Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Global New World Order! Okay, so what?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 05:39 AM
link   
plenty of reasons. secret societies, corruption, massive beurocracy, greed, etc.
It doesnt take much thinking to figure it out, really.




posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Unplugged
 


All that is just speculation. There's no proof of "secret societies" running your neighborhood car wash, let alone our nation. I also think you skimmed over the title and didn't read into it any further than that. Even if let's say a cult favorite, like the Masons, "took over" the world. Why would it be a bad place? As far as I'm concerned Freemasons are some of the only stable people left on this earth.


Yeah, lions, tigers, and bears, oh no! But why, oh no?



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
What is the argument for keeping our sovereignty as nations?


Well for one thing, oil.

There isn’t enough to go around. Simple as that. It’s a zero sum game, for one party to gain, he has to take from another.

If you want us all to be equal, you have to be prepared for a major drop in your standard of living.

There are no more nations. The world is ran by multi-national corporate interest. (see Joseph Campbell)

Do you know of any economic system that would benefit the whole world? That cannot be hijacked by the elite? I agree the world would be better off with no borders, but if we have to rely on the good faith of the world’s power elite to make it happen, we are in very bad hands.

The UN, NAFTA, EU etc. do nothing more than void/dilute our democratic powers. Unelected officials working for corporate interests, not ours.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
 


To be completely honest... No. I don't know of any system that can't withstand human stupidity and greed. I believe communism is the wave of the future, but until we stop the rat race and the mentality that perpetuates it, that's a far off goal.

I still think you all are giving the "global elites" a little too much credit. They're men and are succeptable to the same fate as you and I. They're no better than you and I, while the majority of you still put these men and women on a very undeserved pedestal, I'm simultaneously trying to figure out "why?"

I couldn't imagine the type of backlash from a united population of 7 billion people. No military force could stop that pile up if they wanted to. I think even if it came to an us agains them, I dont' really have much to say except better luck to "them." That's what we deserve for being the scourge we've worked out to be. The bottomless, unsatisfied fleshy pit we call the human race has to meet it's maker sooner or later.

If anyone is doing anything to contribute to the well being of the species and the planet, it's these so called "elites." Although the means may be a little dirty, I think the goal they're trying to attain is admirable, no matter how much it pisses you all off.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Do you know of any economic system that would benefit the whole world? That cannot be hijacked by the elite?


I see your point but does that mean we should accept the situation as it is. I personally favour a meritocracy with service to the wider community as its own reward - like Jury service in some ways.

The first problem is how do we take the elite down - we can only do this collectively and this is what is keeping them in their place. They have divided us and conquered us.

They will never give us our freedoms back, but who among us are willing to take it back?

Revolution has little fear to me, I have little to lose. Though I do have responsibility to my child and cannot endanger my ability to care for him at this moment in time, I feel that it is also my responsibility to ensure that the world he inherits is not the complete hell-hole that it is on the road to becoming.

Tough choices on the way for one and all in my opinion.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
I couldn't imagine the type of backlash from a united population of 7 billion people. No military force could stop that pile up if they wanted to.


They are very much afraid of this, Noam Chomsky refers to this as “awakening the sleeping giant”. This is why it is essential for them to have a great measure of control over the media in a democratic society. (see the Gary Webb story). If we all woke up simultaneously they would be completely screwed. Problem is, as again pointed out by Chomsky, most of us would rather be one of them then to depose them. In other words, we are easily bought.

Don’t think for a minute that we now live in a classless society, the aristocracy and the monarchy have not disappeared, they have simply evolved.


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
The first problem is how do we take the elite down - we can only do this collectively and this is what is keeping them in their place. They have divided us and conquered us.


I always enjoy reading your posts KT. I completely agree with you here, the only way this is going to happen is collectively.

As far as systems go, I’ve looked into participatory economics a little, but I’m afraid I don’t understand it enough to comment on it.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   
ok, before answering let me take a slight detour through history ( explained at the end )

I am an Irish Australian. My story is long and completely revolves around the old school celts fighting and dying for freedom and the right to be a soveriegn nation that determines its own fate. hell, it was even illegal to fly the green ( irish lads will understand that ) or even speak my native tounge.
200 years ago my ancestors were thrown to Australia as prisoners of war ( the Battle of Vinegar Hill ) and here my lineage remains. ( the more distance between us and the english the better for all )

track to now. globalisation, democracy geared for the minority, big business and the impending NWO.

fast track to 1000 years from now. EVERYONE will be coffee coloured and speak the same language.

