Do we need a New World Order? Yes we do!

According to this:

www.v-generations.com...

1. The Shape of Things to Come

The idea of a world government or global empire to preserve peace between nations was already discussed in ancient civilizations and progressed throughout the ages.

Philosophers like Plato or Immanuel Kant, writers like Dante Alighieri, Thomas Hobbes and H.G. Wells imagined either utopian or dystopian societies, a ‘New World Order’ or even a ‘Golden Age’. Meanwhile their ideas of a new world were based on a more humanistic and illuminated nature, authors of the post-World War and modern era like Oswald Spengler predict a more pessimistic future in which economy, or the lack of it, is the dominant factor for shaping our future.


What is a world government in the first place?
A global governance system is a political body that would make, interpret, and enforce law on international level without restrictions. It would require the unification of all civilizations and nations under a global ruling system or a single ruler with cultural and economical power. This unification could be achieved either by peace or by force. Even though only a peaceful union would ensure a long and stable relationship between each nation and between the ruling institute and its people.

Climate change, energy crisis, genocides, religious conflicts and overpopulation are only few examples of a vast spectrum of problems modern world has to solve. The outcry for peace and safety has become louder with each new international conflict. Recent events in Haiti have once again proven the vulnerability and imminent threat for our world order. Is a global empire the right solution for all our woes?

......

A one world government seems like it could be a great system. Its the people

that would be in charge of this government that harms its image.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by LegalizeFreedom]

I think it's like the "War on Terror". It all looks good on paper.

To me, a World Organization could never be free of corruption.

Just for the simple fact that the corruption is too wide-spread.

A non-corrupt person appointed to the NWO would become corrupt quickly. Just a matter of time.

reply to post by Gozer3


i would like to emply that coupled with the climite gate and swine flu being exposed in a very short time the nwo plans are looking like they have proven there inability to exacute there take over and i wounder how long before the realization of control loss takes the financial mess in the same direction
IF GLOBAL WARMING AND SWINE FLU CAN BE CONSPIRACY FACT SO CAN THE PLANNED FINANCIAL CRISIS AND HOW LONG TILL FINANCE GATE?

please spreed the word that these examples are showing the loss of control of the nwo means they are about to get desperate

please coin the phrase FINANCE GATE and get people using these words as to accociate into populare culture the crime this is an as more people use these words more will demand action and investigation

I think that a one world government is a great idea, as is population control, the two primary goals of the NWO as envisioned by conspiracy theorists. The responses to this thread offered so far could be applied to all governments with any centralized leadership. Avoiding complete globalization is unrealistic and counter-productive. Complete globalization is tantamout to a one world government, and is inevitable barring some global catastrophe.

As others have said, looks good on paper, but the corruption would eventually run rampant and human rights would cease to exist. I like my country, so I will vote NO to the NWO.

BTW, how much did you get paid to say this?

No culture can encompass all motifs, or it is not a culture: culture is made from a values system that has a preference for some things over another; it is for this reason that we have cultures at all, and not a single culture based on a single interpretation of the same world. What will exist instead is the cultureless masses ruled over by a few rich, because in the absence of culture, only financial supremacy will matter.

Further, globalism suggests a destruction not only of culture, but of genetic distinctiveness. What is to be gained by breeding us into uniformity? Peace, we are told, freedom and prosperity. But these are easy to promise, and evidence suggests that when culture disappears, it is replaced by rigid class systems which encourage financial strife of a far greater degree than experienced in traditional societies. Perhaps with one global nation, there will not be external wars, but a neverending series of revolutions, which seem to cause greater damage.

Bad idea all around. If you want this just move to Cuba for a few years you'll get why it'd be a bad idea.

I don't think it's possible. I think civilization would sooner fall.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
Complete globalization is tantamout to a one world government, and is inevitable barring some global catastrophe.

The problem is CONSOLIDATION OF POWER. How this can be seen as a power for good should be beyond anyone with even a faint understanding of history.

All power will eventually be put in the hands of a group of oligarchs or in the hands of one man. God help us when that man is a Hitler or a Stalin or a Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Ill, pervez Musharraf or a Fidel Castro as history has shown us over and over...and over again. A one world government will always turn into a dictatorship or oligarchy.

Forgive my cynicism but most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom while trying to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own. In this case, a one world government. The only reason for having a one world government is consolidation of POWER, something I'm vehemently against. Something all good men are vehemently against.

A one world government will be a faceless bureaucracy interested only in centralized planning, theft, socialism, dependence, pauperization, inefficiency, greed waste, while at the same time converting the world into a nursery of policemen and self-serving busybodies.

I want to be protected FROM government, not owned by it. If your goal really is mankind's well being, it can only be accomplish in one-way and one way only. Freedom from the arbitrary rule of others. Not slavery.

A very wise man once said "That government is best which governs least; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

Freedom is the only inevitability, though we probably wont see that anytime soon. We probably will have a one world government before men can govern themselves. However, a one world order is intrinsically doomed to failure. Men are not meant to be slaves to the state.





[edit on 4-2-2010 by METACOMET]

If we were to have a one world government like in 'Star Trek ( federation type) we'd all be happy, but currently we all assume the NWO is evil, like Nazi Germany evil. and if like the Federation we abolished money altogether, you watch how the current NWO wannabes wouldn't bother trying to run for leadership or trying to run our lives.
Roll on the NWO ( without money) ( it'll never happen in our lifetime, they don't want to lose control over us, so the world will get worse before heads start to roll)

So , so far people agree that a NWO is bad, but it could be a good thing if

#1 people didn't run it. Not sure who would then, robots?

#2 There was no such thing as monetary exchange.

#3 If we lived in star trek world.

How about we just agree its an awful idea to enslave the world?

A NWO would also need a fitting leadership.

Originally posted by METACOMET

How about we just agree its an awful idea to enslave the world?

OK. I can agree to that.

But I don't agree that all government enslaves people. There are legitimate uses for human institutions.

Besides, we are all already enslaved. Not by a government but by money. If you think not, just imagine not having any. I don't even mean subsistence. I mean nothing.

As the old song says:

Them that's got shall get
Them that's not shall lose
So the Bible says
But it still is news
Papa may have
And Mama may have
But God bless the child that's got his own

Personally, I am owned by those who pay my salary -- feed me, clothe me, house me. There are a lot worse owners than the ones I've got. There's a lot of good in them. But I'm owned nevertheless.

Money is already the one world government. It speaks every language and makes every law.



[edit on 17-2-2010 by Sestias]