It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Westernization of the World

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:08 PM
A huge proponent of the Westernization of the world is the westerner's idea that they are somehow more advanced and everyone else who is not apart of this New World Order are backwards. So we label those nations "Third World", or "developing". "Developing" into what you might ask.. a New World State!

The average westerner might think aww, Cuba is so poor, they need to "develop". No, Cuba is poor mainly due to the US embargo.

If there was no economic and political pressure upon developing, I'm pretty sure most nations would not comply, because it is really just western imperialism disguised as good will (it will do you backwards monkeys good if you become just like us). Sure, they include good things such as life expectancy as a measurement of a countries "developedness", but the most emphasis is placed upon the economy. A country can have high life expectancy, but without the right economic system, they are not considered "developed". Basically, "developed" countries would all follow the same economic model, which is OUR economic model: privatize your industries, so the rich white people on top can buy them from you and then f*ck you over, because they don't actually give a sh!t about your people.

In fact, I feel pretentious even using the words "developed", "developing", and "third world". Who is to tell them that they are living the wrong way, and must adopt the westerners ways of life? Who is to say our materialistic, apathetic, and ignorant lifestyle is "developed"? It's just such a pretentious word.

Really the only countries now left that are opposing the imperialist trap that is the world economy are those that are in the targets of the US: Iraq who switched to selling oil based upon the euro in 2000, Iran who is gonna switch, North Korea who is trying to be completely self-sufficient, various African nations, various South American countries, who viewed the "West" as one imperialistic entity (Che saw it this way as well), which were "destabilized" and had puppet pro-west leaders installed in the past few decades, and a small few in Asia. That's about it. That is all that is left of the world that is resisting assimilation in to the New World Order.

Basically, "developing" just means "becoming westernized."

[edit on 14-8-2008 by italkyoulisten]

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:19 PM
hey, it's called newspeak, isn't it?

much in the same way democracy means you'll have to ask Washington before you can make an actual decision while 'market economy' implies that you a) have a fractional reserve banking system in place and b) give western interest unlimited access to your country ('s resources and wealth).

oh, while i'm at it: freedom equals a US military presence....

just gotta translate it and it becomes instantly clear, doesn't it?!

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:27 PM
reply to post by Long Lance

Yes, and the scary thing about it is that nobody seems to see this, which is so blatant! Most people (in the "west", or about 4/5 of the world) think it is actually good will! They are in essence forcing the market economy that you described above upon nations that are "not developed", which is a trap!

In fact, to quote wikipedia:

Critics believe that at times the word "developing" is a misnomer [1]. In the case of countries ravaged by European colonialism, the word "re-developing" may be more accurate since there were successful economic systems prior to colonialism. Allegedly due to ethnocentrism, Western analysts generally deem these prior interactions invalid and do not consider them "developed". The premise is that "to develop" is the same thing as "to develop in a western manner".

I just can't believe that people are still unable to see the NWO just around the corner.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by italkyoulisten]

new topics

log in