Why is a one world order an inherantly bad idea?

Sounds good on paper I agree. But it still requires "leaders." Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that rot.

As a kid I dreamed of such a noble cause, as I matured I realized what The Shadow has always known:


Here's how it's architects see it:

Obama's tight, Zbigniew Brzezinski--CFR & Tri-lateral Guru--Quotes

The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values (like liberty and democracy). Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.
- Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, 1970

"In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason."
- Between Two Ages : America's Role in the Technetronic Era - 1970

"This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept." --- Zbignew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter

Let's say there were a one-world government. All nations under one banner. But the world government was molded after the government of China or Iran. Would you want to live that way?

Would a singular global government be better than an anarchistic society with zero governmental control?

reply to post by Tardacus


Unfortunatly, it would never work.

Try to get the world's population to live under 10 simple commandments that are found in the bible.

Just see how peoples can twist the concepts of abortion, adultery, and lying - in order to justify "their personal" interpretations of just 10 simple laws.

We don't need to wonder...some people know what it'd be like. There'd be microchips, naturally - implanted in our skin.

There'd be CCTV cameras in people's houses. The people running the show would be murderers. I'd have to work 3 jobs! It would be like this, it would be like that...and so on.

I like it as it is, anyway...who doesn't? The world is awesome as it is now, it doesn't need changing. If anyone disagrees, then how exactly do we change it? What are our options? I wanna know...realistically - where do you see humanity in 50 years time? How would you like it to be?

People jus' wanna be satisfieeeed. What if it satisfies someone to see everyone else suffer...what then? Is this all life is about...the unreleting struggle for satisfaction? People don't know what they want. I think that, for the most part - people like it as it is.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The scenario of giving power over the whole globe to a few people is so rife with problems, it boggles the mind.

It is because only a few people have real power in this world, that we are having the wars, disease, and starvation that we are currently suffering through.

Decentralization of power, as other posters have pointed out, into small regional areas means that no small cabal of power-hunger fools will be in charge.

Take apart these large national governments, and I think many of the warmongering and insanity will disappear.

You also brought up the issue of people fighting and being cruel to each other. In smaller societies and cultures, they won't get away with it. It is the anonymity of our large societies which allows people to act like jerks. Small towns don't put up with these behaviors, because the person is well known and cannot hide.

You ask legitimate questions, but you seek safety in a society in which there will be no freedom. If people have died for freedom, what makes you think that taking away people's freedoms the world over will have a different result?

reply to post by samerulesapply


The simple answer is worker (employee) ownership, that way private owners, capitalists, would not be able to use the state to impose their agenda.

We would be able to create a stable economy based on people needs, as apposed to the unstable economy based on artificial scarcity, and the wealth accumulation of the few, that we have now.

It would also decentralize economic and political power.

reply to post by allenidaho


I see where you're coming from...what what if it sin't molded on some tyrannical regime...what if. We can ask that question a million times, what if it's run by a group of shaolin monks...what if it's molder after...I dunno, the klingons...what if. What if, tomorrow, we're attacked by an alien species...but we're too busy fighting and arguing among ourselves to fight back?

We could what if all night long, from reading most of the replies, it's clear that people will come up with all sorts of theories as to why it's inherantly wrong or bad. The dude who think he'd need to get another job takes the proverbial biscuit...funny, but still absurd.

reply to post by FissionSurplus

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The scenario of giving power over the whole globe to a few people is so rife with problems, it boggles the mind.

It's a philosophical issue. When you can do anything, or be anything, you get so tired and bored of a world without problems that you make problems because you know you can fix them easily. And after a while, you start making more and more problems, developing various degrees of psychological disorder in yourself as you go along, until finally you create hell on earth, because you're flat-out EXHAUSTED from having what one would call a "perfect world".

The desire for change. That's what it comes down to.

Decentralization of power, as other posters have pointed out, into small regional areas means that no small cabal of power-hunger fools will be in charge.

A very wise friend of mine told me that America would function much more efficiently as a nation if all of the states operated independently as tribes. I'm inclined to agree; I'm also inclined to be wary of the idea, because the prospect invites more civil wars as a result of division.

If people have died for freedom, what makes you think that taking away people's freedoms the world over will have a different result?

People have died to take away the freedom of others who were trying to take their freedom.The question is: where do you draw the line of freedom between groups that want different things, especially when their desires put them in each others' way? Division only magnifies the differences between their goals.

reply to post by samerulesapply


Your kidding right? Let me understand your response. Your saying a one world control may be run by a group of the elite to control the masses. Who elected that crew?
Who's in on the secret hand shake ? Me? Or did you decide my 2 jobs is enough time to earn my keep?

Please remember, I'm not a republican or a democrat. I just want to work and be left alone.
Also, please remember, 51% of Americans work for the private sector. Not teachers,postal workers, policeman,garbagemen OR people requiring financial assitance.
WE 51% pay for 100% of the bill for the U.S. Government to operate. The U.S. Government does NOT generate a profit.
And I have no problem with that.
Please don't try and expand my obligation. I don't want or need a world government run by others.
Ask Shawn Penn how that's working. And what he's doing is admirable. But HE can't pay for everyone in Haiti.
He also picks and chooses his battles and where he'll put his money. He can't pay for everyone.
Then he get's back on his plane and goes to a nice restaraunt.
Great question.
But I pay taxes,work hard, and give back to my community the best I can.
I'm sure you do too.
Please don't ask me to carry any additional financial burden for the world right now. I'm trying to hire some people in my town to get them off government assitance and get them on my payroll.
All I got.
Cheers!

reply to post by FissionSurplus


Your is probably the best and most realistic response yet. Do you think the world we live in today would thrive under those conditions? I don't.

reply to post by niceguybob


You just jumped to some odd conclusions and made some assumptions. Ok...you'd need to work an extra job, I see what you mean :s you're right.

