What would be wrong with NWO?

Seriously, what would be wrong with a world government? I'm not trying to be sarcastic. The only negative idea I've seen about this is the loss of civil liberties, but people already complain about this (i.e. War on Terror). To be honest, I don't feel like I've lost any freedoms. But, back to the question at hand: why would a world government be bad?

I've always wondered this.

I honestly can't believe that there are people scheming evil things, just so they can sit at a table with their cabal, saying yeh, we own the world. A few seconds later and the reality dawns in. How boring.....

Why would they want to curb civil liberties? So they can stay in power, maybe, and do what. Make more money? And do what with it?

Maybe, just maybe, World Government might bring about Peace. Although I'm guessing much of ATS would unite in an armed struggle to overthrow the overlords.

The only 'grand' plot, that I consider plausible. Is either the false furfillment of certain prophercies, by die hard religious figures, to bring about the return of you-know-you. Or the actual furfillment of these prophercies, to really save man-kind from the deteriating state of violence etc

[edit on 20-7-2006 by Peyres]

[edit on 20-7-2006 by Peyres]

If it was agreed to, by all countries, at first, it would be good. But, as much as I hate some countries, I'd rather have them around to keep America from going off the deep end, and us for them. It sort of works like a "checks and balances" system, so that a few people don't control everyone.

Remember, a middle class is a dangerous thing. It threatens most forms, if not all forms, of government. So you need to have the extremely rich and slaves, no one else, whether they are called that or not. You have to control this middle financed group before you can have an effective world order. Maybe even kill them.


Also, the whole purpose of having a government is to protect you from other governments. I can carry out justice on a neighbor that beats his wife all on my own. I can fix him real good. I don't need government help. ...but England can't invade tomorrow and enslave the whole population, killing our children, sterilizing us, and a whole list of nasty stuff because America will stop them, or at least give me enough time to go to Sweeden for Assylum. If America would do those things that it is there to protect me from (rape pillage and murder), then America needs to be overthrown, as it's outlived its usefulness.

When there is only one power in existance, there's no one with enough power to stop them. There is no one to defend agaisnt but itself. That is dangerous. We learned that when Stalin isolated Russia, and again when Sadam tired to do the same with Iraq. I don't necesserily care how either regime was ended, but I do know that both were, in large part, because there were thousands of other countries out there, some with the power to stop them, some with the power to impart a better way of living, and some with the sheer audacity to keep landing on their feet, no matter what happens, teaching the natives of those two countries to dream beyond their station. A 1 world government is exponentially more dangerous than a 2 world government...so on and so forth.

[edit on 20-7-2006 by jlc163]

I personally don't think it would be bad...I mean I don't see how this would be possible unless as people have said, billions of people have died. People say that the NWO will be a police state, and a dictatorship, with complete control over everything. I don't know how they know this (well I do, they have read it somewhere), I don't even know how they know a big NWO movement is going on to aim at this end (I know this as well, they read it somewhere).

If it is ran by the same type of people that runs America will it be any different? I think not...it will just be without wars, and hunger, a world combined effort to combat things. Of course that sounds like Utopia, and never works imho.

I've also heard that the NWO try and kill "undesirables", like black people, through viruses and what not. Sounds a little crazy to me.

The NWO is a conspiracy theory, who knows if it is true or not. There have been many theories proven wrong.

Well for one there will be an even greater problem of gerrymandering. Don’t think for a minute that the rich will just give up there control democratically to 6 billion + people.

Second the current winner-take-all electoral system, where the corporate-controlled winner has carte-blanche to screw up his country for 4 years (and remain forever mostly unaccountable) would probably be the chosen system. Think Bush on a world-wide scale! (and worst, eventually a dictator will walk-in.)

Minorities would be even more targeted than they are today, with greater pressure to homogenize. We should probably look for more decentralized form of survival. Grow our foods closer to home. (peak oil)

A One World Government, where corporations have the chance to write one set of rule and enforce them through a united military on the whole world is not the ideal choice, IMHO

is a 'police' state really a bad thing.

