Chorus call for New World Order

Discussion in 'Conspiracy' started by Pressed_Rat, Jan 12, 2009.

  1. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    I think this should be in Conspiracy…but lets play for a bit.

    *

    Rat


    The problem is that apart from all the conspiracy theory running around in circles waving your hands in the air and the shrill hysterics you haven’t actually put up any rational or reasonable arguments against some degree of democratically elected world government.


    Several threads have been opened on the subject and all you ever seem to do is go ‘BOO’ (that is recite the same old conspiracy theory bogy stories) and then run away.


    Here are some examples-

    Would a global government and a New World Order be a bad thing?
    http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=75062

    Do the elite crave or fear a global government?
    http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=186916&f=36
     
  2. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    The problem is that a ‘new world order’ occurs every few years anyone that studies history knows that.


    I mean pick a time period look at the systems, power structures and balances of power around at that time then look at things a hundred years on and invariably there is a difference, there is a ‘new world order’.


    The question is who shapes the new ordering of things.


    If people just sit around and do nothing (as people like Rat invariably want them to do) then others will shape the future.


    Wealth already works globally and has become adept at pitting one national governments policies against another’s - to shape tax policies that favour them for example, so that you get the ludicrous situation were billionaire’s pays less tax than the clear of their offices who’s only on minimum wage.


    Only if there are international rules will wealth be brought to heal and I’d prefer it if that was done under democratic direction.


    **
     
  3. gardener

    gardener Realistic Humanist

    Messages:
    10,027
    Likes Received:
    2
    The chorus may sing about a New World order, but they have to have an audience that will listen to them, and lift up their arms in praise and agreement. And while Israel wages war on caged Arabs in the middle east, Darfur attrocities, and the US is in a depression according to GW, then I don't think they will find a willing audience. Too many people still blame illegal aliens for their loss of jobs. Hard to paint the world as a single global economy and give up your national rights when all that is going on.

    They may have to look forward, to the next 22nd century for the culmination of their agenda. And if they wish to pull it off then, then they should be better prepared to deal with national calamities like Katrina, before they tell us their agenda can work for the world. If it can't work in a single country it can't work in the world.

    And if they wish to wage war based on WMD in a country that has been isolated for years, then their intelligence should be accurate enough that there are actually WMD, after the invading country takes control. If not it indicates a certain misguided trust in an obsolete thinking. Are those the people we should put our trust in to form a one world government? I think not.
     
  4. Aristartle

    Aristartle Snow Falling on Cedars Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    13,828
    Likes Received:
    14
    What I don't understand is the presented futility of it all.

    If a New World Order is on the horizon, why aren't people stirring up national unity and federal patriotic movements?

    Like, the message I always get from these articles are to act individually, to think individually, and to continue campaigning individually, but to protect and defend nothing. It's unclear what people should be getting behind and defending.
     
  5. hippiehillbilly

    hippiehillbilly the old asshole

    Messages:
    19,251
    Likes Received:
    9
    The chance for a new world order


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
    By Henry A. Kissinger

    As the new U.S. administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy.


    That opportunity involves a seeming contradiction. On one level, the financial collapse represents a major blow to the standing of the United States. While American political judgments have often proved controversial, the American prescription for a world financial order has generally been unchallenged. Now disillusionment with the United States' management of it is widespread.


    At the same time, the magnitude of the debacle makes it impossible for the rest of the world to shelter any longer behind American predominance or American failings.


    Every country will have to reassess its own contribution to the prevailing crisis. Each will seek to make itself independent, to the greatest possible degree, of the conditions that produced the collapse; at the same time, each will be obliged to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered only by common action.


    Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled.


    The nadir of the existing international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made globally accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos.


    The financial and political crises are, in fact, closely related partly because, during the period of economic exuberance, a gap had opened up between the economic and the political organization of the world.


    The economic world has been globalized. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market.
    The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend.

    Inevitably, when the affected publics turned to their national political institutions, these were driven principally by domestic politics, not considerations of world order.


    Every major country has attempted to solve its immediate problems essentially on its own and to defer common action to a later, less crisis-driven point. So-called rescue packages have emerged on a piecemeal national basis, generally by substituting seemingly unlimited governmental credit for the domestic credit that produced the debacle in the first place - so far without more than stemming incipient panic.


    International order will not come about either in the political or economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves.


    In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonized in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units.


    A new Bretton Woods-kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome. America's role in this enterprise will be decisive. Paradoxically, American influence will be great in proportion to the modesty in our conduct; we need to modify the righteousness that has characterized too many American attitudes, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
    That seminal event and the subsequent period of nearly uninterrupted global growth induced too many to equate world order with the acceptance of American designs, including our domestic preferences.


    The result was a certain inherent unilateralism - the standard complaint of European critics - or else an insistent kind of consultation by which nations were invited to prove their fitness to enter the international system by conforming to American prescriptions.


    Not since the inauguration of President John F. Kennedy half a century ago has a new administration come into office with such a reservoir of expectations. It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United States.


    The extraordinary impact of the president-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy.


    The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a common strategy reinforced by the realization that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.


    The new administration could make no worse mistake than to rest on its initial popularity. The cooperative mood of the moment needs to be channeled into a grand strategy going beyond the controversies of the recent past.


    The charge of American unilateralism has some basis in fact; it also has become an alibi for a key European difference with America: that the United States still conducts itself as a national state capable of asking its people for sacrifices for the sake of the future, while Europe, suspended between abandoning its national framework and a yet-to-be-reached political substitute, finds it much harder to defer present benefits.


    Hence its concentration on soft power. Most Atlantic controversies have been substantive and only marginally procedural; there would have been conflict no matter how intense the consultation. The Atlantic partnership will depend much more on common policies than agreed procedures.


    The role of China in a new world order is equally crucial. A relationship that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the international system.


    China made possible the American consumption splurge by buying American debt; America helped the modernization and reform of the Chinese economy by opening its markets to Chinese goods.


    Both sides overestimated the durability of this arrangement. But while it lasted, it sustained unprecedented global growth. It mitigated as well the concerns over China's role once China emerged in full force as a fellow superpower. A consensus had developed according to which adversarial relations between these pillars of the international system would destroy much that had been achieved and benefit no one. That conviction needs to be preserved and reinforced.


    Each side of the Pacific needs the cooperation of the other in addressing the consequences of the financial crisis. Now that the global financial collapse has devastated Chinese export markets, China is emphasizing infrastructure development and domestic consumption.


    It will not be easy to shift gears rapidly, and the Chinese growth rate may fall temporarily below the 7.5 percent that Chinese experts have always defined as the line that challenges political stability. America needs Chinese cooperation to address its current account imbalance and to prevent its exploding deficits from sparking a devastating inflation.


    What kind of global economic order arises will depend importantly on how China and America deal with each other over the next few years. A frustrated China may take another look at an exclusive regional Asian structure, for which the nucleus already exists in the Asean-plus-three concept.


    At the same time, if protectionism grows in America or if China comes to be seen as a long-term adversary, a self-fulfilling prophecy may blight the prospects of global order.


    Such a return to mercantilism and 19th-century diplomacy would divide the world into competing regional units with dangerous long-term consequences.


    The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level. The current crisis can be overcome only by developing a sense of common purpose. Such issues as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, energy and the environment demand strengthened political ties between China and the United States.


    This generation of leaders has the opportunity to shape trans-Pacific relations into a design for a common destiny, much as was done with trans-Atlantic relations in the immediate postwar period - except that the challenges now are more political and economic than military.


    Such a vision must embrace as well such countries as Japan, Korea, India, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand, whether as part of trans-Pacific structures or, in regional arrangements, dealing with special subjects as energy, proliferation and the environment.


    The complexity of the emerging world requires from America a more historical approach than the insistence that every problem has a final solution expressible in programs with specific time limits not infrequently geared to our political process.


    We must learn to operate within the attainable and be prepared to pursue ultimate ends by the accumulation of nuance.


    An international order can be permanent only if its participants have a share not only in building but also in securing it. In this manner, America and its potential partners have a unique opportunity to transform a moment of crisis into a vision of hope.

    Published: January 12, 2009
    [​IMG]



    Henry A. Kissinger served as national security adviser and as secretary of state in the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Distributed by Tribune Media Services.
     
  6. Aristartle

    Aristartle Snow Falling on Cedars Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    13,828
    Likes Received:
    14
    Honestly, most of that stuff sounds like unibomber manifestos.

    That's one person's opinion, a monologue. It doesn't even have any facts in it. Just implications and dribble.
     
  7. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    First up I’m not a fan of Henry in fact I think would like to see him put on trial for war crimes for his involvement in Cambodia and Chile.

    But let’s look at the words – now I’m presuming the text in bold is you so let’s concentrate on them.



    In other words without international agreements overseen by international institutions nations are more likely to use force to gain scare resources.

    This seems like a no-brainer and has been promoted by a wide spectrum of political viewpoints (although not by right wing nationalists).

    Are you saying that you agree with the Bush Admin’s invasion and occupation of Iraq which was in part (some say wholly) about securing a resource (oil) for it’s own national interests?

    **

    Henry seems more concerned with ‘order’ but other people have made the same point about justice, social justice.

    As I point out above – “Wealth already works globally and has become adept at pitting one national governments policies against another’s - to shape tax policies that favour them for example, so that you get the ludicrous situation were billionaire’s pays less tax than the clear of their offices who’s only on minimum wage. Only if there are international rules will wealth be brought to heal and I’d prefer it if that was done under democratic direction.”

    Are you saying that you prefer the wealthy elite to bypass their social responsibilities you think they should pay less tax than a cleaner?

    **




    In other worlds global problems are better dealt with globally.

    Do you believe short-term national interests out-weigh the long term future of the planet?

    So you agree that the Bush Admin was right when it ignored the Kyoto agreement and all the global warming evidence?

    **



    Go and study the histories of the 19th century empires (especially the British) they are not very pretty.

    If you are saying that you would prefer to return to such a world then you seem to be saying you like empirical wars, gun boat diplomacy, and the exploitation of the poor.

    **



    So what are you trying to say?

    Other than this was written by Henry Kissinger what is wrong with this passage?

    That you think international agreements should favour the strong rather than being equal?

    That America’s national interests should out-weigh global interests?

    **

    Henry seems to be coming at this from the conservative direction of ‘law and order’ I see it more in terms of social justice.

    I want a stable world, one with fewer conflicts one that works in the best long term interests of the planet and its entire people.

    **
     
  8. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672

    Once again I’d really like to know what alternative is desired.

    As I’ve said things change and if you allow wealth to shape the future they will shape it in their own interests.

    I mean there are all these shill voices and frantic hand waving but what do the nay sayer’s actually want, we know they don’t want any type of global institutions or seemingly any global treaties or agreements, but the question still remains what do they want?

     
  9. hippiehillbilly

    hippiehillbilly the old asshole

    Messages:
    19,251
    Likes Received:
    9
    being that im one of those constitutionalist/libertarians(therefore you already know what i want) that you loathe so much ill make one comment on my beliefs and leave it at that because i see no reason to try and justify my beliefs to someone who obviously has a personal disdain for people who feel the way i do..

    anytime a person or group calls for a "international political regulatory system" i see it as a direct threat to our sovereignty as a nation. it does indeed imply exactly what rat has been warning of and i personally find it very disturbing.

    i really dont expect you to grasp that as your political ideology is obviously on the opposite end of the spectrum as mine and that is fine. i do however feel this validates rats O.P., thus that is the reason i posted it.

    have a nice day.. :)
     
  10. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672

    Oh I don’t loath them it’s just that so many of the right wing libertarians I’ve met either don’t know what they’re talking about and don’t seem able to defend it against criticism, and many, I’m afraid to say, seem to try and wheedle their way out of debate by using conspiracy theory.

