Australian Greens Leader "Bob Brown" calls publicly for a One World Government

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by all answers exist

 

reply to post by Rockdisjoint

 

It took me a bit to recognise what OWG was, One World Government. So how does this relate to globalisation?

It is industry that has developed and promoted globalisation. Currently there are very few standard laws and regulations that dictate how business is conducted across the globe. The legal system managing this is based on many different local, national and cultural jurisdictions and processes. It is very messy. It is also full of loop holes, inconsistencies, contradictions and failings across the Planet.

Places like the Cayman Islands and others are tax and banking havens that hide and launder large amounts of wealth. Third world nations are exploited with their cheep labour and lack of environmental regulation. The international money markets is open to manipulation and effective profit without production due to these international inconsistencies that have emerged as part of the globalisation process.

The UN deceleration of human rights www.un.org... is one of the better documents produced by the UN, however it's implementation still has some way to go. A OWG will not be focused on minor local and cultural issues, but instead focus on how large organisations such as industry and government deal with these challenges.

So how OWG relates to globalisation is similar to how a city relates to its council, or how a country relates to its government, but just on a larger level dealing with larger issues.

edit on 29-6-2011 by kwakakev because: added reply to Rockdisjoint

This idea(/ideal) of an international arbiter of all fairness and consistency in trade and industry is all well and good if the global 'governors' are totally honest and reliable, 100% straight down the line perfect in intent and and flawless in character. What seems to be the case, however, is that no human is that good.

What seems to be the case is business and government being very much in each others pockets - locally, nationally and globally. A common belief among 'conspiracy theorists' is that most politicians and businesspeople and industrialists and financiers are all in the same 'club'. They're all singing the same tune. A siren song if you like. Morals are good when they are profitable, and things are more profitable when they appear moral. And it is ethical idealists like Bob Brown who have been lulled into thinking that the game he is playing is winnable on the terms he dreams of.

The question is, does Bob Brown actually know whose 'court' he is playing in when he enters parliament or a national press club conference? Does Bob really believe that the global financial and industrial emperors will subvert their own mechanisms to wealth and power for the sake of some idealistic 'global cooperation for saving the environment and reducing poverty'? Does he not know full well that the system he dreams of is just dirty old wine in a new sheepskin?

At the end of the day, money talks. From the UN to Wall Street to the Reserve Banks to Parliaments. Bob's global dream will be realised only when the emperors work out a way to make it both profitable and pleasant to the ear.

Mind you, Greece now is a good example of how they can push things against the will of the population without any pleasentness whatsoever.

Are we not seeing the virtual sale of the incorporated nation of Greece to a global buyer at a bargain basement price?

Thus, if morality is too slow and too expensive: 'the end justifies the means'.

reply to post by crikeyoioioi


Multi culture is not a true culture as it cannot be.
Multiculture is a most destructive policy to Aussie culture

People came here to Australia to leave there troubles and come start anew.
Everyone came from all parts of europe and had different cultures and langages the only thing to bind the people togeather was the Australian culture,to become Australian get,on with the job,start anew,that was the culture.

Now multiculture gives people a reason NOT to unite,this is exactly opposite to the culture that was started here.
I don't call myself Australian anymore as it does not represent my culture(it just means you pay tax to the Austrailan gov),I prefere Aussie,which sort of does.
Culture comes from the way people live the lives according to there enviromental needs.

I know of a story about a guy from malta who was being setup with his 2nd cousin because its there culture.
HA HA I had too laugh as there is not a shortage of mates in Austraila like old Malta so whats the point of holding on to backward traditions like these just because its there culture which has come from a need that does not exist anymore.

reply to post by sollie

'the end justifies the means'.

I know this is commonly used to justify and excuse a lot of bad behaviour, but it never ends. The means is the end. But I do see your point and it is a very strong and valid one. How could Cheney sit in front of the UN and push the WMD argument for the Iraq invasion and not get challenged when the even the UN weapon inspectors knew nothing was there?

People ain't perfect and mistakes are a common part of the learning and cognitive process. But when more peer review is applied the quality improves. Different people are able to see different problems and ideas, when they can collaborate effectively these can merge and combine into a strong and capable solution. With the UN able to tap into the peer review of a couple hundred nations when it wants to there is potentially a lot of power to get things right.

The relationship between industry and government is a close one as they both take a lot of specialist skills and resources to perform. This has created a lot of conflicts of interest with corruption a global problem, no nation is immune to it. I have not seen the full speech by Bob Brown, but whatever he said at least he has raised the topic to give people something to think about in how our future is structured. This is a global problem and is going to need global ideas for a solid solution.

