It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

New World Order?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Excuse me, but I've been wondering about this since birth.

Isn't it a good idea? Isn't it precisely what we need? Y'know... one people, one world, no boarders, everyone working together for the greater good of humanity?

We can't go on as we are, as individual nation states bickering over a diminishing pot. That's madness. Surely a NWO, ie One World, is inevitable? Is it ideology that separates mankind, ... or materialism? Why can't people just get it together? What's stopping them?




posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


I would welcome a NWO, if and its a big IF.. if the people in charge were good people, the new world order which most people commonly refer to are a group of very wealthy people who want power - more power and want to control the population.

NWO and UGN (unified global nation) are two very different things.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


Make mine with fries.

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bluwindRD
 

Plato's Republic?



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


It's absolutely a GREAT idea on paper.

But in practice, it means letting these politicians have complete control to lord over us and impose their will on a global scale. We can never let them succeed.

Just read globalist documents that they put out themselves talking about mass extermination and sterilization. These are their very own words.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
A NWO or a One World Government that is decided by all Human Beings would mean a great leap in our Development and would show that we are growing as a species. Screw all that fear mongering crap people spew about the NWO taking over the World.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
I've been wondering about this since birth.


Then you must have their bloodline.




posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by cluckerspud
 


If such things even Exists at all. Im pretty such things dont exist at this moment.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
it is a good idea but with the people we have in charge not only in the united states but all over the world, we would be killing off our existence with revolution and supreme corruption



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


I feel like John Pilger when he sat interviewing some senior insider and was met with: 'C'mon John! The people?!!! Jezuz. Don't waste my time'.

But seriously, it's inevitable, isn't it?



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
It's simply not possible to have one government with the multitude of different views people have in the world. This is why the NWO, if they exist, will never succeed. No matter what laws this one government passes it will alienate a large portion of people who will eventually revolt and demand independence so unless you want a very very strict military state it's just not possible.

Possibly when we start colonizing space that might be the time to bring in one system but not here on earth.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
reply to post by chr0naut
 


I feel like John Pilger when he sat interviewing some senior insider and was met with: 'C'mon John! The people?!!! Jezuz. Don't waste my time'.

But seriously, it's inevitable, isn't it?



in my view it is inevitable, i think it will spring up in the next two hundred years. we already see early signs like the united nations, once the big players join up the smaller fish will have to fall in line. AGAIN just my views.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I think the key would be, as Plato suggested, to have educated, intelligent people elected... his so-called 'philospher kings', and not ideologically minded politicians.

It wouldn't be that difficult, surely.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Sorry, I'm forgetting human nature..., and it's late, but I have always believed a NWO was inevitable.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
instead of a dictator trying to take over one country like sayy WWII germany or north korea, or even libya, u would have a bad revolt if we has elected



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


Maybe in the Future we will Evolve Socially and finally unite but its not going to happen any time soon with some peoples way of thinking.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
No from me to a World Order. What we do need is to be left alone to find our peace with each other, we don't need to be ordered as to how we must all live. Such is b/s of our times that so many people believe that we need to be told how to live and should be forced to live in peace and harmony or be put down. There is nothing noble about the push for a WO, its all about a few having all the control. You have to be crazy to fall for it IMHO.
edit on 29/09 by Juran because: spalling



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
reply to post by chr0naut
 


I feel like John Pilger when he sat interviewing some senior insider and was met with: 'C'mon John! The people?!!! Jezuz. Don't waste my time'.

But seriously, it's inevitable, isn't it?


The bible lays out, prophetically, a different possibility where God intervenes in a "runaway" dictatorial NWO.

I believe that every time someone tries to "unify" government, things get ugly. Simply put, despite idealistic hopes, we are NOT good at managing ourselves as a species.

It's sort of like the statistician who believes that someone with their head in a furnace and their feet in dry ice is comparatively comfortable. As large mega-governments apply economies of scale they loose sight of the individual needs of their constituents.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
reply to post by kro32
 


I think the key would be, as Plato suggested, to have educated, intelligent people elected... his so-called 'philospher kings', and not ideologically minded politicians.

It wouldn't be that difficult, surely.


It's not the leaders that are the problem You would need an educated, intelligent populace to maintain order amongst themselves for a global government to function and it wouldn't happen. Some cultures insist on religion as part of their governments and some do not and conflicts like these will lead to massive problems when trying to find a system that will work for everyone.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by chocise
reply to post by kro32
 


I think the key would be, as Plato suggested, to have educated, intelligent people elected... his so-called 'philospher kings', and not ideologically minded politicians.

It wouldn't be that difficult, surely.


It's not the leaders that are the problem You would need an educated, intelligent populace to maintain order amongst themselves for a global government to function and it wouldn't happen. Some cultures insist on religion as part of their governments and some do not and conflicts like these will lead to massive problems when trying to find a system that will work for everyone.


There have been several theorists who suggest that "the law of fives" should be integrated into ideas of government.

The idea is that we see five objects and know there is five of them without counting because it is wired into our brains that way.

The idea, then is to have five people "managed" by one, who is himself one of a group of five managed by someone else. This is like a family type group but a bit more rigorously structured.

In this way, the "management" requirements would never exceed our capacity to deal with them and we would retain control over ourselves as individuals as well as having an appreciation for the needs of others.

This would be nano-government (like micro-management) and would probably, if structured fairly, be workable if combined with ideas like democracy and rotation of leadership roles.
edit on 1/8/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join