New world order

Post (embed) your favorite videos from your favorite video hosting sites: YouTube, MetaCafe, etc.
Post Reply
mikeinie
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:43 am

New world order

Post by mikeinie »

Hang on a minute; once you take out the paranoia, the world needs to advance. Once you lower the flags etc, does it not make sense that North America operates with open borders? In Europe in the last century there have been two world wars, and a cold war that split Europe in half. Today Europe is an open economy with shared borders, while still maintaining individual independence and cultural identity. It is working (well so far anyway). This is now the longest period of time in Europe’s history that there has been peace.

What is wrong with sharing on currency? It actually makes sense. I live in Europe and I love the ability to go from country to country with one currency, I actually now avoid countries around Europe where I need the hassle of changing currencies.

The African Union, is many years away from getting anywhere, there are just too many unstable governments within the continent to make it work effectively. However, if there were to succeed, again, what would be wrong with that? Isn’t more likely that some of the impoverished African countries would actually do well under an African Union?

The problem with the world today is that it lacks vision. Where would we be if the Portuguese government decided not to fund Christopher Columbus’s expedition to find a new trade route to India because it would risk return on investment?

Where would we be if France and England felt that the exploration costs of settling North America were just too expensive and not bother?

Where would America be if the early US government felt that the military costs, risks and loss of lives did not justify the western expansion of the country?

Where would America be if instead of having a vision of one America, and instead of a civil war they built the equivalent of the Berlin wall separating the Northern States from the Southern States? Didn't they merge currencies then?

It is called evolution, there has always been a plan in place of some sort to grow and be different and better. Many people are so afraid of any change now that they would rather rot in stagnation than take any chances on a future that is anyway different than what we know today.

I for one have an open mind on all of this.
User avatar
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
Posts: 901
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm

New world order

Post by QUINNSCOMMENTARY »

Apparently that Bilderberg group better start moving since they (with very different people year to year) have been meeting since 1954.

That video sounds like McCarthyism revisited.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw



"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton



Quinnscommentary



Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty. ;)



Quinnscommentary Blog
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

New world order

Post by OpenMind »

I like the idea of a unified world with no borders. A single world currency with no exchange rates. I have imagined this since I was a young man. A single race with no wars.

Nonetheless, I also respect the need for local identity and culture. Diversity is still important for the human condition.
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

New world order

Post by Lon »

OpenMind;1110608 wrote: I like the idea of a unified world with no borders. A single world currency with no exchange rates. I have imagined this since I was a young man. A single race with no wars.

Nonetheless, I also respect the need for local identity and culture. Diversity is still important for the human condition.


A unified world with no borders sounds wonderful but the local identities, cultures and religious differences within it are what would still bring strife and conflict. It would only work if all adapted to one culture, one language, one or no religion, and no local identity. A robotic society. And still---------------
mikeinie
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:43 am

New world order

Post by mikeinie »

YouTube - Imagine - John Lennon
User avatar
Kindle
Posts: 7090
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:07 pm

New world order

Post by Kindle »

:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

It's not going to happen.




"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"

- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

New world order

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Kindle;1110950 wrote: :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

It's not going to happen.


It's already happening. In Britain, we are a multi-cultural society with open doors to immigration. We have large populations of Muslim, Asian, Palistine, Afro-Carribean, Romanian, Polish etc etc. We are also part of the EU where we have one currency, the Euro.

The change has already begun but Britain is advanced in multi-culturism compared to the US. However, you still have change happening with your immigrant population. It won't be too long before you are similar to the EU.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

New world order

Post by spot »

There isn't a single aspect of the New World Order which I wouldn't vote for. Bring it on.

As for this nonsense about regionality and cultural diversity dying in the absence of national borders or currency exchange rates, the continued existence and celebration of regionality and cultural diversity in those places which have abandoned national borders and currency exchange rates shows it to be untrue.

Anyone interested in abandoning national borders and creating one-world government might like to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Federalist_Movement and join one of the World Federalist Movement :: Introduction to WFM Organizations
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

New world order

Post by OpenMind »

Lon;1110620 wrote: A unified world with no borders sounds wonderful but the local identities, cultures and religious differences within it are what would still bring strife and conflict. It would only work if all adapted to one culture, one language, one or no religion, and no local identity. A robotic society. And still---------------


We are all multi-faceted creatures. Suppressing this with one culture, etc, would lead to strife. Allowing people to express themselves is essential. Religious hatred can be controlled within a code of law. The only thing that would present itself as a real problem is the control of the world's resources.

