New World Order not a conspiracy theory after all

UPDATE: New word on a "global society".

Can those of you who think this a lunacy to talk about, please tell me why they keep mentioning this?

 

I just fail to see what's wrong with it myself.

If we are going to truly advance beyond earth as a species you do realize we'll eventually have to let go of this "every country for itself" divisive thinking don't you?

Or, on a scarier scenario, if we are ever invaded by a threat from another galaxy, dimension, whatever.... who do you think would fight them? America alone?

 

It would be like Independence Day where everyone came together. And if it is revealed that the invasion force from another galaxy or dimension is working together with the NWO, nate will end up being vindicated like Randy Quaid's drunken crop-dusting alien abductee character.




Take this you NWO bastards!

 

I am all for a one world government, as long as I get to pick the government

 

Browntwn, stOx, others.. would you like to argue against GeorgeB's point or are you content with this logic?

 

I do not agree with his thinking at all.

 

Thank you. Now you see there are people who already believe a NWO is a good thing and would welcome it with open arms.

 

Can you be more specific than that?

As fast as we are trashing this planet the likelihood that we'll have to one day leave it increases. How should the human race accomplish that?

 

I have a great love for my fellow citizens. That love comes from a shared history.

However, there is nothing primordial, or inevitable about the nation-state itself, much less our particular nation-state. Nation states as political-economic entities are entirely imagined communities, mythic in their construction and entirely without reality outside of what we imagine them to be. Over the entirety of human existence, in our modern form, hundreds of thousands of years, nation-states have been around for about 225 years, give or take a decade or so. That's it.

Should the human need for larger aggregations (or smaller aggregations) arise , they will arise, and no clinging to some mythic notion of the "primordial nation" will change that. I personally think it is inevitable that the nation-state as an entity on the historical stage will one day be a thing of the past.

 

Assuming it worked like Roddenberry's utopian United Federation of Planets, I'm in.

 

And what then will guarantee our rights? We know from history if we let kings make the decisions there are few rights for the peasants.

 

Why do the NWO conspiracy evangelists always want to use the "king" fear keyword?

Is it not possible within your thinking that a global government could simply be made in the likeness of our own democracy here in America brought to a higher scale?

 

"King" is used as much as any other word by myself and others alike. America is not a democracy, it's a Constitutional republic.

Why do we need to bring everyone under one roof, aliens?

 

No not just the possibility of life out there besides ours. Though one could argue there is a good enough possibility that we should (and do) take it seriously.

But the truth of the matter is as we explore further and further out into space away from our home as a race. The idea that we should let our fixation with the nation state keep us from coming together as one is tough for me to understand.

And I disagree... America is the very definition of a democracy AND a constitutional republic.

 

Why exactly do we have to have one government to be one as a species? There will be divisiveness among us for as long as we're around. You think government divides? What about religion, I hope you're ready to unite that under one as well. Unite all sports teams under one. Unite anything that may cause conflict, it is unfeasible.

If you're open-minded enough to believe in life outside Earth, you should do yourself a favor and watch John Lear. Your first positive reaction on the NWO was surprisingly similar to what he foresaw might happen.

 

Nate - imagine yourself in Ancient Greece. Every fibre of your patriotic being went to complete allegiance to Athens, or Sparta, and both considered the other completely, literally "foreign." Or, shoot to 1858, in Italy, or, rather, the kingships that made up the land mass that is now Italy.

For either to conceive of a unified "nation-state," when "nation" is entirely an imagined word, would have been unheard of. Utterly. Men killed each other over such notions of "city-state," or "Lombardy," "Sardinia," "Tuscany" or "Modena" patriotism.

Yet these morphed into unified nation-states sometime over the last 200 years - only the last 200 years, across 100's of 1000's of years of modern human life. As hard as it is to imagine - what we have today, a global system of nation-states, is completely fabricated; there is nothing intrinsic to the construct that makes it immutable, or inevitable.

 

America is approximately 6% of the world's population, will our laws someday cover the other 94% or will we adopt new laws that undermine the current ones? Are you willing to abandon what we have now just to avoid divisiveness?

We COULD just adopt a better foreign policy, considering America starts or has something to do with nearly every war.

 

Hail the New World Order! Bring forth the one-world government, the one-world currency, the one-world law system, and the one-world leader!

The New World Order is essential for the future prosperity of man. Without union, we can expect nothing but war and financial uncertainty!

 

Nate, not sure if this was a question put to me, but if so, my answer would be that it isn't something like a "choice," as in a vote, etc. If you'll think on the example I gave, and George has given, these were impelled by underlying considerations - the "idea" of nation-state is something only validating the underlying structural forces at play. This is why we create myths surrounding the notion - impute some kind of primordial "inevitability" to something only brought into existence over the last couple hundred years.

A lot of times, it is precisely what George has mentioned - some kind of outside threat that coalesces interests together to meet that threat. I've mentioned Alfred the Great of England (late 9th Century), as maker of a kind of proto-nationalism, in forging an early notion of "Englishness" against the Norse invaders. It has happened since man first crawled from the primordial swamp, to become conscious man.

We aggregate as we do because of underlying need. Once the need changes, or the ability of the system to meet that need changes, the system changes. Again - think on the ancient city-states of Greece, who felt their existence was just as primordially inevitable as we in the modern world think of nation-states.

The nation-state is very new, and very ephemeral. It will pass into history.

 

This is why I believe a NWO is not a ridiculous conspiracy theory. People already want it. Now I'd be happy if some of the people on the first page would admit I was right on that fact..

I see your point but don't see the underlying need for it at the moment.