quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I have never figured out how taking one's resources out of their area and moving them halfway around the world and then destroying them is supposed to "stimulate the economy."

In the late 1930s and through the 1940s the US Govt acted as the major consumer in a command economy and created enormous demand for the weapons of war. Auto factories were converted to make army tanks, etc. But it was a temporary circumstance and could not have lasted much longer I think. Fortunately, after WW II the predicted recession was delayed by demand for new houses by the returning troops who set about starting new families, and the Levittown suburb in Long Island, NY was the start of a new trend in communities. The children of those returning GIs were the babyboomers who came of college age in the 60s.

Frankly, all our wars since then have been too small to recreate the same kind of demand, not that i am advocating large, industrial warfare. Just sayin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

One world government will eventually evolve, at least for all practical purposes. There may be some nominal autonomy. It would hopefully be economically driven, since the global market optimizes the worlds resources. As the global market develops governance will become more and more global and ultimately lead to OWG.

Of course the alternative is OWG via conquest, and that can never be totally discounted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


Thank you.  But if I understand correctly, the stimulated economy (war economy) was kind of "false."  As it was the US Government being the major consumer instead of Joe and Jane Smith. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I have never figured out how taking one's resources out of their area and moving them halfway around the world and then destroying them is supposed to "stimulate the economy."

In the late 1930s and through the 1940s the US Govt acted as the major consumer in a command economy and created enormous demand for the weapons of war. Auto factories were converted to make army tanks, etc. But it was a temporary circumstance and could not have lasted much longer I think. Fortunately, after WW II the predicted recession was delayed by demand for new houses by the returning troops who set about starting new families, and the Levittown suburb in Long Island, NY was the start of a new trend in communities. The children of those returning GIs were the babyboomers who came of college age in the 60s.

Frankly, all our wars since then have been too small to recreate the same kind of demand, not that i am advocating large, industrial warfare. Just sayin.

Thank you.  But if I understand correctly, the stimulated economy (war economy) was kind of "false."  As it was the US Government being the major consumer instead of Joe and Jane Smith. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


Thank you.  But if I understand correctly, the stimulated economy (war economy) was kind of "false."  As it was the US Government being the major consumer instead of Joe and Jane Smith. 

Sorta yes and sorta no.

War as an economic plus in the short term is just an example of the broken window fallacy. You cant grow an economy by destroying things and diverting private production to government production.

Where war can lead to long term economic gain is via the technological developments that are developed on an acclerated and government subidized basis. As they find their way into the private economy they can then provide productivity enhancement or totally new products. Its similar to the private economy's gains as a result of the space race/NASA.

quote:

Conspiracy theorists generally speculate that the New World Order is being implemented gradually, citing the formation of the U.S. Federal Reserve System in 1913; the League of Nations in 1919; the International Monetary Fund in 1944; the United Nations in 1945; the World Bank in 1945; the World Health Organization in 1948; the European Union and the euro currency in 1993; the World Trade Organization in 1998; and the African Union in 2002 as major milestones.

quote:

Another point is that attempts at global government and global agreements have been categorical failures. The WTO’s Doha Round is dead in the water, Kyoto excluded many of the leading polluters and a conference to establish a deal was a failure, and there is a race to the bottom in terms of corporate taxes—rather than an existing global framework. And, where supranational governance structures exist, they are noted for their bureaucracy and inefficiency: The UN has been unable to stop an American-led invasion of Iraq, genocide in Darfur, the slow collapse of Zimbabwe, or Iran’s continued uranium enrichment. That is not to belittle the structure, as I deem it essential, but the system’s flaws are there for all to see.



While global agreements and structures have fallen by the wayside, regional and bilateral agreements are on the rise. China has been making the rounds in South America and Africa setting up deals for oil and raw materials to fuel its massive (now stuttering) economy. The U.S. has taken a similar tact, most recently trying to push through a deal with Colombia.



Many are postulating over what the world will look like in the decades ahead. Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass believes there will be a non-polar world; Fareed Zakaria posits that the U.S. is still the most powerful force in the world, though others are becoming wealthier and advanced—the rise of the rest. While I have problems with Haass’ thesis, both are founded on the relative decline of the U.S., which seems to be correct in the current light.

quote:

ORIGINAL: E3

I'm torn on the subject.