We in the west constantly fear that 'civil liberties' are being erroded. WHY? Is it a bad thing. I can still walk out the door, make friends, fall in love, buy and sell, have kids, right a novel, criticise the government. These rights are avaliable to me, aslong as I don't violate the rights of others in the process.

I don't care if the government have my DNA, I don't care if they can track my movements via CCTV camera (they'll just see the same old boring routine everyday) I don't care if they listen into my phone calls (do you think they are interested in me phoning my grandma up to thank her for my birthday gift, no. It would bore them). The fact of the matter is, CCTV has saved lifes, and the storage of DNA samples has brought criminals to justice.

If total economic liberty is abused, then surely total individual freedom of movement and thought can be too. And of course, we do know that people abuse power, or even come corrupted by it.. I've come to the conclusion that everything is open to abuse. Man will always find a way of looking after themselves. As long as the leaders of world government aren't all completley nuts, that should be locked up with straightjacket, then it doesn't bother me.

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
I think not...it will just be without wars, and hunger, a world combined effort to combat things.

Why do people assume that a One World Government would stop wars? :puz”

The only way wars would stop is if all individuals were fully homogenized. Wars would be fought against minorities, just like they are today.

Why would this stop hunger? Suddenly people would be so happy with there new government that they would divest themselves of there property and send food to Africa. Why wouldn't they do that now?

If one world government is purely a plot to make more money, how exactly will it work?

In theory we could all just simply refuse to work. If the 'slaves' don't produce then how can the money be used? Will the individuals in control just sit there laughing, whilst counting up their money?

Money was a man made concept, born out of the theory of capitalism, or effectively giving someone something in return for something of equal measure. An agreement. In this feared one world government, there would be no 'free' trade, and so money wouldn't even be valuable.

I could go on. Honestly, theres no clear sinister reasoning behind it. Even if there is, in reality it would be the opposite.

[edit on 20-7-2006 by Peyres]

Originally posted by Peyres
If one world government is purely a plot to make more money, how exactly will it work?

It's not. It's a control thing. If they wanted more money they would just print it.

And what is the end result of control? Why do some people want to control each other? Surely if this happened, the elite will soon start to try and control each other.

Originally posted by jlc163
It sort of works like a "checks and balances" system, so that a few people don't control everyone.

Exactly.

Personally I don’t think the elite truly want a One World Government. (I think that’s the Hegelian dialectic at work) They would probably be satisfied with 3-5 major economic blocks.

Originally posted by Peyres
And what is the end result of control? Why do some people want to control each other? Surely if this happened, the elite will soon start to try and control each other.

They have been at war amongst each other forever. They cooperate on some issue but fight on others. Think of the various Mafia gangs (from the movies) and how they sometimes fight each other, but sometimes “hit the mattresses” or fight for control. Put this on a world wide scale and you get a good picture of the NWO.

We in the west constantly fear that 'civil liberties' are being erroded. WHY? Is it a bad thing. I can still walk out the door, make friends, fall in love, buy and sell, have kids, right a novel, criticise the government. These rights are avaliable to me, aslong as I don't violate the rights of others in the process.

By the time the NWO is here fully operational...well, look at the movie: V for Vendetta, then you will see what happens if you critisize the government.
Fear is the tool, and it works, just look at whats happening now.

Personally I don’t think the elite truly want a One World Government. (I think that’s the Hegelian dialectic at work) They would probably be satisfied with 3-5 major economic blocks

I totally agree, amerika, europe, asia, afrika, australia, at least important parts of it.
Amerika for the basic controll, maybe Mexico and stuff for drugs.
europe, base of operations, like USA.
Asia just i think to have a larger military or something i don;t quite thought about that.
Afrika, parts of it, you know witch ones, for the oil.
Australia or maybe some other part, but australia seems more likely because it s one of the western country's

I've been thinking a lot about how the NWO would gain, especially if it was controlled by human beings. My final conclusion that those in power already have enough and would not gain as much from more. Therefore I believe that extraterrestials are involved and may somehow gain from human enslavement/destruction.

undecided2:
Seriously, what would be wrong with a world government? I'm not trying to be sarcastic. The only negative idea I've seen about this is the loss of civil liberties, but people already complain about this (i.e. War on Terror). To be honest, I don't feel like I've lost any freedoms. But, back to the question at hand: why would a world government be bad?