The majority of people are content to live peacefully alongside people with different religions and ethics. Better still if these people could identify themselves with cultures that they feel represent them.

Insurgents could not hide in a country as there would not be a country to hide in. The law would extend to the whole international community.

The only problem I cannot solve at the moment is that of world rulership. We wouldn't need one. We would only need an administration. The power of politicians would have to be restrained and I can't see that happening.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

New world order

Post by spot »

You have a problem with representative democracy? It's scalable. It's kept the hoi polloi from enacting the policies of the Sun, Mirror and Express for the last two hundred years so it can't be entirely useless.

What we're discussing here is destroying all the intermediate levels of government between local and global.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

New world order

Post by OpenMind »

spot;1111047 wrote: You have a problem with representative democracy? It's scalable. It's kept the hoi polloi from enacting the policies of the Sun, Mirror and Express for the last two hundred years so it can't be entirely useless.



What we're discussing here is destroying all the intermediate levels of government between local and global.


Representative democracy and politicians are two completely different subjects, Spot. They are not interchangeable subjects although they are inter-related.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

New world order

Post by spot »

OpenMind;1111049 wrote: Representative democracy and politicians are two completely different subjects, Spot. They are not interchangeable subjects although they are inter-related.


That makes no sense to me at all. A democratic representative is a politician. Hilary Benn is the democratic representative Member of Parliament for the West Yorkshire constituency of Leeds Central and the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, he's a politician. There surely can be few successful politicians in Britain who aren't democratic representatives.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

New world order

Post by OpenMind »

spot;1111051 wrote: That makes no sense to me at all. A democratic representative is a politician. Hilary Benn is the democratic representative Member of Parliament for the West Yorkshire constituency of Leeds Central and the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, he's a politician. There surely can be few successful politicians in Britain who aren't democratic representatives.


You are playing with the words, Spot. Representative democracy is a process that involves a populace. A democratic representative is a person who wants to influence the process of a populace.

My statement about politicians was "The power of politicians would have to be restrained... ". A unified global order would be like a delicate flower and it would only take one bad gardener to destroy it.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

New world order

Post by spot »

OpenMind;1111054 wrote: You are playing with the words, Spot. Representative democracy is a process that involves a populace. A democratic representative is a person who wants to influence the process of a populace.

My statement about politicians was "The power of politicians would have to be restrained... ". A unified global order would be like a delicate flower and it would only take one bad gardener to destroy it.


In what way would a unified global order differ from Westminster? How would one bad gardener destroy a unified global order any more or less easily than it could destroy Westminster? If you don't list a few differences I can't see why you think it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

New world order

Post by OpenMind »

spot;1111061 wrote: In what way would a unified global order differ from Westminster? How would one bad gardener destroy a unified global order any more or less easily than it could destroy Westminster? If you don't list a few differences I can't see why you think it.


Look, for instance, at how the legal process has been turned upside down, favouring the criminal over the law abiding citizen.

Whenever I watch the Parliamentary channel, I see behaviour that I would only accredit to schoolchildren, not fully grown people debating important issues.

We have racialism because of Westminster. Yet this country has always had immigrants throughout its history. There has never been any racialism on the order that we have today.

Indeed, Westminster cannot be likened to the order that it oversees.

There is very little pride held by the common person for this country as it stands now. Our rights as democratic citizens are ignored when it suits the Government. Such as the referendum for the European Constitution.

Westminster is not the flower. It is the home of the gardeners who would either cultivate or destroy the flower. They have so far cultivated fear, racialism, segregation, dispiritment, poor educational standards, enormous national debt, and so on.

A gardener wouldn't destroy Westminster. Westminster is not the flower.
User avatar
Kindle
Posts: 7090
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:07 pm

New world order

Post by Kindle »

Getting pockets of intermixing is happening, but getting everone on board this 'one world' deal just isn't feasible.




"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"

- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

New world order

Post by OpenMind »

Kindle;1111195 wrote: Getting pockets of intermixing is happening, but getting everone on board this 'one world' deal just isn't feasible.


Why not, Kindle? But before you answer, just make sure your answer hasn't already been stated here on this thread.
User avatar
TruthBringer
Posts: 3567
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm

New world order

Post by TruthBringer »

How about a One World Global Government Dictatorship that rules with an iron fist and controls all of the World's supplies, laws, food, currency, and armies?

How about a World where an individual no longer has any meaning but a gear in the wheel of the machine that controls the way of life for all of Human Beings?

PS - I'd rather die...

As long as there is still evil on this planet, it will seek to control in ANY situation.