At the moment the security council is riding shotgun at the UN, with the G8, G20, general assembly and many others all having their special roles and responsibilities. Representation is appointed and traced back to the nations standing and liberty. While a democratic model has introduced some advantages over previous dictatorship models of governance there are still a lot of problems. The internet is introducing a capability to access and share a lot of information that was previously unavailable. This is gradually providing some added review and influence into the decisions that are made. By utilizing and enhancing this capability it is one way to help stop the corruption and dumb decisions in their tracks.

Guessing

Maybe you are the warm hearted type.

good guess, my heart is open. lol.

I propose you take in some refugees, in your own home, give up your job so they can have one and then devote your life to educating them on your cultural ways. If you are not prepared to do all of these things then you are full of hot air and enjoy hearing your own voice for your own pleasure.

yeah right. its not up to me personally to save the world- I do what I can but I'm battling like everyone else.

reply to post by kwakakev


We will not have a one world government unit there is one global currency.

So please refrain from claims of a current one world government.

It does little for the debate nor the credibity of your post.

If.... I am wrong and you can provide evidence there is a current one world government without your hyperbole, then I am always open to saying I am wrong.

we wait....

reply to post by lifecitizen


Well until you are prepared to sacrifice you own life for refugees, your idealism is a fantasy.

At least you could give up your own job for them.... at the very least.

Because that is what your ideal scenario is.

reply to post by guessing


lol

I can't give up my job- but there is lots of jobs in the field, Im willing to share haha.

reply to post by lifecitizen


If you are genuine on job sharing for refugees, then there is a strong case for a policy change and an election winner.

Seriously...

Edit to add: You can claim that you came up with this first. It will be interesting to see when this proposal make mainstream politics. 6 months..... is my guess

Originally posted by lifecitizen

What? you don't believe we would fight against foreign military invaders? surely you jest, Nah we have no culture,lifestyle or anything like do we? I really don't know what the hell take away food has to do with anything,do countries with "culture" not partake in eating food from other countries?

Of course we have a lifestyle- generally speaking we are laid back, we like to drink, we like to swear, watch the footy and cricket, have bbqs and hang out for our rostered days off.

We have an indigenous culture which we cant claim as ours.

My point with the food was, if [some] people here hate immigrants so much you would think you would have a problem with eating their food. To alot of the different nationalities here, food is a big part of their culture.

My point about how close Indonesia etc was, as global warming/climate change continues to happen, humans will be forced to migrate, just like we have always done.
There's how many of them? and how many of us?
This isnt going to happen tomorrow but there's nothing surer than earth changes and nothing surer than human migration. We are going to have to work something out before that time or we're here for the taking.
Attitudes towards refugees/ boat people will have to change, Im appalled at the lack of compassion a lot of Aussies have towards such people. ffs we all smile in the same language!

If we take 200 million Indo's as you suggest our country will be a poverty stricken hell hole,that may be the future you want for Australia, but i reckon you would have trouble convincing any sane Aussie that,

Yes we will work something out,A BIGGER DEFENSE FORCE,

Lack of compassion ? if not wanting our country to go down the toilet is showing a lack of compassion then i guess i lack compassion,

reply to post by guessing


www.un.org...

The website has sections on: peace and security, development, human rights, humanitarian affairs and international law. These are all issues of global governance. As for a single global currency there have been a lot of ideas and discussion going on for a very long time. There are also a lot of difficulties and challenges in terms of it's implementation, but if or when the day does come you can be certain that the UN will be at the forefront of negotiations and oversight of a single global currency.

The formation of a government is an organic process. Just like a tree growing, it takes time to establish its roots and form its branches. The United Nations is the one body that all the nations of the world do support. While the power and authority of the UN is still a bit hit and miss at times it is still a growing body that has to go through a lot of negotiations and complexity for agreements on hard and difficult issues. But just so you know how much power this body can raise, most of the worlds main military forces have agreed to the START treaty. This means that any threat to the UN has to face the combined force of the worlds military. No other Earthly organisation has this potential strength.

The whole idea of democracy is to achieve liberty through the separation (hence limitation) of powers, based on the understanding that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. How a global government is supposed to behave better than nations is beyond reason. Simply put, it's a lie. It's based on the premise that others act poorly through an inferior moral compass, implying that those who are deemed worthy through having the "right" views are essentially less fallible. Sound familiar? Thousands of years of religions centred on claimed infallibility have gone up in smoke through the revelation of widespread pedophilia within its ranks, and Bob Brown reckons he's rediscovered it through the moral superiority of environmentalism? This from the man who scoffs at the notion of religious or papal infallibility. Hypocrite.