I’ve often wondered about this too, but I’ve come to the conclusion that world government would be a disaster for the average individual. You don’t seem to care much about your civil liberties – were you born and raised in America? Or another developed country, for that matter? I know I was. If you're like me, then you might take for granted your country’s status and well-being – at least, that’s what I can gather from your post. You are probably aware that millions of people have died defending what they believed to be your civil liberties, but don’t let me guilt trip you into liking your freedoms. How would you feel if you had to work fifty or sixty hour weeks, getting two or three dollars a day, and trying to decide if you’d rather have food or medicine this week? No problem, right? You can just get together with your fellow workers and make a list of grievances; you can try to end this gross exploitation of human beings. Wrong: that is when your peaceful assembly is broken apart with swinging bats and gunfire, and you, “the traitorous leader,” disappear. You don’t feel like you’ve lost any freedoms because you have not yet lost the rights you come to take for granted.

A state big enough to govern the world is likely a state that is big enough to slash all of our civil liberties. By that, I mean that the world will become feudal once more: there will be the landowners, the creditors, and the peasants, the debtors. People will be cruelly exploited and unable to acquire the basic necessities – if you think I’m a cynic, or that no human being can do this to another, then take a look around you. It is occurring everyday around the globe. In the name of “optimal efficiency,” of “cost-effectiveness,” and of “maximized profits,” people are driven into the ground with debt and find that they are unable to pay these private corporations that own the water, electricity, food, and medical distribution services. In the current world system, many people already find that they are slaves in a very real sense of the word. Imagine a government with all the tools for tracking and watching all of its citizens? A government with the means of establishing a perpetual sense of fear and paranoia? These things exist – now imagine that government dominating the world political landscape with no competition or opponents? How will things ever change?

A one world government would seem to be a good idea to end wars and establish perpetual peace – that is probably just how it will be sold to the masses, and the foundations of it will be further established after the next world war (WWII saw the United Nations – what’s next?). However, this is a very wrong perception. Take a look at any other nation. Just because certain groups of people are under one government does not mean that they won’t kill each other and commit atrocities. And, similarly, just because the government is supposed to govern these peoples does not mean that it does anything at all about this violence. A one world government is not inherently a peaceful organization.

Peyres
I honestly can't believe that there are people scheming evil things, just so they can sit at a table with their cabal, saying yeh, we own the world. A few seconds later and the reality dawns in. How boring.....

I doubt they see themselves as scheming “evil things.” The ruling class of our day probably see themselves as all ruling classes have – trying to best administer the “ignorant rabble” that they must take care of. What is more important to them: the welfare of that thirsty, sick child, or the 3% growth in profit attributed to the policies exploiting that child? Take a look at world history and at the modern world and you will see that the answer is painfully obvious. And meanwhile, they don't just sit a table - they go about their business and their formalities, holding dinners and banquets and establishing relations. Perhaps it is a sign of status, who has more debtors - like in history, it was a sign of status who had more slaves.

Peyres
Why would they want to curb civil liberties? So they can stay in power, maybe, and do what. Make more money? And do what with it?

Of course they will curb civil liberties to stay in power. That is the wish of most rulers – kings, despots, presidents. Sure, there are some with the sincere desire to be in the service of the public, but more often than not, it seems that people in power are only there because they know government is the “best” and “most legitimate” way to exploit the masses. As for the money thing, I can’t fathom that either – but it happens. They rake in more and more money, and it is still not enough. Hence, we see Latin Americans in cardboard shacks with no electricity, water, food, or sanitation, and we see Africans under the same conditions. Wealth is power – more power, more wealth, and vice versa. I can’t say I understand the mentality of the world’s financial and political elite, but it seems to have been robbed of any compassion for the common man.

RetinoidReceptor
I personally don't think it would be bad...I mean I don't see how this would be possible unless as people have said, billions of people have died. People say that the NWO will be a police state, and a dictatorship, with complete control over everything. I don't know how they know this (well I do, they have read it somewhere), I don't even know how they know a big NWO movement is going on to aim at this end (I know this as well, they read it somewhere).

