Global New World Order! Okay, so what?

Problem is that with one government, all it take is for one party to rise up in power and be evil, and you're basically screwed. That would lead to ww3... or ww4, which ever comes first post NWO.

hmm however IMO it goes like this: money creates wealth, wealth creates envy for those who hasen't got the wealth so problem occur between the sides over materialistic stuff some we need other we don't like a watch with diamonds f example or a better car all this is esentially evolved around our own ego. if you remove your ego there is no troubles no reason to envy no reason to compete an as you remove the ego many fears disappear from your clouded visions wich we learn through tv. I used to be materialistic then became more spiritual as i began my path i stopped hating all the people and what they said to me.. bullies ect. Becourse i realized that they where stupid monkey's IMO some get wiser others don't. if i had not begun my awakening i would probably have done a clomubine to get even ..oh and my motto used to be nuke the world . Since i find that many spiritual people relligions if you will, speak of the same thing: god. wich is man itself from my view, When you realise this everything is much cleare nothing is impossible so a combination of spiritual/science = progress, but as long as we are told what to think and some monopolize wealth only to turn it into weapons of mass destruction here i mean nukes only since a biological weapon might be a good thing creates space and dosen't destroy the land if over population becomes and isue, its cruel but so is nature and it might be a reality soon some argue. I personally is against a one world goverment simply becourse its nerver the right people in charge BUT if all remove their own ego I want, I hate this, I hate that its so simple and the one who does more for the whole rather than the few would be elected.. but many people are like dump monkey's who deserves to perrish in their own stupidity. when all can view each other as equals then a united world would be possible.. or maybe not Iam becomming wiser and knows killing is wrong..but i still hate screaming babies and want to throw their noisy ass out the fu.... window or smash them with an axe can't help it its just the way i feel and iam being completely onest . So with my new found spirit i try to overlook stuff thats bothering me and i release tension and strees by seeing those screaming things on youtube get hurt and laugh in my own world, that useually do the trick for me but if censureship and editing continues i would lose my escape and become an enemy of those who can't accept that iam like this ...or lock me up in a kindergarden for more than one day or maybe just 5 hours..man something really bad gonna happen....guess iam not completely rid of my ego at this point but im getting there like i don't envy peoples cars any more after all i JUST need to get from a to z thats all so why bother? but what i can't and will never accept is that some monopolize all the resouces we got i mean it's ok if someone works more than others and there by gets a little more but to take more than you need making others suffer not giving them a chance to live in porverty if one so chooses that's fuc... up like the roth child fam and the bilderberg group those need to be taken down permenetly to name a few..but as long as goverment exist no one is truly free IMO but at the end of the day: the ones who is left.. are the ones who is right becourse they are still...maybe the reason for progress in science and spirit is becourse we are diffrent and thus evolution takes place so if we all live by the same rules and ideals and think the same how does new thoughts manifest? if we follow only one leader we might lose our imagination and individuality if so I would sugest that progress is impossible and we would devolve instead.. just a thought, wich I think gives the statement: total power or was it control?.. corrupts totally a new meaning. Nice tread btw hope this is is not to far away from main subject i tend to run wild some times my apology if so and for bad language/spelling. now to use a word i didn't think i would ever write.... peace!

[edit on 29-10-2007 by a-being-?]

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Hahahahahahahahahaha

What more to say? The videos are ridiculous.

Believe what you want. I'll just be normal.

Believe what you want and say what you will but anyone who supports an idea such as a tyrannical one world government is far beyond normal. I worry about people like DeadFlagBlues and I worry how many people out there think like her.

reply to post by Techsnow


XY, buddy.

I would gladly join the "NWO" if it existed, but it doesn't.

And for all the stillminds out there... A one world federation is the next sociopolitical evolution. It's not bad, it's not automatically evil, it's just what it is. Those of us who are for it aren't advocating evil or tyranny, but are aware of the direction of the winds of change. It's not hard to see the projected timeline of the human species and a one world republic is very obvious.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by Techsnow

 

XY, buddy.

