The NWO is coming......really, which one?

[Niocan]

Apparently I hijacked a thread about the NWO by talking about... the NWO, in a clearly defined theoretical way. *sigh* Just because it's a different approach doesn't mean it's any less or more valid then your own ideas.

 

[TheFearmonger]

Apparently I hijacked a thread about the NWO by talking about... the NWO, in a clearly defined theoretical way. *sigh* Just because it's a different approach doesn't mean it's any less or more valid then your own ideas.

Not YOU... :facepalm: I wasn't talking about YOU at all. I was talking about the people who make this crap up. You are a sheep, just like I was. The people who make this stuff up are the people I don't like. You have a lot of weird beliefs and stuff, but at least you are open to reason and things. These people who feed you this, however, are fearmongers. You are gullible. You're also a fearmonger in a way, because you propagate their myths, but only through a deluded sense of the world.

 

[Niocan]

Apparently I hijacked a thread about the NWO by talking about... the NWO, in a clearly defined theoretical way. *sigh* Just because it's a different approach doesn't mean it's any less or more valid then your own ideas.

Not YOU... :facepalm: I wasn't talking about YOU at all. I was talking about the people who make this crap up. You are a sheep, just like I was. The people who make this stuff up are the people I don't like. You have a lot of weird beliefs and stuff, but at least you are open to reason and things. These people who feed you this, however, are fearmongers. You are gullible. You're also a fearmonger in a way, because you propagate their myths, but only through a deluded sense of the world.

I should've quoted 5810Singer's comment first then ^.^; He was the one that didn't like my "hijacking".

There's a rather thin line between informing and fear-mongering that anyone presenting alternative ideas must fight against; I try and do my best to only inform but these ideas carry quite a load of baggage and they're so.... disconnected, to what most view to be true in this world. What this disconnection means can either be the thick wool over our eyes or just our inability to correctly map complex systems and their reasonable implications.

Either way, I'll continue to spend my time on distilling this kind of thought

 

[TheFearmonger]

I should've quoted 5810Singer's comment first then ^.^; He was the one that didn't like my "hijacking".

There's a rather thin line between informing and fear-mongering that anyone presenting alternative ideas must fight against; I try and do my best to only inform but these ideas carry quite a load of baggage and they're so.... disconnected, to what most view to be true in this world. What this disconnection means can either be the thick wool over our eyes or just our inability to correctly map complex systems and their reasonable implications.

Either way, I'll continue to spend my time on distilling this kind of thought

Well, good luck to you, but my point is that to me, your views seem like those of every wacko that postulates some sort of madness without any evidence. The problem is, that viable argumentation on your side has already been lessened by your posts here on LoR. Your arguments seem to be along the lines of "it could happen, therefore it will", which is perfectly natural if dealing with chance. However, in a case of humans being able to influence a course of decision, this view quickly becomes superfluous. My main objection, in other words, is your foundation. And your foundation is propagated by... liars and nutjobs. With this in hand, can you not see why we greet your comments as we do?

 

[Mapp]

What are you talking about? Competition doesn't make money; in the short run it's good for the consumer *not* the producer/supplier. A business will do everything it can to limit competition because true profits come when you have a monopoly (i.e. a lack of competition). I would argue that in the long run competition is better for everyone, including the industry itself (even if not for specific individual businesses), but competition absolutely does *not* make money.

Read the post, I was responding specifically to Niocan's claims. He argued that debt holders secretly controlled the economy and that these same debt holders would favor a shift to a OWG and presumably a one world currency. I was pointing out the absurdity of those claims. These debt holders, presumably would include banks, traders and investors. My argument was that they would be destroying a competitive money market which would allow them to increase their wealth by trading against currencies. By switching to a monolithic currency, they would essentially be closing off a chance to profit off of competition. I was showing that his two conspiracy theories: 1. the economy is controlled by a secret cabal of debt holders, and 2. These debt holders want to establish a single government through the U.N. are not only silly but mutually incompatible. The point was to demonstrate the warped logic of his conspiracy theory. Next time, read the entire post instead of commenting on a single line.

 

[5810Singer]

I'll spell out my objection to Niocan's position, and the position of anyone else who missed the point I was making, and explain why I consider Niocan guilty of using this thread purely to expound his polemic.

In the wiki entry I linked to, fully 10 NWOs are discussed, all of them being seperate and distinct entities.
That's the reason for the topic title: "The New World Order's coming,....really, which one of the ten or more putative New World Orders is the one you're referring to?"
Admittedly I shortened the title.

That's why I find Niocan's input redundant, and TBH offensive.
If Niocan has read the wiki entry, how can he stand four-square behind his personal NWO paranoia, after just reading about how his fairy story is just one of at least 10 fairy stories, all of which suffer from a total lack of any credible evidence, any clear explanation of the mechanism of the conspiracy, or any real explanation of the motives of the conspirators.



I'm going to ask you again Niocan, did you even read the wiki entry, and if so how did you manage to miss the point?

