Would a global government and a New World Order be a bad thing?

theres no way that a global government could be existant for more than ide say 6 months... how are you going to pacify the world from Revolution? Revolution is constant in every country, but its speed is different... 'every nation ever built has been destroyed'... all it takes is time... and the world is not collectively as ignorant as America... so the fascist tactics Bush has taken to ensure support from the ignorant majority, will not work against the rest of the world... (the rest of the world hasnt been sheltered from the facts of what Hitler did to maintain control of his populace in Nazi Germany... if americans knew about the ways hitler ran things, theyd see a direct correlation between his tactics and George Bush's...)

You cant pacify the world... 1 month later after a global government is established there will be a country who claims independence... the only thing that could really keep the world locked in a fascist global government is a huge military force... and if people would stop JOINING the military force, the government itself would collapse...
Just like in america...
you people protest 'war' all the time but when it comes to the army which ensures war is possible, you are more than happy to suck their cock... if these stupid rednecks and poor people would simply stop joining the armed forces, there is no way War would be possible... what we need to do to stop war, is to raise awareness and encourage the populace NOT to join the military... without the military, war is not possible... look at canadas military... they have maybe 1 or 2 guys... your never going to see them invade a third world country and rape them for its resources... NEVER... only a huge fascist police state like america can do that.


Global government = not possible, but often tried for by people like Hitler, George Bush, Stalin, Ronald Reagan.

 

The only realistic way of ending war peacefully:

There are only 2 ways to end war. Protesting and writing to your congressmen are not in this list... the government and ruling elites could care less about protests -- that is why you are free to protest... essentially protesting does nothing.

The first way to end war, which will not happen, is a violent militant revolution... now as you can see, you guys probably wouldnt support this method because it means further destruction... essentially its war to end war... and that does not seem very welll liked or fathomable... in fact its very hypocritical...

but the only REAL way to ever bring about an end to war is this..
You have to stop supporting the troops... you have to get past the facade the government puts out about the troops... you have to realize that these people are pawns of the state, and without them war is not possible... the ruling class would never pick up guns and fight their own war, never... they always use other people... the only way to end war is to get past the government propaganda of how we "Gotta support the troops!" and the romantic view of troops that is still existant to this day... so many people look at our troops as the "Great Protectorates" and as "great heroes" --- This couldnt be further from the truth... Murder is not heroic... our troops are not defending us, they are attacking others... and that is clear to see...

So many of you like to have the idea in your head that you are not supporting war... You like to think that your so big n tuff being against governments and war... and how your doing so much to help the world... but at the same time, you are little whores for the Soldiers of America.... how can you be against war, but desperately support the only outlet war has of ever being successful?
If you claim to be against war and are adament about supporting the troops, you are a hypocrite. No troops = No War. Get that through your head... only when we stop picking up guns for the Ruling class can we ever really see an end to war... but I think a lot of you arent here to REALLY put an end to war... your just here to fit in with the rest of the crowd... maybe pick up chicks for being 'peaceful'

Only until troops are seen for what they are -- murderers, warmongers, and soldiers of the State who only serve the ruling rich -- can we ever truly see an end to war... otherwise we are bound to have more and more wars... Soldiers are not protecting us, they are killing others, and inflaming the hatred the world has for us by killing others, which will eventually lead to more war, destruction, and murder.

Get it through your head, if you support the troops, you support war.

 

Bump

 

I think you nailed it with that one question.

A single source from which power is exercised and imposed upon everyone.
The term democracy becomes meaningless when the only function is serves is in allowing the people to choose between the 'lessor evil' who will rule them, allowing no exit. Democracy and government only serves the people when applied on a small scale, where those elected are easily accessable and able to be held accountable for their actions.

Democracy and majority rule works well when you are able to seek refuge to where you are a member of the majority. Centralization of government powers gradually reduces and perhaps eventually would/will eliminate the freedoms and liberty of individuals by an even smaller number of people than which we are allowing to currently impose upon us.

 

Conquered resources and slave labor are a balanced part of this nutritious breakfast.