I would gladly join the "NWO" if it existed, but it doesn't.

And for all the stillminds out there... A one world federation is the next sociopolitical evolution. It's not bad, it's not automatically evil, it's just what it is. Those of us who are for it aren't advocating evil or tyranny, but are aware of the direction of the winds of change. It's not hard to see the projected timeline of the human species and a one world republic is very obvious.

Alright I am going to have to agree with you DFB... you are right, a one world Republic or Federation would be great! But for how long?

You say you understand how the winds change. Then can you see how easy it is for a corrupt government to evolve from a republic? Now we can put that government onto a global scale...

years and YEARS down the road, after the republic is formed, a tyrannical leader manages to come forward and passes all sorts of laws that tightens the leash on the citizens of Earth, anyone who tries to fight this new leader is jailed and deemed to be a terrorist... now what?

Now as you suggested earlier, it is up to the people to maintain the Republic.
Well I have news for you. The founding fathers of America may have been able to do that but you I don't think you understand the strategies of war. They were fighting musket with musket and were over all, evenly matched with weapons. What mattered back then was head counts as well. In todays age (and I can imagine the same would be true for the future) there would be no hope for a violent revolution simply because they would be completely outmatched in weaponry. Even the U.S. government now has a weapon that can send microwaves through the air that can affect large crowds of people to disperse because of its intense pain. That would be a non lethal way of controlling the "revolution". Of course they could just shoot them all just as easily.

The point is, as I have said before. Once a republic's winds turn, there is no hope of countering the change except from an outside force.

reply to post by Techsnow


Have faith, my friend. You forget modern struggles so quickly. The Soviets learned how effective their brand new, top of the line technology faired against the Muslim freedom fighters. Look at a forced occupancy in a third world like Iraq. If you think you can crush the will of a people simply by being "better," you need to break out the history books.

America, 1776
France, 1789
India, 1865, of old.

Cuba, 1959
Iran, 1979
Venezuela, 2002 of new.

People can only ask "How high?" So many times...

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by Techsnow

 

Have faith, my friend. You forget modern struggles so quickly. The Soviets learned how effective their brand new, top of the line technology faired against the Muslim freedom fighters. Look at a forced occupancy in a third world like Iraq. If you think you can crush the will of a people simply by being "better," you need to break out the history books.

Venezuela, 2002 of new.

People can only ask "How high?" So many times...

It's funny you mention the Muslim's. Don't forget they aren't to shy about dying for their beliefs...
Venezuela was a non violent revolution.
Open those books and look at how many revolutions have failed.


I am going to go out on a long stretch to agree with you're point of view.
Maybe a borderless world with one currency wouldn't be so bad. But I would hope you would agree that a borderless world with only one standing army wouldn't be good. You would still need different sections with different representatives and multiple standing armies to ever hope to maintain this one world republic.



[edit on 29-10-2007 by Techsnow]

reply to post by Techsnow


There's no relevance in comparing the two being armed or peaceful revolutions, nor did I segregate or elaborate on culture or religion. This was just an example of how people don't just "roll over" as the majority of the opponents of my position would like to state.

Open those books and look at how many revolutions have failed.

That seems like a pretty counterproductive statement. So it's either "we can't stop it" or "lay down and die." I choose once again, the grey area. I have no time for indifference.

As far as government.. A world republic doesn't necessarily equate to a dictatorship by proxy. Maybe one standing army, maybe none. Who's to say what direction the world would go with? Not you, not I. I highly doubt it would be any sort of non-communal dictatorship. People wouldn't allow it.

DFB you are being to naive in you're vision of this NWO and that is whats going to be the problem when such an idea becomes a mainstream reality. People will accept it because it will be presented as a new hope for a dying planet.

The reason I say you are being naive is because, for example the U.S. constitution was created with the idea that even devils will be in congress. Is this NWO going to do the same? Are citizens going to have the right to bear arms or even the right to free speech?

Just remember that money is power and power corrupts absolutely and within every government there will always be a force that wants to hold every single human being under their unlimited ruthless power.

