posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:31 AM
Obviously , as mentioned excellently by henriquefd, the very term 'new world order' can be either sinister or benign depending on context. So
personally, I don't now, and never have, found the term itself especially threatening.
The concept of a centrally controlled multicultural world however and the idea behind the phrase, I am firmly against personally. Despite the
pollyanna-ish cries of some, that idea is totally unworkable and so long as this world stands will never be---and should never be-- the norm.
My reasoning , and human history pretty much supports it, is that people are at the end of the day individuals. Yes, it's obvious we group together,
some share common goals or traits, we form societies, cultures.
But when nightfall and sleep come, we are still all individuals. And individuals have different goals or dreams or desires.
You can force people to comply, you can seduce or compel or influence them to comply, even in groups large or small. You can cry or argue or scream
about what is best or right or just for the planet as a whole...and you might even be noble in so doing.
But that changes nothing at all so long as we are societies comprised of billions of individuals. Not in the long run. Sooner or later one man's
utopia is going to become another man's nightmare.
Unity is inclusion for all or it is just coercion plain and simple. And despite inspiring sounding rhetoric, any call for a global unity just means
someone else is deciding for you all over again. That works for bees maybe, but it's not for humans.
So my opinion is regardless of semantics or context, I will plant my personal and individual feet firmly against any coerced unity or forced
assimilation on a global scale.
And as long as any one of us do that, the 'new world order/global unified society' is ultimately dead in the water. As long as we have individual
will, they truly lose even if they think they have won.
[edit on 6/14/2010 by Clark Savage Jr.]