StarGateWars Forums

ATTENTION: Why this is NOT a conspiracy theory discussion:

All the relevant NWO theories are based on the fact that this looming World Government will inheritly be totalitarian, opressive, exploitative and dystopian.

Let us here recognise the fact that this is not necessary so.

Fact is that it`s nowhere set in stone a more just economic system cannot ever be fathomed, or that the current one cannot be "softened up".
Fact is that there are several forms of valid democratic representation systems and into that ties the fact that a system you do not agree with is not thereby undemocratic due to just that.
Fact is also that there are allready continents united in what can be classified as a democratic unions by any reasonable and objective standard.
Fact is the track record of these unions has shown increased prosperity and liberty for their respective citizens as opposed to their previously divided state(s).




Now: No selfrespecting NWO conspiracy theorist would forget to mention Orwells 1984 as a reference to the grim future in store for us if we travell down this path.

Yet humorously, what is 1984 but a caricature of the world of national states brough down to 3 members? States of people indoctrinated into their "nationality", whith external enemies around it that facilitate/justify the ever eternal growth/recession cycle of their economies/societies.
It is a world that stopped one step short of world government.

Now through historycall analysis we can determine that human social and state stuctures have a tenency of gravitating together as the benefit of cooperation and coexistance outweighs furter tribe/city/kingdom/state/nation rivalry - And with advent of ever more elaborate means of destruction and codependance that rivalrly became completley cost in-effective.

There is a trend apparent which seems to suggest regional and global unification is the next logical and inevitable step in our social evolution as a species. And as darwins survival of the fittest is hardly applicaple in a world able to destroy itself, reasonable steps of cooperation and peacefull integration seems to be the only option left on the table.

We know from the sintesis of the "american nation" and to a degree "europeans" that such a feat is possible, given certain outside influences to speed it up, in as little as a few hundred years. Short of an alien invasion (lol), we`re likely looking at a longer process, yet one the is possible.


Now, looking back on our history, can we honestly say national countries are a facilitator and garant of prosperity for human kind and that the alternatives would "doom" us? We can perhaps make the claim for the handfull of nations that "floated to the top", but to extrapolate it further? Hardly.



So taking this into consideration: What plausible, objective and reasonable reason can we give, as to why national states should not potentionally, one day, be condemned to history, say allongside city states, to one day be replaced by a democratic & HR respecting "world government"? Surely if half a billion people can make it work on a scale of a continent, there is no reason why several billions could not make it on the entire globe, given obvious adjustments lol.

Is there any valid reason king Leonidas could have given, that would make sense to the modern day Greeks?
(meaning: try to transcend our local POV that obviouslly cannot phathome the "injustice/inphatomability" of one day not identifying our nationality/citizenship as the utter apex and the preciouss "home/father/motherland". Why should humans one day not think of eachother as citizens of earth as opposed to clinging to "artificial" divisions that would seem to hold us back?)

you can have your NWO, World Order, Global Govt or Globalisation...whatever you want to call it, i and millions if not billions of others don't want it, will it be foisted on all of us, including those like me who don't want any part of it, just like the EU has been forced on most of the Euro populace???

you talk about democracy, but seriously, how good is a social form when 51% of the population can out vote 49% of the populace, how would you feel if you was part of the 49%? think carefully before you answer because 49% is by no means a small percentage...is it?

i am Greek Cypriot born and raised in the UK and consider myself a British citizen as well as a citizen of planet earth, why do i-or should i have to be part of a 1 world population under a 1 world Govt to consider myself what i already consider myself to be?

as good as it sounds to be a united world (and if it was done correctly, i would be happy for it to go ahead), you don't understand what's being planned and who is planning what you are promoting here...


the 1 eyed man in the kingdom of the blind truly is king!

I`m sorry to brake it to you but democracy is still but the dictatorship of the majority. And thats the best that we got atm, unless you`re willing to make me a enlightened monarch.

And the point of the topic is not about "why" or "who" is dastardly planing this and that, its about finding a sensible reason to theoretically perpetuate national countries once we distance ourselves from the worst case scenario. To identify any abstract flaws in the theory itself.

Cos if tin hatted theories are all we can come up with... ya well heh... And if millions don`t want it, I`m sure millions allso think that petty thieft ought be negligable. But we`re in a society that has rules and if everyone agreed on them we wouldn`t need them in the first place.

Frankly, the UK. A union of 4 entities. Now is there a sensible argument against furthering the union with more people for a scotsman other than his national feeling, that oh so ironicaly now constitutes of the concept of "british" - which would be equally or even more horrendus to his ancestor at the battle of Falkirk.

In the end, provided the society is democratic, prosperous & observant of induviduals rights, what matters to a scotsman where the center of "ultimate power" is located? If a single center facilitates the above mentioned is it not the logical choice? What matter the medieval concepts of soveirgnty to him under the line?

And would not thereby the very notion of "power" become somewhat obsolete as only one center of it remained?

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

David Rockefeller


Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species.

A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.

Bertrand Russell


Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable. And any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.


The Impact of Science on Society
by Bertrand Russell


And I actually think the world will be much better when there's only 10 or 20 percent of us left.
Dr. Eric Pianka


China was able to turn the corner and become the leading world superpower because they have a police state and they are able to force people to stop reproducing.

Dr. Eric Pianka



"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent."

James Warburg

Feb. 17, 1950
in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee


"Countless people will hate the New World Order, and will die protesting against it."

H.G. Wells
The New World Order - 1939


A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95 percent decline from present levels, would be ideal.

Ted Turner, interview Audubon Magazine.




Humanity could be completely enslaved by 2030. At worst, mass extermination of everyone, but the elite, would take place.

Bill Joy, Wired Magazine.


Quoting Daniel Estulin, in June 2006, reporting on secret activities of Bilderberg group:

One of the American delegates said American Citizens had concern about the housing prices going down. He said they are not investing their money. [The group needs] to create the illusion that everything is going well, so what they are going to do in the next year and a half is to bring the market back up to its 1998-1999 levels, to get all the suckers to invest in what they had left over. That's when they are going to make the economy bottom drop out - to destroy the economy.




the proof (with links to documentation) that all these arguments and discussions are pointless unless you first understand who it is that's programmed your way of thinking:

http://www.endgamethemovie.com/biblio01.html