What's so bad about a New World Order?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Why is it a given that a world government should be any worse than our federal government? State government? City government? Head of family? People organize. Its natural. The groups get bigger and bigger. Less borders, less border wars. Admitedly, our federal government, for example, is far from perfect, but am I to understand that it would be preferable to have 50 sovereign states? This fear of a new world order sounds like fear of foreigners to me. Face it, world government is inevitable. Not in our lifetimes, but (barring a 1000 year step backward due to Y2K) its going to happen. It might indeed be a horrible thing. But that is NOT a foregone conclusion.
-- Goombah (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 06, 1999
Stalin and Hitler were both working to establish their versions of a NWO. 'Nuff said.
-- A (A@AisA.com), May 06, 1999.
If qa NWo comes, it will be a SLAVE world, which is ruled by a single leader, a Big Brother who will wipe out as many people as he can, which is the nwo's plan. VP, Al Gore has written a book in which he state clearly that "in order to protect mother earth" 1/3 OF THE WORLDS' POPULATION MUST BE WIPED OUT!!!!! Thye NWO will fufill biblical scriptures, as the leader would be nothing more than the antichrist of revelations. The NWO has PLANS NOW TO inplant computer chips into people in order to prevent them from buying and selling, which is EXACTLY WHAT THE BIBLE PREDICTS. Also, the NWO builders, are mostly satanists, who will(and are planning to) purge all Christians, consititurionalistts, and anyone else who refuses to become their slave. They have been persuing this aganda for hundreds of years. A good book that explains the NWO conspiracy is Secret Records Revealed. I suggest you read it. Remember that the NWO will end up being a slave empire from its beginning, and willquickly become a door for the comming vicctory of EVIL. Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but the TRUTH MUST BE TOLD!! SOMEONE MUST SAY IT, AS INVAR, NIKOLI, AnDY AND RICK have for a while now.
-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), May 06, 1999.
Goombah: Your question deserves more of an answer. YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
In politics, the scum rises to the top.
Obviously you are a typical public school indoctrinated idiot.
Less borders, less border wars -- well, duh! -- but more internal wars.
Big government, big wars.
War is the health of the state.
Statecraft requires a scapegoat.
Assuming your question is sincere: (?)
Read "1984", "Atlas Shrugged", "The Road to Serfdom"
Search on internet for "libertarian".
-- A (A@AisA.com), May 06, 1999.
What bothers me about a NWO is that what is good for one is not necessarily good for another. that is why most laws effecting people personally should be on a local level, not a world level or even country or state level. If the politicians are successful in their goal of a NWO, with the technology available, there will never again be freedom. There is no way to combat technology without millions of lives being lost - more millions that it will take to prevent it from happening in the first place.
-- winna (??@??.com), May 06, 1999.
I can think of one major reason that NWO is so bad. Freedom. We exist in a world with choices. If we do not like where we live, in most cases we can elect to travel, move, change our environment. either from State to State (in the US, Canada, Etc.) or to another country. While not universal to all people (because of certain governments in most cases) most do have this ability. You are not required to stay in the US, Britan, Etc. If you find that its laws or climate, or whatever is not to your liking, move.
In a one-world government, power becomes universal and unopposed. There is no where to move. No competition for labor, business, or people. The US currently attempts to make most other countries comply with its draconian laws regarding banking, taxes, etc. They use the power of money, trade and even threats of military action. Some countries cave in, others do not. What happenes to our world when this is no longer the case? When power is unopposed? When laws (added at the rate of tens of thousands per year in the US alone) are applied in every part of the earth, even if they are fundamentally wrong, inproperly enforced, used for blackmail, to eliminate corporate competition for "state-sponsored" or "state-friendly" corporations (which are ficticious entities given power only by the state and exist under rules of priviledges, not rights)?
Freedom will be lost. We will no longer be able to choose. We will exist for the benefit of the state (which will advertise that it is acting for the good of the majority) and its own adgenda. Your income taxes began as a few percentage points of income early this century. Some senators remarked that it was the camel's nose under the tent. Why someday congress might raise it as high as 5%! Today US citizens spend 4-5 months per year working for the state. What happens when NWO has one government in charge, with the ability to do whatever it wants, as people can not "vote with their feet" moving their companies, assets, person, etc. elsewhere?
Some food for thought....
-- reality (email@example.com), May 06, 1999.
Davidson and Rees-Mogg paint maybe a more optimistic picture in "The Sovereign Individual"
-- A (A@AisA.com), May 06, 1999.