my beef is this. Not the colour, nor language, nor even my inbuilt almost genetic hatred for authority, it is far more simple. I am an indivisual. If i choose to get drunk, smear my self blue and speak gaelic then so be it. Even today, that sort of behaviour is frowned upon. go to your bank, how many tellers have an eyebrow ring??? i can tell you none. why?? because over the years we have systematically been told that it is ' bad ' to wear such things in ' business ' . we have sold our own cultrues down the river on the say so of those with the $$$$. simple, take it out or no job.

so whats wrong with the NWO??? My great grandchildren should have the right to go wear they want, why they want, how they want, do what they want, without having to bow and scrape to get there.

in short F**K the NWO!

it'll be a cold day in hell before this ' convict ' kneels to ANY sort of numbered system. i'd rather be destitute on the streets of calcutta then betray over 3 millenium of lineage.


oh and i am spastic drunk on whisky incase you cant tell and simply venting.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
I always enjoy reading your posts KT.

Thanks Cnut - feelings mutual and it is good to see you around a bit more lately, though judging by your web site you have been very busy otherwise. I look forward to the continuing adventures of Eric McBlair



Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
As far as systems go, I’ve looked into participatory economics a little, but I’m afraid I don’t understand it enough to comment on it.


Put that way I'm not sure I do either.

I often think that I have read a little bit too much sci-fi for my own good - I should have kept my head and stuck to Jane Austen!!! I know that the elites have (paid someone to) read all that I have read and they know that if we continue on this course we will be completely without recourse - Phillip K Dick, William Gibson and Bruce Sterling have all foreseen the future and so far they have been spot on. I would much rather we were headed towards Heinlein (god IS love), and maybe we will get there eventually - but not in my lifetime I am sorry to say.

What is worse though is that there is no true leadership and we cannot rely upon a real leader breaking through to the front to change the direction we are going in. I honestly do not see how we can break from the elites, unless it is through a complete breakdown/uprising and until that time we are faced with the prospect of a ever widening gulf between them and us which makes it all the more unlikely. Any leader that does materialise can be quickly bought or squashed. I am an optimist by nature but even I find it hard to see how change is ever going to be possible as the mechanisms of control are all too inviting as you very ably point out yourself...

www.illuminatirex.com...

I feel that the way forward for humanity and the planet in general is a one world government - but not with the current bunch of SOBs in control. The only system that I would accept is one based on merit and I can't see that happening for a while. I find myself with an ever increasing desire to head for the hills....just wish I didn't give a damn.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Destroying all culture is the only way the NWO would truly work, because the culture that say a Shia Muslim lives in is quite different and in a lot of respects completely incompatible with say a Christian from the United States or a Pagan from anywhere really. Until you wipe out every trace of every religion and difference in belief then a New World Order simply would not work. People are proud of their heritage and would likely fight for it tooth and nail as some have already indicated, and I applaud them for that. Our heritage is what makes us who we are, our cultural customs, upbringing, songs and lore.

If the NWO were to accomplish anything at all it might very well be uniting those they intend to subjugate under a common cause; protecting their past as well as their future. Wouldn't that be a rather humorous occurrence?

But to get to such an end as they want they first have to remove all traces of history to people (1984 anyone?) and likely kill off millions upon millions of people who would not lay down for such a master. So those are good things, ideals worth supporting and endorsing? I'm sorry but there is no way I support a worldwide genocide because a small group at the top of the pile thinks its the only solution, that just smacks of a Final Solution that has been a pock mark on a once proud country for many decades.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by Unplugged
 


All that is just speculation. There's no proof of "secret societies" running your neighborhood car wash, let alone our nation. I also think you skimmed over the title and didn't read into it any further than that. Even if let's say a cult favorite, like the Masons, "took over" the world. Why would it be a bad place? As far as I'm concerned Freemasons are some of the only stable people left on this earth.


Yeah, lions, tigers, and bears, oh no! But why, oh no?


There are a lot of things in this world that are known to be true but that are hard to "prove". There have been many American presidents that have addressed and warned America about secret societies and the dangers they pose. These things are well know and established, they are ADMITTED by their members. Masons are well known, as are Skull & Bones, and those are only the ones that are known in public. To question their existance at this point is a non-starter.
Regarding their motives, one only needs to look at history to figure out that what drives elites in societies has always been power and control at whatever cost (whether they are part of secret societies or not).



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
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."


I agree with what you say, BUT, my problem is they way they are going about doing it. SECRECY, SECRECY, SECRECY. I like the fact that it would cut crime down to almost nothing. I also thing we need to come together as "one" in the world if we are achieve peace for the world. I just don't like how they are going about it.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Helig
 


Yeah, nobody said anything about destroying any culture. I think you have that confused with "mending." There's a drastic difference. I think all sorts of culture would survive regardless who was running our nations/states. Again, look at Western Europe, or South America. They're running prettty smoothly and still maintain their mutli-cultural value.

