This "New World Order" -- what does anybody have against it?

[KingOrfeo]

When George H.W. Bush spoke of a "New World Order" in 1990, he was simply describing the international order that was emerging from the end of the Cold War. When the 30 Years' War ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, Europe entered the "Westphalian System," meaning henceforth European states would deal with each other as completely independent sovereign entities, not subject to Emperor or Pope. However, this obligation did not extend beyond Europe; the rest of the world was understood to be fair game for conquest and colonization. This system continued with some changes (e.g., the addition of the U.S. and Japan to the nations authorized to colonize) until the Cold War, a new system of international relations dominated by two superpowers; any state's place in it depended on whether it was aligned with one or the other or non-aligned. During this period, most colonies became independent. With the end of the Cold War came a new global Westphalian system of more than 200 independent sovereign states, none hegemonic over the others, though the U.S. has far and away the most power. That is the New World Order, and it is as far as you can get from a world government.

But if the NWO really were a plan to unite the world politically, well, that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Men, my brothers, men the workers, ever reaping something new:
That which they have done but earnest of the things that they shall do:

For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;

Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales;

Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a ghastly dew
From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue;

Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm,
With the standards of the peoples plunging thro' the thunder-storm;

Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,
And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law.

-- "Locksley Hall," Tennyson

 

[Rightguide]

When George H.W. Bush spoke of a "New World Order" in 1990, he was simply describing the international order that was emerging from the end of the Cold War. When the 30 Years' War ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, Europe entered the "Westphalian System," meaning henceforth European states would deal with each other as completely independent sovereign entities, not subject to Emperor or Pope. However, this obligation did not extend beyond Europe; the rest of the world was understood to be fair game for conquest and colonization. This system continued with some changes (e.g., the addition of the U.S. and Japan to the nations authorized to colonize) until the Cold War, a new system of international relations dominated by two superpowers; any state's place in it depended on whether it was aligned with one or the other or non-aligned. During this period, most colonies became independent. With the end of the Cold War came a new global Westphalian system of more than 200 independent sovereign states, none hegemonic over the others, though the U.S. has far and away the most power. That is the New World Order, and it is as far as you can get from a world government.

But if the NWO really were a plan to unite the world politically, well, that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

No, losing our sovereignty to an international entity is not a good thing.

 

[KingOrfeo]

No, losing our sovereignty to an international entity is not a good thing.

Why not? Virginia losing its sovereignty to a national entity was a good thing.

 

[Rightguide]

Why not? Virginia losing its sovereignty to a national entity was a good thing.

Apples and turds.

 

[FGB]

Oh, but they will YOUR best interest at heart...according to them.

Then they think you are unable to and should not govern anything and need their guidance.

To much freedom for you is a bad thing... and so on.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Oh, but they will YOUR best interest at heart...according to them.

Then they think you are unable to and should not govern anything and need their guidance.

To much freedom for you is a bad thing... and so on.

Who's "they"?

 

[Christobal]

Let's look at the colonization of Africa. The evil overlords of Europe kept the peace kind of. They left and the genocides started. I am not saying colonization was better but the region has had some major problems since they left. Sometimes one system is no better than the other.

Another example is the Arab spring. They found peace and happiness right? Or were they just beset with a bunch of new problems?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Another example is the Arab spring. They found peace and happiness right? Or were they just beset with a bunch of new problems?

Both. E.g., Libya's a shithole, but I doubt anyone really wishes Gaddafi were still running it.

 

[OldJourno]

Why not? Virginia losing its sovereignty to a national entity was a good thing.

Yeah, but before that she was fooling around with me. I'm not one to engage in locker room talk, but she could ... never mind.

 

[Christobal]

Both. E.g., Libya's a shithole, but I doubt anyone really wishes Gaddafi were still running it.

The new world order would say Gaddafi is gone so things are better for it. Do the people that live there agree or just think we are being fucked in brand new ways.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Yeah, but before that she was fooling around with me. I'm not one to engage in locker room talk, but she could ... never mind.

I know, I know, like a monkey on a stick.

 

[OldJourno]

I know, I know, like a monkey on a stick.

Please don't cheapen the beautiful, loving relationship I had with that slut.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Please don't cheapen the beautiful, loving relationship I had with that slut.

How can I cheapen it?! Wasn't the price negotiated beforehand?!

 

[hashtag46]

Let's look at the colonization of Africa. The evil overlords of Europe kept the peace kind of. They left and the genocides started. I am not saying colonization was better but the region has had some major problems since they left. Sometimes one system is no better than the other.

Jesus! What a racist thing to say.
And a simplistic temporal linking of events.

And what you did was to imply that liberals and globalists are driven by world domination and class politics. As opposed to striving for equality, as they claim that it's all about.

 

[Christobal]

Jesus! What a racist thing to say.
And a simplistic temporal linking of events.

And what you did was to claim that liberals and globalists are driven by world domination and class politics, as opposed to striving for equality.

You seem to call racist a lot. I am beginning to think you don't know what the word means.

Genocide in Africa is not racist? The colonials are long gone.

 

[hashtag46]

You seem to call racist a lot. I am beginning to think you don't know what the word means.

Genocide in Africa is not racist? The colonials are long gone.

"Let's look at the colonization of Africa. The evil overlords of Europe kept the peace kind of. They left and the genocides started.".

Don't you even realize what that implies?
You just pulled a noirtrash in defense of globalization, and aren't even aware of it.

Between you and KingOrfeo's 'trollbaiting' of libs, not sure which one makes my brains hurt right now.



You're not a racist, but it's the second comment that could be interpreted that way.

 

[Christobal]

"Let's look at the colonization of Africa. The evil overlords of Europe kept the peace kind of. They left and the genocides started.".

Don't you even realize what that implies?
You just pulled a noirtrash in defense of globalization, and aren't even aware of it.




You're not a racist, but it's the second comment that could be interpreted that way.

I have noirtrash on iggy so I have no idea what he might have said. Colonization is the epitome of globalization which I disagree with completely. What I was saying is once the overlords left there were plenty of old scores the residents wanted to settle. And they did by genocide. Mostly black on black because the white people left.

 

[hashtag46]

I think that the US and Australia and Nz managed to surpass their oppressive colonialist past and to make ammends. I don't think that, at an institutional level, blacks, native americans or aboriginals are oppressed generally in this current day and age. (there still are racist attitudes, but at a personal level)
- On one hand -in the US in particular- minorities have access to a poorer quality of undergrad. education see school zoning according to place of residence and so on. On the other hand, affirmative action gives them a slight advantage to entry to postgrad. education.

But I think that in Africa, there still was for many years a subtle form "apartheid" even outside of South Africa.
Collonialists might have brought them the advances of european civilisation (not free of charge tho, because they took their lands) but they made sure that they kept them in the dark.
Via uneven resource allocation in many areas including education, and disregard of civic education.

Regardless of country, the most violent movements in history were carried out by the uneducated mob. And even among those with a good formal education, those seething with anger and black and white thinking had a poor civic education.

 

[magicalmoments]

I think that the US and Australia and Nz managed to surpass their oppressive colonialist past and to make ammends. I don't think that, at an institutional level, blacks, native americans or aboriginals are oppressed generally in this current day and age. (there still are racist attitudes, but at a personal level)

I think the Maori of NZ might take issue with this statement.

 

[colddiesel]

I think the Maori of NZ might take issue with this statement.

Ya reckon. What about the people of the Chatham islands. One day the Maori turned up un-announced. What did they do - they killed every single man woman and child on the islands. Totally efficient genocide. Did they want the islands? not really - their culture was to kill people - so they did.

Blaming people for the past is pointless. Australian Aborigines and American Indians were almost wiped out by their conquerors, they are still poor in comparason, but far better off than their ancestors. Apart from Botswana there isn't a country in Africa as well off as they were 70 years ago under the Brits, French etc.

India has done ok post colonialism Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia as well. Pakistan, Burma, Bangladesh, Yemen(Aden) are all stuffed.

The nations that have had relative success have all accepted the rule of law and established strong institutions, the failures accept 'strong' men instead of law. Turkey, South Africa and Russia are going down the shitter for this reason.

 

[hashtag46]

I think the Maori of NZ might take issue with this statement.

Would you mind elaborating on that? Your stance on that was unclear to me.
I assume you're referring to the fact that some are requesting that certain lands be made strictly the property of the Maory community.

I lived in NZ for several years and -sorry if I might be mistaken: mine is an immigrant's perspective- I encountered few racist attitudes from laypeople against maoris or non-asian immigrants, but I came across quite a bit of racism against asian immigrants as in chinese or koreans etc.


In a related note: as colddiesel said:
Many Commonwealth countries were gounded upon an oppressive or even bloody colonialist past. And while that should be acknowledged and the current individual racist attitudes stemming from that should be combatted, it's unreasonable to try to make current generations of white people pay for the mistakes of their ancestors. Like some libs. are trying to do.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Aboriginals, peoples living in a different world progressing at their pace was disrupted. and that was a huge loss.

But the question lies in 'why'. And if anyone answers with money related stuff they'd be wrong.

 

[Maidboy]

Oh, but they will YOUR best interest at heart...according to them.

Who the fuck are "they" and do "they" speak with one voice? And who is this "we" you speak about? Idiot.

 

[Maidboy]

Let's look at the colonization of Africa. The evil overlords of Europe kept the peace kind of. They left and the genocides started.

Yes, let's take a look at Africa...

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bjwlub8JOG8/hqdefault.jpg

http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/4/9/8/8/0/7/i/8/5/8/p-large/congo-hands.jpg

https://mbtimetraveler.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/1233720.jpg

https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xta1/t51.2885-15/e35/12269942_1077679145610453_1946174108_n.jpg


The genocides began when the Europeans arrived. Your racist willful ignorance is duly noted.