"Why is it a given that a world government should be any worse than our federal government? "
Race and philosophy/religion. It is a great deal for the bulk of the world's population - the part that thinks a working toilet is "high- tech" - but not "the West".
If you feel that all people are equivalent, differing only in skin color, hair constitution and education, then the NWO makes sense. There are advantages to not having countries bent on destroying one- another. Big advantages.
If, however (like me), you don't feel that "all people are created equally", the NWO is a bad deal. Especially annoying are blacks. I give you Haiti, Rodesia and South Africa as examples. In all 3 cases, the whites who developed civilization there were slaughtered (ongoing in South Africa today), and civiliation fell back to a black savage level. I am aware of no place on this planet where a civilization devised and built by blacks is attractive to anyone except (possibly) blacks. Whites are 11% of the world's population today AND SHRINKING FAST. Extinction is a distinct possibility.
Fortunately, Asians, with the highest average IQ on the planet, are also the largest racial-group - so life will go on.
-- virtual_me (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 06, 1999.
Great..."Houston, the Yahoo Racist Bigots have Landed." They haven't come out from their dark, musty cave for a while now...
-- Scott Johnson (email@example.com), May 06, 1999.
The farther away from home the tax money goes, the more is wasted, and the less any individual counts toward the way it's spent.
-- follow (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 06, 1999.
Our founders created a unique style of self government. Power eminates from the bottom up.
Certain rights are inalienable - stemming from man's relationship with his Creator. These are recognized as incapable of loss...ever. Man gives up a small selected increment of his freedom of individual action in exchange for equivalent rights of action under a civil society. This is the social compact. For instance, in exchange for exercising his natural right to play judge and jury when wronged by another, he gains a civil right to sue in court. The prime motivation for participation in a civil society is superior protection of his person and property.
In addition, the traditions of customary/common law and republican forms of representative government, protect the individual from the whims of the majority.
In our government, the people in their local civil associations delegate power through constitutions. What has not been delegated is retained. (Unlike other countries where the individual is considered to have surrendered all of his power of individual action to the common good as determined by a majority.) In our form, the government has no legitimate power to exceed the authority specifically delegated to it by the people through their constitutions.
Internally, our government has a compound form, what is called "dual sovereignty." This means that the people have delegated some functions to the States through their constitutions and some to the federal government. It is only when the federal government, in the exercise of its legitimate enumerated powers, passes law that conflicts with State law, that the State law is superceded. However, externally to the world in our "sovereign" national relationships, we are one. However, we are not a heirarchial type of government from the bottom down.
Our government is parsed into separate powers - legislative, executive and judicial. The legislative branch controls the executive through the purse strings and by the creation of agencies within the executive branch and delegation of specific authority to them. The Congress cannot delegate authority to agencies that has not first been given to it by the people through the Constitution. The federal executive administers the agencies, but does not empower them or set their limits.
We have seen pressure from the NWO forces since the turn of the century. More and more we see world treaties, agreements and courts that seek to control policies internal to our country.
Countries such as the US and Australia with federated forms lack the Constitutional capacity to implement such agreements from the top down. If the treaty provisions are not "self-executing," the legislation to implement a treaty is dependent upon positive Congressional and State law, is restrained by power delegated through constitutions and may be superceded by subsequent law. This is not easily tolerated by other countries and international commercial enterprise. Everytime such a treaty is signed by the Executive, never ratified and implemented through the back-door administratively, it threatens the sovereignty of the United States. As I have explained, that sovereignty rests with us, as the people, so it strikes at the core of our system designed to protect that maximum amount of personal freedom possible.
Our government is cumbersome, messy and in constant tension to realign along top-down hierarchial forms. IMHO, those who do not understand the great gift we have been given in our form of government and are apathetic or quick to chuck it out are a sad statement to modern times.
To learn more about our form of government and the pressures it has faced since its inception, may I suggest you visit: http://www.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/tableoc2.html
-- marsh (email@example.com), May 06, 1999.
Thank you for all your considered responses. First of all, let me make it clear that I am using the model of the United States for the entire planet, i.e., a federation of states (as in "nation-states") with some level of freedom to make their own laws, but not sovereign (winna, I find it hard to imagine a functioning world with such a local level of sovereignty, but then maybe I am a public school indoctrinated idiot. If I was, I wouldnt know it, would I?).
Anyway, federation of states, with lots of different kinds of people (like the U.S.), lots of different levels of standard of living (like the U.S.) where the states can make their own laws and in fact, communities within the states can make their own laws. In other words, NOT one omnipotent governing body. Just as the U.S. federal government is not omnipotent in this country.