A New World Order will not bring peace. Not until the Earth has been cleansed of Evil. AKA - Pole-Shift. It's coming. And not a moment too soon/too late.
Link removed by moderator
mikeinie
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:43 am

New world order

Post by mikeinie »

TruthBringer;1113661 wrote: How about a One World Global Government Dictatorship that rules with an iron fist and controls all of the World's supplies, laws, food, currency, and armies?

How about a World where an individual no longer has any meaning but a gear in the wheel of the machine that controls the way of life for all of Human Beings?

PS - I'd rather die...

As long as there is still evil on this planet, it will seek to control in ANY situation.

A New World Order will not bring peace. Not until the Earth has been cleansed of Evil. AKA - Pole-Shift. It's coming. And not a moment too soon/too late.


We need to join the United Federation of Planets
User avatar
Kindle
Posts: 7090
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:07 pm

New world order

Post by Kindle »

OpenMind;1111376 wrote: Why not, Kindle? But before you answer, just make sure your answer hasn't already been stated here on this thread.


Because starting at the very lowest common denominator, people don't get along. Then they start to side with one another against the other. The more fractions, the more groups.

Organizations of all kinds experience this. It even happens within the religious communities, which is why there are so many denominations.

The idea of one for all and all for one doesn't in work in alot of marriages.




"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"

- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
mikeinie
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:43 am

New world order

Post by mikeinie »

Kindle;1114330 wrote: Because starting at the very lowest common denominator, people don't get along. Then they start to side with one another against the other. The more fractions, the more groups.

Organizations of all kinds experience this. It even happens within the religious communities, which is why there are so many denominations.

The idea of one for all and all for one doesn't in work in alot of marriages.


Then we put them in a room together and watch it on TV calling it Big Brother or something.
User avatar
Kindle
Posts: 7090
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:07 pm

New world order

Post by Kindle »

mikeinie;1114334 wrote: Then we put them in a room together and watch it on TV calling it Big Brother or something.


:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl




"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"

- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

New world order

Post by spot »

TruthBringer;1113661 wrote: How about a One World Global Government Dictatorship that rules with an iron fist and controls all of the World's supplies, laws, food, currency, and armies?

How about a World where an individual no longer has any meaning but a gear in the wheel of the machine that controls the way of life for all of Human Beings?

PS - I'd rather die...

As long as there is still evil on this planet, it will seek to control in ANY situation.

A New World Order will not bring peace. Not until the Earth has been cleansed of Evil. AKA - Pole-Shift. It's coming. And not a moment too soon/too late.


Perhaps we could find easy agreement here.

You name those elements of society - the Illuminati or the Carlyle Group, for instance - among whom you'd not trust a One World Global Government and we'll ban them from participation.

We can then safely vote greater and greater powers upward from National governments to a democratically elected One World government, complete with the sort of legal restraints which the European Union adopted to guarantee basic rights for all living under their system.

The EU is a fine example of a supernational system of government to which participant states have ceded more or less sovereignty without coming under the dictatorship you anticipate.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

New world order

Post by OpenMind »

Kindle;1114330 wrote: Because starting at the very lowest common denominator, people don't get along. Then they start to side with one another against the other. The more fractions, the more groups.



Organizations of all kinds experience this. It even happens within the religious communities, which is why there are so many denominations.



The idea of one for all and all for one doesn't in work in alot of marriages.


I have already covered this problem in one of my previous posts:





We are all multi-faceted creatures. Suppressing this with one culture, etc, would lead to strife. Allowing people to express themselves is essential. Religious hatred can be controlled within a code of law. The only thing that would present itself as a real problem is the control of the world's resources.

The majority of people are content to live peacefully alongside people with different religions and ethics. Better still if these people could identify themselves with cultures that they feel represent them.

Insurgents could not hide in a country as there would not be a country to hide in. The law would extend to the whole international community.

User avatar
Kindle
Posts: 7090
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:07 pm

New world order

Post by Kindle »

OpenMind;1114462 wrote: I have already covered this problem in one of my previous posts:


Your post only dealt with one part of what I posted.




"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"

- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

New world order

Post by OpenMind »

Kindle;1114729 wrote: Your post only dealt with one part of what I posted.


What you suggested in your post would exist already. But it doesn't, except on a minor scale. The majority of people respect that people have differing opinions and are happy to leave it at that.
User avatar
TruthBringer
Posts: 3567
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:39 pm

New world order

Post by TruthBringer »

spot;1114345 wrote: Perhaps we could find easy agreement here.

You name those elements of society - the Illuminati or the Carlyle Group, for instance - among whom you'd not trust a One World Global Government and we'll ban them from participation.

