Most to lose from NWO and Justifying a NWO

Who has most to lose?
West giving up some advantages but still being influential.
The middle east giving up their freedoms (way of life) but gaining quality of life.

Personally I see the balance point more on the side of the west. Them giving up lot is worse than poor giving up freedoms. But then taking those freedoms has its own limits. The west could justify implementing a Pro West NWO if they could raise the poor's quality of life enough.

Obviously killing is not raising the quality of life but is governing?

a reply to: guidetube

Anyone who isn't super wealthy and have stakes in the super corporations or connected in some way to them have everything to lose. They will not rest until they have the entire world serving them as debt slaves

a reply to: guidetube

If today is anything to go off a NWO is not in our best interests. New World Officials sounds better to me.

a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

In way I would say exactly. Those connected to them. The west. Have everything to lose and because of this fight to control the world.

But I think you mean it more cynically, that its not justified because what they offer is not life improvement.
Then the poor can not justify trying to change the west as they similarly don't offer life improvement?

Each side in this perceived NWO struggle can justify itself by saying it will improve the other.

a reply to: guidetube

NWO is the old world order (Rome) on steroids. Plan is to destroy the US economy and its constitution so the world can be ruled by the fascist elite. Culling the over populated earth high on their agenda with war or economic sanctions. Satanic they are.

That's how the plan is viewed by the poor. The west could justify it as raising quality of life and necessity against loss, but I think this is overkill and not offered by the west. This would possibly come from a status quo. The west offers an elitism yes, but fair and better for all quality of life? Poor might start to see the wests rules as just and accept them.

The west needs to change granted but the poor would have to change more to improve the west.

Everone will lose .. nothing will or can justify an nwo ..

Just what type of new order are you thinking about? If 2008 showed something it was just how interconnected the worlds financial markets are. Human nature being what it is, some people do exploit the system as much as they can for themselves. Governments have exposed the currency to keep the system running, but things are tough and the risk of breakdown in global trade should not be easily dismissed.

The BRIC nations are aware how inflated all the market hype is and working to protect themselves should the west start another market meltdown. At the same time they are aware it is in every ones interest to not have another market or currency crash, but there is only so much in their control.

This planet has been evolving since life started and to think it is going to stop is unrealistic. So where do we evolve to next? One of the strong cornerstones of capitalism is how it promotes competition and works towards society reaching its potential. Where it turns into a mess is when the competitive spirit goes too far and turns into conflict with things like corruption, intimidation, crime and war.

It has been our laws keeping this balance in check and around the world different standards are at play. The multinationals have exploited and taken advantage of these varying legal systems and standards. One thing the tight network of global financial markets has produced is increasing oversight of cash flow. When trying to hunt down the scammers and bust open the con jobs it is all a matter of following the money.

The NWO I consider is the one where the western governments are forced by its people to change: To take control off the world and set global rules that stop suffering and abuse but allows us to continue to progress and have freedom. The poor would concede based on the fact that even that the "pyramid" still exists they are left with a better quality of life and fairer chances. The one where the West loses out is a collapsing system that is forced by those jealous or aggravated by the liberty taking west. A collapse that levels the playing field but takes the wests comforts away.

Could the west justify a NWO based on a new moral standing and less suffering or could the poor justify collapsing western modern society based on higher purpose.

Yes the west could be manipulated and the poor could cause mass suffering but could they justify this risk.

The problem seems to be we cant have our cake and eat it. So then we must decide what we can swallow and why.

If you are in any way an outlier, then you will lose big time. Any NWO will rule on the principle of "The Greater Good" and if you lie outside of the norm, you will be hammered until you are either made to fit or cast aside.

a reply to: ketsuko

So all those not in line with the actual NWO will lose out. Of course.

But is it worse for the west to lose its progress or the poor to be forced to live how the west dictates.
Can the west justify doing something like this and how would they (like I suggest changing some of the worst aspects)?
Can the poor justify a destruction of the west and how would they (like I suggest re-setting morals, equality etc)?
What is the "greater good" as you put it?

I like the sound of a progressive but fair society.

originally posted by: guidetube
a reply to: ketsuko

So all those not in line with the actual NWO will lose out. Of course.

But is it worse for the west to lose its progress or the poor to be forced to live how the west dictates.
Can the west justify doing something like this and how would they (like I suggest changing some of the worst aspects)?
Can the poor justify a destruction of the west and how would they (like I suggest re-setting morals, equality etc)?
What is the "greater good" as you put it?

I like the sound of a progressive but fair society.

It sounds good until you're the one sacrificed on its alter.

I have a chronic health condition. With medication, I can live a useful and productive life, so my family pays for my medications. But when the NWO takes over and starts organizing everything ... my health will be up to them. If my condition is deemed too costly for the state to maintain, then I will be sacrificed to the whims of the state with no appeal.

My son loses him mother.
My husband loses his wife.
My parents lose their daughter.

If they are willing and able to maintain my condition, why should their willingness be overridden for the whims of the state in the name of "fairness?" How is that "just?"

But isn't that you saying that you are more important than everyone else?
Just in that its for the greater good. Not the greatest good which as far as I can tell is not on the table from any party.

I see your point though. That's the discussion. Could the west justify holding onto their benefits and regulating the poors so that at least they were better off.

Can an NWO be justified even though its not perfect or should we (naively?) wait for a better solution.

This is the way we think it has to be against this is the way we want it to be?

a reply to: guidetube

No, it's me saying that people should be free to decide for themselves.

Much of the third world is the way it is because of their culture, geographic and political situation, not because of anything the rest of the world has done to them.

For example, the Middle East should be one of the richest and most modern regions on earth with all the oil they've sold off, but their socio-political systems have concentrated that wealth into the hands of only a very, very few wealthy families and the countries have remained third-world cess pools for the most part without developing any other kind of industry to speak of. You can argue about Western meddling, but countries like Singapore have managed to modernize without the benefit of resources and with the meddling.

Additionally, how much do we send in foreign aid to these places that also never seems to do much good to speak of?

You can speak from the relativistic angle of all cultures being equal, but they really aren't. How can a culture get ahead if they consider that a meeting starts when they get there and not when the time for meeting is set? That way lies chaos. But it's the standard in many African cultures. Or going back to the Middle East, why would you intentionally bar half your workforce from working or being educated if they were so inclined? You've just lost half the potential productive capacity of your people by choice.

Or let's look at Venezuela, they have the centrally planned command economy a NWO would by default attempt to impose. There is no freedom there and precious little of anything else because there is no way you can adequately model and plan for all the variables in an economy.

a reply to: guidetube

Or is the perceived gain to society outweigh the loss to those closest to me?

a reply to: ketsuko

I think in society its unrealistic to think we can decide everything for ourselves.

In theory the gain should be more but it depends how much is offered. For example food to eat but taking the right to build weapons.

For me the west giving many poor people a better life but in doing so have to regulate aspects of it seems justified if they don't over regulate or are over selfish. I also believe the poor would be justified in destroying western progress if the west is to selfish for example but only if they promote good moral standing and not from jealousy.

For issues such as best medication I think this would be more than what you would get without western rule but not as good as everyone. The best given to achievers in society but again regulated for a level of fairness.