A one-world government is inevitable, so why oppose it?

Mod note: Honestly. -- Majic

Originally posted by ObvTruth
I dont know why people flip out so much when it comes to a One World Government/Religion. That would basically make us united at a species. I see nothing wrong with it. As long as everyone has they're own free will everything will be ok. So i dont know what all the fear mongering is all about.

Sure, all that is attainable by doctrine, that's all. Just make some rules and everyone will fall in line and live happily ever after. So what do you call this fantasy world you live in?

Originally posted by BanMePlzWhen did i say the holocaust has anything to do with globalism? I said the holocaust was not the result of logic, yet it had massive effect on society as a whole which refutes your statement that the development of society was based on logic, which is absolutely wrong, and childish to assume. You missed my point completely.

Wow, more strawman fallacies. Fascism is not logical, and I never did imply that. In general, fascism will always inevitably implode and most certainly leads to the overthrow of the dictator. The holocaust had no impact on the development of Nazi Germany and, if anything, caused it to suffer due to the many Jewish scientists and engineers that were sent to the concentration camps rather than conducting research for the Reich. The holocaust was irrelevant to your argument and, thanks to invoking Godwin's Law, your argument is completely invalidated.

Originally posted by BanMePlzWell, Im glad you can admit that "we" (assuming you think you are some part of intelligent community, either that or you are delusional.) dont have the full picture. You prove my point. Not all things have evidence.
You can refer to it as theory, but the big bang is still very much a hypothesis.

This is absolute idiocy of the highest order. Scientific theories have evidence in which anyone can conduct experiments to prove they are consistent with laws of the physical world. There is no ABSOLUTELY no evidence of your conspiratorial FANTASIES are accurate and truth. I don't understand how you can't comprehend such a simple concept, but yet you can apparently take astronomy classes? Your course coordinator must have been incompetent.

Originally posted by BanMePlzYour assumption is rather bovine. You are saying that people who understand conspiracy are drug addicts and insane. Thats just downright bigotry. Im not surprised..

Ah, how silly of me. Clearly, the champions against the alleged NWO are very educated and respected people in their fields; contributors to society. People who do not pull nonsensical claims with no evidence out of their rear, such as the moon being a NAZI base to brainwash the population into slowly accepting the NWO. You don't believe that, of course, do you?

Originally posted by BanMePlzOnce again you miss my point completely. When einstien first conceived his theory (or should i say hypothesis) there was no evidence. It still had to be tested. Does that make sense to you, the evidence was in his brain.

You clearly have no idea of it works. When Einstein published his theory, it was placed under scrutiny by mathematicians to see if his mathematical proofs and use of axioms were accurate. If it didn't pass that stage, then no scientist would have wasted their time on experimenting with it. Wormholes are mathematically possible but all experiments conducted prove that it cannot be materialized into the physical world at this time. However, there is CLEARLY more evidence for wormholes existing than a global elite that has been hellbent on controlling the world for centuries.

Originally posted by BanMePlzTrue, but a hypothesis is the essence of a theory. The word "theory" is just a glorified version of "hypothesis".
A theory is just a hypothesis that a group of scientists agree on, nothing more, sure there may be applications in the real world, but remember that science can never be proven, it can only be disproven. If you are a post grad scholar you would know that.. And not all scientists agree with each other, science is being revised as we speak.

And yet, is there not more evidence via experimentation and or mathematical proofs for these scientific theories than there is for a global elite? And no, you are wrong. Once a scientist hypothesizes something, they conduct experiments to see if A causes B. After countless experimentation to show that A does in fact cause B, then it is published in a peer-reviewed article and is accepted as scientific facts or "theory". Any layman can conduct the experiment if they have the tools at their disposal, and if they can prove that A does not cause B under the circumstances that it was postulated, then it will be rendered obsolete. With this global elite, there is no scientific way to confirm that they exist. It is truly ridiculous of you to compare scientific facts, which can be discredited by any layman at any time, to ridiculous fantasies that were concocted only 30 years ago and is only accepted by a fringe group that will accept anything as long as it is a video that meets the requirements of a ridiculous claim, spooky background music, and is 7+ minutes long.

Originally posted by BanMePlzNow stop being so sensitive.

If you can't debate like a civilized person and provide evidence for your ridiculous claims, then don't bother responding. You have nothing of value to say except for useless rhetoric until you can provide evidence and we'll go from there.

ATSers like to keep their definitions of the "NWO" vague, so that they can attach anything they dont like to it, not matter how contradictory.

