BREAKING: New World Order officially announced

Slightly off-topic but when did "a new world order" become negative? I've read a lot of old political writings and speeches (50 years ago and more) and the term was used as a positive. Is it another one like the strawman created by the right "political correctness"?
 
I suspect that the thinking is that a New World Order is all very well so long as you are the one doing the ordering.

Where it becomes a problem is where you dip into the joys of the conspiracy theory and suppose that the ordering is being done by your bete noir of choice, whether that be the Jews, the Reptilians, the Freemasons, or whatever.

Furthermore, for some people (notably but not uniquely Americans), the idea of any sort of government is repellent, and thus the idea of an all-encompassing single world government is a particularly hideous one.

(This is why we have to keep the real NWO secret, stops 'em complaining, see?)
 
richardm said:
I suspect that the thinking is that a New World Order is all very well so long as you are the one doing the ordering.

Where it becomes a problem is where you dip into the joys of the conspiracy theory and suppose that the ordering is being done by your bete noir of choice, whether that be the Jews, the Reptilians, the Freemasons, or whatever.

Furthermore, for some people (notably but not uniquely Americans), the idea of any sort of government is repellent, and thus the idea of an all-encompassing single world government is a particularly hideous one.

(This is why we have to keep the real NWO secret, stops 'em complaining, see?)
Click to expand...

Focussing on the "New World Order" is a good way of avoiding grown-up discussion about international politics.



Orphia Nay said:
Define "US domination".
Click to expand...

Your'e welcome to include a definition in your answer to the question : "Does anyone think a world free of US domination is a bad idea?"
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
Does anyone think a world free of US domination is a bad idea?
Click to expand...
That certainly depends on who will dominate it instead. All assuming the US does dominate the world; I expect there will be some second opinions on that.

Certainly, if the alternative is the likes of Ahmadinejad and Chavez, I prefer US domination. Even under the Bush administration.

Hans
 
JihadJane said:
The pictures are illustrations of how the world looks under US global domination. Indeed, at least one of those pictured came to power as a result of the hegemony's machinations.
Click to expand...
Mmmokay, so those guys are bad too. Can't say I disagree. So, who exactly would you like to be in world domination? - Because somebody always will, you know.

Hans
 
Since when have Iran and Venezuela been major world powers? New Zealand has more power then them (what with the 2nd highest post in the UN and having had the head of the WTO and a few other world bodies over the past 5 years.)
 
I thought the NWO was a public thing back in 90's. I remember seeing them on TV every Monday night. ;)
 
JihadJane said:
Focussing on the "New World Order" is a good way of avoiding grown-up discussion about international politics.
Click to expand...

That's as maybe but doesn't answer the question about why avoiding grown-up discussion has changed from desiring it to opposing it.
 
JihadJane said:
Focussing on the "New World Order" is a good way of avoiding grown-up discussion about international politics.
Click to expand...

And do you support what Chávez and Ahmadinejad are proposing? Do you think their alliance will make for a better, free-er world?

Your'e welcome to include a definition in your answer to the question : "Does anyone think a world free of US domination is a bad idea?"
Click to expand...

And you're welcome to address the OP at any time.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Mmmokay, so those guys are bad too. Can't say I disagree. So, who exactly would you like to be in world domination? - Because somebody always will, you know.

Hans
Click to expand...

I'm not into domination of any sort by anyone.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pardalis said:
So you refuse to answer. I'll take that as an abdication.
Click to expand...

What relevance has your silly cartoon ("US dominance is bad, the opposition to US opposition is bad because the US made them that way") got to anything I've written?
 
Still refusing to answer. Got it.

I guess you really view an alliance between Chávez, Castro, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe, Lukashenko, Nasrallah, Mashaall and Medvedev to counter "US dominance" as a good way to go for the future of mankind, but are afraid to admit it.

Anything to attack America is good in your view, even if means supporting horrible despots.
 
Last edited:
OK, when I yell "IRAN" i want everyone to cluck like chickens...
 
Pardalis said:
Still refusing to answer. Got it.

I guess you really view an alliance between Chávez, Castro, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe, Lukashenko, Nasrallah, Mashaall and Medvedev to counter "US dominance" as a good way to go for the future of mankind, but are afraid to admit it.

Anything to attack America is good in your view, even if means supporting horrible despots.
Click to expand...

Have you got it or are you just guessing?

(PS: I can't remember the last time you answered a question of mine)
 
Last edited:
Nor do I.


What relevance has your silly cartoon ("US dominance is bad, the opposition to US opposition is bad because the US made them that way") got to do with anything I've written?
 
Last edited:
The more you avoid it, the more it is apparent that the answer is too embarrassing for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom