Where do you stand on a New World Order (if that's what is happening.)
bigfl...@gmail.com
world?
No more ethnic cleansing or food wastage while children are starving?
If it was workable, (with identity chips of the world population and
sat surveillance I believe it is), would the benefits outweigh the
restrictions?
Look how easily many in the US allow the constitution to be fiddled
with, when fear is the dominating factor.
Regardless of ones own pov, there is a good argument if such
atrocities can be reduced, and if the planet is under threat from
global warming, one authority would not have the vested interests to
overcome that many emerging countries have.
I know this is ideological, but I have a very strong suspicion that
the ideologues are gaining power.To make such a paradigm shift, there
would have to be very dominating possibilities presented to create
fear on a massive scale, such as collapse of economies,world
pandemics ,collapse of the eco system and threat of nuclear war,and
depletion of oil, to name a few.Even movies like 2012 could have an
effect.
All of the above scenarios could well be man made.
In the seventies, it was suggested by a few conspiracy theorists that
a 'so called' invasion by alien craft (actually from here) would do
the trick.
Sounds plausible?
There is certainly 'something' going on.
BOfL
Sean
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:35d16e84-2358-4987...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Personally, I am all for it. -- a new world order that is. I'm pretty well
fed up with the current world dis-order! and especially on this newsgroup!
LOL
On a more reasoned response, I think hisoty is an excellent guide, as their
is nothing new under the sun. Sure we have Hybrid and electric cars and high
speed trains running on magnetising to support the weight of the train and
reduce friction ... what hasn't chnaged since the days of the hiorse and
buggy though is that what we use today is still a mode of *transportation*
.. so history tells that transport [ and with it trade ] is a key aspect to
civilisation.
So then is energy and other key resources, and whether a internet connected
PC or an engraved slab of granite as a newspaper on the Flintstones - the
fundamentals have not changed a degree.
Seems to me that the world order also folllows some prety clear and
repeatable historical patterns - humanity is made up of people, and as such
people will be people who much prefer to maintain their engrained habits ..
for good or ill.
And power is an attracting force for people who seek terrestrial power and
illusions of greatness -- the players may change but there is always a World
Order [ or disorder ] of some kind.
So irrespectiove of the current technologies and size of the war machines
still, or that an african american is the president, I don't see much has
really or is about to change much since date dot. Birds of a feather flock
together, iow.
Therefore I don;t really stand one way or the other, I much prefer to sit
down and relax and keep my own world in some kind of order, which is always
a bit of a challenge hehehe
In the meantime, Australia still tends to run off to war with the USA at a
drop of the hat .. not much changed there since 1965.
cheers ... <G>
THE BORG
> There is certainly 'something' going on.
>
Glad you have noticed.
THE BORG
Don Stockbauer
> <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
"It's the end of the world as we know it,
It's the end of the world as we know it,
It's the end of the world as we know it,
And I feel fine."
tooly
There are struggles and there are even deeper struggles. The deeper
struggle could be one of reorganization of consciousness itself. I've
argued for some time the deeper crisis in the creature itself, is a
moral one. Human culture, up until modern times, was designed around
a central precept of deity, which gave rise to authoritative reason to
justify law and order and Freud's 'Super Egotistical' moral binding,.
The Copernican revolution [as some call it] continues to change us
with broadening education [and indoctrination] to where it is harder
to justify any altruistic self sacrifice the more 'enlightened' we
become. Thusly, we grow shallow, materialistic, with prurient
interests making us jaded and often empty, needing to reach further
and further to find anything of worth to justify the 'struggle'. As
Sir so aptly describes, our Stories and ability to decieve ourselves
exists and perhaps as a necessary tool of intelligent being to keep
the balance of conscious existence 'positive' and not slipping into
dire misery as the absurdity of life is uncovered. Though many
liberals see the loosening of human traditions for greater inclusion
as a sign of hope, it could more simply be that the seams of what have
bound us socially in the past are simply come apart. Social
activation in fact might just be one more 'reach' to fill otherwise
empty lives with yet another illusion that one has 'purpose' and
higher cause to serve. Not to be so morbid here, but one must
reocgnize that the undermine of that traditional human cause, is from
that more traditional point of view, 'insurrection'...and has
consequences.