 

[nasher168]

What, really, is so bad about a united Earth?
Something I frequently notice in discussions like this is people from the US projecting the realities of their country onto the rest of the world and blowing them up so they're a lot bigger and more scary-looking. Niocan showed this fantastically early on in this thread:

2.0 being what we have now: a debt enslaved and socially conditioned world through the IMF / World Bank, the 6 media corporations and more paid off lobbyists/people then you can imagine;

That is what AMERICA has right now, not the rest of the world. Lobbyists are largely ignored in the UK and much of Europe, and our economies and government work in a totally different way.
Most of the problems NWO conspiracy-nuts tend to talk about are only plausible if companies become too powerful, and capitalism is given total freedom to run it's course. However, as we can see in most European countries, the exact opposite is happening. Countries are becoming more and more liberal and socialist, and only America (possibly Australia too) still seems to have such a problem with that.

 

[Jorick]

What, really, is so bad about a united Earth?
Something I frequently notice in discussions like this is people from the US projecting the realities of their country onto the rest of the world and blowing them up so they're a lot bigger and more scary-looking. Niocan showed this fantastically early on in this thread:

2.0 being what we have now: a debt enslaved and socially conditioned world through the IMF / World Bank, the 6 media corporations and more paid off lobbyists/people then you can imagine;

That is what AMERICA has right now, not the rest of the world. Lobbyists are largely ignored in the UK and much of Europe, and our economies and government work in a totally different way.
Most of the problems NWO conspiracy-nuts tend to talk about are only plausible if companies become too powerful, and capitalism is given total freedom to run it's course. However, as we can see in most European countries, the exact opposite is happening. Countries are becoming more and more liberal and socialist, and only America (possibly Australia too) still seems to have such a problem with that.

Well, one bad thing about a united Earth is what would be the lead-up to it. It's very unlikely that such a thing would come about without fighting: most nations (all of the major players, surely) would want their system to be the one in charge of the world. I think the most likely way (that way still being HIGHLY unlikely) a united world government could come about is a third world war, one in which there are no teams, with the winner taking all. And even then, the losers would rebel against their new rulers in many cases. So then would come the violent stamping out of insurrection, making the vassal states conform to the leader's rules, etc. Bad stuff for everyone, really.

And even an economically driven world government would be bad. It would have to come about through unbridled capitalism, seeing as I doubt there are any other economic systems that could make it happen. That would mean everything is about profit, and we all know that nothing good comes from profit being placed above people. Slavery would probably come back into style under such ruling, since unpaid labor is of course the most profitable.

So, unless a peaceful world government happened (the least likely possibility imo), a unified government would be bad. Actually, a fourth possibility just came to mind: true communism winning out. Of course, that is another nearly impossible idea due to basic human nature. So yeah, I see no way a world government could happen that would be good. Lucky for us all that this is just hypothetical nonsense, eh?

 

[nasher168]

Well, one bad thing about a united Earth is what would be the lead-up to it. It's very unlikely that such a thing would come about without fighting: most nations (all of the major players, surely) would want their system to be the one in charge of the world. I think the most likely way (that way still being HIGHLY unlikely) a united world government could come about is a third world war, one in which there are no teams, with the winner taking all. And even then, the losers would rebel against their new rulers in many cases. So then would come the violent stamping out of insurrection, making the vassal states conform to the leader's rules, etc. Bad stuff for everyone, really.

Not if we have the UN do to Earth what the EU is doing to Europe. That said, the EU was effectively formed to prevent a re-run of world war 2, so it may not be all happy and nice.

And even an economically driven world government would be bad.

I disagree with the idea that you would require unbridled capitalism. The EU was once called the European Economic Community, based around trade links with other member states. And yet, there is no unbridled capitalism there.

What about an ethically-driven government? I know it's unlikely-indeed, it's near-impossible. But just imagine a government existing solely for the purpose of improving it's residents' quality of life. That would be awesome.

 

[Jorick]

Well, one bad thing about a united Earth is what would be the lead-up to it. It's very unlikely that such a thing would come about without fighting: most nations (all of the major players, surely) would want their system to be the one in charge of the world. I think the most likely way (that way still being HIGHLY unlikely) a united world government could come about is a third world war, one in which there are no teams, with the winner taking all. And even then, the losers would rebel against their new rulers in many cases. So then would come the violent stamping out of insurrection, making the vassal states conform to the leader's rules, etc. Bad stuff for everyone, really.

Not if we have the UN do to Earth what the EU is doing to Europe. That said, the EU was effectively formed to prevent a re-run of world war 2, so it may not be all happy and nice.

Yes, because the UN is super effective like that. /sarcasm

Seriously though, it wouldn't happen in a peaceful manner. For instance, do you think Iran, the United States, and Russia would all be happy to be under the same rule? One, two, or all of them would take major issue with aspects of it (like no sharia law, or lack of capitalism, or.. no vodka?). They all think they should have the power, so none of them would want to be anything but the head of the world government. So yeah, I doubt it could come about without another major war.

And even an economically driven world government would be bad.