You'd be expected to feed 7 billion people...that's not an absurd conclusion for any man to reach...thanks for showing me the error of my ways.

It's the best argument against a one world government I've heard so far...it's a bad idea, because - this guy would need to get a 3rd job. Debate over.

Why is a one world order an inherantly bad idea

No No, and hell no!

I do not support a nwo,a one world government in any shape or form, Globalization is a means to an end, and we have seen how that has played out in real life in various means,

From the UN and it's abysmal failures. to the world economies interlinked and one goes down they all do,

1 man or woman controlling everything where the allegiances will always lay with the home countries and for the anti banker crowd a world central bank,

Any form of centralized government is inherently a bad idea there has not been a form of government that has "worked" on this planet,

That kind of power has been to shown to be corrupt and it has corrupted everything it touches,.

Sigh, I think I'm done with this thread, I was just kinda bored and wanted to provoke debate.

Personally, I'm on the fence now, for years I've been reading about this stuff on ATS and elsewhere, And only recently I've found myself challenging some of it, I'll think about something then present myself with an argument against it, and there's that little bit of conflict going on, just wanted to express it.

The most important thing is I've learned something, or more to the point I've confirmed a suspicion. People don't see any bigger picture, for the most part. They see themselves, the here and the now. People want comfort, satisfaction...they want to complain about the world as it is now but they want to be suspicious of anyone who has the vision to want to change it, be it for the better or the worse.

I think if god himself came to us now and offered us a path to follow as a collective, but the result wasn't instant bliss - it actually took some effort...people would choose not to follow. Why should we, here, now...work at a future we won't live to experience? Why should our future relatives be more comfortable and satisfied than we are, now?

I'm no exception, I'm prone to selfishness, indulgence. I like to be comfortable, satisfied, happy. But I'm prepared to make sacrifices and compromises, I see a lot of talk...people want change - veils coming down, something huge will happen...people want the change, but in the meantime they wanna sit back in comfort and enjoy the ride...maybe the change will take effort. Nah, some outside force will make it all better...I've bills to pay, and satisfaction to obtain.

The point is, terrible things are happening whether we like it or not. We have to fix it...but we don't want to, we want to indulge. We want to make videos about it and stick 'em on youtube, we're awake and see what's happening, yeah...but it's all talk. We're static, going nowhere, just fighting and killing in the interests of...satisfaction.

Thanks anyway.

reply to post by samerulesapply


Careful what you wish for. There are people that take working hard and giving back serious.

Glad you were entertained for a few minutes.

reply to post by samerulesapply

Why is a one world order an inherently bad idea?

Because a one world government would have a one world police force. That's too much power in my opinion.

reply to post by samerulesapply


if no reply satisfied you enough to keep up the debate i guess what you were looking for was not a discussion thread but a soapbox instead.

its not like this thread and question have never been posed before so don't flatter yourself like there's no one worthy of discussing this topic with you.


a one world order is not a bad idea, quite the opposite because we are infact one world, and we could use some order.

but the one world order many of us are seeing creeping in unnanounced is being introduced covertly, which implies it's not for the greater good and purpose. more like "more of the same", a one world dictatorship, or better yet a plutocracy that is tired of ruling in the shadows and wants to start doing it openly.

and i have to disagree to what other posters said, power does not necessarily corrupt, power does attract the corruptible.

reply to post by samerulesapply



World Order, dreamt up before WW2
NEW World Order ??
en.wikipedia.org...(Nazism)#Hitler.27s_plans_for_India

Wonder what the World would be like today had Hitler won ???? After all the present wealthiest country in Europe appears to still be Germany, and that's after losing twice. Have you read your history yet ??? If not then check out ARAB Nazi's

reply to post by Dustytoad


With out war population control would have a whole different meaning...
there allready putting crap in the water...
o well ill just have to be one of the underground that they hunt with there war toys that they have laying around...lol

Mr. Gut and Neo, It's ALWAYS a pleasure to read what you guys post.

You guys make ATS a part of a real reality.

reply to post by UziLiberman


Yeah, it's not that I don't think anyone is worthy to discuss the topic with me, quite the contrary...many of you know more on the issue than me, I was asking questions and being objective...what are the realistic alternatives to the world we live in today, or is the modern world perfect? You don't always get an answer on ATS, often you just get bombarded with insults - yeah, I'm scary...I'm a nazi aswell now because I asked a few questions - if you dunno the answer then say so...I don't have the answers, which is why I'm asking.

It's not that responses don't satisfy me, I asked what people want, the realistic alternatives to the world we live in today? We can have it as it is now...fun? Or change it...to what? But nobody is answering that question...people are just predicting what a one world government would be like, and it's all horrible and oppressive, obviously. As if they know for a fact. Nobody knows.

I never asked for the responses I got, I asked some specific questions which were ignored, and was instead bombarded with the same crap I've been reading for years. People think they know how it would be, they have all the answers...but nobody offers an alternative. I don't even know if there is an alternative...but it isn't perfect as it is and I think most would agree there's room for imporvement in our world today, right?

All I'm asking are what the alternatives are, all of the responses so far have been, as you say, discussed here so many times. So don't get so defensive, I'm not trying to do anything unique or special here and have read threads similar to this in the past. That's why I gave up, because I've read it before and it, like the world in general, goes nowhere. Nobody can predict with any degree of certainty how it would be if there was a one world order. We can only speculate - yet people will make matter of fact statements, some absolutely absurd like - I'd need to get a third job and feed 7 billion people...come on.

Everyone assumes a one world government would be like this or like that...it'd be like the nazis, or the iran, we'd need to get another job...yeah, ok. My only pursuit in life is satisfaction.