There are reports that the world’s population must decrease by 4 billion people in some timeframe; if that doesn’t happen, our population will instead collapse and even more people may die. Of course, those reports are just one side of the story, but it is entirely believable that there are just too many damn people on this planet to support. Who knows if the guys on top are conspiring to lower the population? It doesn’t seem to be entirely out of the question. If anything, all they have to do is prod certain groups and viola, you have a war that can decimate tens and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people.

People say that a one world government will be a police state for the reason that it would be able to be a police state. Rulers in government generally do what they can for themselves until they find opposition by the governed (or other rulers, but the governed are just tools or enemy number one); if there is a single government and a placated populace, who is going to stop them from becoming a police state? No one. And once they become a police state, who can change that? It would be require an entire armed uprising, which would be incredibly difficult without outside influence and with a disarmed, surveilled populace.

The New World Order theory seems to arise from the fact that governments are becoming bigger and have been for human history. We began as individual tribes, and now look at us. There are “federal governments” that govern entire portions of continents, and the movement seems to be toward even more consolidation. European Union, a possible North American Union, perhaps a South American one, even an African one. The Soviet Empire collapsed and the American Empire is collapsing, it seems, but they will be replaced by more stable coalitions, likely in the model of the European Union. NAFTA laid the groundwork of a US-Canada-Mexico union, and now we see USNORTHCOM and the proposed FTAA.

Peyres
is a 'police' state really a bad thing.

We in the west constantly fear that 'civil liberties' are being erroded. WHY? Is it a bad thing. I can still walk out the door, make friends, fall in love, buy and sell, have kids, right a novel, criticise the government. These rights are avaliable to me, aslong as I don't violate the rights of others in the process.

Wtf!? Without civil liberties, you can do none of those things! You still have civil liberties, Peyres, and that is why you can do those things. YES a police state is a bad thing. It means that you can be exploited and that you can’t do anything about it. Criticize the government in a police state? No. Have kids? No. Buy and sell? No. Sure, in some dictatorships, perhaps, but not many. Criticizing the government leads to political imprisonment and maybe death. China is already enforcing a “one-kid-per-family” law. Also, if you are exploited to the point of starvation, what are you going to buy besides food or medicine? Or, more importantly, what are you going to buy that hasn’t been “approved” by government, since it will own production and distribution? What are you going to sell when you own nothing and are in debt?

You can say the things you do because you don’t seem to have ever experienced life in a dictatorial regime. Neither have I, but even the history textbooks illustrated that these regimes are nothing to take lightly, to wave off as “possibly good.”

Peyres
If total economic liberty is abused, then surely total individual freedom of movement and thought can be too. And of course, we do know that people abuse power, or even come corrupted by it.. I've come to the conclusion that everything is open to abuse. Man will always find a way of looking after themselves. As long as the leaders of world government aren't all completley nuts, that should be locked up with straightjacket, then it doesn't bother me.

No, the leaders won’t be “nuts.” They will be cold, calculated businessmen who know what to do and how to do it to make the greatest profits with the greatest efficiency. If people are dying and suffering along the way, that is sad, for sure, but it is not his problem. He’s just doing his job. You are right that man will always find a way of looking after themselves; a one world government would be their greatest tool for going about business. Meanwhile, the “slaves,” the debtors, would look after themselves, but they would also be disgustingly exploited. Why? Because that’s business for the elite, and it always has been.

Amschel Rothschild
I've been thinking a lot about how the NWO would gain, especially if it was controlled by human beings. My final conclusion that those in power already have enough and would not gain as much from more. Therefore I believe that extraterrestials are involved and may somehow gain from human enslavement/destruction.

I don’t see how that is evidence of the involvement of extraterrestrials. Also, how did you conclude that those in power already have enough? I believe that those in power had enough when they first started exploiting farmers in the dawn of civilization, but obviously those in power don’t agree. I don’t think they understand that one can ever “have enough.”

Originally posted by Luap

Peyres
is a 'police' state really a bad thing.

