Jump to content

What is wrong with the New World Order. The Global Government Debate Thread


R@ndomH3ro

Recommended Posts

The only way that it is relevant to what I said was that it was discussing the LoN.

 

I said that it was made to support sovereignty, you posted something from a guy who was saying that he didn't want it because he felt that it wouldn't work. You neither sais no, it was not designed to support sovereignty or that it was. In fact what you posted implicitly supported what I said because Lodge said that the idea was good (supporting sovereignty by denying invasion) but that it just wouldn't work. So unless you were agreeing with me I am still at a loss as to how it relates to my claim other than that it discusses the issue of LoN.

 

This other piece is a different matter.

 

One thing I would suggest you do is that instead of just posting links you say your piece, such as "the LoN was not designed to support sovereignty because it takes away the power of decision making, which you can see here [paste the relevant part]. I read most of what you link to in discussions because I am interested in the points that you are wanting to make. However most of the time I am at a loss to find relevance in what you link to. Some times I even find points that refute your argument, as the Lodge piece does.

 

This second piece, however may be different. At a quick glance it seems to have possibility of relevance.

 

Assuming that you've read it and you know where the parts are that refute my argument that the LoN was initially designed to protect sovereignty by denying the ability of invasion, can you state that and paste it below, please.

 

Both are from Lodge. Both, in my eyes, say the same thing. He seems as though he was being nice in the first (I believe this is the actual letter to the president) whereas the second is a speech where he didn't have to be so cordial and could express his distaste for the LoN.

 

Yes, I have read both.

 

Why do I post letters/arguments from others? Most of the time I post things from relevant people in the relevant profession. As I am not a statesman, etc. I feel that their arguments are more relevant and less easily refuted than my own.

 

Take it as you will, though. No harm in it. I'm not mad.

 

Got an appointment now. Will finish later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 317
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Of course it exists already. Without it sovereignty would not exist and neither would the modern world.

 

How do you think air traffic, sea traffic is coordinated, nuclear proliferation is (attempted to be) contained, financial systems and interbank lending, etc. etc. etc..... takes place?

 

There are already a huuuuuge amount of unconnected global governance regimes in place. We'd be fucked without them.

 

i wouldn't say we'd be fucked without them, that's a little slippery slope for me... but yes global governance institutions are already in existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the bits where we'd be fucked is that there would be thousands of aircraft, satellites and ocean going vessels operating in chaos. Just like driving on the road there needs to be some basic operating principal to protect life and property from accidental collisions. That's just the first example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

new world order and global government are two different things. global government sounds peachy on the outside, till you realize every culture dictates how it governs itself, it's just hard wired into how people are.

 

new world order, i think, has a lot more to do with the consolidation of money and power by corporations. which is never good. corporations aren't democracy's, they're authoritative. Power trickles down from the top. corporations having their hand in government has already proven to be disastrous on a much smaller scale than what the "new world order" aims to create.

 

there is a reason "anti-trust" laws exist in the United States. Free markets create monopolies that have to be broken down when they peak. Otherwise it's authoritative.

 

if that is true, it's simple to see why a "one world government" or any type of "new world order" would be anything different than a monopoly of power, in the hands of a few rich old men.

 

 

 

PS: if this has been touched on already, sorry I didn't read the 3 pages before me. I only came to see who would post such a ridiculous question. i thought this was a troll thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

new world order and global government are two different things. global government sounds peachy on the outside, till you realize every culture dictates how it governs itself, it's just hard wired into how people are.

 

Again, this has been true throughout history, but every pattern I see relating to the way human society has developed seems to lead more and more towards homogenization. As cultures mingle and interact, they learn from each other what works and what doesn't, and humans worldwide tend to adopt new global behavioral structures that helps them solve problems.

 

We're approaching a point where a big number of regional problems have been solved, the solutions have been shared, and individual cultures can apply the principles learned in their own unique ways. The next row of big problems we have to solve work on a global scale, and require a coming together of some sort. Like it has been mentioned, global governance is only required for a specific set of human problems, and will probably be set up to deal strictly with that.

 

You'd be right to conclude that in the same way federal government has been slowly expanded beyond it's original set of functions, we could expect global governance to follow the same path in the future. However that is a slow process, that will happen over years of tremendous change in the human condition, and it is arguable that the federal governments expansion has happened in order to better deal with the huge paradigm shifts America has experienced since the creation of the federal government. We can expect more radical changes in the next 50 years than in the past 200, and the role of global governance will follow suit to deal with it as best as we can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hooray for video titles that plant seeds of misperception.