What i think we need is a common goal, for the entire human race. When we have this goal, all the worlds nations would probably gladly fall in line.

I always saw a one world government as the next logical step for humankind, ever since i watched star trek as a little kid. In star trek, the earth is united into the whole human race as part of the "federation", and everything just works alot better there then they do right here and now. Of course for this to work, we need the technology to free us from the need for greed, due to scarcity etc, that we are still subject to in our infancy. Without free energy(e-cat?), matter replicators(3d printers are already here at least), and anti-grav engines we will never have a chance to get there. However to get there, we need to first unite under a common goal, to pool our resources into large otherwordly projects, like building a starship factory in space, colonizing the moon/mars etc, projects that would be to large for a single nation to afford. In this way i see a one world government as the next logical step, and im sure alot of people do.

Now, i don´t know if this "NWO" that ppl talk about and fear, is what we need or indeed is the same thing, but as they are pained out to be so evil, i suspect not. However i do agree that we need to start thinking about limiting the population of the earth really soon, as we are running out of resources at an exponentially faster rate year after year with the current population increases, and the earth can only sustain so many until we are able to "grab more land(in space)".

Now about de-populizing i mean something like china, a "one child per family" policy perhaps, or a kind of tax-less lifestyle until you get your first child. Simple measures like this surely would accomplish the same goals as what the worst comspiracy theorist ascribe the NWO of plotting, by murdering ppl outright. (which i think is rather exagerrated..)

Just my 2 cents...

The movie scene has done detrimental damage to the image of a world government. Almost every single movie that has something to do with a world government portrays it as a Nazi regime that force feeds it's population drugs and bans creativity.

I personally would welcome a world government for the many benefits it would bring. Global control of all resources, no wars between countries, no hatred for others just because of where they are from and possibly no more segregation of the races.

Something like this would only be able to apply to a diminished population so I think a catastrophe would have to happen that wipes the slate clean. I don't think this would happen in our lifetime though.

For the same reason you oppose totalitarianism, even though it's inevitable.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


Im not living in a fantasy world. Im not the people complaining about the NWO taking over the world. If such a one world government were to take place it wouldnt be so bad. Thats all.

Originally posted by megabytz in reply to Jean Paul Zodeaux

Maybe you all, as well as Atlas, should just shrug and get out of town.

Texas maybe?

Texas would be glad to have yo JPZ. Right now Texas is one of the few areas of the country that actually has jobs.

reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist

The evolution of man dictates that a global, democratic government is inevitable in the foreseeable or distant future. We first started out as families, congregating into tribes and clans that had a set of rules or laws if you will and a primitive governing body, which became villages and small communities, eventually becoming cities and then the nation states we see today.

Well, once man evolves past temptation, greed, envy, jealousy, and anger that is when I will accept a one world government.

History states that there is a chance someone will rise to power and commit atrocities. If they did it now we would have multiple nations unite and defend the world. But if there is only one government there will be one army, and one police force, and etc. This will give a tyrant the ultimate power.

reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist


Why oppose it?

OK, the Nazi's wanted a one world government...... Think we should have opposed it?

The youth of today.

See, I myself do not oppose a "World Order" as long it is spreading the god given rights of the U.S. Constitution in it's entirety to every corner of the world (and returning to it ourselves). Not some quasi-fascist European Social Democracy or worse.

Otherwise, hell no.

I kinda agree with the OP in this thread. I feel in order to progress and develop furthur we need a One World Government but ran by people we can trust. With all these seperate governments all we are doing is having wars with each other and we should really should be more worried about getting off this planet and trying to find better resources and technology's from other intelligent life forms. I feel if we have a One world Government there will be no wars with eachother because we all look at our selves as a human race and not diffrent Ethnicity's .

Just my opinion but i also can see where all the people on here are scared of it. Yes we do have money hungry and power hungry people who would want to run it. We as poeple have to do some looking up more and find the trustworthy ones to run this One World Government.

reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fc09604fbf2d.jpg[/atsimg]

For all of you in favor of or not in opposition, SHAME ON YOU!!!

You and your family Will be sacrificed for this NWO, your family name eradicated. Your friends and family eradicated. Your hopes and dreams eradicated.

How can you stand not in defiance when they are going to take away everything you love and care for without a hesitant thought to your cry for mercy.

Proof! scour this website and you will find!

I Stand In Defiance!

Peace To Us

Thread title:
"A one-world government is inevitable, so why oppose it?"

Because, we are nowhere near ready for it now.
Even you say that we are not ready for it NOW.

