Financial Times: "And Now for a World Government"

reply to post by budski


"I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible. "

Sounds like someone needs to do some proper reading/research as this individual (and some of the posters) are blissfully unaware of what is happening across this world?

I’m still staggered that the sheeple can't see the NWO elite isn't a conspiracy idea but a real and present entity with an agenda that will affect even these stupid sheeple!

A One World Government certainly makes a lot of sense on many levels: economies of scale across the board and world wide peace. The problem would be the combination of various cultures (including different language and religion) coupled with resistance to give up national sovereignty. A common currency would be easy to facilitate as long as there was a centralized financial (money & banking) system. The real issue would be who or what institution would be the "shepherd" to rule (er, represent)the "sheeple"....? (rhetorical ?). What would we call it, The Nations of the World Organization (NWO ?

Originally posted by Alphard

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
I'm sure this thread will be full of idealists spouting crap like this without considering the nature of the people taking control.

It will not, and I stress this, be a democracy.

The people who set up the United states that so many of you idealize were also idealists. If it were not for idealists, their vision and work, we would all live under dictatorships.

Do not confuse the aim and the means. The aim is to have a global society and one world government - it is a totally different question if we allow this body to abuse its powers..

Now some people on this thread will be 'spouting crap like' this 'cannot be done' and 'it will never work'. Fine be scared. Its perfectly reasonable to be scared. It would be better however to just remain vigilant, and still move ahead... as the benefits that could be gained, are enormous.

Oh, but you would allow it to abuse it`s power. There would be nothing you or anyone else could do to stop it, believe me. Not with one government in control of everything and a very large military force to back it up. Besides, it will never happen, some like you may want it to, but sorry, it would be a no go. As to why it will not happen, it would be to easy for someone with bad intentions to get control, just like it has happened here in this country alone, think about if it happened to a one world government. Would you want someone in control of all the worlds money supply and gold and silver reserves? Not me. It`s way to easy for someone corrupt to get control of these things, and have the military to back them up, and then where would we be? We would have so many laws slapped on us, that we would not be able to breath without asking permission first. No, we have to many people like Bush in this world who could get into power way to easy. What would happen to our world then? What would happen to the people? I for one would not want to run that risk.

We as a race have way to much growing up to do first before that happens. With the evil there is in this world it could very well happen. I`m not trying to be all doom and gloom, I`m just facing facts, if it can happen with countries and their governments, it can happen to a world government.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by FiatLux]

One major problem with the idea of one world government is that there still isn't a good example of governance that exists anywhere in the world, upon which to model it.
Communism and fascism failed miserably when those were tried. Democracy has failed miserably as well; primarily because it has been co-opted by big business and multi-nationals.
But therein lies the rub. Its exactly because of the multi national corporations that we do need some sort of world cooperation.
The bottom line, and most important question, is how to ensure that we the people have the final say and not just bureaucrats and people with money?
If someone could come up with that formula I would be all for it.!

Originally posted by wayno
One major problem with the idea of one world government is that there still isn't a good example of governance that exists anywhere in the world, upon which to model it.
Communism and fascism failed miserably when those were tried. Democracy has failed miserably as well; primarily because it has been co-opted by big business and multi-nationals.
But therein lies the rub. Its exactly because of the multi national corporations that we do need some sort of world cooperation.
The bottom line, and most important question, is how to ensure that we the people have the final say and not just bureaucrats and people with money?
If someone could come up with that formula I would be all for it.!

Well We have not had a good try at Meritocracy yet, so I would try that... Thomas Jefferson was apparently also a supporter of meritocratic forms of government.

Originally posted by Alphard
Well I am sure this thread will be full of doomsayers soon enough who see this as the end of the world.. but I say..

good... excellent.. one world government is exactly what we need. let the humanity unite

I'm right behind you on this one.

At the very least we need one world currency to communicate actual value between disparate markets.

That would be an amazing thing for us historically as well....

I guess I'm kinda starry eyed about the idea.

I think an overt one world government will not occur in the next century at the very least.

There are too many barriers and too many nuances. A few for your thoughts:

1. Nationalist: Why would mortal enemies choose to merge into a one world government. Why would fierce enemies such as Israel and the Arab Bloc choose to merge? Why would the Arab Bloc merge with America? Why would India and Pakistan merge? Why would Russia merge with the USA?

2. Fiscal: Why would wealthy countries merge with undeveloped countries. Why would the UK or USA merge with Zimbabwe or Gaborone? It makes no financial sense. If such a scenario occured, would the rich have to subsidize the poor of other nations? Suddenly a homeless guy in the USA would find himself being taxed in order to support a "truly" poor person in Africa.

3. Method of governance: Would the system be a democracy? I think a democracy would be the very worst method of one world governance. The west would be crushed by the numbers from the developing world. How do the billion or so in the West compare to the 1bn of India, the 1.4bn of China and the 1.5bn Muslim vote blocs?


Nobody in their right minds would agree to a one world government. Nobody would accept it.

So instead the power will be wielded secretly and covertly. The NWO theory is the exemplification of this. When overt power is not possible, simply obtain covert power. The true one world government will be a network of leaders who all aspire to some roadmap or plan for the ends of their organisation. With their set players and pawns they will rule the world with a shadow government.

reply to post by whiterabbit85


The only hope for the future of a democratic humanity is in massive decentralization, a civilization predicated on the existence of millions of nation states, each with their own laws and interests. That will ensure maximum generational fitness for our species, as any conflict, though interminable, will be ultimately productive. The competition of different ideas is so important.

Is it really necessary to align ourselves together for some common cause just because we are of the same species? Cooperation is inevitable, but do we really have to unify to such extremes? There is no real goal here, but to serve some intangible end. Our present mammalian psychologies are in the nature of pursuing life, liberty and happiness. We should then accordingly decide to maximize those core interests, by devoting the most attention to them, technologically or otherwise. If we all can agree there is a medium for which this "human flourishing" must converge, in order to ensure the interest of all involved parties, then surely it exists in the moderate life. Wealth does not purchase happiness, power corrupts liberty, and greed throws ones life into despair.

Look, it's plainly obvious. As long as we remain on this planet and keep populating it there will, inevitably, be some type of one world government. Just think of how small our planet is compared to the rest of our galaxy, which we could potentially inhabit. It just seems so simple to me. Democracy can only flourish if we traverse space and give everyone their own room to grow. Earth is one small rock when you look at it from afar.

When any absolutely closed system approaches the limit of its population capacity, surely one element must dictate its behavior to ensure operational success.

The solution is to maintain a large scale, open system, where there is an ever expanding limit to how much one individual can move and interact freely, so as to minimize dictatorial power, and maximize self expression and healthy conflict.

reply to post by 44soulslayer


I think the argument is that they won't have a choice. Before this occurs they will either be eliminated, or become outmoded and simply fail. Those countries you mentioned, their policies might be inadequate in a world that is so interdependent on national cooperation. Either their citizens will dissent and flock to other countries, or their governments will be toppled. If you look back over the past 20 years, this is clearly happening.

Sadam Hussein's government was just overthrown. It was composed of unruly elements. Whether it was about oil or not, it was definitely about America's desire to expand its global sphere of influence. If that idea is so powerful that we can go to war on false pretexts, then surely more of this will occur. Also, it seems whenever there is a genocide, or large military conflict, those countries' citizens emigrate to nations such as the US and Canada, where their freedom is protected.

Just think of it on a larger scale. The benefits of adhering to global law will seem to totally outweigh national sovereignty, and the the citizens will recognize this as well.

Before the nation state even emerged, people were merely subject to whatever rulers existed at the time. I'm thinking that nation states and the republics of the world are now becoming more sovereign then they were initially intended to be.

It WILL happen, as long as we live on one planet. It's inevitable.

It's just a matter of limits. Whether some modern nation states object to this global idea is irrelevant, because they will sooner or later be subject to it, whether through cooperation or by force. It's just a matter of time.

reply to post by cognoscente


I think you're looking at the world as a collection of two-bit countries.

Iraq et al were never titanic in size.

It is inconcievable to me that titans such as China, India, Russia could ever fall in such a manner.

You also mention that empiricism from a supra-national entity may be the way it is done... ie by the coalition of the willing or the UN. To that I say another two things:

1. No rich nation has the interest to merge with a poor nation (why would they?)

2. No nation or even the UN has the military power to forcibly pull Russia, China or India into the one world government.

It basically doesn't make fiscal sense for the NWO to do it. And even if they wanted to, they just don't have the power.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by 44soulslayer]

reply to post by 44soulslayer


Well since NWO is a conspiracy theory... I think the entire assumption is that its leaders exist at multiple tiers of all of the most powerful nations on the planet, including Russia, India and China. No one ever said anything about this idea being primarily focused in America. Or do you know something we don't know?

