Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

People want to argue over the NWO?

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I was researching some information for a possible thread in another forum when I realized a certain angle I don't think many people stop to consider.

With all the discussion going on about which form of Government or Religion will dominate this potential Global Governing body the {NWO} it dawned on me that the "Republic" has already taken hold if not in true practice but at least in name and has pretty much taken a prominent position.

Another thing to consider, Many in the West consider Ancient Greece as the foundation of the "Republic" Was Ancient Greece a Republic? Many believe it was but it was closer to a loose confederation of democratic City States under various Kings.

No, we have to look to Rome...

Consider the following, there are many more but I chose a fair cross section.

The United States of America Federal Constitutional Republic
Islamic Republic of Iran
People's Republic of China
Federal Republic of Germany
Socialist Republic of Vietnam
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea
South Korea, officially the Republic of Korea
Israel Parliamentary Republic
Republic of Iraq
French Republic
Italian Republic
Mexico Federal Constitutional Republic
Federate Republic of Brazil
Argentine Republic
Republic of India

My questions come down to these.

A.) Which if any of them are truly a Republic?
B.) Could a NWO function positively as a true Republic?
C.) Has the the Term "Republic" lost it's true meaning?
D.) Is a Republic the best form of Governance?

And finally

E.) Why the obsession to be called a Republic if it's true form wont be followed?

re·pub·lic [ri-puhb-lik]
noun

1. A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

2. Any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

3. A state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

I'd like to hear peoples comments and opinions.




posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Well, technically, the US is a "representative" Republic.

We are a nation based on laws. Problem is that the laws are full of crap.

Any legitimate law has to be Constitutional, many are not but they are still enforced often because they are never challenged.

And when laws are challenged, its hit or miss. Recently, Obama care was upheld. Under Bush, we had Kelo v. City of New London. Look into the Supreme Court's past and the BS of it becomes all too evident: Dred Scott v. Sandford

edit on 16-10-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


I appreciate the perspective on the US.
What about the others?
Are they true "Republics"



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I think the idea of running the NWO as a 'republic' is sorta perfect for them. They pass all the laws while keeping the semblance of democracy in place. When really we just have the oligarchs. Nothing different than today mind you, you ust have to create a leadership council like for the EU which drives power out of the little guy's hand into the hands of a broad legislature that is hardly selected by the people.

The original idea for a republic is dead and gone and what we are left whith is manipulation and again, a Oligarchy masked as a Democracy.

"Not even the King is above the Law" was a common phrase, even when the King got a way with the most law breaking.

~Tenth



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

It would depend on the meaning of the word "Republic".


A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of states are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[1][2]


a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.


While some on the list may fit the dictionary definition, I would argue that most fail if we were to consider the spirit of the definition.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere

A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of states are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[1][2]


So does North Korea qualify as a true "Republic"?
We now have a third generation in power.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Rome technically remained a Republic through 12 generations of familial succession.

( This thread title actually did make me want to argue about the NWO
)

~Heff



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


That's just it.

Would a true "Republic" fill the bill for a legitimate and acceptable NWO or One World Governing body?
Have ANY of the supposed "Republics" we have now really demonstrated the true meaning?

If not, What other form would be considered as a viable option?



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   


A.) Which if any of them are truly a Republic? B.) Could a NWO function positively as a true Republic? C.) Has the the Term "Republic" lost it's true meaning? D.) Is a Republic the best form of Governance?


A. None
B. No
C. Yes
D. Yes in theory in practice hasn't turned out that well.

Could the NWO function as a Republic?

No as the theory goes power is suppose to lay in the hands of the people but history has shown that power was given by proxy over the people.

Man is an inherently flawed creature so anything he creates will be flawed as well.,



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


No single system would fit the bill. But a polar system? A Yin and a Yang? That is the recipe for control. Us and them. You can sub-divide on that option as well. One Republic against the other Republic - Say The American Republic vs the Peoples Republic - and then subdivide... In the American model, red vs blue. In the Chinese model communists versus capitalists.

In this arrangement the world is forced into a dual polarity - and each pole is fragmented enough so that plurality will keep any one party from seizing power and totally upsetting the polar synergy.

The very few at the top? Live outside of this circuit. Multinationals who can enter and exit out of both worlds with equal ease. They would be the ones to describe as the architects or agents of the NWO.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
So far it appears that the consensus is that a true Republic doesn't exist and even if it did would still not fit the bill?

Setting Heffs, response aside for the moment. What would be the alternative?

Theocracy?
Communism?
Federations?
Monarchies?


edit on 16-10-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


This used to mean something.


For many, its just empty rhetoric. Personally, I believe we have lost our way. "God" is now Taboo.




The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government—which replaces sovereign nation-states—and an all-encompassing propaganda that ideologizes its establishment as the culmination of history's progress. Significant occurrences in politics and finance are speculated to be orchestrated by an unduly influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Numerous historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to achieve world domination through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes



New World Order (conspiracy theory)


I believe the term NWO is a convenient scapegoat, even if there could be truth to it.

