Global New World Order! Okay, so what?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Let me be the devils advocate here and ask "why" about a few things.

Why would it be a negative thing to have one order as a unified people?

Why would we fight for the existence of complicated multi-nation/state system, when we could stop countless wars, border arguments, land tracts, and so forth through a one world government?

Instead of "me, me, me," why not, "all for one, one for all?"

What is the argument for keeping our sovereignty as nations?




posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Are you all worried about global slavery? I don't understand the rationale behind not going forth in this direction. As human beings, I think it's in our best interest to blend cultures and carry on as one and eliminate xenophobia, suspicion, and fear of other countries and cultures. I don't see the mending as a people could have any negative repercussions.

And in regard to the North American Union (NAU), who says this land belongs to America, Mexico, or Canada? Last time I checked, we weren't necessarily "given it." I don't see any point in dying for this land that should be fair game for all human beings.

If anything, the division of land with names and flags is more dangerous than being as "one."



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
"It's not worth, it's the investment
That keeps us tied up in all these strings
We draw lines and stand behind them
That's why flags are such ugly things
That they should never touch the ground" - "faced squared"
fugazi


Which is the only part of that I agree w/ Deadflag. . . . my main points, I'll hold off on going on about this: the government is? The language is? Monetary system? The original creators of that concept are not good people, devil worshipers, wanting central power/bank(s) -- that concept doesn't really invoke individuality or indy business.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by anhinga
 


Crazy, that was exactly what I was thinking of when I started the thread.

But your other concerns are kind of trivial if this were the "next step" in human evolution. I doubt that people will cave to big business because there's no borders to our land.

If anything, big money would have to worry about the unification of an ENTIRE people, and would lack the power to pin us against one another.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Because if history is any reminder (and it usually is, tends to repeat itself you know) it will not be pretty. Alot of people will be staved off for the remaining few to live in enslavement, probably happy about it as long as they're safe. Do not underestimate stupidity in numbers.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by rationalgaze
 


Good point. Too the variables are a little different in modern times. Leaders prodominately used the "fear of god" to keep all order in check and were rarely challenged by it's people because of it. The level of intelligence is now very wide spread instead of very limited, as was the case of past empires. They don't have the same leverage they used to.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Eh, not really, free trade is already killing the farmer.

Look at Hatebucks. They pay the farmer pennies for their coffee in
S and C America -- that farmer ain't making anything from them, having
to either be sought out by a fair trade company or make money to survive
in home country.

Tram-law (Wal-Mart) has taken over the lower/middle class tax brackets. And sure, nwo wins, why not shop there for cheap items? More indies out of business....

...so I walked away from this at that point, I hear you more and more when thought over. The world DOES need a new monetary system, it needs wealth distribution, it needs food/healthcare to third/fourth world countries.

But America's in the hole 9$ TRILLION bones. Unless, US gets less hated and finds itself in a second world status, which could happen soon, their debt won't be relieved when there's no production going on. A service economy is like a Rome, in postmodern terms, that sort of society can't survive.

"Borders and boots" UN doesn't help. The organization/World Bank are special interests, sure, a lot of research happens, but where's the blue helmets in Haiti, Congo, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Palestine?

NWO? The term itself is kinda racist and I hear you about changing the world, but it's a sickening phrase based on the one race theory -- which, I imagine, millions of people sorta hate at this point in their lives.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I don't know. The Old World Order has done okay by me. I have enough food and a place to live, and I don't live in fear of being attacked in my sleep. That's pretty good.

Maybe it's a little harsh, but I really don't care if everybody on Earth is happy and well-fed, because I just don't have that kind of all-encompassing empathy for people I don't know. I don't have the energy for it. We're all animals in a big cage, and sometimes we breed too much, or there's not enough food, and we fight, and we eat our young to survive. I try to avoid misery and pain, and I've been pretty lucky so far, but I don't feel responsible for everybody on the planet.

Personally, I think the world is too chaotic for any kind of New World Order to actually work. Too many variables. Too many people up to a lot of monkey business. As it is, even the most advanced countries are still only two meals away from revolution. I don't see how a New World Order would change that.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I'm your man.