 

Real message: Global leadership lacking unity + global political awareness = difficult and complicated to deal with for achieving common goals

 

All of a sudden becomes: ZB IS AFRAID OF THE PEOPLE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what El Mammero has said but don't think past empires have failed for lack of technology.

The fact is, they failed because it wasn't in the people they governed best interest to have them there.

It was mainly done to boost the profits of trading companies and corporations, had nothing to do with uniting the worlds people and making it a better place.

 

That's sort of how I feel about the current government in the United States on the federal level now and those who push for this NWO idea.

I honestly don't think it's in our best interests to have an all powerful bureaucracy running the entire planet.

Nor do I think it's in the best interests of any nation (wealthy or not) to ever give up it's sovereignty in hopes for security.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hooray for video titles that plant seeds of misperception.

 

Real message: Global leadership lacking unity + global political awareness = difficult and complicated to deal with for achieving common goals

 

All of a sudden becomes: ZB IS AFRAID OF THE PEOPLE!

 

I think a case can be made for either side.

 

Obviously the man/women who posted that wanted people who watched it to lean towards his/her opinion.

 

I think he was basically trying to say, to get something done regardless of what it is, is difficult because the majority of people are going to be at least some what aware of it. So obviously there will be a lot more opinions and public opinion could sway, making even simple decisions that much harder.

 

Which also goes hand in hand with him talking about Asia rising in world power ranks. There are area's of the world whom were held back through out history that are going to be able to influence decisions that much more. So dudes out West who are used to sitting back and setting policy are going to have to take notice of this. Especially if that policy has to do with lining the pockets of the west, and feeding off of the people in the East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attended a speech last night and the speaker's main argument was multi-lateralism is essentially non existent since it is largely underpinned by bi-lateral arrangements. If any nation wants to forward a major issue through the UN they must first secure the support of a major power, ie US, EU, or China, who have veto rights. The speaker used the example of the Copenhagen summit in order to illustrate the failings of multi-lateralism in a situation where there is no convergence of interest by great powers.

 

I understood this to be a comment on the successful elements of global governance as essentially reflective of the convergence of the powerful on particular issues, and not necessarily reflective of idealistic global common interests.

Discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talk about money and power and the New World Order but... REALLY... NEW? It's on the fucking dollar bill, when did they draw THAT picture? Maybe it's time to wake up to the reality that "new world order" is just a hundred year old catchphrase. Since the time it was first minted the US paper dollar has NEVER SEEN a time of "order". Wwar IS and HAS ALWAYS been the order of the day. The idea that there are 'entities' lurking in the shadows and controlling things with global implications is not entirely ludicrous BUT... If that's the case I think it's time we all just called out these shadow figures and say "WHAT THE FUCK NWO? YOU BEEN TRYING TO ACHIEVE THIS SHIT FOR LIKE 300 YEARS; WHAT'S THE GODDAMN HOLD-UP? WHY AM I NOT FULLY SUBJUGATED?"

 

Seriously NWO, you guys suck, you really let me down... and fuck the Masons and Mormons, and Hitler (Jesus! WHAT a failure!) and all the Napoleans... just quit. Really man, and maybe layoff the cough syrup.

 

Edit: Wrestling is fake too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what El Mammero has said but don't think past empires have failed for lack of technology.

The fact is, they failed because it wasn't in the people they governed best interest to have them there.

It was mainly done to boost the profits of trading companies and corporations, had nothing to do with uniting the worlds people and making it a better place.

 

 

This is odd to me, because the past empires I was talking about didn't really have anything approaching the concept of "companies" or "corporations". Those are very modern institutions. Conquest in the past had different purposes, some of them rational (resources), some of them not (worship).

 

I do still maintain that lack of communication technology was a major factor in empire failure because homogenization and sharing of knowledge was too slow and clumsy for people to consolidate their visions of progress. Opinions and stances remained clustered regionally, and eventually boiled over into conflict due to lack of understanding of outside perspectives. Back then, there wouldn't be a single American against the war in Iraq, but now we have access to so much information and perspective from their side, it has allowed a significant opposition to the war to evolve. We are more sympathetic towards our enemies nowadays because of our ability to see their perspective, and that fosters a march towards unity.