    *

    I mean hippiehillbilly look at your own reply –



    No I don’t, I might know the general right wing libertarian line, but I’m not sure what your take is on it.

    This just seems like you wish to dodge the question and run away form any possibility of debate.

    *



    Again this seems like a dodge, what you seem to be saying is I can’t justify my point of view against those that might see things differently or have criticisms of it.

    But even though you are refusing to discuss your view (or can’t) that doesn’t seem to stop you pushing them.

    I have my own views if people don’t like them I’ll try my best to explain them and if needs be defend them.

    You don’t seem willing or able to do either.


    *



    That is a viewpoint but I’m asking if you can explain or defend your views and the answer seem to be a very big NO.

    *



    You mean the whole Lucifer worshipping conspiracy theory? Again this is my problem here, it seems to me if you had valid arguments you’d come out with them but instead you refuse to or hide behind the veils of conspiracy theory.

    *



    I don’t grasp why you seem to hold some ideas that you seem unable to explain or defend.

    It wouldn’t matter where someone was on the political spectrum I’d still find it strange if they refused to debate idea they clearly want to push.

    I wonder what their motives – do they truly do believe the things they claim are they just followers that don’t think independently or do know their ideas can’t hold up to scrutiny.

    *



    And you seem totally incapable of explaining why.


    **
     
  11. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672

    So I’m still no the wiser and again I’m left wondering what alternative is desired.

    As I’ve said things change and if you allow wealth to shape the future it will shape it in their own interests not those of the people or planet.

    It seems hippiehillbilly is happy for that to happen.

    And he defends that view not by rational argument (because he refuses to have any debate) but with fear mongering rhetoric about the loss of US power and hints at conspiracy.

    So not a question gets answered and little to no insight is given.
     
  12. hippiehillbilly

    hippiehillbilly the old asshole

    Messages:
    19,251
    Likes Received:
    9
  13. hippiehillbilly

    hippiehillbilly the old asshole

    Messages:
    19,251
    Likes Received:
    9
    if you cant connect the dots on your own there is absolutely NOTHING i can say or do to connect them for you..therefore why should i waste my time trying?
     
  14. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Sovereignty – dominion, power, control


    And the nation was a presume the US


    You said -


    So that would mean – a threat to the power, dominance or control of the US


    If you didn’t mean that, what did you mean?


    As to the links neither mentioned the sovereignty of the nation so why did you post them?


    It just seems like a misdirection to get out of having to explain something yourself because you are unwilling or unable to do so.


    **





    Well as I’ve shown just above the dots you do give don’t seem to add up to a coherent picture.


    Maybe you’d be better off giving real answers to questions rather than hints and asides.


    Because once again this just seems like another attempt to get out of explaining your own viewpoint.
     
  15. hippiehillbilly

    hippiehillbilly the old asshole

    Messages:
    19,251
    Likes Received:
    9
    thats the most half assed attempt at twisting the definition i have ever seen..
    just leave out half of it,no one will ever know.. :rolleyes:

    was that your plan?? lol..

    Sovereignty is the exclusive right to control a government, a country, a people, or oneself. A Sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority.

    2 a: supreme power especially over a body politic b: freedom from external control : autonomy c: controlling influence3: one that is sovereign ; especially : an autonomous state



    notice their are a lot of A's in there,i dont see any plurality whatsoever as you implied..;)

    i see no reason to go any further with this when you cant even comprehend what the meaning of sovereignty is without me spelling it out..

    i unlike many on here dont have the tolerance nor typing abilities to have to spell everything i type out as if i were typing it to a 10 year old to get my point across..

    its difficult enough for me to type my thoughts out as it is without having to do that..

    i apologize if i havent fully answered your questions but i fear to do so with my hen pecking typing abilities would take me far longer than i feel your worth..
    call it a cop out if you want,i really dont care..
    now if youll excuse me,i have wood to split ..
     