I disagree with the idea that you would require unbridled capitalism. The EU was once called the European Economic Community, based around trade links with other member states. And yet, there is no unbridled capitalism there.

Trade links are one thing. Running the entire governmental structure of the world is quite another. As I said, an economy driven (ie all about making money) government would be bad, not an economically formed one.

What about an ethically-driven government? I know it's unlikely-indeed, it's near-impossible. But just imagine a government existing solely for the purpose of improving it's residents' quality of life. That would be awesome.

You mean socialism?

I'm a total socialist at heart, so I would be happy with such a government.

 

[scalyblue]

 

[Sinue]

It's very unlikely that such a thing would come about without fighting: most nations (all of the major players, surely) would want their system to be the one in charge of the world.

The social and economic benefits will overcome fear and domination complexes. We're seeing a current clash with America and China now. I've noticed a lot of people are frightened of the implications of China being so prominent in the American economy, but we're at far more amicable terms with China today than we have been at any time during the Cold War era. China's particular form of Communism would make Marx spin in his grave, and their prosperity is reliant upon American prosperity. We see debt, but they see investment. Even in their saber-rattling, their "threats" are laced with the realization that they depend upon America's economy every bit as much as we rely upon theirs. A few years ago a threat was made to the effect of China being able to pull it's investments and call it's debts - crushing the American economy. This was referred to as their "Nuclear Option" - in the effect that it would be Mutually Assured Destruction.

Yet we haven't made any moves to isolate China from our economy. Indeed, the ties have only been strengthened - especially during the current economic recession. And it's happening on all levels, from the bottom-up and the top-down. American investors are pumping money into burgeoning Chinese industries, and China is investing in American industry. The realization that we are not just playing a zero-sum game... that we're more prosperous working together than either side could be in a bid for domination. This doesn't mean that there isn't still power struggles and vicious betrayals going on behind those transactions... but we're fighting our wars with currency now, defining our borders by economies, and the new battlefield is dependent upon the stability of the infrastructure of the old world. Rather than ruins and death, the wages of this new war "of all against all" are technologies, medical treatments, communications, and leisure products. A better overall standard of living, even for those at the very bottom of society, not a wasted one. As the new world is formed in the information society, cheap labor and low taxes push industries into pre-industrial nations - pushing urbanization and building the infrastructure to support it. Basic Healthcare systems, stable centralized governments with law enforcement, clean fresh water, safer and more plentiful food.... reduced poverty. And best of all, this can happen without taking anything away from those at the top - the first world nations. We're not spreading the wealth... we're generating new wealth. Isn't this a good thing?

And now, now is when it's most vital to be stressing the importance of an education and meeting the standards of reason that an information economy relies upon for it's continued prosperity. Yet we have this fucked up anti-intellectual movement of nutters, religious apocalyptic end-timers, and conspiracy theorists who not only dissuade people from reason and education in favor of "easy answers" and bloated self-righteous egos (everyone is fucking Neo in those CT forums, I swear to FSM) - but a paranoid wacko-wing splintering off the conservative movement who insist that collage and educational institutions are just "liberal brainwashing factories".

I think an NWO is coming... but it's forming, like most things in our universe, from the bottom-up and cannot be stopped without... well... a different kind of NWO, and one that WILL necessarily and purposefully destroy our standard of living and social health. I don't see that happening, and for the same reason I don't see the current NWO progress as being controlled by some stupid shadowy cabal of moustasch twirling villains. And hell yes, those with the most resources are going to be using the weight of those resources to secure their place in the future of global politics and economics... and hell yes, they are going to pull some morally questionable shit. Why? Because they're not in control. Nobody is. They're just fighting for their place in an uncertain and changing world like everyone else, and the more resources at their disposal - the more influence they can have in shaping the emergent trend.

But I've noticed my views aren't very popular with conspiracy theorists... fundamentally, I think, because of the difference in perspective. Bottom-up organization vs. Top-Down. There's this sense that anything made by man is utterly and completely under mankind's control. We built it, after all, we know how it works right? Wrong... and ask any MMORPG developer how reliable their game economies are. Ask them how easy it is to predict to what extent an Attack Power tweak to a legendary weapon, the spawn rate of a rare mob, or a character stat modification will have on the game's economy. You can't.

In part, I wonder, if this is due to fact that paper-based economies are reliant on people's faith in the financial institution which presents a strong bias for appearing confident and in control. Although, I do feel that a large portion of the conspiracy movement is merely the cultural and social scars of a 20th century which saw the first half of it burning the world to ash in major global conflicts, and the second half of it cowering in fear of "the bomb" being dropped by powerful men in charge of powerful empires - and ever-present atmosphere of secrecy, suspicion, and paranoia. Fucking global PTSD, and even our children who were born after the fall of the Berlin Wall still pick up on this cultural movement which has been gaining momentum for the last 50 years and hit a brick wall in the 90's.


Oh, and by the way Jorick... about the Heisenberg quote in your signature, I think it was actually J.B.S. Haldane who said that.