"If qa NWo comes, it will be a SLAVE world" Why? The US is not a slave world.
"Big government, big wars." The US has big government, but no war between the states for 130 years. Who would the world government go to war with? Mars?
"If we do not like where we live, in most cases we can elect to travel, move, change our environment. either from State to State (in the US, Canada, Etc.) or to another country." Yet most people elect to stay in the US or even move here.
What would you say if I proposed that there be a world government and that it be more or less the same (good and bad) as the U.S. federal government? Would that still be bad?
-- Goombah (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 06, 1999.
Most of the world and it's leaders hate our form of government. A represenative republic is anathema to them. Whether monarchies or abject dictatorships of religious or atheistic states ideologically oppose our form of governance.
Ours was a nation founded on Judeo-Christian ethics that was based on respect for the rule of Holy Law and principle. Other nations were not built on such a foundation, and such a global alliance would have disasterous rivalries.
That's nothing to say of what happens in conflict zones or a crisis. What of natural resources? If China has a food problem are we required as a state under the NWO to GIVE them our grain?
Your query has noble intent...but I assure you it is not in your individual interest to want one. Or the nation's.
As Crono stated, a Global State will be a taskmaster you will find yourself and children enslaved to.
For those of you that desire a Global State, move to Europe where they are already experimenting with such a system, and leave us true Americans alone here to handle things as we have for the last 200+ years.
-- INVAR (email@example.com), May 06, 1999.
"Most of the world and it's leaders hate our form of government."
Bullshit. What planet are you on?
-- you know (.@...), May 06, 1999.
"Most of the world and it's leaders hate our form of government. A representative republic is anathema to them."
Of course. This is so true as to be trite. Representative republics as the founders envisioned are extraordinarily rare and we haven't had this ourselves for a long time.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 06, 1999.
Part of our uniqueness lies in the underlying tenets of the English common law (jury system, etc.) and concepts of Natural Law. Most of the rest of the world does not have that tradition. UN "rights" are given by a document, ours are innate, dependent upon no government to award our acknowledge them.
As I said, our form of government is cumbersome, messy and dependent upon personal civil duties of participation. The larger our country gets, the greater the population, and the more international economic involvement, the greater the pressure for a hierarchial command and control form - for efficiency sake, if nothing else.
In our country, we already have great regional schisms created by large population centers governing matters of other areas about which they have no experience or "customary" knowledge. Getting larger on a global scale would only exacerbate these problems and create great alienation of large sections of the world from their government.
The NWO would work against cultural identity and reinforce the trend toward "moral relativity." Without some cultural baseline for concepts of "right and wrong," a philisophical context for meaning in life, etc., we lose our fundamental humanity.
I do not personally believe the NWO would be a bargain I would make for my children's future.
-- marsh (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 06, 1999.
Note to Goombah: Before you go much further with your support for World Gov't. please take a look at the collection of misfits and oddball characters within Clinton's cabinet and the hierarchy of the U.N. This collection of misfits looks like it came out of the bar scene from "STAR WARS". Is this what you want your kid's bowing down to someday?
-- saveamerica (email@example.com), May 06, 1999.
Well, I stand by my premise that if it can work for the United States it can work for the planet. But obviously we wont be ready for it for a very long time. In the meantime, heartfelt greetings and good luck to us all.
-- Goombah (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 06, 1999.
I think you need to distinguish between a new world order and a New World Order. The first (generic) version is happening all the time. Perhaps it began with the industrial revolution (or even the Renaissance), and it has certainly accelerated as computers have become ubiquitous.
Manual labor is being replaced by intelligent machinery. Manufacturing jobs are being replaced by service sector jobs. The economy is becoming much more global. I work for a US concern that operates facilities in 27 countries (last I counted). This is very common today. The internet is having an impact, and projected to have a further impact, undreamed of not long ago. The Euro is a step toward recognition of an economically interdependent region. Soon enough, this region will be worldwide. The global currency already exists, in the form of magnetic regions on disks and tapes.
Politically, I see no chance of any World Dictator (barring invasion by space aliens, perhaps). Even within the US, the police powers are largely reserved to the states. And that's important.
-- Flint (email@example.com), May 06, 1999.
Flint -- I partially agree. However, one of the interesting elements of Y2K (and why I think these threads are not OT) is that the radical dependence of individuals-thru-nations on a single global infrastructure lends itself, IMO, to political manipulation at the "highest level" (ie., global elites). Very few countries (U.S., Britain, maybe France ....) have a centuries-long, legally-based tradition that would stand meaningfully in the way of a NWO (all CAPS).