Just my random thoughts on the subject.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I'm of the opinion that sooner or later the human race will have to get it's act together as a single species and set aside all the hatreds and work together.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69


A.) Which if any of them are truly a Republic?


None are. We the people have abdicated our responsibilities to the central authority (government) so much so, that now, if we do use our voice it is ignored.


B.) Could a NWO function positively as a true Republic?


No. The true "Republic" would be the antithesis of the ideology, the central authority of the NWO.



C.) Has the the Term "Republic" lost it's true meaning?


No. No more than "freedom" has lost it's true meaning.



D.) Is a Republic the best form of Governance?


Winston Churchill once said that America had the worst form of government until you place it next to any other form of government. Government, any type, is a necessary evil. So any mechanism in place to limit government is a good thing.


And finally

E.) Why the obsession to be called a Republic if it's true form wont be followed?



It's a sham that can be seen being played out here. Poster X will say, "You agree with me. Even though your posts say oterwise, deep down inside, you agree with me."
edit on 16-10-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I agree.

We have too many "names" placed on us, already. We are all humans, in the end. I think the pledge of Allegiance, has become watered down. Just like the word "Republic". If the meaning, and the hope of what has been fought for, means nothing to Millions of so called Americans, then the Republic, is truly lost. I don't know what it means for the rest, but empty shell, is what you get.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


If you're fishing for a true one world society, I am afraid that I do not believe we are ready for it yet. There are too many people who are fixated upon their dogmas and indoctrinated identities to allow themselves to buy into it. They would rebel even if the one world society were the much better alternative. The old ways die hard.

The irony is that many of the things that people fear about a one world society would actually be resolved by having one. That is, if such a society could exist and be a Republic where law was even and fairly applied to all. Regional "isms" could remain to a degree - but those "isms" would be difficult to control.

Example. Say "one world government" and Christians immediately reply "Antichrist!" Where Muslims might immediately say "Mahdi!!!" And those two reactions are so polarized that the Christians would say "See, this IS the Antichrist because the Muslims LOVE it!" And the Muslims would reply "You are infidels because you revolt against this!"

Just as in fiction, it would take something very compelling and unprecedented for everyone to get shocked or scared out of their dogmatic thought patterns. Something unparalleled in human history. Something along the lines of an alien invasion or a near miss on an extinction level event.

Short of that? IMO we're just too attached to our ideas to let them go.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I'm of the opinion that sooner or later the human race will have to get it's act together as a single species and set aside all the hatreds and work together.


In doing so the past and current ideologies would, imo, need redefining.

Firstly lets establish exactly what the NWO is......Wikipedia gives the political definition as:


The term "new world order" has been used to refer to any new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. Despite various interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve.


So what would best suit a global population, with all its various customs and traditions, to produce an existence where quality of life for every soul and transparency for every elected representative was at the core of its foundation?

Money would have to take a back seat. A system where "give" more than "take" seems best in this regard.

Until starving children in poor countries and mega-wealthy individuals exists only in the history books, any system implemented to bring about the NWO will be futile at best and will cause "civilisation extinction" at worst.

Political ideologies need to be gently packed away so that new ideals can be put on the table - ideals that focus on the sovereignty of the individual soul to pursue happiness within and to maintain the utmost respect of others at all times - regardless of their customs and traditions.

The acquisition of money to survive does not work and should not be the hallmark of my existence - it has felt wrong my entire life that I am born to make money for myself and others, accumulate trinkets, then die - paradigm changing stuff is needed.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Meritocracy.


Meritocracy, in the first, most administrative sense, is a system of government or other administration (such as business administration) wherein appointments and responsibilities are objectively assigned to individuals based upon their "merits", namely intelligence, credentials, and education,[1] determined through evaluations or examinations. The "most common definition of meritocracy conceptualizes merit in terms of tested competency and ability, and most likely as measured by IQ or standardized achievement tests."[2] Supporters of meritocracies do not necessarily agree on the nature of "merit", however they tend to agree that "merit" itself should be a primary consideration during evaluation.


It's not the easiest of things to implement, but in a perfect world this is how we would run things.

I'm not really in favor of representative democracy, only because the people being represented are the people with the most money in their pockets a lot of the time.

So I'm in favor of a republic type document like a constitution with a system of law that is designed to protect the individual and then civil issues to be decided by popular vote in each region the new legislation or policies apply to.

~Tenth



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


For what it's worth Tenth... I score in the top 99.8% on IQ tests. By your system of government I could end up in charge of a lot of people.

Now, seriously. Doesn't that thought give you pause and a desire to reconsider?

I know it scares the heck outta me.


~Heff



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


For what it's worth Tenth... I score in the top 99.8% on IQ tests. By your system of government I could end up in charge of a lot of people.

Now, seriously. Doesn't that thought give you pause and a desire to reconsider?

I know it scares the heck outta me.


~Heff


interesting there considering a iq test is a metric of ones intelligence based off criteria of someone else thinks it should be..

Government is another metric based off what someone else thinks it should be.

One of those things are not like the other,but maybe they are.

I scored low on Iq tests my 3rd grade teacher always yelled at me for "never applying myself".

edit on 16-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join