We can then safely vote greater and greater powers upward from National governments to a democratically elected One World government, complete with the sort of legal restraints which the European Union adopted to guarantee basic rights for all living under their system.

The EU is a fine example of a supernational system of government to which participant states have ceded more or less sovereignty without coming under the dictatorship you anticipate.


The EU would not exist if the plan was to be successful. You can't have a One World Corrupt Government with different economies/types of currency still in existence. You can not control all of the World money supply unless you control all currency. What they plan to do, is to merge the EU with the South American Union, the African Union, the Asian Union, and the North American Union (And there might be another), and then Call it something different.

If all of the Worlds countries are dumb enough to let these bastards get what they want (And you have to ask yourself why they want it), because the people sure as hell don't want it, then we may never forgive ourselves for what will come next.

Oh sure they will promise the World to us, in exchange for our obedience. We MUST NOT give in to them. In America, Americans have been watching our government slowly drive our country into the ground, and then turn around and try to blame it on the American people who made bad investments, ect. As we watch our government pour all of our money down the drain, we become more and more angry towards our government.

The fact is, things in America are not going as they planned. The North American Union (The Amero) and the whole bag of crap is far far away as far as I can see. In fact, I will be honest, at this point, I don't see it EVER happening.

I wanted to wait before I made my final announcement on that, but I don't see a North American Union forming any time within my lifetime.

Ultimately, what it boils down to for me anyways, and I always knew this to be the case, is that God simply won't allow for man to take over the World in any way shape or form. It has never been done before. Anything that amounts to World slavery will never work. It has been the dream of some of the most evil men on the planet, and it has always failed. Because of one reason. Man is not God. And for some that is an extremely hard pill to swallow. Nothing that man could ever do would ever amount to what the New World Order mongers beat off to. God will not allow it.

The Earth will soon cleanse itself. Many people will perish in seconds. We have no clue what lies ahead for us in the next few years. Men, Women, and Children are being killed on a daily basis. And it only adds fuel to the fire. All evil will be met with disaster. Like begets like. Negativity breeds a consequence of even more negativity which is directed (sometimes many more fold) at the source of the original negativity.

Something evil people don't realize (because they simply refuse to accept it) is that when you put evil out into the World, eventually, it will come back to you. Or should I say, it will come back FOR you. It is a simple rule of Karmic law, that what you put out, is what you get back.

If there are people out there on this planet who actually believe that they will be successful at taking over the World's money supply, and where one single organization has the power to make or "break" someones life, on a global scale, so that literally every single person is controlled individually through their ties to their money/bank accounts, then the only reality that can come out of a situation like that is the total opposite of what the original plan was, and it will be pure rebellion.

Let me tell you this, history DOES repeat itself, and it has done so many times. There have been numerous people on this planet whos single goal was to gain control of the World. And no matter what method they used to do this, they have always failed. They may have come close in their own minds (which in reality none of them would have even known how to handle that kind of power if they had), but in the end, God stopped them in the same way that a mother would spank her child for running out into the street simply because they wanted to.

Trying to control the World in any way DOESN"T work. And it never will. Why? Because it's not mans World to control. But either way, 1,000 years of peace has been promised to us. And 1,000 years of peace is what we are soon to inherit. World domination was never in the cards. If it was, Jesus Himself would have told us about it. And guess what, He never did. He mentioned hard times, and told us of Evil attempts, but He never once stated that Evil would be successful in the end. Nope. A "New World Order" born out of the need to control and out of greed and corruption does not, has not, and will not exist. It only exists in the minds of a few. And as much as I would like to be able to go run outside right now and fly into the sky towards the moon, just like Superman would.....guess what, I can't. And I have to accept that. And sooner or later, those who sit together at meetings and discuss the wonders of ruling the World, will have to accept reality as well.
Link removed by moderator
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

New world order

Post by spot »

TruthBringer;1115895 wrote: The EU would not exist if the plan was to be successful. You can't have a One World Corrupt Government with different economies/types of currency still in existence.


I very carefully avoided any suggestion that one could. I gave the EU as an instance of a group of countries voluntarily and democratically divesting themselves of a major element of their sovereignty in order to construct a supernational government. It's a principle which can easily extend to One World Government.

The reason One World Government is desirable are all set out at World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy and I needn't repeat them, having summarised them earlier. I note that we disagree on a number of facts and consequently that we disagree on a number of conclusions.

We don't, as it happens, have a problem here. You're a catastrophist, I'm a gradualist. If there's a catastrophe you can win, how's that? If your catastrophes fail to materialize, I win. Is it a deal?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Post Reply

Return to “People”