United Earth - New World Order or One World Government?

New World Order or One World Government?


That seems to be a recurring question in many threads posted on a whole host of related topics.

Fears of a new Cold War that turn hot WW-III, Globalist agendas, population reduction. I wrote the following earlier in another thread and it started me thinking that we here at ATS have a rather unique situation where we have a very diverse membership with a wide variety of view points and life experiences and if there is a group that should be able to pull together some ideas on how this could come about/be formed it is ours.

"Now which is it?

A one world Government is formed out of the need to prevent major wars or are major wars brought about as an excuse for the creation of a one world Government?

I think and it's just my opinion that we as a species will eventually need to pull our heads out of our collective asses and come together on a planetary cooperative level."

If we were to come together as a species what form of Governance should our badly needed 'One World Government' take shape as or borrow from?

Republic?

A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people, and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law (from Latin: res publica), rather than inherited or appointed (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch. Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.

Socialism?

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. There are many varieties of socialism ...

Democracy?

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens are meant to participate equally – either directly or, through elected representatives, indirectly – in the proposal, development and establishment of the laws by which their society is run. The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people", which was found from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (kratos) "power" or "rule" in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratia) "rule of an elite". While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically....

Don't like those choices?

Here is a link to the various Forms of Government.

Can we mix and match some parts of one and or the other to come up with a better working model for all interests?

There will sooner or later be a One World Government but who is going to decide on it's form? Will humanity allow the perceived elites to dictate how this will be formed or will we the Average Joe/Joan/Jamal/Chan/Jose etc be able to have a say in it?

Cold War/WW-III

With the recent issues going on in Eastern Europe and elsewhere and considering how interconnected we have already truly become globally we the people cannot allow nor afford some political talking heads to decide for us the type of world governance we want or need rather. Did you know that it's not just 'Western Leaders' mentioning a "New World Order" Vlad Putin [Champion for exposing the New world Order] although, many Western Leaders have been talking about it openly for decades, mentioned it with regards to the ongoing situation and his views on the topic. He seems not to be objecting to it's creation just it's parameters.

A few of his thoughts on the subject...

Source

3. The builders of the New World Order have failed, having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any sort is to be built is not just Russia's decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.

10. There is still a chance to construct a new world order that will avoid a world war. This new world order must of necessity include the United States—but can only do so on the same terms as everyone else: subject to international law and international agreements; refraining from all unilateral action; in full respect of the sovereignty of other nations.

What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

So, we have supposedly opposing leaderships and agendas both talking about it. Obviously it's a real developing situation. We now have the EU, The North American Free Trade zone, BRIC, developing Asian Pacific trade, etc. So, where is this all heading? Large trading blocks which may or may not help prevent further conflict.

United Nations

The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization established 24 October 1945, to promote international co-operation. A replacement for the ineffective League of Nations, the organization was created following the Second World War to prevent another such conflict. At its founding, the UN had 51 member states; there are now 193. The headquarters of the United Nations is situated in Manhattan, New York City, and enjoys extraterritoriality. Further main offices are situated in Geneva, Nairobi and Vienna. The organization is financed by assessed and voluntary contributions from its member states. Its objectives include maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights, fostering social and economic development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural disaster, and armed conflict.

Religious, Economic, Political, Social etc differences abound. Can the UN step up to the plate and affectively deal with these areas that truly need a Global solution?

Can we modify it to our growing needs or should we scrap it all together and start over?

Bankism ..... The ones that control the Nations will bring this about by throwing of the whore that rides the beast .The whore is a part of Mystery Babylon and is Religion . They will replace Religion with Law and set themselves up as God . People will reject this and Babylon will fall . Man will think locally and order will come about from man beating his swords into pruning hooks . imo

a reply to: SLAYER69

Nice thread, Slayer.

But we don't have a choice. We never have.
This isn't about what we the people want. It never has been. It is about what they want. Those with money and power. It always will be about that because they will ultimately make the decisions for the rest of us.
Just like all the forms of government you list. We can't choose what we want. It is all a fallacy. Why? Because even though we think we are electing officials, in reality...we are just keeping the same money in the same spots.

We don't need globalism. We don't need a new world order or a one world government. How do I know this? Because we have flourished for millenia without either.

Now all the sudden it's of great importance that we need these types of rule? No. Absolutely not. These past hundred years or so have taught many of us all we need to know.

None of it involves their world order. Or global schemes. The resistance will still be strong.

a reply to: the2ofusr1
a reply to: havok


We are 7.12 billion and growing.

Wars, starvation, disease etc and all other forms of issues which plaque us wont simply go away. You both don't see a need to eventually come together as a species for the common good of all?

Unfortunately, we as humans are easily corrupt.


I do see the need for a world government- a new world order. They are one in the same.

Problem is, it can't be humans in charge, or it will wind up just like every government we've already got.



Don't worry though- As Havok stated, we never have had a choice. There will be a single power, and chances are they will sort out the population problem by force.

a reply to: havok

Oh dear, I don't even know where to start:
What are those with money and power? Aren't they people too?
We always have a choice, the real problem are the ones denying they do. I decide what I buy, what I eat, where I live and weither I want to, or don't want to engage myself politically. I could join a party, just as you could. Or even start my own.
Being in a "I got no choice, some detached they force me to eat three burgers a day, drink beer and be unproductive" state of mind, is the first thing we have to overcome, if we want to live in a just and honest environment, we have to start to be honest, just and stand by our decissions.

@slayer69: love the topic idea, so to add my point of view:
I'd really love to live in an anarchy, where the regions are selfsufficent, with democratic elections on a continental stage and everything with a communistic share of products. We could get rid off money this way, because the ones providing the other with foods, or whatever would get their needs fullfilled in exchange.
The biggest problem I see is what do people need? Some think they need a Mercedes 600sl cabrio and wouldn't be happy if I tell them, they don't. Not saying I want the world to be equally poor, but we could certainly live in a shared less rich united world, with less people starving, or freezing, or not having acces to clean water.

originally posted by: lordcomac
Don't worry though- As Havok stated, we never have had a choice. There will be a single power, and chances are they will sort out the population problem by force.

Well that's a pretty defeatist *just bend over and take it* type attitude if you don't mind me saying so.

No fight in ya eh?

I disagree, we have the interwebs and should be able to discuss options openly among ourselves.

Screw 'The Powers That Be"

Change would be the easiest thing to effect if it were not for the fact that we're all conditioned to "look out for number one". Freedom and self-determination, as it turns out, are less attractive to us than cable television on a plasma screen watched from a leather couch bought because it reminds us of the seats in our Lexus.

The vast majority is so caught up in keeping up with the Joneses and enjoying the modern life that they don't care enough to fight the few who are diseased to the point of evil by greed and power-madness.

Time and time again we fail to understand that there can be no pyramid... no all seeing eye at the top... without a base. And all that base need do to topple the entire machine is simply to stop spending money for a short time. Cut off the trickle up economics and that all seeing eye not only goes blind - it burns out in a fit of paranoia.

We've been playing chicken, for several generations, and swerving every time... all the while not realizing that the other driver is far more afraid of us than we are of him.

a reply to: SLAYER69

This is something that I have pondered many times. Those that are concious about how the works and seek "truths" seem to be very against a NWO, and covet sovereignty between nations. It is strange to me to desire segregation.

I have theorised that the NWO conspiracy culture is actually promoted by those that wish to create a NWO in their private vision. By making a NWO a boogyman, it helps to deter the concious thinkers from organizing movements, that use globalist infrastructure (that are currently being hoarded by the current elite) and establish a transparent NWO movement.

I hope there is a NWO that we can all trust in the future but I personally don't belong there. I am a racist bigot, male chauvinistic a-hole that likes to fight. Hopefully it comes but when it does, I think I'm just going to walk off into the bush and let you all have it. I'm territorial.

Greg Hunter's latest youtube with Gerald Celente is worth watching . The latest crosstalk on RT is worth watching . What we have at present is two sides of the same coin but with neither side wanting to yeild to the other . Call it a G2 if you like but the US wants to be #1 and China will not yield to that . The only way is for each one to try and have the upper hand .It will not matter weather through war of what ever type they choose to use that will determine a winner .

The west will not submit to the east and vice versa .


a reply to: SLAYER69

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I appreciate the 'Global' perspective.

What do you as an individual want to see created instead?

Why do you need to be governed? Only slaves need a master... I think you need to examine your conditioning.

Why do you suppose any form of government would satisfy all and everybody? Will not happen in a million years unless all and everyone suddenly become enlightened (highly unlikely).

Even in the smaller countries there are tensions between city dwellers and rural people on the economics and politics involved. How do you suppose a bigger entity would any better address the voices of diverse interest groups?

Personally, I am all for smaller entities like village size, humans work, socialize and thrive best in the tribal setting. It has been studied extensively. Here is one article on it.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: the2ofusr1
a reply to: havok


We are 7.12 billion and growing.

Wars, starvation, disease etc and all other forms of issues which plaque us wont simply go away. You both don't see a need to eventually come together as a species for the common good of all?

I think we would all like to see an end to wars, starvation etc. The problem is the people who have designs on global control. They are NOT the kind and benevolent sort and want only domination and control over all for their own enrichment. Wars and starvation are an example. Those could be stamped out quickly, but people are making too much money off of those issues alone.
We then have those proponents of eugenics, always bleating about how the plant is overpopulated, yet never removing themselves from it to help the matter. Once again though, they see themselves as somehow superior to the rest of us.

As long as we keep getting our leaders chosen by the financiers, the wars and starvation will continue. We need to think outside the current political systems and cooperate. It ain't gonna happen, well not in my lifetime anyway.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Slayer, I just went through this thread of yours and starred everyone who disagrees with you.

Your problem is that you don't understand that GLOBAL GOVERNMENT can only work if every big power is REPRESENTED

Yeah that's right, even those pesky Russians and Chinese you are not so fond of, you would have to give them equal power as you would give yourself at the table.

You would have to have a WORLD PRESIDENT, who would not be American every time, but would rotate,

2 year American
2 year Russian
2 year Chinese
2 year German
2 year British

You want world government and peace on Earth but you want one half to be slave to other half. Life simply doesn't work that way.

originally posted by: Britguy
We need to think outside the current political systems and cooperate. It ain't gonna happen, well not in my lifetime anyway.

Which is exactly why I've posted this topic. I wanted to get others opinions on what would be a better system. So far all I'm mostly reading is what doesn't work and why it wont happen...

Walks off scratching his head...

We humans have no need to create anything as we have the ability to come together to face the local challenges that we come up against . Problem is that 85 people have more money then half the human population and use it to make wars and steal from all the small groups .We get herded like cattle ,and convinced that we need to drink their kool-aid so we can accept the herd mentality . We know that free range chickens taste better and are probably happier but we are caged and afraid of the free range because of the fear of not being part of the heard .

It could take a few generations of people not being in the cage to have a real understanding of freedom but like the First Nations people who used fishing ,hunting,partying and exploring,as a way of life the white man wanted him to join the system and take 2 maybe 3 weeks a year for that and call it a vacation . Left alone we could make that the main way we live and stop contributing to the demise of ourselves .
a reply to: SLAYER69

a reply to: SLAYER69

I think we are as close as we have ever been to a "united earth". It won't ever be a massive governing body because if we've shown anything in the US its that large government will fail in the end.

A world government will look not so different from today. Many local autonomous governments working united towards a singular goal. Crop coordination on a global scale. Trade because it NEEDS to happen and local products as much as possible.

I see only a few key pieces that need to fall into place. China and Russia really...

Even Islam is pretty well ready for a cooperative future dispite what a portion of their followers may begrudgingly believe. If china and Russia start coordinating with the west the entire world is under thumb. Extremeism can be the new enemy for all the militaries of the world to unite against.

No matter what we do, There will never be a short supply of people ready to rally against authority. If the world started working as a "one world government" you'd probably even see Christians trying to prevent revelations by taking down the one world government. Extremeism is a just enemy and if we can be mature a positive future can be had by all.

I'm not sure how and when or why we will start behaving in this manner but i sure hope its soon..

originally posted by: WineWithIce5
a reply to: SLAYER69

Slayer, I just went through this thread of yours and starred everyone who disagrees with you.

Cool, Who disagreed?

They posted their opinions which is exactly what I was interested in reading and the premise of this thread.

Your problem is that you don't understand that GLOBAL GOVERNMENT can only work if every big power is REPRESENTED

OK

Yeah that's right, even those pesky Russians and Chinese you are not so fond of, you would have to give them equal power as you would give yourself at the table.

Of course, you cant have a 'world Government' without them. That's a given.

You would have to have a WORLD PRESIDENT, who would not be American every time, but would rotate

OK, And?

You want world government and peace on Earth but you want one half to be slave to other half. Life simply doesn't work that way.

Where have I said anything near that?

Seems you're confusing your personal dislike for me with what this threads premise is really about.

Meh..

a reply to: SLAYER69

I've slowly realized over time that a one world government is inevitable. We are definitely heading in that direction. The thing is that there are so many belief systems throughout the world that integrating them all is going to be a big headache. Look at all the crap the UN deals with. They pass resolutions which are then promptly ignored by the country they are issued to. This means that a real one world government is going to need a military to enforce its laws. But if that military is weaker than any single country's military then it all falls apart since that country can do whatever it wants (like the US for example).

Also, if we form this government, do we dissolve the borders between countries? I mean as a one world government, is there any need for borders anymore? I can understand having governing districts, but other than that, what good are borders? This also means that the world's population would end up being equalized. No longer can one region of the world exploit another region of the world so that the first region can live more comfortably. The way I see it, a one world government is the last thing big business should want since they'd lose much of their competitive edge.

Another problem I see is bureaucracy. The bigger the government, the bigger the bureaucracy gets, and the more inefficient it gets. Look at how inefficient the federal government of the US is. It can't wipe it's own butt without requiring three forms filled out (one of which you are currently in the wrong line to get). So would a one world government even be able to accomplish anything?

Some really great ideas here, so props to all of you. I would love to see some of these ideas actually tried. However I see a definite issue in concerns for success. The world banks are now in full control and have been for some time. They lend money to both sides of a conflict and have been doing it since 1780. The political power and influence they can wield through bribes and political blackmail are dug in deeper that a tick world wide. We as a civilization are between a bank and a hard place. We can't regulate or control what our leaders are doing anymore.

I believe some type of event must occur to give us that "Reset". Now what that event would be, but it would have to effect every Human on this planet. The "Reset" and it's aftermath has a chance to bring the people together again and new forms of governing may happen. I'm not wishing Doom, however the path we are on currently is leading us to it anyway eventually. I guess it's our fate to "Embrace the Horror".