Is NWO possible?

Id like to hear ppls thought about the supposed NWO. Ill give my two cents in as well

Theoretically yes, realistically no. Trying to get that many people to stay secret about a plot to change the world is simply impossible. One person can hold a secret pretty well, two reduces the chance significantly, and the more people you add, the more likely it will slip. I look at the 9/11 conspiracy: it started out with just Bush being the co-ordinator, then it was Bush and his buddies, then it was large sections of the military, then it was various airports. The list of people involved became so immensely bloated that it's impossible for it not to have collapsed in on itself.

so you beleive 9/11 was an inside job?

I'm saying the opposite: Just one reasons the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is crap is how many people would need to be involved and quiet. Same thing applies to any large operation: the more people you have, the less stable it is. And if you have 10,000+ people involved in various ways, it's going to collapse.

what about all the evidence it was a false flag attack?

Here a suggestion that the elite want a world government or "New World Order".

Warburg was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He has gained some notoriety for the following quote: "We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest." (Feb. 17, 1950, to the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations)[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Warburg

Heres just some quotes to think about

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion], whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis mine], that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government." Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent." Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

heres another link to look at. Im no big glen beck fan but its interesting what he has to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZsY5XbLinw&feature=related

Well, we have to make clear the difference between a "new world order" and a "hegemony". A new world order means that there are a select number of people who are doing things without our knowing to gain world dominance; a hegemony is that the nations of the world organized under a stronger, world-wide organization (the U.S. works this way: the states have their individual laws, but the federal government is higher than any individual state).

My political science professor has said that the world is headed in the direction of a hegemony, but this doesn't mean anything about it heading into a new world order. In simplest terms, there is security in structure, so the currently anarchic system the nations of the world currently follow leads to instability. Things such as an international currency and world-wide laws (murder, rape, genocide, etc.) would help us in many ways in terms of economics and national security. Again, there is a difference between this hegemonic globalization and an underground group that is trying to gain control of the world.

Generally, the people who talk about a new world order and hegemony are making the same mistake as equating communism and socialism: there may be many similarities, but there are enough differences that equating them would straw man your opponent. The people who you point to, claiming that they are for a new world order are easily seen as only wanting a hegemony; the people who are decrying a single world government are isolationists who are trying to sensationalize the topic.

Have you looked into the true definitions of the North American Union? Our constitution is DONE!!! No more! I am not for a hegemony if that means i am not longer a free citizen of the USA. I love my country. I want to keep my trial by jury system. I want to keep my right to bear arms. I want to keep the government laws and rules tthat we have now. I want a country ruled by the people and for the people and if this "hegemony" or "new world order" or whatever you want to call it happens then im sorry, but The USA as you know it will be forever just a chapter in our history books.

http://truth11.com/2010/05/30/us-constitution-may-be-suspended-war-national-emergency-and-%E2%80%9Ccontinuity-of-government%E2%80%9D/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3010

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8

You do realize that the NAU isn't in place, right? No head of state in Mexico, Canada and the U.S. can agree on any proposed system. So... yeah, it's just hyping hypotheticals... And it is a problem that we have a very militaristic nation, but I don't see how that has anything to do with a world-wide government — it seems to be an issue that's local to the U.S. Finally, there are ways to make a democratic hegemony. Again, we have this system in the U.S. already: local, state and federal governments. Each level has its own laws and regulations, and each level is democratic; and a hegemony would simply be like adding another level above the federal government.

The NAu isnt in place yet, but we do have NAFTA and SPP. And obama is pushing for National Amnesty(could explain our immigration problems)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELBnVjgI8uE&feature=related

When we do have ONe Government who would run the world? Becuase who ever runs the world, controls us all and i dont like that idea of a foreign power controlling america and possibly taking away our rights as american citizens.

PLus a hegemony has been tried, by the greeks, the romans, the nazis, the british, and now what we have going on today. Can you address the issue of american government officials meeting is secrecy violating the Logan act which is in turn an act of treason?
http://law.jrank.org/pages/8357/Logan-Act.html

If you have the free time check out endgame by alex jones. Feel free to debunk anything on that video for me. Trust me i am very openminded, and i am willing to listen to arguements against this video.

Trade organizations like NAFTA are extremely valuable economically, so I don't see a problem with that. And having shared intelligence with Mexico and Canada is just good for us. There are three ways into the U.S.: sea, Canada, and Mexico. We have a fantastic navy, but crap army, so it's good to have military allegiances with the two ways an enemy could strike at our weakest branch of the military.

Amnesty... just like Reagan... and Clinton... and tons of other presidents. Such an action would not be unfounded, and there are hurtles to get over in actually going after every illegal that is currently in this country: finding them, prosecuting them, space to put them, etc. Also, like most of Obama's campaign promises, Obama has not taken steps toward amnesty.

