Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

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


Recommended Posts

Since when do you believe what figures the FBI have reported.

 

Of course you can take pictures in central London, millions of tourists do so every single year, I have friends on my facebook who live in London that regularly post pictures of themselves in central London, around Downing street and the Houses of Parliment.

 

Yea you get a few over-zealous coppers that might try and stop you but that is them in the wrong.

Link to post
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

In response to Frankie, yes, no doubt that nationalism is real and a tangible force. The govt here have used it as the replacement ideology now that they can't rely on communism as an excuse to retain single party power.

 

However that was not my point. It was that if you removed the charismatic issue of how the US came to be and made it as relatively inert as federation in 1901 is for Australia you would still be dealing with exactly the same questions of sovereignty and autonomy. The idea of conservatism and nationalism are social constructs of emotion. Remove the emotion out of the picture and you will still have the same legal questions, the same people trying to take power, the same economic, financial and environmental issues. The take out the emotion and nostalgia surrounding how the US started and nothing changes. The effects of global governance are exactly the same if it never existed; laws would change, travel would change and citizenship would be looked at differently but how the US stared would not change either.

 

The fact that people fought for rights generations ago is redundant to the costs and benefits of global governance.

 

Having your gunz taken away is a real concern, that is reality whether you are christian, occultist, retarded, rich, or Chinese. It's not a belief, it's a reality that impinges on your existence based on your existence, it is a working part of the equation. However as I said above I can't see why that would be a global issue when it only has local consequences.

 

 

 

 

One question I have of Casek and AOD, as I know he is reading this for a while before he comments, is what if there was an offer of global governance and the US got the sweetest deal out of it and ran the show. IF global governance improved the life of US citz would you still say know because it doesn't suit the ideals that the founding fathers fought for?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since when do you believe what figures the FBI have reported.

 

Of course you can take pictures in central London, millions of tourists do so every single year, I have friends on my facebook who live in London that regularly post pictures of themselves in central London, around Downing street and the Houses of Parliment.

 

Yea you get a few over-zealous coppers that might try and stop you but that is them in the wrong.

 

 

Man, just because I don't like some agencies doesn't mean their statistics are bad.

Their job is to gather intelligence on the homefront. Crime statistics is a major part of that.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/police-delete-tourist-photos

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036728/Photographing-thugs-assault-police-tell-householder-snapping-proof-anti-social-behaviour.html

 

Anyway, you would know better than I about London. Just going by what I read in the news. I apologize if I came off like an ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

nah Casek it is cool, just the way the British media reports stuff comes across a ludicrous, if it is written by a British newspaper take it with more than a pinch of salt

 

Those cases are individual police officers fucking up and misinterpreting what they think the law is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nah Casek it is cool, just the way the British media reports stuff comes across a ludicrous, if it is written by a British newspaper take it with more than a pinch of salt

 

Those cases are individual police officers fucking up and misinterpreting what they think the law is.

 

 

Yeah, it goes the same for some of our media outlets. Gotta sift through the crap to get to the gems.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
serious with this question? you must be really naive, no offense.

 

I am serious, this thread was to spark debate on the pros and cons of a global government. There is nothing naive about it.

 

i never said it was a good or bad thing. I never gave my opinion on the subject, just terms to spark a good thought provoking discussion on the matter.

Contribute or dont

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are a little naive if they don't think the way the world is currently run has some degree of global governence.

 

Just look at all the treaties etc that take part with numerous worlds leaders all coming together to have an agreement. While they aren't running the world you can't really exist in modern society without playing the game which is why countries like N.Korea/Iran etc suffer because they alienate themselves from the global political game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would suck, although I have my complaints I've lived in other countries and visited them, USA is still better, at least to me it is.

I even think the US is watered down by such a strong Federal Government and would like to see more individual rights for states.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with casek, I think it would be an insult to everything America has stood for and the whole point of creating the constitution to defend our liberties. In fact, I think what is being set up through globalization is the exact kind of bureaucracy which we were attempting to protect ourselves against when this nation was founded. These arguments some of you are presenting about national sovereignty not being important, and world constitutions, etc. I mean you sound exactly like the political figures in office pushing these agendas. This is the kind of stuff they say to justify it, so I guess you agree with them? I mean, I am fundamentally in disagreement with these concepts and as much as I wish there weren't borders and we could all get along, the reality is quite different. That's why I feel national sovereignty and individual liberty is important to protect your rights, and the rights of society.

 

This thread for me, just illustrates why so many of you here on this forum can't relate to the NWO topics as much as I've seen in other forums around the internet. I'm noticing a lot of you aren't American. Yea, we have our guns, private property, individual liberty, "freedom"... that is what is important to us, but remember we have a constitution here in this country too and it isn't being respected in many situations, so a world constitution wouldn't be much of an incentive for us to sign onto some form of global governance. I know the rest of the world is on that hippy shit (it's funny because you guys call ME a hippy), but the reality of the world is much different then the "let's all hold hands, get along, and save the planet" global governance agenda.

 

I say the OP is naive not because I feel I have more experience then him, because I don't. I know jack shit, I will be the first to tell you that, and I don't care either. I say it because I don't understand how you can't comprehend what kind of implications this would have on free society. As an American, this to me is common sense, and that's only because I've studied history and I know the ramifications of centralized government with large out of control bureaucracy.

 

My argument against global governance is essentially a conservative one, not so unlike the anti-NWO brigade, which is that we have built a stable (yes this is debatable!) system of international order under-which we, in the west at least, have relatively positive institutions that protect individual liberty . To begin to reshuffle this current arrangement leaves us open to the possibility that the outcome will be less beneficial for humanity generally, potentially through abuse of further centralised power, or through a select and unrepresentative group having a disproportionate amount of power. It is also very difficult to believe that in the creation of a system of global governance, prevailing national interests wont distort, and ultimately skew in the favour of those nations who the creators come from (which will more than likely be predominantly of western origin). However, if you look back at the history of nationalism to see how it was fostered from the top down in the interest of those in power, and eventually became a concept strongly held by the grass roots of various societies. It would not be hard to imagine that a similar process could occur with a unification around an global constitution, for example.

 

You'd be surprised to find out just how much you have in common with the anti-NWO crowd, ff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont disagree with you Zig, I just find it rather amusing that Americans harp on about individual liberty, freedom, private property like these things don't exist anywhere else, they do, they are everywhere the only difference is is that here not every junkie or wanna be thug is able to run around armed to the teeth like some lunatic.

 

It just seems to me sometimes that you have an idea of what other countries are like when you have never been there and know nothing about them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont disagree with you Zig, I just find it rather amusing that Americans harp on about individual liberty, freedom, private property like these things don't exist anywhere else, they do, they are everywhere the only difference is is that here not every junkie or wanna be thug is able to run around armed to the teeth like some lunatic.

 

It just seems to me sometimes that you have an idea of what other countries are like when you have never been there and know nothing about them.

 

 

It's a matter of what our founders intended. Arming ourselves was intended to keep tyrants from owning us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I know that, it is more the idea that nowhere else in the world has freedom, that is what bugs me, America is not a bastion of freedom and the only place in the world that has it.

 

I personally think America is more a slave to the gun than it offering freedom. I'm not saying the forefathers didnt intend it to be a positive thing, I am saying in modern society it isn't really all that positive, but it is something you just have to live with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you're saying I think America is the only place in the world with freedom? no, i don't think that at all... as a matter of fact I don't even consider what we have here as freedom, I think America has transformed into one of the worst police states in the world actually. the idealogies of our founding fathers and those influential people during that time period is what is important to me, the documents that came out of that, the laws which were established. none of this stuff would be anywhere in the world if it weren't for that revolution in society and rebellion against the sort of tyranny we're speaking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can agree on something there as well Zig, I also think America has become one of the worst police states there is. All I ever read about is injustice after injustice, police basically going unchecked, it is ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I basically feel global governance is pretty much inevitable from an evolutionary standpoint. The question is not if, but "when" and "how". We've gone from extremely fractured and separate groupings (tribes) to large conglomerates (nations) that have proven to be much more efficient in taking care of solving humanity's most pressing issues. In the past, massive, world-spanning empires have tried to take hold and failed, mainly because we simply weren't technologically and culturally ready back then to come together like that. In today's world, the communication and collaboration tools we've developed, and the ability to instantly share knowledge between anyone in the world completely change the playing field when it comes to large scale governance. It's a little shortsighted to say things wouldn't work now because they haven't worked in the past; we're working on an entirely different technological paradigm here.

 

American-style freedom has so far proven to be one of, if not THE, most efficient way of progressing as humans, with most modern nations adopting similar (or at least related) frameworks to get themselves ahead. I wouldn't doubt for a second that any kind of global governance established in the world would be at least very strongly based on American ideals of society. I don't see why global governance should be mutually exclusive of individual rights or allowing nations to have more than a fair degree of national sovereignty in dealing with their people and their territory. That said, while American-style freedom has proven to be extremely awesome for technological progression, it has also allowed us to be tremendously wasteful and irresponsible with our natural resources. This is something that needs to be addressed, and most Americans won't want to hear the truth of what it entails.

 

However, I do share the concern that handing governance to yet another global bureaucracy would probably yield shitty results, so I can't advocate it yet. I do think we are more technologically capable to take care of our future and participate more than ever in issues of governance right now, and this will only increase in the future. I think we are rich in possibilities in the near future for a new type of government that leverages the internet's ability to give people a voice to become the fairest system we've known yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
yep I have read some stuff, but it was ages ago, my brother is actually named after him

 

 

I remember talking about this with you. You should reread his works. I have a feeling that if you did your ideas on global governance might change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh I am not supporting it by any means, I am just saying that it does go on at the moment and we are naive to think that it doesn't.

 

You know me Casek, as much as i put my own opinions on here I also like to play the devils advocate as well. But I will definitely go back and re-read his works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
oh I am not supporting it by any means, I am just saying that it does go on at the moment and we are naive to think that it doesn't.

 

You know me Casek, as much as i put my own opinions on here I also like to play the devils advocate as well. But I will definitely go back and re-read his works.

 

 

When I'm taking a shit (I'm sure he'd be happy to know this) I read "Common Sense"

and "The Age of Reason" over and over.

 

To know that Paine was a man who enjoyed his pints but also had a strong sense of what sovereignty is makes him feel like someone I would enjoy hanging out with.

 

 

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right."

Thomas Paine

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Completely different from the subject of this thread.

CIMG8990.JPG.a770b6fdb403e52c069e2e2bc9ece1f4.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I disagree.

 

Show me where we have defined what global governance actually is.

 

 

To me it would concern itself only with global issues such as environmental degradation, WMDs and more than likely take over the admin tasks such as laws of the ocean/skys and border demarcation, etc.

 

Why would the world interest itself in much more that that? The League of Nations was originally conceived of as a global mechanism to ensure sovereignty.

Link to post
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...