Why the need for negative run away thought. "They'll destroy our culture, kill millions, they hate puppies and babies, they don't brush their teeth, and..."

As a people united and that large in numbers, there would be no way to control the kind of unification through cultures against whatever was ailing us.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Unplugged
 


That paranoid conspiracy rhetoric isn't going to work with me. "We don't know who or why, or when, but you should be afraid of them." Nah, I'd rather take my chances putting my faith in my fellow man, rather than fear supposed secret societies.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by cpdaman
 


You speak words of wisdom my friend. Nice post.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
You're not seeing the future of such an idea.

But imagine the whole world united as say, one country, with no borders, and one standing army. Now for the sake of it lets say it was adopted a republic. But now lets say that it sinks into a tyrannical dictatorship like Nazi Germany. Who is going to stop this tyranny??? WHO!? The people? Not likely. Once a tyrannical police state forms it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to stop it from the inside. It requires an outside influence or force to change such a regime.

If the whole united, border-less world fell into tyranny only an alien invasion would ever end it. I say that countries and borders are good. What we need is a republic within each country.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Unity in Diversity


Before joining any hypothetical galactic federation we would at least have to be united as a planet, united as a species. Its obvious that being ONE planet is the next evolutionary step.

Conspiracy-Theorists mistake one-world-government with loss of individuality, loss of diversity, loss of identity, and with totalitarianism, loss of sovereign local governing offices, massive big brother control...dystopia.

But thats not the way it has to be and thats not the way its going to be. Our Illuminated Rulers are already planning a new golden age on our behalf, an age of peace, prosperity and diversity for all.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Borders are not the only thing that people fight over. If you erase all borders and have one large world community, fights will continue. How many countries are in civil war as we speak? Borders do not contain ideas and beliefs. Erase the borders and those ideas and beliefs are still there. They are what make us human. Not all beliefs mesh together so well. It works in Europe because the system of values between the countries is somewhat similar. Like us and Canada. Not much of a conflict. Could you honestly say a country like Iran would fit into the European union with no conflict of their values? I don't believe that would be a smooth transition. Changing names on a map, does not change the people who live there, or their perceptions of other cultures.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by b309302
 


Iran being the most "liberal" of all Middle East nations, I'd have to say, yes.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
And civil war isn't that common. The regions in which it is common, is quite expected. We have this wild west view of most of the rest of the world, and we're not giving enough credit to people. Through my travels, I've made a lot of friends of every corner of the world. I have a very good friend from Pakistan who laughs everytime I bring up the conflicts in the region. As Americans, our view of the world is especially demented.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
DeadFlagBlues, i see what you're getting at - no really, i do.

Old imperialist empires like The Romans and the Chinese empire felt that in order for there to be peace, then peace must be fought for - that the only way to acheive true peace was to conquer all enemies.

I sometimes wish that our imperialist leaders would be so honest about it, instead of resorting to lies and trickery which will ultimately defile the true goal.

But let's look at this from the perspective of AFTER such a 'world union'.

Techsnow had a good point, about how there would be no opposition to that kind of world order, but i want to look at it differently, so bear with me;

Say we were to acheive a world order through strife and conquest - the families of those who had fought to stop the order coming to be would not be entirely happy about their father's killers rising to ultimate power; As such, there would be further strife - in otherwords, it would not be 'true peace'.

Say we were to acheive a world order through trickery and deceit - Personally i would not want to be part of that. It represents everything i hate about humanity bundled up into a few words, and here's why;

A world where trickery and deceit worked best would be one where you could NEVER trust people - People would be willing to do anything as 'a means to the end', willing to sink to ANY level in order to come out on top.

Men are made of greater things than petty lies.



So how could we have a world union that was made of neither conquest nor manipulation?

Well, I believe the closest word i can think of would be 'Alliance'.

Regardless of whether it will benefit you or not, people need to co-operate; if we do not co-operate, killings will ensue, and more killings because of it.

We cannot become a peaceful race if we are willing to kill or manipulate others in order to acheive it.


you may wonder what the importance is of being a peaceful race - well, Let's put it like this;

In the future, after humanity has discovered how to travel great distances in short time, we discover an alien race - now, this alien race is not in a state of peace; they fight amongst themselves, squabbling over resources and killing one another to fulfill base needs, without realising that in order to survive on a galactic scale, unity is needed above ALL ELSE.

Do we contact these aliens and try to share our understanding, or do we wait until they realise the truth?

Let's consider this in perspective; If humans were to enter space because of another sentient race, it could be said that we were not truly ready for it - and no one wants an intergalactic race of tyrants on their hands, do they?





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join