New World Order

[Nietzsche]

Because every empire has an ultimate ruler people looked to. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Kim family of N Korea, etc.

"Every empire"? North Korea is not an "Empire". That word has a meaning, and it's not "horrible place to live". Actual empires, like the British Empire, or the pre-1918 German Empire, so on and so forth may have had one person steering the thing, but it was not an absolutism. Even Hitler's Germany was ran largely from the middle-tier of the bureaucracy. That's partly why it was so horrible, you had countless competing fiefdoms with overlapping spheres of competence and authority, each vying to get the Fuehrer's good word.

A world-state would probably have a system of government similar to a combination between the American system and the Westminster system. An absolutist world government simply isn't feasible. These only become viable when you have multiple planets, because otherwise your power-base is too liable to fracture.

 

[Stevicus]

By this your fears my soon be realised.

Who are those who take control of societies and force the majority to be subdued by brutality if not willingly? Is it not the ones you listed; a greed[y], corrupt powerful elite who control the media and seek to shutdown any means of communication which exposes them which tries to encourage an uprising? Fascism is any dictators bag.

Yes, you could be right, although a lot of it also comes from the overall weaknesses within the masses themselves. Some people refer to them as "sheeple," meaning that they're viewed as weak-minded, passive, and submissive as they're being led to slaughter. Many would blame religion for encouraging this weakness and passivity.

I've also observed that far too many people too readily accept whatever is told to them by the government or some other "authority" figure.

How?

I see globalism as a form corporate feudalism which would be antithetical to the concepts and ideals related to human rights.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Discredited by whom? Marxism/communism/socialism is the proponents of the NWO's ideal.

Let's leave socialism out of it. I never mentioned it. Communism as based on the ideologically of Marxism as first established in Russia has been discredited by most social or political to have been a spectacular failure.

Would the NWO afford "ordinary people"rights? How about if it were the right to be enslaved or die?

The UN was "hijacked" for what agenda?

You could say the same about any government whether it be local or national. We need to find a way to make it work for humanity. The alternative is anarchy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've been around long enough to know the way to discredit someone or something when people want to conceal it til they're ready is to poo-poo it using public/social media,

If the government wants something concealed, they keep it confidential and have penalties for those not authorized to access the data and know the details. It's not full proof, but I haven't seen them ridicule something they are doing as a part of the plot to covertly achieve what they are publicly mocking.

 

[Jumi]

Out of chaos a NWO. Out of a NWO disaster.

So basically you're expecting a disaster. I expect people to continue being as selfish as always and keep destroying the planet with wars to a point that only scientific breakthroughs will save us. I think the best we can do is form small units, small countries that take care of themselves. There's not as much interest in working for the land if you can just move far away on convenience basis.

 

[Evie]

So basically you're expecting a disaster. I expect people to continue being as selfish as always and keep destroying the planet with wars to a point that only scientific breakthroughs will save us. I think the best we can do is form small units, small countries that take care of themselves. There's not as much interest in working for the land if you can just move far away on convenience basis.

Not really interested in the NWO

 

[Jumi]

Not really interested in the NWO

Well I don't know what it's supposed to mean in this context. According to wikipedia it simply means this:

The term "new world order" has been used to refer to any new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. Despite various interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve.

 

[hughwatt]

A world-state would probably have a system of government similar to a combination between the American system and the Westminster system. An absolutist world government simply isn't feasible. These only become viable when you have multiple planets, because otherwise your power-base is too liable to fracture.

It seems your idea of a "world-state" is one where people have rights. What would make an absolute ruler with total power and control of the world's citizens give them the right to decide if they, for example, wish to continue under such a state?

If there is to be a one world government then does it not follow a world president would govern it?

 

[hughwatt]

I see globalism as a form corporate feudalism which would be antithetical to the concepts and ideals related to human rights.

On that we are agreed. Question is, do you think with the push for a NWO by many politicians and media moguls, etc, world government is more likely now than at any other time in history, given where technical advances have brought us to and where it's taking us?

 

[hughwatt]

Let's leave socialism out of it. I never mentioned it. Communism as based on the ideologically of Marxism as first established in Russia has been discredited by most social or political to have been a spectacular failure.

Socialism is no different from communism which is no different from Marxism. All three would destroy the middle class and rule over the working class with a iron fist. Would a NWO be any different if absolute power were given to one person?

You could say the same about any government whether it be local or national. We need to find a way to make it work for humanity. The alternative is anarchy.

A person arises after the world is thrown into confusion. The world's population are so desperate for answers they'd accept anyone who seems to have the solutions to the many problems. This person is in an ideal position to offer comfort and hope because s/he knows the human psyche well having learned from politicians who use skillful tactics to sell people what they want to hear and so people embrace that person.

After a period of chaos and apparent order the president begins to make more and more demands upon the world's population as s/he becomes so militarily strong no-one can fight against him/her. Included in this dictator's demands is worship as a god upon threat of execution for any who will not comply. This leads to a slaughter of millions upon millions of people who are hunted down and beheaded for not bowing to this person who by now has power over commerce, food, heating, etc.

You say it's not likely such a scenario is possible?

 

[hughwatt]

If the government wants something concealed, they keep it confidential and have penalties for those not authorized to access the data and know the details. It's not full proof, but I haven't seen them ridicule something they are doing as a part of the plot to covertly achieve what they are publicly mocking.

Like Clinton's servers? Like the many denials and convincing millions to vote for her as she and the democrats desperately tried to turn Americans off Trump through misinformation? Don't get me wrong, I'm not picking sides here, I just didn't want Clinton or the globalists in power.

If the nefarious want their way don't you see they will use any methods no matter how evil to achieve their goals?

If a group of powerful elitists want to force through a NWO is it too far fetched to believe they will start or encourage wars to their advantage with the purpose of control by fear?

 

[hughwatt]

So basically you're expecting a disaster. I expect people to continue being as selfish as always and keep destroying the planet with wars to a point that only scientific breakthroughs will save us. I think the best we can do is form small units, small countries that take care of themselves. There's not as much interest in working for the land if you can just move far away on convenience basis.

Selfish is the word.

If you had the wealth and ability to influence other like-minded people do you see it as nothing more than fiction if say, those who have the world at its mercy through food, finance, medicines, technology, etc, would use it to mishandle, man-handle and manipulate?

 

[Stevicus]

On that we are agreed. Question is, do you think with the push for a NWO by many politicians and media moguls, etc, world government is more likely now than at any other time in history, given where technical advances have brought us to and where it's taking us?

I don't know about a government encompassing the entire world. There are too many factions and nations which still don't mesh well together - even if they might be on good diplomatic terms.

Regarding your point about technical advances, that's also going to be tricky, as more and more people and occupations may find themselves technologically displaced in the future. I suppose a worst case scenario could be a society with a few elite humans in charge of a planet of machines and robots doing all the work. As for all the other humans who will no longer be needed, the powers that be may be merciful and plug them all into some kind of "matrix" where they can live out their lives in some idyllic virtual reality.