We in the west constantly fear that 'civil liberties' are being erroded. WHY? Is it a bad thing. I can still walk out the door, make friends, fall in love, buy and sell, have kids, right a novel, criticise the government. These rights are avaliable to me, aslong as I don't violate the rights of others in the process.

Wtf!? Without civil liberties, you can do none of those things! You still have civil liberties, Peyres, and that is why you can do those things. YES a police state is a bad thing. It means that you can be exploited and that you can’t do anything about it. Criticize the government in a police state? No. Have kids? No. Buy and sell? No. Sure, in some dictatorships, perhaps, but not many. Criticizing the government leads to political imprisonment and maybe death. China is already enforcing a “one-kid-per-family” law. Also, if you are exploited to the point of starvation, what are you going to buy besides food or medicine? Or, more importantly, what are you going to buy that hasn’t been “approved” by government, since it will own production and distribution? What are you going to sell when you own nothing and are in debt?

You can say the things you do because you don’t seem to have ever experienced life in a dictatorial regime. Neither have I, but even the history textbooks illustrated that these regimes are nothing to take lightly, to wave off as “possibly good.”

Peyres
If total economic liberty is abused, then surely total individual freedom of movement and thought can be too. And of course, we do know that people abuse power, or even come corrupted by it.. I've come to the conclusion that everything is open to abuse. Man will always find a way of looking after themselves. As long as the leaders of world government aren't all completley nuts, that should be locked up with straightjacket, then it doesn't bother me.

No, the leaders won’t be “nuts.” They will be cold, calculated businessmen who know what to do and how to do it to make the greatest profits with the greatest efficiency. If people are dying and suffering along the way, that is sad, for sure, but it is not his problem. He’s just doing his job. You are right that man will always find a way of looking after themselves; a one world government would be their greatest tool for going about business. Meanwhile, the “slaves,” the debtors, would look after themselves, but they would also be disgustingly exploited. Why? Because that’s business for the elite, and it always has been.

Amschel Rothschild
I've been thinking a lot about how the NWO would gain, especially if it was controlled by human beings. My final conclusion that those in power already have enough and would not gain as much from more. Therefore I believe that extraterrestials are involved and may somehow gain from human enslavement/destruction.

I don’t see how that is evidence of the involvement of extraterrestrials. Also, how did you conclude that those in power already have enough? I believe that those in power had enough when they first started exploiting farmers in the dawn of civilization, but obviously those in power don’t agree. I don’t think they understand that one can ever “have enough.”

you are contradicting yourself. Why make more and more profit if effectively a police state, which forbibs buying/selling, as mentioned by a poster above, would make the very concept of profit useless. I suppose they will just sit there counting the money, getting high off it, sacraficing children etc

There is no rationale behind this. Its just pure suspicion of people in suits, rich people, the elite. Perhaps even jealousy...

Your examples of authortarian/totalitarian examples, all include Nutters, people who slaughtered people, and often admitted to it, trying to justify it.

The fact of the matter is, even without the concept of state, this would happen. Mobs will form, the good ole, uncorruptable common man, or the 'working class' would still exercise unchecked violence, steal, rape etc, even if they aren't power hungry, suit wearing, privately educated, profit seekers.

At least within the guidlines and policing of a state, the majority will live and enjoy their lives to a certain extent, experiencing relationships with people etc etc. These power hungry elite have provided me with: protection against criminals, welfare system, free education, free healthcare, free access to goods, the abillity to become a property owner/entreprenuer. None of the so called dimishing of civil libertites has even attempted to get rid of this. Communism try to get rid of the last one. The new authortarian clampdowns in the wake of 9/11 have been designed to protect the law abiding citizens from those who abuse their human rights.