  16. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Messages:
    33,922
    Likes Received:
    2,461
    Um, Henry Kissinger wrote that (what hippiehillbilly posted). Do you even know who he is?



     
  17. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Messages:
    33,922
    Likes Received:
    2,461

    Because of the MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, CFR-CONTROLLED MASS MEDIA MACHINE, which doesn't give people the news but tells them what to believe and what to parrot. The media works to create division with the left/right paradigm and the belief that "well, if we just vote the right person into office then everything will be good again." Well, that is a well-proven sham to anyone who is even remotely awake. The system does not work for the people.

    People are waking up, yes. But not in the numbers that are needed to expose those who need to be exposed.

    What is a federal patriotic movement? The whole notion of patriotism is a bit of a joke, but you would think a person that considers themselves patriotic would be against, not in favor of, federalism. Federalism equates to centralization, not decentralization.

    And there is a so-called "patriot" movement, but what we really need is a movement of people who are fed up and understand how the system works... people who realize that democracy is an illusion and that you cannot affect change through the system, but only outside of the system. How can you bring about change through something that is totally corrupt? You can't!

    There are plenty of opposition movements, but most of them are controlled. So it's not even about movements, but rather a mass realization, which I have to say seems quite unlikely at this point. Most people just don't have working minds anymore.
     
  18. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Messages:
    33,922
    Likes Received:
    2,461
    He likes to make shit up to fit his argument. I think he has some mental issues.
     
  19. Aristartle

    Aristartle Snow Falling on Cedars Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    13,828
    Likes Received:
    14
    My eyes are burning. I'll post later.
     
  20. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672


    Hippiehillbilly





    Well the first line seems to be from Wikipedia and the second from merriam-webster.com – it seems you had to do some work to find the bits you wanted.

    But all it does is reiterate exactly what I said –

    Sovereignty “is the exclusive right to control”

    The “supreme power”

    It is about dominion or “controlling influence”

    In other words it is about control, power and dominion.

    So please answer the question, don’t try and misdirect by posting selective quote (that ironically back me up anyway)

    **



    As I implied – what are you on about?

    And you clearly didn’t give this much thought before you posted? I mean apart from it making little sense in the context of what you said “threat to our sovereignty as a nation” it clearly back up what I said (oh sorry implied)

    Come on man are you saying the nation you were talking about was of one person rather than any “plurality” of people?

    I mean ‘a government’ is usually a reference to a community’s government, a town, a state or province, a national government or a world government.

    A village’s government and a global government are both ‘a government’ and both consist of people in the plural.

    Again you’re not answering the question put and instead are just trying to wheedle your way out of a debate, next you’ll be saying that you refuse to discuss things any more.

    **



    OH…and how quickly I’m proved right.

    This is just an excuse for running away.

    And clearly I understand sovereignty a lot more than you do or you wouldn’t post stuff that only back up what I said.

    **



    Again excuses for not being willing or able to debate what you say…frankly rather pathetic excuses at that.

    **



    Another excuse. It seems to me I was right about you being a follower without much independent thoughts of yor own, I mean it is very obvious that once you get away from a cut and paste job or a sycophantic cheerleading you don’t have a clue what you are talking about and just haven’t the knowledge or ability to reply (I don’t for a second believe your excuse about your typing ability – people have written whole books with ‘hen peck’ typing).

    No you’re just a follower without much autonomous thought who’s abilities don’t really stretch beyond that of cheering on others.

    Rather sad if a bit pathetic.

    As I’ve said I don’t loath people like you, but it is hard to respect anyone that follows an ideology without question or seeming thought.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice