NWO is NOT happening

Ok I'm fairly new to the nwo idea but I want to back track it all the way to George Bush Senior who mentioned the NWO over and over in his speech. Now when you look at present day, its been 14 long years since he gave that speech and there still isnt an NWO present.

Why not? My main reason is becuase its hard to integrate 2 different nations as one nation. Compare the U.S. and Britain, they both have separate institutions of government and public policy procedures. They have different ways of spending their budget, different ways of handling their police, air force, secret intelligence officers, etc. If you wanted to integrate both these nations you would have to revamp the entire system and get both nations to agree with each other on how they want things to be run. This brings about a problem of conflict with self-interests. One nation wants one thing while the other wants another. Just look at the various different styles of government between the U.S. and Great Britain. An integration can not take place unless people in the House of Commons, House of Lords, House of representatives, and Senate all favored it. Considering that the house of reps and the senate dont always agree(same with britain's houses), what makes you think they would be able to make some form of agreement to integrate both nations for the sake of "satisfying" some top secret group of "elite" people. Thats a bunch of crap. There would definitely be a lot of conflicts of interest for the two nations. We also know the executive branch(U.S.) and the monarchy(britain) have no way of establishing an NWO without the consent of their respective houses that keep them in check. Actually the monarchy has pretty much been reduced to a symbolic nature of Britain's past and has very very weak powers, if any. On top of that, lets try to integrate the U.S. with Russia under the NWO. Russia is our "best friend," so lets see how well that works out.

If nations cant integrate with other nations(for the reasons mentioned above) to form the NWO, then may be the idea is misrepresented. Maybe NWO represents supreme control and dictatorship style governing. However, the only difference is that each nation would not be integrated as one nation. They would each run their own policy but they would have a strong hold on their citizens and control of society. But like I said before, its highly unlikely that the Houses would be brainwashed to support such a thing for the sake of satisfying some "elite" groups dreams. It didnt happen back then and it wont happen now.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by kyateLaBoca]

Ah, yes another "the nwo doesn't exist and isn't happening" and now im starting to believe this. The more i read into the New world order, the more i see its just theories and its very unlikely to happen. A one world governemt will come around peacefully after a major war

Excellent post btw kyateLaBoca

I guess and NOT by any means intend to offense you, that would be so good for all of us to just deny all the fact or pehaps accept only what we like...remember that the devil's greatest achievement was to convince the mankind that it doesn't exist.

I don't think that nwo would be something like live in peace like one happy family but as I red it'll be all about economic domination and determination.

Can't you see all that is happening right now? It's all about money, wars started in key places, "black wars" or oil wars. Would it be so hard to accept that is intended that one day we'll all be registered, traced and controlled. Are you willing to deny the existance MKUltra and so on projects aimed to mass control people?
Could you deny the existance of clean energy solutions or engines projects that aren't financed but hidden or sabotaged.

Could you deny the existance of "uniformization" tv shows like big brother, intended to make us have one oppinion, that is "suggested" by others.

This is the intention of nwo : mass control and mass slavery for the well being of just few of them, the chosen, illuminati, khazars ar who ever they would be.

Originally posted by kyateLaBoca
Ok I'm fairly new to the nwo idea but I want to back track it all the way to George Bush Senior who mentioned the NWO over and over in his speech. Now when you look at present day, its been 14 long years since he gave that speech and there still isnt an NWO present.

I think you could look back further than 1990, the idea of a global state goes back much further than that.

When people talk about NWO..all they can think about is the world under one flag ruled by one group, openly and usually very harshly..or for you utopians, very star trekie. some think that the NWO is and wont happen.

What does NWO stand for...New World Order....a New World where there is and will be a new way of dealing with situations around the world. the only countries/country that will be able to facilitate a different Order in the New World, will be those that have $$$, an effective military force able to project its power world wide and control of its own population. hmmm sounds familiar but I just can't think of what it could be.......

American Heritage Dictionary definition of the word Order; "a condition of logical or comprehensible arrangment among the separte elements of a group."

that group could be a bunch of countries or just a couple of countries that work together to influence global situations. are there people behind the scene that pulll the strings of certain countries govt??....maybe...those with $$ have the power..the power to influence, the power to purchase, the power to hide but yet be a factor.

the Order of the New World has been changing slowly but surly....untill recently. Now those that think that they should have a 'leadership' role in the making of a New Order in the World are activly seeking that position.

it is as plain as the grass growing on your lawn...you never notice it growing untill...................................................................................

From what I understand there allready is something like a NWO.
USA (Bush now) does what they want, where they want, they don't listen to allies, think they are the best country and feel as if it is their right to bash over everyones opinion, because they are the biggest.

We don't need additional NWO's really, this is bad enough.

Originally posted by Jakko
We don't need additional NWO's really, this is bad enough.

Can you think of nothing the US had done to improve the world? This nation feeds the world, protects our allies and had spent trillions of dollars fighting disease and poverty all over the world. And on top of that, we sacrifice the blood of our offspring to champion the cause of freedom all around the globe. Ask S. Korea, Vietnam, France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Italy, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and on and on and on.

Oh, did I forget the Netherlands?

[edit on 04/8/17 by GradyPhilpott]

I was watching either Fox News or MSNBC yesterday and they had a senator on who said that Bush lives in a power bubble. That all presidents before him embraced the nations citizens and wanted to talk to people, and read their mail, and learn from them. Bush does not do this, he wants to stay away from the people of America and work in his power bubble that is controlled by top government and world powers.

Reading between the lines I assume he was saying that the American people don't represent the New World Order and so Bush does not want or does not have to listen to them.

If Bush is only listening to govn't and world powers, that is a new way of doing things (as the Senator said "unprecidented in American history) and a New World Order of politics and business is already underway.

My problem with Bush/Amerika is that they think they are greater/better than anyone else. They think they somehow obtained the right to ignore other countries opinions.

They think they are more important.
Why didn't the UN do anything after USA blatantly ignoring the voting regarding attacking iraq?
Because the UN does not want to lose a member like the USA, and the USA knows this.
They can do anything and everything.

Maybe this is a diversion or something, but what I was thinking was that if the NWO were taking control now or whenever they make theirselves known, why would we currently have a president who.

a. has very little public speaking ability.

b. did not have the most stellar academic record in college.

c. Does not have a history of being a completely stand-up citizen.

I
From what I have been reading about formations of and buildup of the NWO, family ties aren't necessarily what ties it together. I have gotten the impression that the NWO is being run by folks with money, brains, power, and the ability to keep it as inconspicious as possible.

Maybe I'm throwing rocks at the wall here, but it seems that if the NWO is going to have a seat of power, it'll be through John Kerry/John Edwards, as Kerry is descended from royalty, he seems to be able to crap on a plate and convince people that he has a stack of diamonds, and he seems to have the charisma that Bush Jr. lacks.

I'm pretty convinced that if the NWO does exist, (and I'm pretty sure that it does), Bush Jr. isn't going to be a part of the facilty, no matter if his dad's ear-deep in it.

I sort of wondered, (a lot), if GW got out of hand with the NWO cronies, and 9/11 was some sort of warning to him personally, to either make him realize that even *he* has superior officers...

This is not meant to be a political statement one way or the other, I'm just curious.

Regards all

Bush has the same royalty as Kerry. Well, not the same, but has royalty none the less. Kerry actually married into Bush's family.

But, I ask you all to take a look at the European Union. That started out as an economic tie and now is extending to defense, has a congress, prime minister, etc., all elected by the people of the countries.

Now look back to the USA when all the states were forced under one government after the Civil War.

It is very possible. We also have the Pacific Union and American though they aren't at the same level as Europe.

Originally posted by Jakko
My problem with Bush/Amerika is that they think they are greater/better than anyone else. They think they somehow obtained the right to ignore other countries opinions.

They think they are more important.
Why didn't the UN do anything after USA blatantly ignoring the voting regarding attacking iraq?
Because the UN does not want to lose a member like the USA, and the USA knows this.
They can do anything and everything.

Ultimately, there is only one country that is responsible for the safety and security of the United States and that would be the United States. We went to the UN and presented evidence that was widely accepted and formed a coalition of nations to join us in our attempt to unseat Saddam who had already given the world plenty of reasons to do so.

That our previously presumed allies Germany and France chose not to support us is immaterial One of the principles of freedom, even though it is currently tenuous even in America, is that no one has to ask permission to protect himself.

An appreciation of this principle is the one thing that distinquishes the United States of America from every other nation in the world and as long as we respect this principle we will never be enslaved, because this principle applies to individuals as well as nations and, for those who are so inclined, planets.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Now look back to the USA when all the states were forced under one government after the Civil War.

No offense, but you neatly lopped off about 90 years of US history. There was a Union prior to the War of Northern Aggression, as some of us are wont to call it.

[edit on 04/8/17 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by Jakko
My problem with Bush/Amerika is that they think they are greater/better than anyone else. They think they somehow obtained the right to ignore other countries opinions.

Of course the US has the right to ignore other nations opinions. What in the worl made yo uthink other peoples opinions were binding on anyone?

Why didn't the UN do anything after USA blatantly ignoring the voting regarding attacking iraq?

Like what? Sanction the US? Send peacekeepers over? There was a vote to approve a resolution supporting the war. It failed. That doesn't mean that a resolution condemming the war was passed. The UN doesn't have any authority to do anything in this case.

Because the UN does not want to lose a member like the USA, and the USA knows this.

Yeah, without the only remaing superpower involved in it, the UN would go the way of the League of Nations.

Wouldn't the UN having authority over the US infact -be- the fabled 'New World Order' anyway?

metallion:
it seems that if the NWO is going to have a seat of power, it'll be through John Kerry/John Edwards, as Kerry is descended from royalty

Kerry's dad was a jewish emigre. He is not 'descended' from royalty in any meaningful way.

gradyphilpott:
There was a Union prior to the War of Northern Aggression, as some of us are wont to call it.

Still a little sore about that Johnny Reb? But seriously, the 'NWO' scare is very much reminiscient of the federalist/anti-federalist debate during the formation of the republic.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Now look back to the USA when all the states were forced under one government after the Civil War.

No offense, but you neatly lopped off about 90 years of US history. There was a Union prior to the War of Northern Aggression, as some of us are wont to call it.

[edit on 04/8/17 by GradyPhilpott]

Yea, there was a union for economic and defense reasons. But states were free to make their own laws. After the civil war, states were subject to the laws of the federal government.

Actually, I outlined it very clearly in my original post if you care to read over it again.

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Yea, there was a union for economic and defense reasons. But states were free to make their own laws. After the civil war, states were subject to the laws of the federal government.

Actually, I outlined it very clearly in my original post if you care to read over it again.

I certainly do concede that the War of Northern Aggression was fought over the sovereignty of states. I see that point in your post now that you point it out, but it was not quite clear.

I believe that you were drawing a correlation between the European Union and it's development to the changes in circumstances of the States of the Union as a result of the "Civil War." I think that's a very valid point.

Originally posted by Nygdan
But seriously, the 'NWO' scare is very much reminiscient of the federalist/anti-federalist debate during the formation of the republic.

I will certainly concede that point.

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Now look back to the USA when all the states were forced under one government after the Civil War.

No offense, but you neatly lopped off about 90 years of US history. There was a Union prior to the War of Northern Aggression, as some of us are wont to call it.

[edit on 04/8/17 by GradyPhilpott]

Yea, there was a union for economic and defense reasons. But states were free to make their own laws. After the civil war, states were subject to the laws of the federal government.

Actually, I outlined it very clearly in my original post if you care to read over it again.

you mean this;?

Now look back to the USA when all the states were forced under one government after the Civil War.

Could you elaborate? When the civil war was over the consitution went back into effect for the rebelling states. There wasn;t some new Union Federal governement that came into existance.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Could you elaborate? When the civil war was over the consitution went back into effect for the rebelling states. There wasn;t some new Union Federal governement that came into existance.

You are reading this statement as I did. What Jamuhn is saying rather obliquely is that after the War of Northern Aggression, the Federalist view of the government won out over the States-rights view of Government. Acutally, this battle raged on into the 1960s. It is now dead mainly because of everyone's dependence on Federal money. What our ancestors died on the battlefield for, we relinquished for cold hard cash. Sad, but true.

Yea, I was referring to the fact that an amendment was passed immediately after the Civil War, can't remember which one, maybe 14.

But in that amendment, citizens are redefined as members of the federal government first and their states second. The sympathy behind the amendment was to allow slaves to have equal footing with the rest of american citizens. Not to mention that the southerners who would have opposed the amendment were ousted from the senate and governors replaced with military commandments because of the south's involvement in the civil war.