arnt gullible. They are actually intelligent. To have a functioning society, you need a leader. Even if you dont intend one, one appears.

People know that a world with society is preferable to one without it.

They arent gullible, they are making the choice which appeals to them, the one which allows advancement.

If people aren't gullible explain bush minor or explain Hitler... not that I am equating the two because I am not... except that both were elected.

I am not saying do away with leaders, i am saying that they should have as little power as possible because as soon as they get some they want more and more and more.

A leader does not a society make. Societies can function quite well without a strong leader or a centralized power structure.

The reason leaders appear is yes because of a need at a given time but then they have a bad habit of sticking around.

I never trust anyone who WANTS to be a leader.



[edit on 16-9-2007 by grover]