If Y2K does, in face, cause collapse or, perhaps even near collapse, of the world's infrastructure, we could well expect cries for a single, centralized point of world control with authority ceded to it from all nations. A kind of "never again" mantra, reasonable on the face of it, but extraordinarily dangerous to the values that we Americans, at least, were taught as little children.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 06, 1999.
There is nothing wrong with a new world order. absolutely nothing. Provided, of course, that it is directed by Jesus Christ under the tutelage of his heavenly father. And that, my friend, is coming. It is called the Kingdom of God. And there are those who are announcing it. Anyone listening?
-- rick shade (Rickoshade@aol.com), May 06, 1999.
How would you like to be locked away for drawing a picture of a gun? Or maybe even executed. That's what the NWO will do if you let them.
-- @ (@@@.@), May 06, 1999.
Holy cow man, really? Why?
Well if you think it's tough to fight city hall now...
Jeez, try it when city hall is in Prague.
-- Mr Deedah (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 06, 1999.
I am amazed by the number of people here who think the general populace will just lay down for the NWO. While I agree the general populace can be rather dense, I think a lot of you have a "moral superiority" complex going on here. You are the ONLY ones who can see what is going to happen, you will be the ONLY ones to fight back so and so on...yeah right...whatever
-- You People Are Truly Frightening (email@example.com), May 07, 1999.
I am amazed by the number of people who are so blind that they have been laying down for the NWO their entire life, and they don't even realize it. The way they eat, sleep, breathe, walk, and talk is all promoting the materialsim and corporate facism which dominates the planet. Slowly and steadily, inch by inch, it gradually steals freedoms piece by piece from your lifestyle. And some of these idiots actually think that as long as they have a gun in their house they will be able to stop it from happening. It is way too late, the NWO is already firmly embedded in the way you live.
-- @ (@@@.@), May 07, 1999.
Has anyone here stopped to think about this for a second....THE FORMING OF AMERICA WAS A NWO YOU FREAKIN MORONS!
-- rolling eyes (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 07, 1999.
"Well if you think it's tough to fight city hall now... Jeez, try it when city hall is in Prague."
Mr. Deedah doesn't always agree with some of us flaming "right-wingers", but this is as simple, succinct and correct as it gets. And information technology "uniting" us won't help.
As for America itself having been a NWO, there is a grain of truth in this. That is, the founders feared that an uninhibited federal system would create just such a thing. Has it? Not quite, but that is a searching question.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 07, 1999.
Lose the primise America was founded on, end up like an Albanian. Good move? The only thing a blue beret is good for is a target or a place to deficate!
-- notgonna doit (email@example.com), May 07, 1999.
I am quite amazed at the ignorance of this subject shown on this thread,
if you are at all interested in discovering as near as the truth as you will probably get nowadays read any of the last three books by David Icke. In addition to Davids' commentary you will get fully annotated volumes, together with further reading lists.
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 07, 1999.
@ is right in his/her posting about the NWO being ever present in our society today. How is that, you ask?
The following is a list of *some* participants in the Prince of Whales Business leaders forum, the goals of which is to establish corporate governance through public-private partnerships.
3M, Grand Metropolitan, British Petrolium ,Wheelock & Co., Johnson Matthey, TRW, Coca Cola, Smith Kline Beecham, BMW, ARCO, Volkswagon, Top Technology, London First, Young & Rubicam, Grand Metropolitan, IBM Japan, Clarke Whitehill, Bates Wells & Braithwaite, British Petroleum, Ambercrombie & Kent Group, American Express Bank, CIGNA Corp., Coopers & Lybrand, DHL Worldwide Express, Fuji Bank, Levi Strauss, Lorentzen (Brazil), McKinsey & Co., Obayashi Corp, Norsk Hydro, Pasona Inc, The Perot Group (Ross Perot), Robert Bosch GmbH, Sedgwick Group, Sumitomo Bank, Tokyo Electric, Tokyo Motor Group, US West Int'l.
If you understand the concept of public-private partnerships on a global level, then you understand the meaning of fascism.
"Although the classic fascists openly subverted constitutional democracy...they took great pains to conceal the Big Capital -- Big Government Partnership. One device for doing this was the myth of 'corporatism' or the 'corporate state'. In place of geographically elected parliaments, the Italians and the Germans set up elaborate systems whereby every interest in the country including labor was to be funtionally represented. In fact, the main function was to provide facades behind which the decisions were made by intricate networks of business cartels working closely with military officers and their own people in civilian government."