 

Funny, All supporters of this global oligarchy are either canadian or a brit subject. Americans would not welcome such an abomination. We fought for God given rights. Nationalism being one of them. The goal of NWO is to take from the productive and redistribute to the non-productive. The only Americans taken in by this would be democrats.

 

When I hear NWO I immediately think of republicans and George Bush senior, and waging wars for oil.

Nothing defines the word oligarchy better than the current American republican party.

 

Is the NWO/OWG a bad thing?


Yes- and here's why...

 

I just love it when the queen's subjects criticize jr. Finding it amusing why the despot still remains on their currency.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CWBTL33MpA"]Proof of NWO from George Bush SR New World Order - YouTube

"We have a real chance at this new world order. An order in which a credible united nations can use it's peace keeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's founders"
- George Bush Senior


And then a decade later, George W. found out the UN was NOT in the NWO's pocket.

 

BS! Look at my post above. 65 wars the UN failed to stop, or halt or seek peace. They are not peaceful people, they just want the power.

 

^ That's exactly what a NWO republican would say.
deny and deflect, deny and deflect...

 

First of all- I'm not a republican, nor democrat. I'm not brainwashed by the stage lights and propaganda. I'm a Libertarian and I believe in a non violent, voluntary society.


"Society is produce by our wants, and government by our wickedness."

You are a violence sympathizer

 

Pffft,

You call strait up facts from history BS.
You wouldn't know the truth if it was shitting on your face!

 

I said BS cause Bush is in cahoots with the NWO like it or not.


I know you liberals like to think the UN "wants peace," but their track record of violence says otherwise.

 

So in your belief in this NWO, do you buy into the whole one world currency part of that as well?

Yeah, because avoiding a certain label like a Republican or Democrat protects one from propaganda.

More like, you are attracted to different tune of propaganda, but propaganda none the less. (Hence all those youtube clips that are just snippets of actual speeches taken out of context, probably spliced by some random person from a personal computer, loaded onto youtube to get major hits so they can some $ to pay the bills, which is actually pretty clever in these economic times)

A much more rational answer to that is because the UN procrastinates like the dickens and the members of the security council are not always on the same page, so much for a one world government.

 

"Little" people seek power in little places. "Big"people seek power in big places. The world is a big place. The transition from local power acquisition to worldwide power acquisition is proceeding apace by the "big" people. It's been ever thus. There eventually will be a one world government, but it will serve only those who run and protect it. Too much diversity of opinion/intent among the little people to stop the big people. They've positioned us almost where they want us. The media, the money, the decisions--they have them all. What do we have? Go shopping.

 

Why wouldn't I? The dollar is bound to crash due to inflation, and Americas leaders will never go back to REAL money (Gold, Silver.) Plus the IMF is working on a Global Currency.

You're totally making this up to make me look less credible. I try very hard not to post videos that are how you mentioned. My beliefs are not propaganda- Government is propaganda. It's not the labels that make Dems/Cons bad people; but their support for government violence.

Oh so they just procrastinated in stopping an Iraq war? Or they procrastinated saying "No" to Obama when THEY bombed and killed an innocent person in our name!

This is what he said just a few short months before Obama and the UN decided he was a "brutal regime"

​

 

I was gonna comment just based on the title but then I saw this thread is like 8-9 years old so nevermind...

 

But there have been those who seek to rule the world for much longer than that.
In my opinion, the power of government is what people are willing to allow to be exercised over them relative to their security and their freedom. While neither can be had without giving up some portion of the other, it is much easier to make people feel less secure than it is to make them less free. Therefore the loss of freedom can be achieved very gradually while appearing to achieve greater security, greatly increasing the powers held by government while reducing that of the people over it. In a democracy, the people have little say except 'who' among the choices provided them will be allowed to exercise the powers held by government over them. The laws, made flexible enough to allow/require interpretation, are interpreted not by the people but by those who govern, and in the case of the U.S. we have become not as written by John Adams in 1774, "A government of laws and not of men.", but instead "A government of laws interpreted by men in ways that achieve their desired agenda."

Recognize as fact that freedom exists only when people are at liberty to make choices. Considering the fact that there appears to be no one government attracting people to mimic, why would anyone think that creating a centralized 'global government' be an improvement over what exists currently? Who would benefit the most, the the governed or those who govern?