Do you believe in the New World Order?

Post Reply New Topic

It is like with all the conspiracy theories; they are tailored to fit the prejudices of the listeners: In the UK there is in the circles on the extreme right the theory around that the EU is a conspiracy by Germany to win the World War II via the the back-door, whilst in Germany the extreme right sees the EU as an instrument to keep to Germany for ever down ...

I believe in the ways of the Conservative Republican and the Constitution.

From my pov, it is inevitable that presently existing national boundaries are becoming increasingly obsolete. Multinational trade agreements and business consolidations will most likely evolve new boundaries without the same degree of national pride we currently experience/advocate. Perhaps within the next 125 years, it will prove expedient for Earth beings to function more on a planetary level than as a conglomerate of separate nation-states. As our technological savvy propels us into eventual space colonization, the possibility of encounter and competition with alien species escalates. [not saying it will happen any time soon, but rather the possibility for doing so accelerates].. Arguably our cultural, political and economic identity is progressing toward more global and less nationalistic.

I also sense a significant portion of homosapians will undergo genetic splicing of sorts with robotic machines....that our technology is heading in that direction. So that within the next 400-1000 years, many or all of us will be android hybrids. Theoretically at that point, bacterium becoming immune to our pharmaceutical remedies before they can be patented--will be irrelevant as we will have progressed beyond vulnerability to them.

It also seems there are at least 2 cabals of power elite involved in NWO projects..and there are some indications they are at civil war with each other...I don't for one minute think Obama could have been elected without the support of one of these cabals, and it probably isn't the same cabal that stole the previous 2 elections for dubya.

There's no way any of these statements can be proven; this is based on intuitive understanding and attention to current events over the past half dozen years. As well as from time to time reading Icke and Jones. They drop bread crumbs and an occasional nugget that deserves further research and investigation..at the very least.

To profess a black and white approach, to classify everyone as yes they are or no they aren't--conspiracy theorists--is to be foolishly immature, arrogant and close-minded. It takes pulling together all the clues in order to form an accurate and complete picture. And no one knows where the next clue is coming from..

The concept of national boarders slowly becoming obsolete through trade agreements and military alliances is all very well. However I do not think there is a driving force behind these changes, instead it's simply the natural result of globalization.

It's easy to point to an event you didn't like and say "it's all part of a grand conspiracy", but the reality is often much more mundane. At most the event was an isolated conspiracy and even more often it's simply the result of people being idiots. People like to say grand conspiracy because it's strangely comforting, since if all our ills could be blamed on a single source then they can be solved. But when human nature itself is the source, then there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

A one world government may eventually rise to power. However I doubt it will be in our lifetimes and no one is orchestrating it behind the scenes. Instead it will either slowly form as a result of globalization or through a single event, such as contact with intelligent alien life.

Not only - Particular in Europe there is an outspoken political will a diving force too. Starting with the preamble of the postwar German constitution which declared a "united Europe" a primary goal of the German state, going further via the Schuman-Declartion of 1951 in which the French government also declared that a "federal Europe" shall be archived by step-by-step process beginning with a Union for Coal and Steel and repeated in each Treaty since 1957 that the goal of this treaty is an "ever closer union".

One of the driving forces were and are the horrors of World War II and the idea that a unified Europe could prevent wars in Europe.

---

Besides this: Even the national state, as we see it now, is the result of the globalization of the 16th till 18th century, when increased trade and the beginning of a worldwide trade obsoleted the smaller political entities. To compete with Spain the Duchy of Burgundy was not in the position, but the Kingdom of France was.



It is very hard to make prediction: A kind of World Government exists - not in form of any behind the scenes dark forces, but by the coordination of governments worldwide, which just must realize that even powerful nations, like the USA, are not able to manage global problems alone.

The question is more: How will this World Government take shape in the future.

Er.. might I ask why?

I think lots of us can agree that we (at least in the West) have a situation where national borders are gradually becoming obsolete and more and more power is becoming concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer elites (financial, corporate and political).
This is the New World Order as far as I’m concerned.

If you agree that this is what’s happening, the next questions should probably be along the lines of “is this all inevitable? As inevitable as night following day? Is this the way it has to be?” (My answer: no). And “is this desirable?” (My answer, not as far as the common man is concerned.) And if it is not inevitable or desirable, then who is making and/or letting it happen, and why? (That’s where it gets more complicated.)

I haven’t really examined how anti-NWO sentiment differs in various countries, so I’ll take your word for this.

What I will suggest is that global capitalism (or supercapitalism or whatever you want to call it) has certain things in common with communism, and so they can both be viewed as a means to establishing the same end – a world where the sovereignty of nation states and the sanctity of family life has been abolished, and a world where power is concentrated in the hands of unaccountable elites.