BTW, it is interesting that Karl Marx saw the family unit as 'obstacle
to change',...as an economic construct that needed to be torn down. I
think most humans, even modern, would 'sense' that as evil and very
threatening. As empty as life seems in modern material/commercial
times, it can be far emptier without real human relationships.
Don Stockbauer
The end of the word as we know it would not be such a bad thing if
what we have now is replaced by something better.
bigfl...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
The struggle is usually between the rights of the individual vs the
rghts of the group.
The US health conflict being a good example.
Contrary to what Sean suggested, there is technology that can actually
bring about change, that was never befor available.
One example,I was actually working on twenty years ago, where people
who put effort in to their fitness had their data fed into a bank, and
as such, would qualify for them for cheaper health insurance, no
diferent than 'careful driver' insurance premiums.
That was in the days of manual modems connected to the mouth piece!
I saw the potential, and now there are exercise machines which are
activated by your own 'chip' (still in a card, but that can easily be
changed), and the activity recorded.
I could also see clearly the impending decline of health, even in a
place like Aus (the best outdoor 'gym' on the planet :-), and how the
cost of monitoring sickness would spiral with the coming greater
sophistication.
Basic philosphy states "we choose our actions and inherit the
consequences", but given 'no man is an island', should those who 'put
in the effort', be penalised by those who dont?
The logic is simple. Force everybody to look after themselves. Those
who do, know how rewarding that is on so many levels, so what have we
got to lose?
Just one thing...freedom of choice, and we know from history, how
people are willing to 'fight to the death' to protect that.Ironically,
they used to have to get fit to fight :-)
Perhaps the next stage is to put 'pacifist' drugs into the water
supply....Of course, some believe that flouridisation is already
filling that bill.
BOfL
THE BORG
"tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:7c6a2ec1-2319-4bd9...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
*****
Many things that were considered "evil" in the past are
acceptable today.
Men were killed for pursuing science and physics at one
time.
When rock and roll first appeared it was considered to be
the "work of the devil".
A bastard or illegitimate child was shunned for life.
Sex before marriage was totally taboo and rendered any woman
who was not a virgin with a status of slut or whore and
undesirable and not wanted.
And vice versa, in the past homosexual relationships between
grown men and young boys was deemed totally acceptable.
Worship of Greek Gods and other Gods also were deemed
perfectly acceptable and were the preferred choice of many.
Dreams and omens and oracles were considered hugely
significant, but not so today.
How can anyone judge what is wrong or evil, accept to say
that there is much that is very wrong with the world today?
So how can you put it right?
THE BORG
ZerkonXXXX
> Where do you stand on a New World Order
New World Orders have been taking place for quite a while. WWI presented
one.
So the question might be 'where are you now standing in the newest world
order'?
1Z
> Would that be the end of the Amins, Pol Pots and Kim Yong's of this
> world?
Would what be? Why?
> No more ethnic cleansing or food wastage while children are starving?
>
> If it was workable, (with identity chips of the world population and
> sat surveillance I believe it is),
WTF has that got to do with dictators and food?
>would the benefits outweigh the
> restrictions?
>
> Look how easily many in the US allow the constitution to be fiddled
> with, when fear is the dominating factor.
Pfft. People are always accusign each other of changing
the constiution, it's politcal rhetoric and should not
be taken at face value.
> Regardless of ones own pov, there is a good argument if such
> atrocities can be reduced, and if the planet is under threat from
> global warming, one authority would not have the vested interests to
> overcome that many emerging countries have.
I've read that 3 times and it still makes no
sense. Goodbye.
1Z
> On Nov 21, 5:46 pm, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 3:17 pm, "THE BORG" <b...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> > > <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:35d16e84-2358-4987...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > There is certainly 'something' going on.
>
> > > Glad you have noticed.
>
> > > THE BORG
>
> > "It's the end of the world as we know it,
> > It's the end of the world as we know it,
> > It's the end of the world as we know it,
> > And I feel fine."