As we are now.. ALL governments are deeply entrenched in a "major religion in that area".  North America is based apon christianity, Arab states apon Islamic or Jewish faith etc.  IF there were a single world government, we would need to actualy create a brand new government, one totaly seperate from religion.  This begs the question, can religion be kept out of government, or would such an act squash religion?  (while I am pro government without religion, I am not for the squashing of religion, as while I might disagree with a particular religion here or there, it IS a cultural thing, part of what adds flavor to our species)

Right now, our system of many seperate governments might be broken, and the endless bickering between nations, cross border law disputes, economic sanctions etc prove this. BUT.  It is a broken system we have all spent time learning to live within. Some have learned to manipulate it.  Changing the system will meet opposition from EVERYONE, even if the system we change to, could improve things.  The old saying "The Devil you know".

IF trends continue in the world thanks to the present economic crisis (And Americans can claim its over ALL you want, laying off cops becuase of declining city budgets is NOT improving!), I do see more and more banks collapsing. And when economy collapses, so does the funding to protect society, and without protection, society itself, specificly organization, law, etc will collapse.  Such a total collapse would not be confined to small areas, as has occured in historic collapses of nations and empires.  It would begin small, but the nature of our world, despite its endless bickering, is in the end, all nations are tied together. If one country collapses due to its economy failing so totaly that its social structure fails, then it will cause a domino effect as it both drags other nations down, or as others scramble to safeguard themselves, and instead only make matters worse.  Such a total collapse would give birth to either SMALLER nations than are present in the world today (and one might argue these smaller nations are easier to manage), OR give rise to a true new world order.  One that begins the old fashioned empire building, a single city at a time.  Some politics here, some protection there, economic development on this side.. and outright conquering on the other.  A true modern dystopia.  Becuase such a rising government would view "personal freedom" as a risk and it would be waging war endlessly, with the lawless rogues outside its borders, and with elements within itself trying to restore lawlessness.

Once apon a time.. the USA had a chance to become the foundation for a world government.  It (thankfully) missed that chance. It does not have the ecnomic power to do such anymore.  It never had the political power to do such.  And militarily, its stretched too thin and while they have top quality equipment, their tactics are still backwards compared to many militaries in the world today.

Once apon a time, Russia had a chance to become the foundation of a world government.  The end of WW2, when they accepted peace instead. The cold war set in, and they learned a lesson ancient Rome had learned: peace is stagnation and decay for a nation.

England could have done it. Or France. They both commanded empires beyond parallel  in the world today.  BUT they lacked the technology at the time to truely solidify their holds.

No country today could do it. The UN will never do it.  It could only be achieved, if necessity made people accept it, by an entirely new entity  born of the very necessity calling for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pogo4pres

quote:

ORIGINAL: E3

I'm torn on the subject.

As we are now.. ALL governments are deeply entrenched in a "major religion in that area".  North America is based apon christianity, Arab states apon Islamic or Jewish faith etc.  IF there were a single world government, we would need to actualy create a brand new government, one totaly seperate from religion.  This begs the question, can religion be kept out of government, or would such an act squash religion?  (while I am pro government without religion, I am not for the squashing of religion, as while I might disagree with a particular religion here or there, it IS a cultural thing, part of what adds flavor to our species)

Right now, our system of many seperate governments might be broken, and the endless bickering between nations, cross border law disputes, economic sanctions etc prove this. BUT.  It is a broken system we have all spent time learning to live within. Some have learned to manipulate it.  Changing the system will meet opposition from EVERYONE, even if the system we change to, could improve things.  The old saying "The Devil you know".

IF trends continue in the world thanks to the present economic crisis (And Americans can claim its over ALL you want, laying off cops becuase of declining city budgets is NOT improving!), I do see more and more banks collapsing. And when economy collapses, so does the funding to protect society, and without protection, society itself, specificly organization, law, etc will collapse.  Such a total collapse would not be confined to small areas, as has occured in historic collapses of nations and empires.  It would begin small, but the nature of our world, despite its endless bickering, is in the end, all nations are tied together. If one country collapses due to its economy failing so totaly that its social structure fails, then it will cause a domino effect as it both drags other nations down, or as others scramble to safeguard themselves, and instead only make matters worse.  Such a total collapse would give birth to either SMALLER nations than are present in the world today (and one might argue these smaller nations are easier to manage), OR give rise to a true new world order.  One that begins the old fashioned empire building, a single city at a time.  Some politics here, some protection there, economic development on this side.. and outright conquering on the other.  A true modern dystopia.  Becuase such a rising government would view "personal freedom" as a risk and it would be waging war endlessly, with the lawless rogues outside its borders, and with elements within itself trying to restore lawlessness.