Also - people in so-called capitalist countries such as the USA and the UK are constantly fed the sort of lies and propaganda (mainly on racial matters) that would not have been out of place in the old Soviet Union. Cultural Marxism is a part of our modern societies even if economic Marxism is not.

Btw, a significant number of anti-NWO websites out there are, IMHO, run by disinformation merchants or race-blind liberals whose opposition to the NWO only stretches as far as moaning about ID cards.

That power is concentrated is far from being a new issue: European politics were over centuries the game of less than ten families, mostly even less. There was for a newcomer almost no chance to enter this game, the few examples of families which raised into this game (Tudor, Medici, Wasa, etc.) were the exception and it took some generation to enter the real game.

The main difference is that the membership of this elite is more open than ever and more subject to merit than to birth (still far from being perfect, but much better than in the past).

Regarding the national borders: Those are not that new. Prior the year the 1500 you hardly can speak of any nation, prior the year 1648 you can't speak even of an generally accepted concept of national sovereignty (some states already acted or declared themself as "sovereign" in the 16th century, but this concept was not generally accepted by all).



As I said: Nothing new at all.



The motor behind social and political development is the change in the technical basis of societies. The political structure must fit the way a society produces and trades. A national trade system, as it has been developed in England or France in the 16th century, demanded a central national government (in opposite to previous systems of local feudal governments).

A global economy consequently demands any form of global government.



National sovereignty is not virtue on its own right - it had/has a function, like all organisational frameworks in a society. I do not see a reason to keep such a framework when the need does not exist any more. It is also to see that national sovereignty was always more a legal construct than reality - all nations were and are forced to limit their formal unlimited sovereignty on practical reason, mostly economically.

Ok, I'll be more explicit here.

The point of national boundaries or territories or millets within an Empire (or whatever) is to protect the ethnic and cultural heritage of the groups who live in them.
So if you want to render national and territorial boundaries meaningless, the best way to do it is by changing the ethnic compositions within those boundaries. And this is exactly what is happening in the West. And only in the West. Not in China, not in India, not in Korea, not in Iran.
And it has only really taken off in the last 50 years. And the people of the West have never asked for it.

The obvious conclusion then is that it is that this transformation is being imposed on the West by internationalist power elites.

Yes, elites have exploited their own people throughout history. What makes the modern elites different is that they are quite happy to see their own people go extinct for the sake of global governance and for the sake of their own careers.

This is the NWO. A world where we are simply producers and consumers, undifferentiated by race, nation, culture, religion and gender. A world, in other words, where the things that have up until now given purpose to people’s lives have all been abolished. The elites want their One World Government, and European Man is standing in the way.

Now since you are a liberal, like 90% of the people in this forum, I don’t expect all this to mean much to you.

That's just not true. The national borders in Europe, as they stand today, are the result of political horse trading on the Congress of Vienna 1813/15 with some revisions namely 1919 and 1945. They do not follow the ethnic borders. The language and culture of the those in the very south-west of Germany is closer to those in the northern Parts of Switzerland than e.g. to neighbouring Bavaria (not to talk about North Germany). On both side of the Sauer (the border between Luxembourg and Germany) the same dialect is spoken. The German town of Bitburg was for Centuries part of Luxembourg, whilst Trieste (Italy) was seen as German city ... An ethnic or historical map of Europe would look quite differently than the political map.

Also: A banker of the City of London has more in common with his colleague in Frankfurt or Zurich than with a factory work in the Middlands, whilst this factory worker is his living conditions and style also closer to a factory worker in Germany or France than to said City Banker.

To sort people according to nations is not at all helpful - the social status, education, profession is much more important than nation.



As shown above the ethnic regions do not reflect in the national borders. The nation is an administrative organisation and I wondering you would make the same fuss if the boundaries of British Councils would change?



Throughout history history elites were always international (just look into English Royal Family since William I - you hardly will find any English name). New is that also ordinary people have today the chance of really profiting form international connections.



If you think that "race, nation, culture, religion and gender" really matter, than you need to think about your own value. My value does not depends on "race, nation, culture, religion and gender".

I agree with this in a sense. However I think a one world government would have to meet the following criteria.
- The government would have to have sovereignty over the vast majority of the Earth's population
- A uniform code of law would exist everywhere. Local areas may (or may not) have their own laws, but global laws would always take priority.
- Breaking such a law, even on a massive scale, would be dealt with by law enforcement without needing approval by political figures.


So far nothing even comes close. However I think we can agree that the world is very slowly moving in this direction, but I think a major push would be required for it to form in my lifetime.