>
> There are struggles and there are even deeper struggles. The deeper
> struggle could be one of reorganization of consciousness itself. I've
> argued for some time the deeper crisis in the creature itself, is a
> moral one. Human culture, up until modern times, was designed around
> a central precept of deity, which gave rise to authoritative reason to
> justify law and order and Freud's 'Super Egotistical' moral binding,.
> The Copernican revolution [as some call it] continues to change us
> with broadening education [and indoctrination]
back-to-front. People used to be indoctrinated
with religion at aschools and now they are not.
>to where it is harder
> to justify any altruistic self sacrifice the more 'enlightened' we
> become.
WTF? Nobody fights wars?
Nobody volunteers? Nobody pays taxes?:
>Thusly, we grow shallow, materialistic, with prurient
> interests making us jaded and often empty, needing to reach further
> and further to find anything of worth to justify the 'struggle'.
What , like the White Woman?
> As
> Sir so aptly describes, our Stories and ability to decieve ourselves
> exists and perhaps as a necessary tool of intelligent being to keep
> the balance of conscious existence 'positive' and not slipping into
> dire misery as the absurdity of life is uncovered.
Bokononism it is then.
> Though many
> liberals see the loosening of human traditions for greater inclusion
> as a sign of hope, it could more simply be that the seams of what have
> bound us socially in the past are simply come apart. Social
> activation in fact might just be one more 'reach' to fill otherwise
> empty lives with yet another illusion that one has 'purpose' and
> higher cause to serve. Not to be so morbid here, but one must
> reocgnize that the undermine of that traditional human cause, is from
> that more traditional point of view, 'insurrection'...and has
> consequences.
>
> BTW, it is interesting that Karl Marx saw the family unit as 'obstacle
> to change',...as an economic construct that needed to be torn down. I
> think most humans, even modern, would 'sense' that as evil and very
> threatening. As empty as life seems in modern material/commercial
> times, it can be far emptier without real human relationships.
Whatever. Marxism is dead in the real world, for all
that it looms large in your personal mythology.
Tim Golden BandTech.com
wrote:
> On Nov 22, 9:18 am, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 6:50 pm, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 21, 5:46 pm, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 21, 3:17 pm, "THE BORG" <b...@gone.com> wrote:
> > > > > <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:35d16e84-2358-4987...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > There is certainly 'something' going on.
> > > > > Glad you have noticed.
> > > > > THE BORG
> > > struggle could be one of reorganization of consciousness itself. I've
> > > argued for some time the deeper crisis in the creature itself, is a
> > > moral one.
> > what we have now is replaced by something better.- Hide quoted text -
> rghts of the group.
>
> who do, know how rewarding that is on so many levels, so what have we
> got to lose?
Human civilizations have been going larger continually over time, now
to the point where we see continental organizations, and even a
fledgling global organization in the UN. The ICC is a very new branch
whose future is critical. Without a global justice system nationalism
will continue as a lame endgame.
To me, technology is a more critical feature than is economics. For
instance whether a factory is owned by the people working in it or is
owned by one man or a government does not change the way that the
factory functions, as a machine designed for a human operator requires
that a man sit at the machine and operate it. Goods produced require
distribution to end users. Raw material inputs must be acquired. If
this machine changes then the functionality of the factory changes.
These changes are more fundamental than the economic model. The
technocentric view applies all the way back in time to a tribe who
invents a projectile weapon with a greater range and accuracy than
their rival.
Rather than view technology as universally imposed (though some
technology such as the internet does come close) there should be some
freedom to speciate technologies. This ability to diversify has to be
balanced in the global push against the benefits of universal
standards. This goes right back to cultures and their preservation.
The US should respect other cultures if it expects its culture to be
respected. The finger can be pointed all the way around, especially
right now. There is no realistic ability to insist that others live as
ones self does. Diversity has to be permitted, and the more permissive
the global system the healthier will be this new world order. Thus the
UN may not be such a bad model in its lightly powered structure.
The corporation and its validity in the system is now on the plate for
discussion. It is their own burden to answer to the quagmire that they
have developed. Greed is not a defense, yet this is their law. When
the human is taken as a resource of the market system then the
problem of morality is exposed. Amoral capitalism has just failed. The
corporations are causing the global evolution.
- Tim