[edit on 9-12-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by 44soulslayer


I think the west will coalesce to form a major trading block backed by either a new currency or a new SE or both, with partners being the EU and the NAU.

Once that ball starts rolling, the rest will fall into line pretty quick if they don't want to get left behind

reply to post by budski


Interesting way of putting it.

That would still leave a Sino-Russian axis, though.

Its called "Plan B".
Our way of life is reaching the end and there needs to be a backup plan to keep everything together. Change freaks some people out and the population tends to overreact. I'm sure plan B or whatever it is will not be more of the same system that we have been accustom to for the simple fact that its not working anymore. There will be positive aspects and negative aspects. Love it or leave it!


[edit on 9-12-2008 by Digital_Reality]

reply to post by pause4thought


If the NAU comes together, along with the EU it would be the worlds biggest and most powerfull trading block - russia is too corrupt and dependant on oil and gas revenue, and china needs markets more than the markets need china.

I could even see japan joining a western trade alliance as that is where they do most business - but they'd have to open up a lot more....

reply to post by budski


All very true. But still difficult to see how they could shoe-horn China or Russia into such a monstrosity politically.

reply to post by cognoscente


1. No rich nation has the interest to merge with a poor nation (why would they?)

Your absolutely right. That would be the largest issue of contention for such a one world government. Nations exist, whether we define them or not. What would happen, however, with 100% free trade, is a redistribution of the wealth of nations. America's wealth is rather artificial. It is predicated on keeping production costs low, by taking advantage of poorer and industrialized nations, and through heavy subsidization to ensure smaller nations can never compete. Same goes for Europe. Basically wealth would shift to a bunch of different random pockets of the world, where "true capital" lies. That is, the most ingenious and competitive people. So this is truly a major disadvantage for the major global powers at the moment, because in such a system, everyone has a lot of power.

There would have to be a restructuring of the financial system. It would be massive, and you'll see why by reading this post. We couldn't use a fiat currency as a reserve for the globe. There will have to be some other method. Probably a world currency.

If nations aren't concerned primarily with the well being of its citizens, capital will be allocated to every portion of the globe, rather than being centralized in certain corners, i.e. Boston, Chicago, New York. The reason being is that democratic representatives, under such a new world government would not be primarily interested in the wealth of its constituency. At the moment, elected representatives promise benefits to their voters. Governments promise to "shore up" jobs. Do you know how unproductive that is for the world at large? It's totally irresponsible, but it's ok because that countries citizens get jobs. How political.

Zimbabwe isn't really a poor country. Neither is most of Africa. It's not like they don't have the resources. The presence of a plethora of multinational corporations is proof enough. It's just that Africa as a nation does not have the democratic power to utilize those resources, so their governments often give concessions to foreign corporations to provide labor opportunities, because that is better than nothing. Africa has been mired in colonial oppression for centuries. That is what created its poverty, not some racial inability, or some ill supported notion that since humans evolved there few resources remain to actually use.

I'm starting to think that if there was a one world government, financial restructuring wouldn't even be addressed. All the wealth would remain at the top, as it would not be beneficial to the current banking regime, the Rothschilds, and the political elite.

If this planet were truly capitalistic, instead of nationally capitalistic, then a lot of the world's problems would be solved.

So I'll give you that. It would not be at the advantage of any party involved in this NWO (if their interest remained primarily in maintaining power) unless in fact they were the good guys...

reply to post by pause4thought


The politics will always be a problem with any kind of alliance, BUT if it's presented properly and everyone gets their slice of the pie, it could easily happen.

After that, the major western institutions will slowly start to exert control, with voting blocks and "elections" within the alliance.

Then comes the one world government controlled by the people who control everything now but on a slightly bigger scale.

reply to post by budski


I was with you up to this point. However I fail to see how vehemently anti-western governments/nations, typified by China and Russia, would capitulate. Strong trade relations, yes. Putin & Hu Jintao handing over control? Hmmm.

I suppose all you can say is that if the PTB achieve a single world currency they've already got de facto control.

Question is, are China/Russia naive enough to fall for it?




[edit on 9/12/08 by pause4thought]

reply to post by pause4thought


Wait, why do we assume that our government will perpetuate this? It could very well be primarily in the interest of China and Russia.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by cognoscente]