[edit on 22-7-2006 by Peyres]

Peyres
you are contradicting yourself. Why make more and more profit if effectively a police state, which forbibs buying/selling, as mentioned by a poster above, would make the very concept of profit useless. I suppose they will just sit there counting the money, getting high off it, sacraficing children etc

Think of it like as a feudal relationship. This average joe may not be able to buy or sell much of anything because he is so damn poor. Maybe an extra parcel of clothing a month, or a week of electricity so he doesn’t have to sleep in the cold. He still has to work, though, in order to buy these necessities – he may harvest food or cater to some big whigs, or he may do the dirty public service work. His money is still going straight to the landlord (creditor), though, who will own the farm, the clothing factory and the public utilities. At the end of the month, he has no extra money for all of his work. The creditor, the loan shark, on the other hand, is reaping the benefits of joe’s work and at the same time is collecting all of joe’s extra money. This is profit at its “best.”

I was that other poster, I believe, that said something about buying and selling, but I never said that it would be forbidden. It would just be regulated so that no one could infringe on the monopolistic market, like it is done in China.

And who knows what they do with their wealth? I don’t, and I doubt you do, but isn’t it pretty damn obvious that they simply want more and more of it? Why else would the World Bank and IMF have financially raped the Third World, at the obvious expense of human beings? You have to understand that there is competition amongst the political and financial elite – I’m talking about the top of the top. The world’s masses are resources to these guys, we seem to exist in some statistical dimension for them. They obviously don’t like it when these “statistics” get pissed and overthrow a friendly puppet government or demand that silly idea called equality. A police state would allow them to carry out their exploitation without fear of an uprising from the “human capital,” and hence, allow them to focus more attention toward competition amongst themselves.

Next post...

Peyres
There is no rationale behind this. Its just pure suspicion of people in suits, rich people, the elite. Perhaps even jealousy...

Don’t start with class envy bull#, don’t. Thousands starve to death every hour, others live on the brink of survival every day of their lives; then there is that 1% of the world population that is disappointed that the new “Paradise Island” they bought doesn’t have room for their entire fleet of yachts. It is not jealousy that gets people pissed.

Peyres
Your examples of authortarian/totalitarian examples, all include Nutters, people who slaughtered people, and often admitted to it, trying to justify it.

The fact of the matter is, even without the concept of state, this would happen. Mobs will form, the good ole, uncorruptable common man, or the 'working class' would still exercise unchecked violence, steal, rape etc, even if they aren't power hungry, suit wearing, privately educated, profit seekers.

At least within the guidlines and policing of a state, the majority will live and enjoy their lives to a certain extent, experiencing relationships with people etc etc. These power hungry elite have provided me with: protection against criminals, welfare system, free education, free healthcare, free access to goods, the abillity to become a property owner/entreprenuer. None of the so called dimishing of civil libertites has even attempted to get rid of this. Communism try to get rid of the last one. The new authortarian clampdowns in the wake of 9/11 have been designed to protect the law abiding citizens from those who abuse their human rights.

Are you advocating a strong central government here? You know, a Hobbesian idea, that human life is short, brutish, nasty, etc. etc. with the absence of a iron-fisted ruler? I don’t know if I agree, but I’ll wait for a response before getting into that.

The “power hungry elite” did not give you free education and free healthcare, nor do I believe they gave you much of that stuff that you listed. The elite do not control everything in this world, they do not call every shot. There are generous people inside and outside of the state – don’t get me wrong – just as there are disgusting and violent people in every social class. Anyway, I don’t see why the head hanchos would mind if some humans were happy some of the time; of course, state-owned education and police, as well as the post 9/11 policies of America, serve a purpose beyond your and my welfare. Also, you have to admit that it is rather foolish to say that, well, diminishing civil liberties hasn’t taken away most of my rights yet, so that must not be their goal.

Anyway, don’t expect Europe to maintain their generous socialistic policies for the rest of their existence. Britain is smart in not acquiring the Euro, since this currency has taken a good portion of national sovereignty away from each nation that acquired it. For some people, Europe was too regulated, too worker-friendly. So one of these people created the euro: Robert Mundell. He was also the father of Reaganomics, that laissez-faire system of economy, which runs headfirst into much of Europe’s policies. It is in the best interest of the ruling elite to cut away that burdensome cost of health care and education, but to do so right now, out of the blue, would certainly create quite a few angry Europeans. So, more devious schemes are hatched, the euro, kind of like how a police state foundation is being laid, or rather built upon, in America today. It's kind of curious how Cheney's company is also building concentration camps.