Why is a new world order bad?

Originally posted by Shar_Chi

Originally posted by Luap

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Au contraire, you are discussing the development of a global civilisation based on authority rather than ethics. Didn't you learn anything from Lord of the Rings?

How does one build a global civilization based on ethics rather than authority? Would you consider the "rule of law" to be akin to the "authority of ethics"?

You do it by inverting the pyramid, so it becomes a V. You let each autonomous community determine its own affairs. You merely provide a forum for the free exchange of ideas.

The idea of federalism embraces the so-called "V." Legitimacy of local government comes from the individual, legitimacy of regional government comes from local government, legitimacy of world government comes from regional government. It just doesn't FULLY embrace the "V" concept, because that would mean that any individual for whatever reason could upset the entire stability of society.

Originally posted by Paul
An NWO would just be a licence for huge corporations to plough on through the rest of the world, exploiting, profitting. Keeping us all working for them for their profit, and consuming from them, also for their profit.
The world is already like that, but an NWO would just consolidate the staus quo, and cut a fair bit of red tape for them.

I agree that material wealth and its symbiotic relationship with political power have been huge causes of the current system's problems. However, we should also take note of the positive changes through the ages, like the Magna Carta, the French and American Revolutions, and the Western embracement of individual rights. All of these things ushered in "new orders." With today's level of global communications and travel, though, there is a "new world order."

I feel that it is a lack of participation by laypeople like us that would consolidate the status quo. If we just sit down and let faceless international bureaucrats continue to rewrite the rules without our input, how on earth are we going to have our perspectives reflected in the new order?

Originally posted by divine chronic
lol!

yea whats wrong with world domination??

hmmm... how about everything!? is wrong with it.

i dont know about u .. but i would prefer to live freely.. opposed to letting these 'governments' or so called leaders control everything.

I don't recall asking the question "what's wrong with world domination?" In fact, looking back, I didn't ask that question. Strange.

Originally posted by Mr Jackdaw
A World Government would have to do away with any nationalism - as has been said earlier. This wouldn't be bad, as it does away with the primary cause of war -- national pride. At that point, perhaps leadership could be handled on a community level, increasing in a (visible) hierarchy that extended to the "world" level. I say "Visible hierarchy" because it would also have to do away with the hidden closets that bureaucracy richly provides.

We have come to associate this "NWO" with shady, totalitarian governments (usually with really nice suits). Perhaps this is what we really fear: the concept of living in fear in a highly-policed world... or being answerable to "one leader".

A real world government would not be answerable to one leader, but to a large committee that itself represented the world. Sadly, I don't know what active steps are being taken to this effect. There's always that little... "nationalism" thing, isn't there?

A functional Global system is inevitable for the survival of humankind.
As to what form this system will take... well, that remains to be seen. I believe there is nothing to fear, though.

I don't think nationalism can be wholly done away with, but I think it will slowly take a back seat to loyalty to humanity as a whole. That's my optimism speaking, though. Still, I agree that if ordinary citizens like us are to secure a promising future for further generations (sorry if I'm getting up on a soapbox here), we have to actively end these closed-door meetings of international bureaucrats and multinational executives. The process of globalization has become demonized precisely because average citizens and workers are excluded. This is my message I wish to convey; I also have no way of predicting how and when this new order of things will emerge in the world. I'd say that I may go too far in assuming that human civilization will even reach a point of global cohesion. My primary concern is that while the international elite merge into a new ruling class, the international civil society must provide its alter ego.

Originally posted by 11Bravo
The NWO is nothing more then global communism.

That's an assertive statement. Prove it.

Firstly, there ain't no such thing as the New World Order unless you're saying that all the gov'ts in all the nations throughout the world are about to be instantly taken out.

Remember the old Mafia quote, "follow the money", to get to the root of any criminal enterprise. The uber rich like things just the way they are and have no desire to change the status quo. So is there a NWO or single world governing body on the way: NO.

Get rid of all corporarations and banning religious participation in all matters not specifically related to the spirit(ie women's rights) would be the most effective way to start to establish a New World Order.

A single world governing body.