Once apon a time.. the USA had a chance to become the foundation for a world government.  It (thankfully) missed that chance. It does not have the ecnomic power to do such anymore.  It never had the political power to do such.  And militarily, its stretched too thin and while they have top quality equipment, their tactics are still backwards compared to many militaries in the world today.

Once apon a time, Russia had a chance to become the foundation of a world government.  The end of WW2, when they accepted peace instead. The cold war set in, and they learned a lesson ancient Rome had learned: peace is stagnation and decay for a nation.

England could have done it. Or France. They both commanded empires beyond parallel  in the world today.  BUT they lacked the technology at the time to truely solidify their holds.

No country today could do it. The UN will never do it.  It could only be achieved, if necessity made people accept it, by an entirely new entity  born of the very necessity calling for it.

No one caught the bolded part yet??? The United States, was founded not upon christianity but rather RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, in other words you are free to believe (and conversely not believe)  what you want.  Have we done this poor a job of teaching "civics" in our schools that there is STILL the thought of this being a "christian" nation.  This is what happens when "critical thinking" is no longer required in schools, jobs, politics, and let us face it, religion.  Our founders were NOT christians, they were DEISTS, and none other than Benjamin Franklin not only openly questioned the divinity of Jesus Christ, he QUESTIONED THE VERY EXISTENCE OF JESUS CHRIST.  Does that sound like a "christian" to you???   Finally I'll end this with a quick story about the late Mohandas K. Gandhi:

Once when the missionary E. Stanley Jones met with Gandhi he asked him, “Mr. Gandhi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?”...Gandhi replied, “Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ”

As another poster so eloquently puts it in his tag line:
"Jesus please save me from your followers"

quote:

ORIGINAL: ElectraGlide

As far as going to another planet, we would wreck it and tear it up like this one. Lets leave the rest of the planet's alone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

There is no unifying philosophy or force that are bringing the masses of people together. Humanity is too individualistic at this point in its development to find that one universal cause.

For a world government to actually happen, it would have to have the support of the masses. The people of the planet would have to want it, in one unifying voice. And it would not be the political or industrial elite that would be chosen to bring it about, but someone from the masses pushing for some sort of reform.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: ElectraGlide

As far as going to another planet, we would wreck it and tear it up like this one. Lets leave the rest of the planet's alone.

I feel the same way, but not to worry. We'll destroy our civilization long before we develop interstellar travel. I take an odd sort of comfort in that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

The Anti-Christ shall create a one world government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

The Anti-Christ shall create a one world government.

I disagree. It will be the messianic psychotic dictator who destroys more than half the world's population with a nuclear attack.

quote:

For over 2,000 years, apocalyptic millenarian Christian theologians and laymen have feared a globalist conspiracy as the fulfillment of prophecies about the "end time" in the Bible, specifically in the Book of Ezekiel, the Book of Daniel, the Olivet discourse found in the Synoptic Gospels, and the Book of Revelation. They assert that human and demonic agents of the Devil are involved in a primordial plot to deceive humanity into accepting a satanic world theocracy that has the Unholy Trinity—Satan, the Antichrist and the False Prophet—at the core of an imperial cult. In many contemporary Christian conspiracy theories, the False Prophet will either be the last pope of the Catholic Church (groomed and installed by an Alta Vendita or Jesuit conspiracy) or a guru from the New Age movement or even the leader of a fundamentalist Christian organization like The Fellowship, while the Antichrist will either be the president of the European Union or the secretary-general of the United Nations or even a supercomputer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

The Anti-Christ shall create a one world government.

I disagree. It will be the messianic psychotic dictator who destroys more than half the world's population with a nuclear attack.

Ah, figured someone would bring up the "end times" scenerio of the far religious right.

quote:

For over 2,000 years, apocalyptic millenarian Christian theologians and laymen have feared a globalist conspiracy as the fulfillment of prophecies about the "end time" in the Bible, specifically in the Book of Ezekiel, the Book of Daniel, the Olivet discourse found in the Synoptic Gospels, and the Book of Revelation. They assert that human and demonic agents of the Devil are involved in a primordial plot to deceive humanity into accepting a satanic world theocracy that has the Unholy Trinity—Satan, the Antichrist and the False Prophet—at the core of an imperial cult. In many contemporary Christian conspiracy theories, the False Prophet will either be the last pope of the Catholic Church (groomed and installed by an Alta Vendita or Jesuit conspiracy) or a guru from the New Age movement or even the leader of a fundamentalist Christian organization like The Fellowship, while the Antichrist will either be the president of the European Union or the secretary-general of the United Nations or even a supercomputer.

source

The problem is one messianic figure that can unify all faiths. That would take some heavy talking to even get the various religions to listen long enough to come to an agreement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight


But that's all poppycock. It's not people *or* technology I fear; it's people + technology. Hitler's pride and greed was his weapon, and also his downfall; give him nuclear energy and it would have been way worse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight


But that's all poppycock. It's not people *or* technology I fear; it's people + technology. Hitler's pride and greed was his weapon, and also his downfall; give him nuclear energy and it would have been way worse.