Yes, exactly. Let's have a new world order.

Sensible people rule the world.

No more idiots.

Now who are the idiots and who are the sane?

Bags I be in the latter category.

But there are all these IDIOTS.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I thought wanting to take over the world went out in the 80's when G.I. JOE defeated Cobra. Who in their right mind would want to be put in charge of this mess? Billions of pissed off people with billions of problems... and someone actually wants to jump in and claim they are in charge of it all now? It explains the satanic part of the NWO. You would have to be a satanic masochist to want that job


[edit on 23-10-2007 by b309302]



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by b309302
 
I am only making this post to indicate that I gave your post above a star.

And this is another line to divert the Moderator Lightning (see Byrd's signature).

[edit on 23-10-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Why does it have to be a "violent" takeover with bad ulterior motives? What if all this sketchy stuff they're doing is necessary because people are too dumb to make their own decisions?

Maybe the "globalists" or whatever you want to call them are the only ones that are trying to do anything in the name of progress? These men and women that want to cut the population down to 500,000, or 5 million depending on which nutjob you ask.. What if they're the only ones who truly want to sustain life and the earth?

Looks like we've kind of ran away with our natural course of action and are single handedly doing irreparable harm to our host planet.

I know you'd like to view "them" as this driving evil force in your day to day life but don't you think it's possible they're cruel intentions right now are better for the condition of the earth and the species survivability?



[edit on 23-10-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Well maybe they have to be lunatics right now. We're this big sludge of "waste of time" and there's no way to move it except by force and chemtrails (jokes).

It's like a drunk guy at a party who's being a pervert and won't leave. You ask him nicely several times, he doesn't do anything. You punch him out and drag him out of the house, and you've got yourself a solution, even though it wasn't necessarily the one you favored in the beginning.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Why does it have to be a "violent" takeover with bad ulterior motives? What if all this sketchy stuff they're doing is necessary because people are too dumb to make their own decisions?

Because people are selfish and why absolute power corrupts absolutely. A one world would be great if it were trusted, it this distrust that the people have of those in power that true benevolence is unlikely or deemed so.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Prote
 


We're not talking a global dicatorship, but moreso a "global union." I think 7 billion people can band together enough to seal the fates of anyone who would wrong us.



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
The problem with a NWO is you don't know what you'll get for leadership. You may pick a saint but his agenda is kept to himself. The army will be more powerful to control everyone, and will be more efficient. The leader can enforce any laws he wishes are necessary, such as curfew.
This won't happen anyway, if they want to implement it then they will have to ban all religions, all nations and erase our history to start over.
IMO a NWO is the worst idea in the world, and no offense to you OP.

Sorry I just read your last comment. I think a Global unity would eventually lead to a one world government.

[edit on 23-10-2007 by Equinox99]



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I think part of the problem is that there are deep seeded hatreds in this world. Whole generations growing up being tought someone else is the enemy. As a whole people do not like to take personal responsibility, and it is far easier to blame it on someone else. Hence, violence, hatred, and war. It would be great to unite the world, but it's just not that easy. Culture clash is the biggest problem. Religions do not see things eye to eye. To make this work you would have to change some cultures at their foundation to make them compatible with other cultures, something I am sure would not go over well. Nor should it. To get every person on this planet under one set of rules, and one common way of thinking would take alot. Even if it was violent in nature... it still wouldn't work. Wipe out 90% of humanity and try to rule the remaining 10%. What then? We unite humanity against some threat, then what? These petty feuds would just start back up again after the danger passed. Alliences fall apart. Do you just keep the entire world in a perpetual state of fear with constant war to keep order? Eventually the only thing you would end up ruling is a desolate rock.

[edit on 23-10-2007 by b309302]



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by b309302
 


That's complete speculation. "This would happen!" No, it wouldn't. If we assimilate all cultures slowly to one, overtime, we shouldn't have any issues. Look at west europe. What a beautiful mixture of vibrant cultures, all coming together as one.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   
The banking elite control (eventually ruin) economies, woodrow wilson conceeded he single handedly ruined his country (after passing the fed. reserve act) and allowing the bankers said control of the money supply.