People hate their local and national govt's enough. Can you imagine how incredibly ineffective a global gov't would be?

A true "new world order" would eliminate all gov't completely. Then maybe then humanity could move forward to mature as an intelligent beings.

Originally posted by gotrox
To those thinking that it would be impossible due to the current middle east war, a small country holding off a major super power, I think you may be in error in assuming that these regional conflicts are meant to be won.
They are not, war to win is not a profitable venture.

I try to balance my conspiratorial view and accidential view of history. IMO, many events (large ones) are staged. Other events are not. Your opinion above is speculative, and possible I would admit, but my mention of the Iraq insurgency was not meant to stir this kind of discussion. I was merely pointing out that weaker combatants can defeat stronger ones.

Originally posted by gotrox
I am supremely opposed to a regional government run by self appointed officials, not elected by the populace. Could a "NWO" actually work?
Of course it could--1 world, one language, 1 monetary system, 1 set of universal laws, 1 set of universal rights. But I seriously doubt that could be accomplished with x-billions of people in any forseeable future.

This is what I was talking about originally. The term "NWO" seems to conjure images of shadowy tribunals, composed of self-appointed judges and executives, with one language, currency, and law. This is a possible (though I would say improbable) outcome that would likely receive no public support, throwing the world into perpetual turmoil. On the other hand, the world could be composed of representiational democratic republics with global civilian watchdog groups, consumer awareness programs, and codified labor standards. Above these republics could be a federal system, perhaps with official appointed by global popular referendum. Does this sound so bad? IMO, the anarchical situation in the international arena, with diminishing water supplies, exploited food supplies, rampant pollution and disease, persistent regional conflicts, arms races, transnational crime--all this, THIS sounds bad.

I used to think of the NWO as an evil attempt by global elites to program us all into slaves and sit high in their temples. Then, I started considering that this view may have arisen because I'm sitting here idly in my armchair up in the First World, drinking my bottled water and considering which type of soup I should heat up tonight on my reliable electrical stove. I realized to a degree that it didn't matter what fears I may have--change has to happen. So I came to the conclusion that participation in that change is a better idea rather than insulting myself in my First World views of comfortable national soveriegnty. Just IMO.

Originally posted by Paul
The problem I see is that the current socio-economic paradigm, mostly through the rule of money, appears to reward the negative characteristics of human nature, like those you mention: greed, selfishness, the will to dominate - to be the alpha male of the pack.
Many of the people who shape the world for the rest of us - either through monetary influence or political power - have reached such a position of influence through greed, selfishness, and ruthlessness. And so what hope does a utopian global order founded on such foundations have?

Surely it would be more constructive to a global-utopian end to reward co-operative achievement, altruism, and compassion?

I don't think we can start with a vision of a global order and work toward it; I think we should look at what we have right now and build upon it. I'm not advocating absolute shortsightedness, but I also think that looking solely in the long-term is bound to failure and can be dangerous (leading to end-justifies-the-means thinking).

Originally posted by crgintx
Firstly, there ain't no such thing as the New World Order unless you're saying that all the gov'ts in all the nations throughout the world are about to be instantly taken out.

I agree, there is no such thing as a definable "New World Order." The world is in a constant state of change and international affairs could take a number of turns; we can't do anything about things we don't know we don't know, the "black swan."

Originally posted by crgintx
Remember the old Mafia quote, "follow the money", to get to the root of any criminal enterprise. The uber rich like things just the way they are and have no desire to change the status quo. So is there a NWO or single world governing body on the way: NO.

Of course people that benefit from the status quo want to resist change. This can be seen in domestic debates between nation soveriegnty and international multilaterialism. Still, that doesn't mean that the contemporary rulers can actually stop change. They can adapt to and integrate with it, but certainly not stop it. To suggest otherwise is to say that human civilization hasn't changed since the first rich guy existed.

Originally posted by crgintx
A single world governing body.

People hate their local and national govt's enough. Can you imagine how incredibly ineffective a global gov't would be?

I sometimes draw a (rough) analogy between a world federation with the American colonial federation, codified by our Constitution. There are several levels of government in America, all in conflict with each other; local, state, and federal. On a global scale, I don't know how this would look, but a world federation (or confederation, if you will) wouldn't eliminate local or state governments. I agree that such a vast bureaucracy would be hugely ineffective; even if it tried to completely absorb these territorial governments, I'm sure it would see a huge backlash around the globe.

Originally posted by crgintx
A true "new world order" would eliminate all gov't completely. Then maybe then humanity could move forward to mature as an intelligent beings.

Or we'd kill ourselves and commit ecocide by a vast "tragedy of the commons" of our atmosphere and oceans. But that is a debate about anarchism as an effective political theory, not about the positive or negative aspects of an emerging world governing body.

Originally posted by Paul

True, but humans by nature are also compassionate and altruistic. Human nature is not inherently bad, or good for that matter. Just confusingly human.

I think I agree in principle with the rest of what you are saying...

The problem I see is that the current socio-economic paradigm, mostly through the rule of money, appears to reward the negative characteristics of human nature, like those you mention: greed, selfishness, the will to dominate - to be the alpha male of the pack.
Many of the people who shape the world for the rest of us - either through monetary influence or political power - have reached such a position of influence through greed, selfishness, and ruthlessness. And so what hope does a utopian global order founded on such foundations have?

Surely it would be more constructive to a global-utopian end to reward co-operative achievement, altruism, and compassion?

So, is it human nature that is self defeating, or is it the artificial parameters of money and political authority within which it is allowed to exist that skews our human nature into a self defeating trajectory?

I just dont see this compassion in most of our history. There are some people who try to help others but the majority fall into two other categories the herders and the herded. Look at the Ancient Empires of Egypt and Rome built on the backs of slaves. No Human civilization has truly been compassionate, only individual humans have been such.

I agree the socio-economic paradigm is a problem but we created that problem. When humans bartered and traded land, livestock and slaves someone had the ingenuity to create money. Money is not the root of all evil. The Egyptians, Hittites and others were quite capable of war and atrocity before the invention of money. Humans by nature are selfish and accumulate things like land, livestock, and people. Getting rid of money will bring us back to that. Who has the most assets will rule.

To ever meet lofty ideals such as world peace and prosperity there is only way to that and that is remove the human from the equation. Human nature will never allow a civilization based on compassion.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
To ever meet lofty ideals such as world peace and prosperity there is only way to that and that is remove the human from the equation. Human nature will never allow a civilization based on compassion.

Quite an optimist you are. Honestly though, I agree. I have a dilemma, though: I don't believe in utopias, I don't believe in removing humans from the equation, and I don't believe in being pacified by the fortunes of the First World into which I was very luckily born. On the other hand, I do believe in progress, improvement, and reform. I'm not left with much to work with, then, except working for improvement.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by Luap]

Actually, I have nothing against a New World Order...The problem is that those who are pushing hardest for it aren't actually trying to create a New World Order. They're really trying to push the Old World Order into replacing the real New World Order that began with the Constitutional Republic of America.

All throughout the history of human civilization, every nation has actually been ruled by the wealthy, the elite, the hereditary aristocracies. In short, rule over the many by the whim of the few. When the US Founding Forefathers wrote & enacted the Constitution, it was truly new in the world; The masses had power over Government & keeping the Powers of Government limited.

Over the past 100-150 years though, the American Constitutional Republic has been slowly corrupted by the "merchant classes," that is to mean Corporate Interests. Now the corporates have bribed the politicians into degrading the priciples & intent of the Constitution, bringing the Old World Order back into power. If they'd learned to stick with their legally-binding Oaths to obey the Constitution, it never would have happened that way. Where it really went wrong though is the fact that the People should have remained vigilant against corruption in Government, but failed. Thanks to the widespread communication abilities of the Internet, the People are starting to get the idea...

One lesson that the "ruling elite" never seem to learn though...Piss off the Masses enough & they inevitably realize just how badly they're outnumbered...


[edit on 7-8-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

Originally posted by Luap

Quite an optimist you are.

Honestly though, I agree. I have a dilemma, though: I don't believe in utopias, I don't believe in removing humans from the equation, and I don't believe in being pacified by the fortunes of the First World into which I was very luckily born. On the other hand, I do believe in progress, improvement, and reform. I'm not left with much to work with, then, except working for improvement.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by Luap]

I dont believe in utopias or removing humans from the equation. The closest thing to a working utopia would be a society struggling for survival. In such dire situations humans have shown the capacity for great courage and compassion. Sadly it would be a society of primitve nomadic tribesmen, but I think you would find among them more happiness and fulfilment than any modern society. This society's priorities would be life and family. Families working together to feed and care for their livestock and each other. They would be totally dependent on one another. A society where the elders of the tribe made judgements and rulings. A world where everyone knew each other names. Societies like this are almost all extinct, corrupted by drugs, alcohol, pornography, and crime. Its a very rough life but a happier life than living in fear of terrorism, poverty, and crime.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
I dont believe in utopias or removing humans from the equation. The closest thing to a working utopia would be a society struggling for survival. In such dire situations humans have shown the capacity for great courage and compassion.

Humans have shown the capacity for great courage and compassion in many situations, not just dire ones. Are you suggesting, though, that we actually create these situations of "struggling survival" just so that these virtues are exhibited?

MikeboydUS
Sadly it would be a society of primitve nomadic tribesmen, but I think you would find among them more happiness and fulfilment than any modern society. This society's priorities would be life and family. Families working together to feed and care for their livestock and each other. They would be totally dependent on one another. A society where the elders of the tribe made judgements and rulings. A world where everyone knew each other names. Societies like this are almost all extinct, corrupted by drugs, alcohol, pornography, and crime. Its a very rough life but a happier life than living in fear of terrorism, poverty, and crime.

The "noble savage" ideal, correct? I tend to take's Hobbes's phrase of "poor, nasty, brutish, and short" when thinking of these societies. Sure, social cohesion is much greater in a small tribe than it is in a national culture, and the decision-making process is more egalitarian due to the very small number of people involved (in effect, everyone in the tribe is a politician). Those are some pros. On the other hand, this tribe is in a constant state of maintaining itself against the threats of nature and human. Terrorism has been around for millenia--the use of fear as a tactic is even used by animals to back off predators. Terrorism among tribes exists, it just doesn't consist of political/religious fanatics and car bombs. Also, the essence of the tribe you describe is poverty. They are wealthy in terms of social ties, but must live season to season gathering and hunting, perhaps even herding or harvesting if the regional climate permitted. Climate change or intertribal conflict could result in famine and a withering away of the "family."

Also, assume that somehow this state of affairs came to be, that human development was set back thousands and thousands of years. Humans would eventually learn agriculture again, most likely. And with that discovery, we would repopulate at a rate that required more centralized decision-making (less egalitarianism) and introduce a strain on relationships among the population (less social cohesion).

We are where we are now. I could come up with a range of ideas of a society that sounds great, and even rate the ideas from of utter utopian to even workable. But, IMO, that is a wrong-headed approach that makes too many assumptions. We need to look at our current resources and build a tentative, flexible vision based on those, and continuously move forward as these visions are realized or scrapped or sabotaged, and then renew the process. I was reading Wikipedia's article on "libertarian socialism," and I found a little portion I liked. (Note that I'm not a so-called libertarian socialist, but I like the methods that the movement supposedly employs.) The quote will be in the next post.

[edit on 8-8-2007 by Luap]

[edit on 8-8-2007 by Luap]

Wikipedia article on "Libertarian Socialism"
Contrary to popular opinion, libertarian socialism has not traditionally been a utopian movement, tending to avoid dense theoretical analysis or prediction of what a future society would or should look like. The tradition instead has been that such decisions cannot be made now, and must be made through struggle and experimentation, so that the best solution can be arrived at democratically and organically, and to base the direction for struggle on established historical example.

Supporters often suggest that this focus on exploration over predetermination is one of their great strengths. They point out that the success of science at explaining the natural world comes from its methods and its adherence to open rational exploration, not its conclusions; whereas traditional dogmatic explanations of naturalistic phenomena have proved almost useless at explaining anything in the natural world.