 

About the Brezinski video, it is definitely relevant to the discussion, but I feel people are inserting their own meaning into his words. I didn't see anything there that suggests ZB is afraid of global political awareness, or that it is a bad thing in general. All he states, in a very logical fashion, is that when people are politically aware, they'll form stronger opinions and make their voices heard louder, which in turn presents a bigger challenge in moving forward in a unified way. This is not a bad thing, it is only a difficult thing. Life is full of things that are great and beneficial but involve much harder work to achieve them. If he had said something about global political awareness being an obstacle we needed to get rid off, then I'd agree, but he just presents it as something that has to be naturally dealt with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course people do that. They do it with everything

 

Pretty sure most of the people here have put what he has said into the same context you have outlined.

 

I know I did.

 

The reason most empires have fallen are because they stretched themselves out too thin. They couldn't support the monster they created. If you would like to blame that on technology I guess that works.

 

However the American empire is falling as we speak. We are more advanced technologically than any other empire to ever grace this Earth. Is the lack of technology the reason we are going to fall?

 

I don't think so. You can not police the globe and come out on top in the long term. It is not economically sound, and as ZB has pointed out, you can't control people like you used to, and this hurts the establishment, even further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's premature to say the American empire is failing for sure; god knows this same sentiment has been claimed for decades if not centuries. We are in a difficult period that may or may not be comparatively worse than other periods we've lived through, and I don't share this wave of pessimism that is so prevalent around these parts. America will live on, its influence will still be felt, and technology will certainly be a tool for survival.

 

If anything, I think the American empire is probably going to evolve into a global governance model that strongly leans towards American/western values, and which America holds high influence over.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the Anglo-American establishment that is falling, which I don't even see as American. The Anglo-American empire in no way represents the fundamental ideals and values of America. It's a globalist, corporatist, monopolistic take on capitalism, and it is the reason why capitalism and America is being condemned around the world. This establishment is also seen as the NWO, but it isn't necessarily tied down to any specific nation. It is predominantly USA, because America has been the strongest super-power nation, yet I think that is beginning to shift now. I see America recently turning inwards, as you see more anti-establishment movements like the Tea Party. But, this is happening all around the world... riots in Greece over the EU bailout, and Thailand, etc. This stuff will hit home, maybe not in the same manner, but that animosity towards the establishment is growing world wide. I believe that also has to do with ZB's speech, and it is a concern for those in power as well because globally the people have awakened to the political paradigm and it is difficult to move along and progress globalist agendas they've had in mind for decades now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, I think the American empire is probably going to evolve into a global governance model that strongly leans towards American/western values, and which America holds high influence over.

 

You are basically saying that a New World Order will come out of this problematic time?

 

I was going to make a longer post, but time to take a final.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I think it's premature to say the American empire is failing for sure; god knows this same sentiment has been claimed for decades if not centuries. We are in a difficult period that may or may not be comparatively worse than other periods we've lived through, and I don't share this wave of pessimism that is so prevalent around these parts. America will live on, its influence will still be felt, and technology will certainly be a tool for survival.

 

If anything, I think the American empire is probably going to evolve into a global governance model that strongly leans towards American/western values, and which America holds high influence over.

 

the American empire aint as strong as they want you to think. we are in the dust of a lot of other countries when it comes to a lot of shit if you ask me.

 

[cough]free healthcare[/cough]

 

 

and playstations alway release like a year early in japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your game console and raise you domination of the world's super computer technology.

 

 

China boasts world's second-fastest supercomputer

 

 

Buzz up!0 votes

SendSharePrint

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100601/wl_asia_afp/chinatechnologyitworld;_ylt=AjMRp3Aoy5g3MATDfBhjWfEBxg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTJ1OWhpOGtvBGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDEwMDYwMS9jaGluYXRlY2hub2xvZ3lpdHd

vcmxkBHBvcwMxMgRzZWMDeW5fcGFnaW5hdGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNjaGluYWJvYXN0c3c-

 

 

1 hr 21 mins ago

BEIJING (AFP) – China's ambitions to become a major global power in the world of supercomputing were given a boost when one of its machines was ranked second-fastest in a survey.

The Nebulae machine at the National Supercomputing Centre in the southern city of Shenzhen can perform at 1.271 petaflops per second, according to the Top 500 survey (http://www.top500.org), which ranks supercomputers.

A petaflop is equivalent to 1,000 trillion calculations.