Again, it won't be a foreign power controlling us any more than Alaska controlling Texas via Congress. The larger as system is, the more likely it is to crumble. I'd suspect we'll first see the emergence of continental unions (EU, NAU, a united Africa), then, once those are stable, a higher power above that that regulates the world. If any smaller part is not content with the workings of the highest power in place, the highest power becomes unstable, and is likely to fall. We like the U.S. as the U.S. because it is cohesive, even though we also have lower governments (state, county, local, etc.) that we could as easily latch on to. The same will happen with a larger than federal government: it will start out weak, but as it shows itself useful and beneficial, it will strengthen and become more stable. Similarly, that situation will happen when the continental unions come together: it will be weak unless it shows itself useful. A lot of this is speculative, but you can see the beginnings of these types of things, so it's an educated guess on my part...

The difference between the totalitarian hegemonies and democratic is the way the average person views them. Again, governments that don't have the support of those they rule are unstable. The hegemony I see coming about will be gradual and not militaristic, so it will be much easier to make cohesive.

And I'm not sure I like the Logan Act to begin with... And the fact that it hasn't been enforced shows that its not that powerful a law anyway. And you're mistaking the Logan Act with treason: Article 3, Section 3 of the constitution state what treason is, and someone guilty of violating the Logan Act may not be guilty of treason.

Anyway, I've started the video, It's long, so I'll get through it when I feel like it, but I'm already confused as to why they're using a biologist to talk about military and economic history...

whats wrong with the logan act?

This video is more pleasing to the eye and interesting as well if you have the free time or are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5E

The Logan Act is the suppression of ideas. If I have an idea that would efficiently stop a conflict, I would, under the Logan Act, not be able to voice it. This is different from saying, "Our weakness is here:" and is instead saying, "A good place for settlement is here:".

I'll now go through the posted video and list in chronological order the things I can debunk without even researching anything. Upon starting this endeavour, I was 5 minutes into the video, and had already found the first two things. If I can find countless mistakes without researching something, it doesn't give me much hope that the claims I do have to research will be much better...

I facepalmed at the quote from JFK talking about the Soviet Union being used as if he was talking about a secret world order.

"New world order" is presented in a way that is committing the equivocation fallacy. As I go further into this debate, I've seen three definitions for "new world order": (1) a conspiracy from a small number of people who want to reshape the world; (2) a hegemony; and (3) a large change in the international political system. There are many places where "new world order" is being used, and the narrator never even says which is what he wants us to understand the phrase to be defined as. We are simply to assume that any use of "new world order" is bad. This was especially poorly done when Kissinger was talking from 00:14:50–00:15:25, but the creepy music covered up what he was actually saying. What he had to say there was very important and interested, but they ruined it by showing such a short clip and playing creepy music where he mentioned change or Europe.

The quotes taken from the New World Order book are not that alarming if you take away the creepy pictures. They say, in order: lower crime rates; have good housing conditions for everyone; no class structure; everyone works to better the economy; national security is the largest concern, and the structure should be made around this goal; everyone contributes to society, i.e., no freeloaders; world consciousness; world patriotism; removal of any one entity that could collapse the world government. So let's look at these goals: 1, 2 and 6 are just plain good, so I don't see why they were even listed as the scary stuff (unless the worst of the worst of the book is talking about better things than reduced crime rates). 3 is a mixed bag; Americans decry the caste and monarchy systems because they are not based on merit; however, social classes carry many of the same social burdens of the aforementioned systems, so it's largely a personal choice as to whether 3 is bad. 4 can be interpreted two ways: (1) society works only toward economic gain or (2) everyone works together to make a strong economy. If it's the former, I would disagree that that's what the end goal of a society should be, but if it's the latter, I don't see how that's bad (I think the film liked this one because it was hard to interpret and used "solidarity"). 5 is something every government does; if the continuation of the American government was of low priority, then America wouldn't last long, would it? Similarly, any government needs to be concerned with its on continuation. This is pure, uninformed scaremongering. 7 is also ill-defined, and I think they like that. They don't tell you what "world consciousness" is, and they don't want to. The phrase sounds scary, and that's all they need. 8 is also a no-brainer: a successful government of any size needs patriotism, so a successful world government needs world-wide patriotism. 9 goes along with 7 in that a system that has a large weakness is a bad system. The federal government is set up such that no single state could overthrow it; however, if the bulk of the states went against the federal government, it could not withstand. So, in the end, the things listed here are really just proposed, rational goals for almost any government to follow. Also, has there been any evidence to state that any world-wide government would necessarily follow the structure provided in the book?

Godwin's law right after the book section.

This is taking a really long time, so, again, I'll get around to it if I feel like it. It takes me a really long time to get through this movie because I consistently have to stop and point out all the errors in this movie. And, again, these are the errors I've known prior to research; I've resisted the urge of fact-checking things that I've really thought needed fact-checking.