whats so bad about a new order

giving this some thought
joy division were overrated imo
bizarre love triangle and true faith amongst other were totally mega
maybe the cia are to blame for ian curtis sad demise

can i have the drugs you are on please

whats so bad about a new order?

1) police sate
2) void of all freedoms
3) fema camps
4) mass murder
5) never ending WAR
6) de-population
7) corporate global control
8) loss of all natural medicines
9) protesting becomes illegal
10) constant state of FEAR

just to name a few

reply to post by pete gill


Whats so bad about a new order is, we haven't yet fixed or perfected the old one.

When punk rocker, Ian Curtis of the band Joy Division left this plane of existence, the remnants of the band called themselves New Order.

A couple of their songs, Bizarre Love Triangle and True Faith are easily found on YouTube.





edit to include 'Bizarre'

[edit on 4/7/08 by masqua]

Originally posted by pete gill
maybe the cia are to blame for ian curtis sad demise

May 18th, 1980 IAN CURTIS ended his life, aged 23.



The driving force behind Joy Division's dark vision, he hanged himself in his Macclesfield home as the band rested between a European and American tour. Iggy Pop's 'The Idiot' was found on his turntable alongside a note which read "at this very moment, I wish I were dead. I just can't cope anymore".

joydivision.homestead.com...

I've always felt that the 'Powers That Be' have had a hand in silencing popular culture heroes, especially in the massive music industry.

Hangings and forced suicide notes are too darn easy.

You might be onto something with Curtis, but how are we to prove t?

From what I've researched in history is that the so-called NWO of today is nothing but more re-enforcement of the same Old World Order that's been around since the very beginnings of human civilization...The Old World Order was based primarily on the concept of "Divine Right to Rule" & spent a lot of effort & time in controlling their populations. This is why there has been so many revolts down through the ages...

For example, in Mesopotamia, the Preisthood ruled...They had access to a wide variety in their diets while the "commoners survived almost exclusively on bread & onions. The Preisthood also oversaw virtually all aspects of life for the commoners, right down to ditch-digging for the irrigatoin canals & "renting out" their own prostitutes. Also one of their problems was that Mesopotamians never actually unified as a single geo-political unit, pretty much squabbling with each other most of the time. Rule in each city was through one "high priest" known as the En, but delegated authority through lesser priests who also administrated secular concerns.

In Egypt, the power for both religion & secular concerns rested in the hands of Pharoah...Even though Egypt was the first nation to unify, Pharoah was still considered to be a god in human incarnation & ruled as such. However, the rule under Pharoah was somewhat different than in Mesopotamia in that Pharoah was expected to protect Egypt from the "forces of Chaos" while providing a stable "power of Order." Rulership was more concerned with the struggle between Chaos & Order, rather than Good & Evil. Thus Pharoah was more expected to put food surplus in storage for the relatively few times that the Nile innundations weren't so good...So Pharoah was dedicated to the People of Egypt more than the Priesthoods of Mesopotamia were to their People. Yes, there were exceptions amidst the numerous dynasties, but the Pharoah was aware that his rule depended more on the support of the People...If he failed to stave off Chaos, he left Egypt weak to invasion or complex breakdowns of social infrastructures.

Even the European Monarchy, the Chinese Dynasties and many others carried on the "Divine connections with rulers" all throughout history...Yet in every case, such structures of rulership decays & falls in time. Even the relatively free Democracy of the Classical Greek Era collapsed, mostly through political manuevering inherent in the period known as the Athenian Hegemony (the alliance known as the Delian League). They also built up some political disagreements with Sparta during & after the Persian invasion that sped up the collapse of Greek Democracy.

Yet, when the Constitutional Republic of America was first formed, it really was a step up from the concept of Divine Right to Rule...It really did represent a New World Order in that it put the People in charge of the government for the first time in history. Is it any wonder that the Old World Order/Divine Right supporters saw it as a threat to their own power? Is it any wonder that they would work so hard & so long to corrupt the new nation? Why else do national leaders still proclaim that "God is on our side" while still enforcing the Old World Order on an international scale?

So, what's wrong with the NWO? They are not creating anything new...They've been doing nothing less than stagnating the social evolution of nations all over the world. With the advancement of sciences & technologies, they've merely become more efficient in the practice of control while moving the program of social stagnation up to the world-wide scale.

reply to post by pete gill


do some research on the new world order and you will find out

1) They want to take control of all of humanity, and blow the people who they can't take control of away.

2) I like the way society is evolving - it isn't perfect, and is quite remarkably flawed in one or two big ways, but i'd rather see humanity deal with it's own problems in it's own time instead of being forced to.

The NWO is actually a great idea. Uniting the world is what needs to be done. It might take one, two, or several big wars to do it (preferably none), but afterwards everybody will be too exhausted (finances, populace, morale etc.) to continue their petty wars over nationalism, religion, and ethnicities. I dream of the day when mortal enemies of countless generations will laugh and have a meal together.

Of course, it will be done for control. That's the point. In order to minimize the chaos there has to be cohesion among the parts. There has to be a body that governs the world affairs, and whether the members of that body are elected or not really does not matter. Before anybody cries out about how this would be the defecation on democracy, you should already realize that democracy is an ideal first, and a system of government second.

The NWO, as it's aptly named, is something that the world needs. Slightly off topic here, but even if alien civilizations existed, and even if we had political relations with them, how are we to deal with them if we don't even have our own world in order?

NWO is not about uniting is about taking freeedom


Humans beings and life is meant to be free to grow, move and be free.
There are some humans on this planet who want to control life.


They do NOT have this moral right to do so, and I dear hope karma comes to get them quicker than they can imagine to think. NWO is a programme by people in power who want to total control of the world. You see what's happening in Europe and America. People are getting stupid, most noticeably in America. Europe is falling a path of an united Europe.(which i was for) Is now not under good hands. It's about controlling the populations.

This has to stop. Freedom is what we are here to experience.

Originally posted by Lucidliving


The NWO, as it's aptly named, is something that the world needs.

Ah, of course - whenever someone comes up with a great and terrible idea, it's only natural for people to rally around it.

Maybe if i were to replace the idea of the NWO with great social and political change in the name of greater freedom and liberty, and yet referred to the plan as "Great and Terrible" people would still flock to it...

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

Originally posted by Lucidliving


The NWO, as it's aptly named, is something that the world needs.

Ah, of course - whenever someone comes up with a great and terrible idea, it's only natural for people to rally around it.

Maybe if i were to replace the idea of the NWO with great social and political change in the name of greater freedom and liberty, and yet referred to the plan as "Great and Terrible" people would still flock to it...

Rally? There are people rallying behind this concept? I don't recall being bombarded with NWO in the same way we're bombarded with advertisements, but I do notice the occasional subtle message being thrown in places that the next person might not.

It's "only natural for people" to resist change, because-in this instance-immediately we feel our freedoms, privacy and security threatened, where really it's the furthest thing from it. When there is an abrupt introduction of something new there usually is no time to adjust and take the old out of circulation, so what happens is that the new ideas are seen as threatening and unhelpful to the status quo. A gradual change in actuality is what's happening and that transition will be a lot smoother than people are fearing (threats against freedom).

Some of you, however, are seeing the change as a lot quicker than is actually taking place, which is what explains the adamant stance in defiance and rejection of the concept of this "New World Order." It is only a phase that will probably take a few generations to outgrow once the global system is implemented.

Look at this realistically. Do the people dictating the course of politics and world events very much care that somebody has a fetish party every other weekend at their home, or that another has a fantasy football pool at work? These are contrived examples, but the point is clear. Your freedoms are still (and will remain) safe. The only thing that isn't is some people's opinions of those freedoms.