Although critics claim that they are avoiding questions they cannot answer, libertarian socialists believe that a methodological approach to exploration is the best way to achieve their social goals. To them, dogmatic approaches to social organization are just as doomed to failure as are non-scientific explanations of natural phenomena. Noted anarchist Rudolf Rocker once stated, "I am an anarchist not because I believe anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal" (The London Years, 1956).

Of course, tentative steps forward must be carefully considered as well so they are not hugely shortsighted--like a kid stuffing his closet full to "clean his room."

[edit on 8-8-2007 by Luap]

Originally posted by Luap


Humans have shown the capacity for great courage and compassion in many situations, not just dire ones. Are you suggesting, though, that we actually create these situations of "struggling survival" just so that these virtues are exhibited?

The "noble savage" ideal, correct? I tend to take's Hobbes's phrase of "poor, nasty, brutish, and short" when thinking of these societies. Sure, social cohesion is much greater in a small tribe than it is in a national culture, and the decision-making process is more egalitarian due to the very small number of people involved (in effect, everyone in the tribe is a politician). Those are some pros. On the other hand, this tribe is in a constant state of maintaining itself against the threats of nature and human. Terrorism has been around for millenia--the use of fear as a tactic is even used by animals to back off predators. Terrorism among tribes exists, it just doesn't consist of political/religious fanatics and car bombs. Also, the essence of the tribe you describe is poverty. They are wealthy in terms of social ties, but must live season to season gathering and hunting, perhaps even herding or harvesting if the regional climate permitted. Climate change or intertribal conflict could result in famine and a withering away of the "family."

Also, assume that somehow this state of affairs came to be, that human development was set back thousands and thousands of years. Humans would eventually learn agriculture again, most likely. And with that discovery, we would repopulate at a rate that required more centralized decision-making (less egalitarianism) and introduce a strain on relationships among the population (less social cohesion).

We are where we are now. I could come up with a range of ideas of a society that sounds great, and even rate the ideas from of utter utopian to even workable. But, IMO, that is a wrong-headed approach that makes too many assumptions. We need to look at our current resources and build a tentative, flexible vision based on those, and continuously move forward as these visions are realized or scrapped or sabotaged, and then renew the process. I was reading Wikipedia's article on "libertarian socialism," and I found a little portion I liked. (Note that I'm not a so-called libertarian socialist, but I like the methods that the movement supposedly employs.) The quote will be in the next post.

The difference between the dire situation and everyday life is that when someone acts courageously or compassionately it is often lost in the sea of cowardice and hate. In such a dire situation the population of humans would be very small and isolated. Acts of courage and compassion would be vital for preservation and survival.

I'm not suggesting we create anything. The human race will probably create this situation for itself in the future not intentionally, but due to resource consumption exceeding production.

Its not quite the noble savage. The constant threat of nature is not going to go away. The tribe could be isolated away from other humans though.
When I was describing Terrorism, I meant it in a modern religious political context.

I did mean poverty. Socially they would be wealthier than all modern and financially wealthy communities. What really matters most? Ipods, Internet, Cars, Cellphones, and other modern comforts? Family and Community? Look at how miserable and unfulfilled people are in modern society. People are forced to text message, email, IM, and even post on Internet Forums to communicate

There were a number of societies that made it into the 20th century without having this massive growth and modernization. Now these primitive socities have fallen into ruin primarily by being introduced to modern comforts. Alcoholism, Drug Addiction, Porn Addiction and its after effects have ruined them.

We simply dont have the resources to keep going at the rate we are. The Greed, Hedonism and Immorality of the First World and the massive Industrial and Population Growth of the Third World cannot be sustained.
Humanity is like a runaway freight train that in the next few decades will hit a wall or more likley a cliff. Unless something extraordinary happens, Divine Intervention, Technological Singularity, or First Contact (Maybe all of the above), the 21st century will end in an apocalyptic mess.

I dont have a suggestion or way to fix anything. Just dont blame the New World Order when the crap (along with the toilet) hits the fan. This is humanity's fault.