You cannot say "in our lifetime", because any 'facts' about humanity's future are speculative by nature. That makes 'conspiracies' and your 'facts' on the same level in this department.

So, there's your answer, using your statements as a self-evident argument.

reply to post by ShadowZion


My hopes and dreams is to be able to explore the stars before i die. In the current socio-economic system, i don´t see this happening anytime soon with all the petty wars over oil in the middle east or focus on who is the richest man in the world, for the fourth year in a row, or what celeb did the latest nip-slip. These petty values need to end. The only way i see this happening is that we unite for a common goal, and reach for the stars. The only way this is possible is under a one world government. So sorry i don´t agree with you. I have higher amibtions than being part of the gray mass that just want to procreate and make children that continue to procreate and drain the earth of resources at a faster and faster rate without a real goal other than "continue like we always have".

It is only a matter of time before the # hits the fan.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist

 

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fc09604fbf2d.jpg[/atsimg]

I might use this for a book I am writing, if you don't mind.

BTW, op, lemme break it down for you. At the root of it all is the families. These super-wealthy families, there's only around a thousand or so, set up foundations with all their money. These foundations go towards think tanks run by leaders of banks, corporations, and military leaders. Some think tanks include; the CFR, Bilderberg, and Trilateral Commission. These think tanks get people into executive office (only those who have climbed the corporate ladder) as advisers. One such adviser was Henry Kissinger, who approved bombing raids on thousands of North and South Vietnamese civilians, all of which were, I am afraid, killed. These advisers 'sway' the chief executive's views in the way of corporate elite through an act known as "lobbying". The federal government then uses their military arm to conquer in favor of the elite.

They do exist, the evidence is right there, you are being blind OP. You need to wake up.

reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist

Talk is cheap. Why don't you do something about it? You liken your cause to that of the Founding Father's, and yet, here you are: The armchair libertarian.

You necessarily have to assume that I am not in order to make such a statement. Such an assumption is elitist. It is certainly not an educated guess, it is just a blind assumption based solely upon personal bias.

You clearly are lacking in history. After the first World War, the government took a neutral and isolationist stance on all global issues. It did not involve itself in the politics of other countries and wanted nothing to do with World War II in its inception. It was only after Pearl Harbor that the vast majority of Americans wanted their government to enter the war.

Uh-huh. Yep, this notion of isolationism after World War I continues to persist, and I suppose if you are willing to ignore the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War where the U.S. committed 13,000 American soldiers in the Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok regions between 1918 and 1920, the you have a point...Well, of course, you would also have to ignore the so called "Banana Wars" where the U.S. in between 1924 and 1933 used the U.S. Marines so many times in South America and that area that they were compelled to write a manual called The Strategy and Tactics of Small Wars. Let's ignore that in 1924 President Calvin Coolidge sent troops into Honduras. Let's ignore that between 1926 and 1933 both Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover committed troops to Nicaragua in the Sandino Wars. Let's just say all these little excursions and adventures were American isolationism, then you can be right, okay?

Wow, one anecdote, which is considered to be a fluke by the vast majority of scientists, to support your entire argument as to why private research is superior to government research.

Wow, are we to assume that by "one anecdote" you mean Jonas Salk? Or, do you mean it was a fluke that the Wright Brothers learned to fly? Or, do you discount this phenomenal technological advance as something outside of the purview of science? Or, do you mean it was a fluke that Henry Ford, who was not the inventor of the automobile (nor was any government funded program responsible for this invention), took the automobile and not only mass produced it, but did so with the express purpose of making the automobile affordable to the masses, and did this without any government funding or sponsorship? Oh yeah, these are all just flukes, and all advances humanity has gained have come from government, right? Please.

I never called or insinuated that you are a communist. Where did you come up with that?

How about from this post here, where you insinuated this:

And if you have a better idea than democracy, tell me, what is it? You prefer a dictatorship or communism?

Oh sure, dismiss the insinuation as just an honest question, or call it sarcasm if you wish, this is where I came up with your insinuation.

The greater scientific community considers what the Wright brothers did as the greatest scientific fluke in history, especially when the top mathematical physicists at the time unanimously agreed that "matter heavier than air" will never take flight.

Are you for real? Do you expect us all to believe that the Wright Brothers contemporary "top mathematical physicists" unanimously agreed that birds could not take flight? Hell even butterflies and fleas and fly's are heavier than air. Or, are you going to lecture us, or me, on how this is not so and that the birds and the bees are actually lighter than air? Damn, you really are insistent on entrenching yourself in your own foolishness, aren't you?