It is technology that has made a OWG even possible. It would take a very persuasive group of people to use that technology to unite the masses in a single mind for a world government to come to fruition.

While, on the other hand, the proliferation of nuclear technology continues, one world leader could conceivably start a world nuclear war, thus leaving the survivors to pick up the pieces of what is left.

quote:

ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight


But that's all poppycock. It's not people *or* technology I fear; it's people + technology. Hitler's pride and greed was his weapon, and also his downfall; give him nuclear energy and it would have been way worse.

It is technology that has made a OWG even possible. It would take a very persuasive group of people to use that technology to unite the masses in a single mind for a world government to come to fruition.

While, on the other hand, the proliferation of nuclear technology continues, one world leader could conceivably start a world nuclear war, thus leaving the survivors to pick up the pieces of what is left.

..and, to then left vulnerable to a smaller-scale NWO as people in their panic and desperation could be taken over more readily.


Although, I *do* believe the Zombie Apocalypse is more likely..

quote:

Freemasonry

Anti-Masonic conspiracy theorists believe that "high-ranking" Freemasons are involved in conspiracies to create an occult New World Order. They claim that some of the Founding Fathers of the United States, such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, had Masonic symbolism interwoven into American society, particularly in the Great Seal of the United States, the United States one-dollar bill, the architecture of National Mall landmarks, and the streets and highways of Washington, D.C.. Conspiracy theorists speculate that Freemasons did this in order to bind their planning of a government in conformity with the luciferian plan of the Great Architect of the Universe whom, they are said to believe, has tasked the United States with the eventual establishment of the "Kingdom of God on Earth" in the form of an hermetic world theocracy, and the building of the Third Temple in New Jerusalem as its holiest site.

quote:

Illuminati

The Order of the Illuminati was an Enlightenment-age secret society founded on 1 May 1776, in Ingolstadt (Upper Bavaria), by Adam Weishaupt, who was the first lay professor of canon law at the University of Ingolstadt. The movement consisted of freethinkers, secularists, liberals, republicans and pro-feminists, recruited in the Masonic Lodges of Germany, who sought to promote perfectionism through mystery schools. In 1785, the order was infiltrated, broken up and suppressed by the government agents of Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria, in his campaign to neutralize the threat of secret societies ever becoming hotbeds of conspiracies to overthrow the Bavarian monarchy and its state religion, Roman Catholicism.

quote:

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an antisemitic canard, originally published in Russian in 1903, alleging a Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy to achieve world domination. The text purports to be the minutes of the secret meetings of a cabal of Jewish masterminds, which has coopted Freemasonry and is plotting to rule the world on behalf of all Jews because they believe themselves to be the chosen people of God. The Protocols incorporate many of the core conspiracist themes outlined in the Robison and Barruel attacks on the Freemasons, and overlay them with antisemitic allegations about anti-Tsarist movements in Russia. The Protocols reflect themes similar to more general critiques of Enlightenment liberalism by conservatives who support monarchies and state religions. The interpretation intended by the publication of The Protocols is that if one peels away the layers of the Masonic conspiracy, past the Illuminati, one finds the rotten Jewish core.

quote:

English-born South African businessman, mining magnate, and politician Cecil Rhodes advocated the British Empire reannexing the United States of America and reforming itself into an "Imperial Federation" to bring about a hyperpower and lasting world peace. In his first will, of 1877, written at the age of 23, he expressed his wish to fund a secret society (known as the Society of the Elect) that would advance this goal.

quote:

Fourth Reich

Conspiracy theorists often use the term "Fourth Reich" simply as a pejorative synonym for the "New World Order" to imply that its state ideology and government will be similar to Germany's Third Reich. However, some conspiracy theorists take the research findings of American journalist Edwin Black, author of the 2009 book Nazi Nexus, to claim that some American corporations and philanthropic foundations—whose complicity was pivotal to the Third Reich's war effort, Nazi eugenics and the Holocaust—are now conspiring to build a Fourth Reich.