Im sorry if this sounds harsh, but...

directing blame and hatred toward those who are rich and powerful is the essential attitude of the looser-type who has achieved nothing in life. He then looks at his situation and blames it on those who have power and money. He equates power and money with evil.

Just a LITTLE bit of research will reveal where anti-nwo books come from. They have been written by religious fanatics and right and left wing extremists. Look at who is writing the material and who is publishing it.

The idea is to bring on a new age, a golden age, an age of beauty, peace, prosperity-for-all. And those fearful ones who oppose the new age will re-label it into the sinister and dark NWO.

For all those afraid of this NWO: Get a life. Get with the program. Become a unique and responsible citizen and stop attacking your FELLOW HUMANS.
Yes...the rich and powerful ARE your fellow humans. But some of gone so deep into madness they would even refute this and say "no, they are not human, they are blood-drinking, child-eating alien reptiles".

MikeboydUS

I read an interesting account by Jared Diamond about how the world's current path is unsustainable, and that drastic changes must be made in the next several decades. If these changes aren't made through collective action by humans, then they will be made by a catastrophic collapse--says Diamond. Perhaps he's right; his account was convincing, and it seems a consensus is growing around this idea, but I'm no environmentalist.

However, your opinion of the corruption of First World society (with things like alcohol, pornography, and other less controversial material things) is obviously not shared by everyone. People like to buy and consume things; across the globe people want these sorts of material goods. Your "workable utopia" that does not contain these things is, for others, a dystopia. When it comes to matters of material, social, and/or spiritual wealth, opinions vary greatly of their "true worth." Some scoff at the idea of family tradition, some scoff at the idea of the soul, some scoff at the idea of a Mercedes-Benz. IMO, it will be a bright time indeed when people across the globe can tolerate these differences (not necessarily accept opposing beliefs, just tolerate them).

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Im sorry if this sounds harsh, but...

directing blame and hatred toward those who are rich and powerful is the essential attitude of the looser-type who has achieved nothing in life. He then looks at his situation and blames it on those who have power and money. He equates power and money with evil.

Just a LITTLE bit of research will reveal where anti-nwo books come from. They have been written by religious fanatics and right and left wing extremists. Look at who is writing the material and who is publishing it.

The idea is to bring on a new age, a golden age, an age of beauty, peace, prosperity-for-all. And those fearful ones who oppose the new age will re-label it into the sinister and dark NWO.

For all those afraid of this NWO: Get a life. Get with the program. Become a unique and responsible citizen and stop attacking your FELLOW HUMANS.
Yes...the rich and powerful ARE your fellow humans. But some of gone so deep into madness they would even refute this and say "no, they are not human, they are blood-drinking, child-eating alien reptiles".

I agree partly. I personally don't know any billionaires or insider bureaucrats or world financiers, so I can't comment on their individual character, and certainly to make a general comment about all of them would assume a lot. Still, we can tell by how globalization as been managed that the people in charge do NOT have the interests of ordinary folks in mind and their actions can harm innocent people. Blaming the leaders in this situation is not the attitude of a "looser-type" but of one seeking some justice and recognition.

Originally posted by Luap


I agree partly. I personally don't know any billionaires or insider bureaucrats or world financiers, so I can't comment on their individual character, and certainly to make a general comment about all of them would assume a lot. Still, we can tell by how globalization as been managed that the people in charge do NOT have the interests of ordinary folks in mind and their actions can harm innocent people. Blaming the leaders in this situation is not the attitude of a "looser-type" but of one seeking some justice and recognition.

I am all for justice and inquiry into the doings of those in power...of course. But it is not their job to give you recognition, attention, money...these are things one can give to oneself. They cant be held responsible for life, much less for your life.

While the elite could do better, certainly, I think some of them HAVE done more for the world than the gun-toting, sofa-researching anti-nwo theorist.
I know a few rich people that work VERY HARD for the good of society...sometimes to have their good work destroyed by fanatics.

Look, I will summarize my viewpoint: If I had the choice to spend my weekend with the educated elite or some paranoid religious fanatic who spends his life in front of the internet-screen, I would choose the elite.

And Ive come to this conclusion after studying the anti-nwo books.