The United States still dominates the list, holding top spot with its Jaguar supercomputer at a government facility in Tennessee, and more than half of the systems on the list, released at a supercomputing conference in Germany.

But China has a total of 24 systems on the list, and two in the top ten, with the Tianhe-1 supercomputer in Tianjin ranking number seven.

And the Nebulae, built by Dawning Information Industry Co., Ltd., has a theoretical speed of 2.98 petaflops per second, which would make it the fastest in the world.

The machine's uses include scientific computing and gene sequencing, according to Chinese state media.

Calls to the company for further comment went unanswered.

The supercomputers on the Top 500 list are rated based on speed of performance in a benchmark test. Submissions are voluntary, so it does not include all machines.

The survey is produced twice-yearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

George Soros saying China needs to lead the New World Order.

 

This is not coming out of my mouth, so take it however you want to.

 

“I think you need a new world order that China has to be part of the process of creating it and they have to buy in, they have to own it in the same way as the United States owns…the current order,”

 

"An orderly decline of the dollar is desirable"

He also stated that an orderly decline of the dollar was “desirable” and that the entire system needed to be reconstituted towards a global currency.

 

"The system IS broke, and needs to be reconstituted."

 

“You need a new currency system and actually the Special Drawing Rights do give you the makings of a system and I think it’s ill-considered on the part of the United States to resist the wider use of Special Drawing Rights, they could be very useful now when you have a global shortfall of demand, you could actually internationally create currency through Special Drawing Rights,”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take it exactly how he meant it, the same way that GHW Bush and friends meant it in that movie. It's about the order or ranking of national power i the world.

 

The idea of reserve currencies has been on the books for a while now, there's even a thread in here about it as well where we discuss SDRs and the decline of the dollar as the global standard.

 

It seems that as soon as some people hear the term NWO they immediately attach the meaning to it of global governance and so on. In this sense it is just being used as regards to ranking, as in the order that things work in. the USD is the reserve currency and that basically means that it is the strongest currency that dominates the market and Russia, China, India and a few other countries were recently entertaining the idea of creating a new global standard. The IMF SDRs was one idea that was talked about and China went as far as to make a huge contribution to the IMF to increase their stake in SDRs.

 

Everyone has since backed off and said that there will be no replacement of the USD as the standard in the foreseeable future so the current world order in economic terms remains.

 

You can read in to this as much as you want but that's exactly what it is, other nations looking to decrease US power (and the reliance on the USD because after the recent economic crash people blamed US management of their economy and didn't want the world beholden to the US economy and legislator's use of it). This is G Soros throwing his 2c in. Also not to be ignored, he's a damned smart guy....., and rich$$$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see him saying what you've explained him to be saying. I just don't take it as nonchalantly as you do. For me, it's further confirmation as to what is occurring economically around the globe. I honestly didn't need Soros to say these things for confirmation though, I already knew this was happening.

 

This is a Hungarian-American who is an adviser to the American President. I don't take lightly the attitude he is expressing towards our national currency, basically... no literally stating:

 

"An orderly decline of the dollar is desirable"

 

So in other words, he is declaring the death of the dollar is necessary. For America right now, the dollar is probably all this country has left in terms of remaining a super-power. We've lost our values, our bill of rights, our freedoms, our good image as a nation, and the Anglo-American empire has pretty much bankrupted us. Even Soros admits that the system is broken.

 

My opinion? This was intended. Nothing is a coincidence, and the attitude that the death of the dollar is desirable is just reflective of the attitudes coming from communities and circles surrounding Soros which he is involved in. It's like Barack Obama walking around reading the book, "The Post-American World". Now that the Anglo-American empire is falling, and rightfully so that it is, this new world..uh..huh..stutter stutter.... new world order of internationalism he is talking about, that he suggests China own in the way America owned the current world order (bizarre statement to me), is being prepared to be organized and put into place.

 

Now you can debate the necessity, or the inevitability of that system, but that's irrelevant to me.

 

And yes, I realize that China/Russia/India and other countries are also suggesting a new global standard. Even more reason to be against it as an American, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So in other words, he is declaring the death of the dollar is necessary.

 

Death of the USD? That's a little over dramatic, don't you think? Having more than one reserve currency is called competition, competition is what made the US strong in a lot of senses. I don't see why you immediately jump to doom and gloom just because some one suggests something.