The man who despised One Nation espouses the glory of a One World Government? Hypocrite. Apart from the xenophobic overtones of One Nation, what he truly despised was the concept of a party running on the platform of national sovereignty. So here we have a man who's party is hellbent on undermining Australian sovereignty, whose policy is to eradicate all coal-fired power stations in Australia, a country with no nuclear power and limited hydro power due to the Green's opposition to ANY new dams. A party who manipulated the majority party of government to introduce a carbon tax which only taxes Australian industry; a form of reverse tariff, and a tax which essentially exports coal-powered industry to foreign nations with less efficient industry; the end result being a net INCREASE in global carbon emissions.

That his party as of July 1 holds the balance of power shows that this boast in no coincidence. People like Bob Brown believe that a One World government is assured, and his full speech suggests precisely that. That he is now acting like he's drunk with power is yet more proof that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even the infallible.

And it would appear the Greens have shown their hand already.

Opposition Attacks Greens Over Donations

I also agree that a OWG is a lie. Unfortunately though it’s got potential to be a cash cow for some the like of which this planet has never seen. And it will come about because we all suffer from Stupid Monkey Syndrome (SMS) to varying degrees. I shan’t go into that in any detail at the moment as I’m saving the topic of SMS for my first legitimate thread.

Anyway, I’d have to say that having the Greens as a minor party in the senate wasn’t too bad as a hand brake. Now that they’re holding the steering wheel I can safely say I’m very concerned for the near future. Do you know if there are plans for the creation of a Minister for Catastrophic Unintended Consequences of Piss Poor Policy?

Originally posted by captainblood
The whole idea of democracy is to achieve liberty through the separation (hence limitation) of powers, based on the understanding that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Yes. Don't we see the same principle at play in this great global warming scam? Where is the line that separates scientific authority from governmental policy?

Traditional separation of power was between religion and the state. With the Enlightenment and 'age of reason', science replaced religion as a major public power, and was perfectly matched to civil authority by way of a mutual rejection of any higher authority than the human will to power. Thus Science and the Global Political Architecture are both atheistic and humanistic by definition. Neither want nor need a God. Perfect match. Indeed, leaders in the scientific revolution like Bacon and Descartes envisaged such a world where Science ruled and drove social progress through the mechanisms of Government, not blind faith and financial devotion to the Church.....how ironic. Contemporary SoP is between the civil insititutions of Governmental, Legal, Financial and Enforcement powers. Science has now joined the ranks of these that should be separated from one another.

This should be a chapter from my yet to be upcoming book 'what really killed our ability to think independently?' Edward Bernays style.

Now Bob Brown is a 'Politican' with a Scientific (read: globo-socio-communo-environmentalismist-tug-at-your-heart-strings) agenda. And Tim Flannery, for example, is a 'Scientist' with a Political agenda (read: globo-socio-communo-environmentalismist-tug-at-your-heart-strings).

That's to say, Governments the world over, local to global seem to be albe to 'fund research' (buy support?) that wonderfully justifies their policy with near impunity. And we can only assume that the reason we hardly hear public voices opposing the 'research' is because Governments have close Connections of Power to yet another public power institution that should be separated from the rest (and perhaps the furthest!) --> Corporate Mass Media.

It seems like we can sum up the whole New World Order conspiracy theoreists' view on the structure and development of a One World Government as the wholesale erosion of the separation of powers, local up to global. Across the globe we are giving UP our power. A carbon tax is tangible proof of the implementation of a transfer of power UPwards, in the form of wealth, higher up the pyramid, if you like. And this is acieved through the co-mingling interests and Connections of Power shared between Scientific policy and Political science, in the case of so called climate change.

We see a similar thing when a global agri-business like Viterra can move into South Australia and buy control of near every grain storage facility from Adelaide to Port Augusta and beyond. Transfer of power into fewer hands, i.e., UP the pyramid. We see the same thing when Coles or Woolworths can buy into and take over the retail liqour and hotel industry. That's a step away from the hospitaility industry, which is two steps away from the entire food supply chain: Wesfarmers owns the farms, the coles supermarkets and your local pub, - food and drink from the ground to your mouth, with a little stop over at their mates house, Viterra, for a short mark up in price and mutual investment. Shouldn't we recognise this as a breach of the separation of powers that ensures our sovreignity as indiviuals and communities?

Fantastic point you raised. Very pertinent.