Financial Times: "And Now for a World Government"

reply to post by pause4thought


Do remember that this would be a very long, slow and subtle process, maybe taking generations - but my guess is that it will happen.

It will be a very gradual shift.

reply to post by cognoscente


All I can say is there is a mass of information relating to a western-led attempt at OWG. I'm not aware of anything similar that points to Russia/China other than a vague old-school 'Workers of the World - unite!'

Playing devil's advocate...

As humans all we have done is divided ourselves by any means possible. Im a Christian, Im a Muslim, Im a democrat, Im a republican, Im a socialist, I like the free market, Im rich, Im poor, Im American, Im British, Im Russian, Im Chinese, Im elite, Im a blue collar worker, Im a white collar worker, etc etc...

Uniting the world under a one ruling council of EACH countries leaders, keeping each country as what us Americans call states (which are what countries are anyway by the way), with one currency, with one body of laws over all the land, needing 75% of the vote in the Council, all countries would be forced to a true democracy.. something along these lines, I would support.

Back to reality, we have a bunch of grade A priks running the show and that is not how they intend to set up their NWO...

Corruption is a staple diet of current governments as they are right now...
The only thing keeping them in some form of check is neighboring governments.

If there's only one main government, the first corrupted maniac to get into power has total authority, and no-body can do anything about it.

No, I much prefer the idea that I can claim asylum somewhere else should my government ever turn fascist.

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
It will not, and I stress this, be a democracy.

Democracy does not always equate to being right. Hell, look at Zimbabwe or Germany in the 1930's or even the U.S. with Bush and now Obama. People ELECTED these people, but they have been nothing but heart ache, except Obama yet. The problem is, when you let ignorant and uneducated people vote (and they are the majority) the best person usually does not win.

There are better alternatives to democracy, even if it isn't PC to say so.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by RetinoidReceptor]

reply to post by ImaNutter


Even if a OWG were benevolent, how on earth could it be run as a democracy?

a) Billions of votes to count, all with regional / national interests at heart

b) Only corporations would be large / influential enough to affect government policy

c) The media might remain free on paper - as now - but in reality they are financially beholden to a select few individuals, who would in effect become global oligarchs, controlling the flow of all information.

d) Even today democracy is an illusion. The liklihood of any given candidate being elected is directly proportional to their expenditure on media exposure. You'd just be handing even more control over to those who've amassed vast wealth - often on the back of corrupt dealings.

e) Minority groups would be voiceless.

I could go on.



[edit on 9/12/08 by pause4thought]

Pause4thought I see where you are coming from. I think the best way to deal with these problems is for there to be like an estates general like the French had before the revolution. There would be representative bodies for the people, but the people would not have direct control over things (such as voting which is a sham anyway).

reply to post by RetinoidReceptor


I hear you. Unfortunately all I can see is a world divided into sectors that would 'oversee' the activities of the plebs (who'd probably retain the illusion of voting rights).

Each sector (roughly based on present-day nations) would answer to the top for keeping everything under control.

If you look at recent history the right to privacy and the rule of law itself have both been constantly eroded under the auspices of protection the population from bogeymen - sorry, I mean terrorists. This process would only be accelerated / strengthened to the point where you are but a number in the State machinery.

Freedom?

Almost gone. Almost gone. Almost...

All I see is everyone bitching about how the world is screwed up. But NO ONE seems to have a solution to the problem. Besides you people act as if we get rid of the government then all the people of the world with hold hands and live happily ever after...

There is only one question to be asked regarding the merits of being under the banner of a one world government. And its not would it strengthen and create equality worldwide. That question is " Who benefits"?..

OWG = loss of freedom, loss of rights, chipping, de-population...Guess its not us then?


Respects

reply to post by FearSoul

But NO ONE seems to have a solution to the problem. Besides you people act as if we get rid of the government then all the people of the world with hold hands and live happily ever after...

I think all we are asking is a retention of the rights which hundreds of millions died defending in the second world war alone.

It's not a matter of getting rid of the government. It's a matter of avoiding headlines like this:


Robert McGabe elected World President


(Not literally, just someone of his ilk.)

Originally posted by captiva
There is only one question to be asked regarding the merits of being under the banner of a one world government. And its not would it strengthen and create equality worldwide. That question is " Who benefits"?..

OWG = loss of freedom, loss of rights, chipping, de-population...Guess its not us then?


Respects

Why? Why does OWG= that?

What a speculative post!

As I posted on another thread under my user name power_semi, this is nothing new.

It was proposed in 1943 & the Canadian who blew the whistle & spelt out what it would mean (William Aberhart, former premier of Alberta) in a radio broadcast on May 3rd 1943, was dead by May 23rd.

That to me says it is not a good thing, apart from the obvious that we do not want 1 group of people with absolute power.

When has a government EVER united the people in a more constructive way than a people without government? Mass fear and conquest do not equal constructive.

Unity is always the ultimate goal. But unity under law and currency? Go ahead and tie the strings to our wrists, because absolute control will inevitably lead to absolute slavery.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by whitl103]

reply to post by Alphard
[good... excellent.. one world government is exactly what we need. let the humanity unite ]

I have no problem with a one world nation, but the current people who are behind the NWO are evil. They want to keep you under their control, they want to control what you eat, who you marry, where you travel, what to educate your children, what freedoms you have.

One world government is fine, but trust me the current people behind it are not.

They are not good people who want to develop nonpolluting energy or safe food. They will only govern to their benefit and keep us on this world so we cannot escape them, originally their plan was to kill off a significant bloc of humanity so it would be easier for them to start their plans(!)

But now the very same people want to compromise, they are afraid of losing power to quickly so they are saying... 'No! wait, see! We have your best interests in heart now'

They may have lost, but still, they are trying to win... As they would have either way.

yeah right,nothing but a proxy by takeover,pretending to be the saviours in the midst of a crisis when infact they are the opressors.

A one world government and a planet united is an worthy cause but not done the way that the PTB are trying to do it and it will not work if based on a monetary system. My personal opinion is that if we are to attempt a one world society, we should be taking a look at the Venus Project.


Venus Project

Good: Governments from around the world getting together to come up with voluntary solutions to common problems.
Bad: Governments from around the world getting together to come up with mandatory laws that everyone must live by.

Good: World wide cooperation.
Bad: World wide dominion.

edit: typo

[edit on 9-12-2008 by wayno]

very intriguing! i read a few of the earliest comments on the page as far as positiveness for this... and in all honesty that is the BEST that we can do at this point in time... always remember that the true power lies in our unity. if we all unite.. nothing could ever go wrong (this is still a theory since we're all still so scatter-brained!).



just give it some time... and love the present that which you live in, in the meantime

Can't believe the amount of people who believe this is a good idea. Do you really think that the people that are running the countries of the world right now, are going to do a better job running the whole world?

Time is running out for the elite and they are having to advance their plans forward, as they are realising that they are losing control.

Government Meaning and Definition

1. (n.) The body politic governed by one authority; a state; as, the governments of Europe.
2. (n.) The right or power of governing; authority.
3. (n.) The influence of a word in regard to construction, requiring that another word should be in a particular case.
4. (n.) The act of governing; the exercise of authority; the administration of laws; control; direction; regulation; as, civil, church, or family government.
5. (n.) The person or persons authorized to administer the laws; the ruling power; the administration.
6. (n.) Management of the limbs or body.
7. (n.) The mode of governing; the system of polity in a state; the established form of law.