But you say, people wouldn't accept such a thing. Well you're right, most probably wouldn't. But if such a force comes to power what could the people possibly do about it???

reply to post by Techsnow


The same exact thing people do when they reach the breaking point. Revolt. Whether through diplomatic means or other, you can't walk over 7 billion+ people.. I don't care what reptilian weaponry you have reverse engineered at area 238.

Understanding that everybody is human, thus can make mistakes, and have human flaws such as greed, arrogance, racism, sexism, and different religions, values, ideas to boot. Theres always going to be someone who will try to enforce others to do their will for less so they gain, whether it be power, influence, money, materialistic things. Understanding that putting people in power to rule has never evr been a good idea. Just look at the USa today. Corruption, secret societies, imprisonment. 2 million people in prison.. Freedoms and rights being taken away. Taxes being forced to pay though no law exists, etc. They throw you in prison. Used to be the land of the free. Now its nearly going to be taken over and become a dictatorship.....

Theres always going to be someone who wants to oppress others whether its for self benefits or because they have manic fits of granduer.

As far as im concerned. The rest of the world can go kill themselves if they want. But i like Australia how it is and would not want a NWO!

[edit on 29-10-2007 by DaRAGE]

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
There's no relevance in comparing the two being armed or peaceful revolutions, nor did I segregate or elaborate on culture or religion. This was just an example of how people don't just "roll over" as the majority of the opponents of my position would like to state.

While I admire your optimism historically, popular revolutions seldom happen and are rarely successful. The French revolution was led by a relatively small group of Parisian middle-class intellegensia and minor aristocrats. It took months, if not years to actually generate a nationwide awareness of what was going on in the capital. For the peasant and un-skilled working classes, one ruler is much the same as the other - if they stay out of it, they get left alone.

This of course changed with the introduction of conscripted armies, now these territorial disputes between the current elite and the elites-in-waiting effect us all. I recommend that you read "The Prince" by Machiavelli. It is a very important book which is as relevant today as when it was written.

A revolution needs a leader. A leader who can withstand 'the slings and arrows' and survive long enough to acheive the popular support required to launch a revolution.

One problem is that the current system is breaking down and western society is entering a decline. While the time has come for action we have been programmed for passivity. Those with the desire to change things for the better are not only fighting the 'evil elites' but the indifference of the masses.

A greater problem is one of sustainability. If for example I was to lead a revolution on my own sceptred isle and successfully wrested control from the Queen and Parliament - what then? If I had no international support I would be very quickly forced to capitulate due to trade embargo. The UK has a growing population of about 60 million (I think), theoretically it can support 30 million of those people without imports - realistically 10 million.

What happens to the fifty million that you can't feed and clothe? Most likely nothing, as soon as the people realised that they were going to suffer they would have me hung, drawn and quartered in Trafalgar Square.

Revolution, IMO, is not the answer. Tried and tested and ever more doomed to failure.









[edit on 29-10-2007 by KilgoreTrout]

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Best post I've seen so far. I'm just appreciative of the "structure" in itself. I'll be sure to pick up that book and throw a U2U after I'm finished reading it.

They were speaking in extremes, so I had to give them extremes. I believe revolution is a last ditch effort before the layman becomes a deadman. There's all types of social constructs that can keep a government at the helm through checks and balances regardless the size. The people of an active and healthy democracy are greater than anythone on this forum could ever understand. A people united for the greater good has to be the single most powerful force in any social aspect.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


www.constitution.org...

The book is available on-line on the above link - so you can save some pennies.

Some of the language is 'old fashioned' and can be hard going but almost 500 years after it was written it is still used as a reference to leadership in the battle for the hearts and minds of the masses.

I look forward to reading your thoughts on it.

