The New World Order-The Launch of Global Conspiracy.

Post Reply New Topic

Into them, ending like Orwell's 1984.

I never understood why people are so worried about this New World Order. Sure, the government's aren't going to tell us a quarter of what they're actually up to, but I never saw any evidence for them trying to make a world state. A bunch of words on the $1 bill isn't proof of a conspiracy, it's a bunch of words on the $1 bill.

I buy into some conspiracy theories, but I haven't seen anything that could possibly make this true. Feel free to post links for me to read.

Not to be mean, but you really aren't paying attention. The current financial crisis is being used to propose GLOBAL regulation of the trade markets. We already have a global civil and criminal court system. We have a global legislative branch (the UN). If the UN gets reliable funding, it will have a full-time standing army to enforce the will of its executive functions.

This has been in the works for DECADES...just not plastered on the news on a nightly basis.

The New World Order is a political term that refers to a period of dramatic change in political thought and power. The fall of the Soviet Union is an example of a new world order.

It's really nothing to be scared of.

I'd have to refer back to ruveyn's question, and
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

I'd assume the chances of a revolution against tyranny when one tyranny rules the planet is nil.

However yes the term itself used in that context is simply a label for a large political phenomenon as you said.

I know I haven't been paying attention. That's the main reason I asked for links. Politics irritates me, so I tend to ignore it. At my peril, it seems.

It actually, when put as you put it, sounds possible. Though I still don't know about the $1 bill or the "Freemason conspiracy" parts that some on other sites have mentioned.

Those who dream of global government ruled by an elite few have been around for HUNDREDS of years in every modern empire. They've always worked behind the scenes to allocate power for themselves. I suppose as long as a "free society" is still possible somewhere, people were content to leave one nation for another.

What happens when there is only one government in the world and only a few really have influence over it?

Oligarchy? <.< Or something like it?

When groups of people pursue their common interests it is often perceived of as a conspiracy. Whatever became of the Knights Templar, or the Illuminati? Or the Freemasons. The Freemason thing is largely a bunch of aging white guys wearing non-functional aprons and reciting mumbo-jumbo.

Conspiracies are often seen by NT's since they are inclined by their nature to gather in groups and verbalize together and do rituals. One mans sociability is another man's conspiracy. This misidentification has fatal and tragic consequences. It has been a driver for antisemitism. The radical antisemites see Judaism as a world wide conspiracy of Jews trying to run everything. The toxic meme driving this insanity is an essay written by a Russian in the later 19th century -The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion-. Over a hundred years ago and this piece of toxic garbage is a best seller in the Islamic domains (translated into Arabic, of course).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_Zion

ruveyn

Meh, i would be lying if i said Jews don't have a hand in politics via their lobbies nowadays. But anything beyond that is total delusion. o.O

This is really a facile interpretation of globalization.

Yes, the financial crisis is being used to examine new regulations of financial markets--however, there is no global regulatory authority (the WTO does many things, but it doesn't regulate). The expectation is that G8, or perhaps G20 countries, which together regulate the majority of capital markets, will introduce complementary regulatory schemes for their capital markets.

The simple fact of the matter is that the domestic economy of any nation is impacted by the actions of its trading partners. The foreign ownership of US debt (which is a necessary component of financing the United States' current account deficit) means that US economic policy must be formulated in a fashion that meets the interests of debt holders, otherwise they will cease to find advantage in holding the debt, and dispose of it. If there is a conspiracy here, it is a conspiracy of private interests in the financial market. Regulation is the means by which the conspiracy is restrained.

As for a global court system, there is no such thing in civil matters. There are courts of arbitration for disputes between nations (e.g. the ICJ), but these bodies only have jurisdiction to the degree that nations agree to allow themselves to be bound. A nation need only refuse to recognize the jursidiction of the forum to immunize itself. As for criminal matters, the only forums that have been established have been to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity. The recognition of jurisdiction of these fora is equally within the domestic sovereignty of individual states. The ICC is a controversial body in the United States--but the United States has immunized its citizens from jurisdiction.

As for "legislation" the UN performs no such function. The only supranational legislature that currently exists is the European Parliament, whose existence is a matter of treaty and domestic legislation of its member states--each of whom can unilaterally withdraw (though not, of course without consequence). The UN has demonstrated itself time and again incapable of exercising a clear policy function.

The concept of a standing UN armed force is laughable. No country would ever tolerate the presence of a supranational armed force on its territory. Consider that one primary function that has never been delegated to the European Parliament has been defence. NATO, a military alliance with a centralized command structure, has never had its own standing forces. In such circumstances your fears are the stuff of fiction.

To be fair, the dramatic screwing of the world economy and political structure COULD be intrepreted to be something to be afraid of. Given how those changes aren't completely good for all people (see denigration of post-soviet standards of live in Central Asia etc...).



Doesn't that actually translate to "New Order of the Ages" or "New Order Secular" and NOT "New World Order"?

BTW shedloads of old US founding politicians/rebels/etc were Freemasons 0_o



Given it's a planetary regime, I find a totalitarian regime able to take over Earth hard to see now. But in the future with better cultural transmission/communications and a shared language....maybe. Remember Brazilian fascism was pretty tolerant of ethnic diversity as an example.



Anarchist Space....

So do Christians. Every self identified group has some political influence.

ruveyn

Christians didn't run the World Bank