 

 

For America right now, the dollar is probably all this country has left in terms of remaining a super-power.

 

So your vast lead in technology means nothing. The US navy that could defeat all other navies combined means nothing. Your massive lead over everyone else in the space race means nothing. The simple bulk and depth of your economy means nothing. The geography of the US (oceans on either side creating a buffer, river systems all over the country making transport of goods super cheap, etc.) means nothing. The US alliance system being the largest and most powerful in the world means nothing.The fact that other nations are buying US debt en masse means nothing (shit, even Iran dumped its Euros for USD a week ago!). The suggestion that the USD shouldn't be the one and only global standard makes all the other stuff irrelevant, you think?

 

That's one hell of a claim your making there and I think it neglects to take account for many other aspects of power.

 

We've lost our values, our bill of rights, our freedoms, our good image as a nation, and the Anglo-American empire has pretty much bankrupted us. Even Soros admits that the system is broken.

 

Whilst all these things are admirable pursuits they are irrelevant when it comes to power. The US could be an industrialised military dictatorship and it could still have power over all other countries. These things that you mention are social values and are not intrinsic elements of power. And hell, people have been saying this shit for almost 100 years now and the US has only gone on to become stronger. I swear US citz are the most pessimistic and sore winners I've ever come across.

 

 

 

My opinion? This was intended. Nothing is a coincidence, and the attitude that the death of the dollar is desirable is just reflective of the attitudes coming from communities and circles surrounding Soros which he is involved in. It's like Barack Obama walking around reading the book, "The Post-American World".

 

Just because some one has a book in his hand doesn't mean he's read it. Just because some one has read a book doesn't mean he agrees with it. Hell, I've read that book and I put it down 2/3rds of the way in to it. All respect to Fareed as he's a brilliant man, but that book really sucked and was quite superficial. Maybe Obama thought the same thing. Have you heard him say that he's read it and what he thinks about it or are you just drawing conclusions based on a photo of him holding it? Honest question, not rhetorical.

 

 

Now that the Anglo-American empire is falling, and rightfully so that it is, this new world..uh..huh..stutter stutter.... new world order of internationalism he is talking about, that he suggests China own in the way America owned the current world order (bizarre statement to me), is being prepared to be organized and put into place.

 

Not necessarily, he is saying that China should have a stake in the world order, as in that it isn't solely dictated by the US. And the US does do that to a large degree. The US economy and military strength allows the US to put pressure on countries so they don't act against US interest. There are many examples of that, the UN resolution passed against Iran the other day is a good example. However you have to remember a lot of other countries agree with the US position on many things and profit from it. Hell, China fucking LOVES the US and without the US navy keeping all the critical water ways of the world open (seuz, Hormuz, Malaka, etc.) China would have had to have spent a SHIT load more money on its navy to protect its import routes for energy and raw materials and export routes for its products going to market. If China had to protect its own seal lanes not only would it not have that money to spend on industrial and domestic development but China would also then have a much stronger navy that could project power to places where the US has specific interests.

 

So just because something is in the US interest it doesn't by default mean it is against everyone else's interest. The US navey keeping open the Malaka Straits benefits Japan, DPRK, ROK, Russia, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand, Malasia, Cambodia, Indonesia, Singapore, Australia and a bunch of small PAcific islands. That's just one small element and because of that since WW2 these countries have all dramatically increased development and GDP per capita. The US system, for all its flaws and ugliness has been largely responsible for increasing development for the majority of the world. Trade means industry, industry means employment, employment means the chance to give your kids a better shot at life than you had. The only country in that list above who has gone southward is DPRK and that is because they have tried to go against the system. When China went against the system from 1949-80 they also went horribly backwards. Since then they have opened up and slowly readjusted in to the system and look, in just 30 years now people are saying that they will challenge the US.

 

So when you say that the US has done fucked up things, I wouldn't disagree but you must also balance that against the ways in which it has benefited the world.

 

 

Now you can debate the necessity, or the inevitability of that system, but that's irrelevant to me.

 

And yes, I realize that China/Russia/India and other countries are also suggesting a new global standard. Even more reason to be against it as an American, in my opinion.

 

Well yeah, you as a US cit of course should want your currency to remain the only standard, it's all about controlling power. But keep in mind that the IMF is a US controlled global system set up at Bretton Woods. So this new system that people are talking about isn't actually a NEW SYSTEM as such. It's just a redistribution of power within the already existing structure, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...