DFB This way ......A New World Order if you will, can only come about if utopia is preceded by lobotomy. If someone can show me that human nature has made a profound fundamental cellular shift from its reptilian beginnings-------MAYBE .
The other issue I have with this ridiculous proposition is for lack of better words, it is not a grassroots notion. The folks who have introduced the term into our lexicon are the same group of people that will institute this concept. If their collective past behavior is any indication of what the future may hold, it does not bode well for the average mortal.
Nothing personal but what makes you think you would be allowed to be part of this grand design ? To date the real advocates of the NWO haven’t asked me for my opinion. I also believe you may be confusing your idealized hypothesis which sounds nice vs theirs (quoting Mr. Rockefeller):
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years........It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

Great post! I think a NWO is inevitable if only because the current one is no longer working. In the beginning, man lived with his immediate family and there was no government. When game became scarce, he banded together with other families and formed tribes who subsistence farmed and domesticated animals; only a small government of chiefs and elders was necessary. Eventually as the population grew, cities became fixed places with substantial investment of capital and more technical governments were needed as it became too much for 1 or 2 men and money was invented as barter was too cumbersome. Nations evolved when city-states began attacking each other for limited resources or trade routes. Multi-national governments (the US, Soviet Union, Europe, greater china) evolved when mega corporations and super militaries could out spend and overpower the smaller nations. I am including the US as originally, the states and colonies functioned more like semi-autonomous nations. You can see the back and forth going on here. A government emerges that is adequate for a situation, but then the situation creates a new threat and government must change to restore order. I think all would agree, regardless of their political persuasion, that the current world order is not working; we have chaos, inequalitiy, war and disease and the common environmental resources of humanity are being squandered so a few irresponsible people can make a quick buck. This is the stimulus and a NWO is inevitably the response. I am not sure what it will be, but it will involve more amorphous borders, more migration of labor, less inequality of wealth among the working class of the world(ie., the US middle class becomes third-world poor)and freer exchange of capital on one hand but also tighter political control and police state-like tactics with increased surveillance, more "guantanamos" and ghost-prisons, suppression of religions and fanatacism. The whole earth will probably be a lot like China; you will be free to make money, go to school and work, but not to cause social unrest. The world government will be a union of like-minded technocrats who worked their way up their various parties but who mostly value stability and a comfortable living, not bloody revolution. I think, all in all, this is a good thing.

Sorry, DFB, I found this thread from looking at your profile and I'm adding my 2 cents here also.

I've only skimmed the thread rather than read it, and I'm getting the impression that you're suggesting a New World Order once humanity has advanced beyond things like religious wars and other divisive factors. I've also concluded that you feel the government should be a republic, but just smack me if I'm wrong.

I think it could work, but some system would have to be in place to ensure that the government could never overpower the people. Elections would almost have to be annual, with repeat terms being completely forbidden, in order to ensure that nobody had the opportunity to become the king of the world and never step down.

It might also benefit that New World to make voting mandatory by law. This would ensure that if the public disapproves of a course of action, they will not sit back and let it happen by complacency. I believe many of the problems affecting America today are due to exactly that.

And last, I feel that political parties and special interest lobbies should be banned... or at least, approached in an entirely different manner. After all, if banks and big business tycoons are in charge of the government, the people aren't. As for political parties, they only seem to draw battle lines that often don't make sense.

Just my opinions, take them for what you will.

reply to post by mattifikation


You know what? I can actually read this one, it makes sense, and I even agree with you to a certain extent.

I envision the people being fully responsible for their quality of life as it should be even here in modern day America. If they allow an evil dictator to gain completely, totalitarian control of the republic, so be it. If they force a benelovent, people supportive democracy to control the world government, than so be it. There would be massive checks and balances of both, but the ultimate checks and balance come from the governed, not the governing.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


I'd agree with you on this one world government it would end a lot of conflict around the world. But who runs it and who's in control. I dont know if you've noticed, but our current governments all around the world in every nation is about as corrupt as they come.

If proper elections were held and the government was controlled by civilians (Proper investigations to limit corruption) then yes, this could work. But unfortunately this is not how things work, thus one world government would never work under our current system.

reply to post by Praafit


And every single one of us let it get that way for the past 8 generations.. It's not them taking it, it's us giving it.