This will never be repeated when it comes to the space travel and can only be accomplished by government research. Unless, of course, you believe 2 mechanics can somehow efficiently harness and use the energy to accomplish manned interstellar travel across the universe? If you do, please don't bother responding.

Sigh. Welcome to Virgin Galactic

Early on Wednesday 4th May 2011, in the skies above Mojave Air and Spaceport CA, SpaceShipTwo, the world’s first commercial spaceship, demonstrated its unique reentry ‘feather’ configuration for the first time. This test flight, the third in less than two weeks, marks another major milestone on the path to powered test flights and commercial operations.

You're a real piece of work, my woefully ignorant friend.

Actually, the side effects of smoking are not pronounced and apparent until it is too late

That is utter nonsense and most people, upon inhaling smoke from their first cigarette cough up a storm, because the body angrily rejects that smoke. This is the very first side affect of smoking. Sigh.

If you were aware of the scientific studies conducted by the government, you'd know that. But, like always, you resort to rhetoric. The fact remains: If the government did not conduct research and scrap all regulations off the cigarette companies, there would be many more smokers without realizing the health effects, seeing as in your privatized utopian world, medical doctors wouldn't be doing research on smoking either and wouldn't have the sufficient knowledge to logically conclude that a patient's problems all stem from smoking.

Yep, like I said, you're a real piece of work. Only the government saves, unless you're Christian, then it's Jesus and the government that saves.

If you consider a grad-school student surviving off of 18K/year on stipends and ramen noodles as elitist, then you really have a poor grasp of the term "elitist". I do not advocate for a one-world government (you didn't read my first post, did you?) but that of its inevitability in the distant future once all countries are on the same level in terms of economic development and culture. You would know that if you actually read my posts in this thread.

Yep. This is the level of graduate student knowledge these days. Sigh. Since none of your education afforded you a definition of elitism, or even how to use a dictionary so I wouldn't have to provide you with a definition now, try to focus long enough to read this:

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

2. a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

You clearly believe you hold the superior intellect, even in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

When one implies that all forms of taxation is tyrannical, do you really expect us to infer that you are not a libertarian?

I never made any such implication, and in order for you to infer such a thing, you would have to necessarily ignore the fact that I made reference to income tax in perpetuity, so if you are paying attention you would get that I am not even arguing that income tax in and of itself is tyrannical, but am saying a perpetual income tax is.

That is what the Libertarian ideology promotes, and logically, that is what most people can deduce from people who imply such things. Or do you not understand rational deducing and inference?

Again with the "imply". I am not so subtle as to imply as much as you claim I do. I assert, not imply. Do you understand rational deducing and inference, or are these terms you learned in graduate school, but have no idea what they mean? You're the one obsessed with labels, sport.

It is strange how you accuse me of constructing strawman arguments, while that is all that you have been doing. I did not advocate for a one-world government, and would happily fight if it were ever pushed for in my lifetime.

Inevitable based upon what? Where's the evidence of this? Is such a thing testable? Yep. You're a real piece of work.

If you are such a die-hard patriot

Uh-huh, your not the one guilty of strawman arguments, are you? Or, do you believe I "implied" I was a "die hard patriot"?

Unrestricted capitalism is a complete disaster. Just look at Northern Mexico and Somalia. The free-market has made those places very prosperous, hasn't it? If the unrestricted free-market is clearly the best system, how come it has failed every time it has been attempted? No one economic system is perfect, and mixed economy countries are generally the most stable for both the citizenry and the corporations. Just look at Scandinavian countries and compare them to libertopian (lawless) countries today. Case closed.

Case closed, is it? I am out of time tonight, and will have to pick up your closed case tomorrow. Case closed, indeed.

reply to post by Davian


That pic is from the sopranos television show.... I just added the text.

You'll have to ask them about that... XD

reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist As many have said before me I dont oppose a world government but as long as the greed and corruption of military, politicians and bankers in the United States and China remains rampant and largely unpunished i am ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED to it! And you and everybody else in this world should be as well! Promoting an idea about the future of worldwide politics is fine but you should at least weigh the pros and cons fairly. You presented a very nicely worded OP but it was biased. You never ever touched on any negative implications it may have on the world. Checks and balances will not halt or minimise corruption they will only force the 'elites' to find an alternative way to commit fraud or other greedy activitities. Besides that I believe everything you said in your OP is definitely our future. However I also believe we will achieve better unity through communication technologys rather then government intervention! The internet has sure changed the world and its people in a short amount of time!