Any major change in global order or whatever catch phrase (NWO) will be overseen by the money intrests in the world (cenral bankers)

my take is the economies of the U.S and UK (primarily) and possilbly Japan will be hit hard by consumer spending decline's leading to deep recession and unemployment. Nothing of the "end of the world crap" but nothing pretty, either.

India will be succesful leading the technolgical sector into the future. China is a wild card IMO

America's "radical" amount of freedoms are slowly chipped away and alot of times no body knows simply because laws can be enforced discretionally, making protest to these changes mute, since people don't notice an immediate effect. Some beleive if a severe recession strikes certain freedoms could impede the speed to deal with large civil uprises can be dealt with and thus restore a semblance of order.

A new global economic order may be born when the U.S and U.K consumers feel the weight of the housing crashes and see their equity fall (for some become negative) and slow their spending (sharply).

This appears to be occuring at a time when the Global financial system is severely leveraged on debt. Yes, central banks always relied on debt, but now the deregulation of the markets enable's that debt to be stretched further in order to increase the amount of loans and speculations banks and investment bankers can lend/make.

Debt has been seen as wealth. Paper assets marked to myth (not market) seem to make up a large amount of reserve's which banks then multiply from to determine there potential growth. The growth in the economies in the last decade has been based on speculation and paper wealth, not tangible infrastructure or industrialization. (w/ the exception of large corportaion going global) It has been speculated up through lending and low intrest rates, and carry trades to form asset bubbles in anything under the sun, and governments pressured to get re-elected often postponed/substituted natural corrections with more deregulation and thus money supply growth (in the form of credit largely) to keep the financial system from ( in the early days correcting/but now the system is dependent on credit growth for survival) because a correction now would cause a MASSIVE DEFLATION of ASSET Prices).

The large banks of the united states are in deep trouble due to the fact that alot of the "assets" and their associated values are very sketchy (in fact no one wants to try and sell these assets because they find out what their real worth is ) so they set up some super siv investment fund, which hides losses temporarily, and allow them to still lend out the massive amount of loans (which are a multiplier of the worth of there reserve's made up of asset values which are not really all they are cracked up to be)

otherwise banks would have to call in alot of their loans, and the stock market would crash, because people would have to sell lots of stocks, to pay the banks when they call in these loans.

In an asset crash , cash would be king, people with $ would be able to buy up assets at pennys on the dollar. it would be the buying opportunity of a lifetime.

worse yet the american economy thrives on consumer spending and as the consumer is more tapped out retailors feel this and foreign investment may flee (espeically as lower intrest rates yield less return) and the financial sector feels this heavily, eventually consumer slowdown may take out the debt leveraged markets, which in turn would leave america ( as well as similiar situation in the UK) in need of martial law and may stretch the limits to order out of chaos.

The banks see this coming, perhaps the only way for them to make major money, as the credit cycle is about to unwind, would be to take short positions in the markets, this would lead to a historical crash (probably greater than (1929-30's) (the banks i am referring to are Jp morgan, goldman sachs , bank of america in particular) the other banks would probably go out of business (insolvent) in fact these major banks may go down themselves while the big wigs at the top make moves to save their personal nest eggs before the fall.

the laws or (lack of which have been changed) the martial law rules have been laid out , the containment camps have been built, all that is needed is a severe consumer driven recession and financial crash, their are know new bubbles which can be inflated for consumers, and some planners undertand this.

Their will be recession in the u.s an the u.k the only question is will the credit cycle be able to continue to expand during this whole mess(i.e will the financial sector and the leveraged markets weather this storm, and will the dollar be worth anything of value when we stop devaluing it in an effort to balance the trade deficit.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by cpdaman]



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 03:44 AM
link   
They may be 1 nurse shark but we are 6.5 billion guppies. You really think they could swindle a population that big. If we're all interacting with one another on a GLOBAL scale as brothers in arms. I think human instinct would naturally fight back against something like that. But I do believe that a global union is the next step in the social evolution!





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join