'Friendly Fascism', Bertrand Gross.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 07, 1999.
It's great to hear that at least there might be some out there, meaning you, who at least can see beyond the tabloids and media brainwashing, to discern the subtle ways in which the NWO infiltrates and takes over our lives. Ever noticed how everyone who works at Microsoft has to wear the same blue Izod shirts, like clones of Bill Gates? Or McDonalds? I know of a girl who recently got fired from Circle K because she wouldn't wear their cute uniform. She was very clean and decent, but that wasn't good enough. Of course, this is only what we can see on the surface, but it is symbolic of what the corporate culture is designed to do to its slaves. Every time people pay these oil corporations whatever price they demand for a gallon of gas, they are supporting the NWO, but they are too lazy to change! Religous people often wonder what the "mark of the beast" will be. I think there is a good possibility that it could be these three letters:
Time will tell.
-- @ (@@@.@), May 07, 1999.
I've heard the terms "corporate slavery" and "corporate slaves" being hashed about.
If the NWO scenario that I'm reading here comes to fruition, it would be interesting to see where the power base would lie: governments, corporations, or a union of the two?
-- Tim (email@example.com), May 07, 1999.
Good question, but the answer is obvious to me anyway. Goverments are already owned by corporations. Corporations merely use them to create policy and legislation in their favor, and to apply military muscle where it suits the needs of the corporations (i.e. Kosovo, Iraq, Bosnia, etc.). Banking and oil corporations for example, manipulate the government and effortlessly pull their strings in any which way they desire. The recent banking reform bill, OPEC oil supply reduction, and corporate welfare are but a few examples. The only reason the Justice Department is giving Bill Gates a hard time is because he isn't an NWO player. He does no favors for the government, and NWO corporations don't need him, so they will see to his downfall.
So, the answer to your question is that the power base has never really been in the governments, and probably never will be. The corporations do not want it to be known that they are the true power base, because then people would blame them instead of the current government scapegoats. So, the illusion they have created that government is responsible for what is happening works quite well for them, and they probably have no desire to change that.
-- @ (@@@.@), May 07, 1999.
a, you are stopping two levels short. These major corporations and the international banks hinge on the bank of international settlements which is headquartered in Switzerland. It's board is made up of the 32 directors of the international banks and monetary fund. These bankers are in turn guided by the 13 core members of the NWO elite. One Handgrenade properly delivered could change the course of history.
-- Nikoli Krushev (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 08, 1999.
Nikolai, how ya doin' buddy?
To continue my diatribe;
Currently, multinational and national corporations are seeing the environmental gambit for what it is, a way to manipulate/control the populace and increase their bottom line, to boot. There is no altruism involved at all. Of course the consumer plays right into the marketing of 'green philosophies' and 'preserving our environment for future generations'. On the surface these schemes do benefit the environment. They also greatly benefit the bottom line of the corporations, and they dupe the public into thinking great things are happening for the sake of 'sustainability'. This in incredibly insidious.
An example of what I am talking about are hotel chains (Holiday Inn, Hilton, Marriot, Radisson) promoting conservation by suggesting to their guests to not request changes of sheets and towels daily. Well of course that sounds great! It saves water & energy. However, it saves even more on their bottom line costs. They are happy to use it as a marketing tool as well. However, I have yet to hear about their environmental endeavors that are in any way altruistic and reducing their bottom line. That is because it is not about the environment. It is about control and profit.
The following is a message from Dr. David C. Korten, president of the PDC Forum. The following are excerpts from his Internet message:
On June 24, 1997, the CEOs of 10 TNCs [transnational corporations] met over lunch at the United Nations with the UN leadership and a number of senior government officials to chart a formalization of corporate involvement in the affairs of the United Nations. I attended the lunch. I found it a shattering experience for it revealed a seamless alliance between the public and private sectors aligned behind the consolidation of corporate rule over the global economy ....
-- (email@example.com), May 08, 1999.
I know exactly what you're saying. I was trying to convey this thing to the American people in a way that maybe they can at least begin to understand what is happening right here in this country. You start telling them about the "invisible" people that are behind it at the highest level and they find it hard to believe these people exist unless they see them on the news every day. Pretty stupid, but that's the way people are!
-- @ (@@@.@), May 08, 1999.
And the only reason McKinsey was there at the conference, was to check on their alumni. I have semi-facetiously suggested that the 1990's answer to the 1930-1950 interlocking directorate was McKinsey on the resume. NONE of the McK people denied it, though they look at it as a marketing tool
-- chuck, a Night Driver (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 09, 1999.