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

reply to post by trailertrash


In order for an absence of democracy to happen, it would appear that everybody would have to be convinced to sit back and let the authority run it all (or as I later mention, that there is already indeed democracy when there is questionably not so). It would seem there would need to be at least some aspect of "democracy" in order to keep people in order, unless the result of a world government means an unstable state. Can China's ideals (fueled by Confucianism) spread to the world to where little or no democracy is needed and where everybody will believe that allowing the state to run indefinitely is an act of kinship to humanity? It's hard to imagine that if there is one government, that it would be game over for the populace. Democracy or not, any form of state control has already consents (Locke's social contract), for showing no consent would mean at its extreme, a breech which would result in a fight against it.

If this said new order tags along "order" with "less democracy", then instead of eradicating democracy in the usual sense, I feel that there will possibly be more sophisticated methods of deception regarding ideas of democracy. Ideas can always be forced to mutate for a particular agenda, be it corporate or political. This under-handing seems to have worked well in the past with "communism" and "terrorism". In this sense, both 1984 and Brave New World come to mind, but which would it be, a more passive one (Brave New World), or a more shaky one (1984)? If everybody is "content enough" to allow whatever is before them to happen, then I would say let it be so. When the time comes where individuals are "not going to have it anymore", then action will be taken.

I say we try the new world order out. If it comforts you even, use an Art of War approach on it (If you can't beat them, join them). If you must, dress up in a sheep costume in order to jump out as a coyote, but don't expect stagnancy. Everything changes. String theory physicist Michio Kaku endorses the world's attempt to gather itself into this said order, though at the same time mentions that this may also blow us up. We are not going to know without doing. Everything changes. In changes come risk and in risk comes changes. That which is graspable is only temporary.

Also, take this interesting paradox (as are all dualities) to mind. With acceptance comes control. You must be well acquainted with acceptance if you want control.

Are we not the "United States" for a reason? Did you not read the declaration of independence and the constitution? We are divided already into 50 states who should be able to govern themselves. The people are above the government, not the other way around. It is important because centralized power leaves a lot of room for corruption, plus it is my personal belief that the "elite" are either intentionally waging war against our minds, or maybe perception is viral and everyone is infected with the most common false beliefs.

"Democratic" is unfortunately usually a code for "Socialism". The whole program has been socially engineered by the Power Elite who are at the top of the food chain. It is too bad that so many people do not understand the corrosive effects of Socialism and the One World Govt. We do not have to sacrifice national sovereignty on the altar of the Satanic One World system, while they force us to take the mark of the beast just to live in their engineered system. I do not trust anyone who suggests that this type of system is the answer to our problems. As we have seen, the downfall of the entire world economy can occur at the flip of the switch, and who is in charge of that switch? Obama? Brzezinski? Rothschilds? Rockefellers? Soros? How can anyone look at this world financial meltdown and crisis and revolutions in various countries and the Greek crisis and say oh yes its human evolution and its inevitable, and be happy with that result? Not only is it a disaster where only a handful make billions, it is also enslavement to their system.
That's my take on it. Remember World Communism is the model for their engineered system and it always was.

reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist

David Rockefeller is a philanthropist and it is possible he may have said such statements, but like all philanthropists and humanists, his personal views only stop with him. He is not a politician, has no power, etc. and can't enact anything.

Wrong.

Actually, through the Council on Foreign Relations the Rockefellers. the Morgans, and more importantly the Rothschilds have pulled the strings of American government and foreign policy for the past 50+ years. The council on foreign relations keeps the vast majority of its dealings a secret ( I wonder why that is) and has filled government positions from the POTUS, to attorney general, to secretary of state. Not only that but damn near every presidential administration since its inception has had many positions (if not all positions) filled by CFR members. Here's a little quote that I believe applies to you.

Citing source data is the "scientific method," but does not seem to apply to "Conspiracy Theories." A thousand sources may be quoted, yet will not convince the "skeptics," the "realists." It seems to me the "symptoms of mental illness" are on their side, if they refuse to look at evidence ("There are none so blind as those who WILL not see"); or perhaps something more sinister is at work, such as a knowledge of the truth, that does not want YOU to know.

To be paranoid means to believe in delusions of danger and persecution. If the danger is real, and the evidence credible, then it cannot be delusional. To ignore the evidence, and hope that it CANNOT be true, is more an evidence of mental illness.

Oh and to answer the OP, it's because I would like to live in a free society (an actual free society) in which I never have to worry about my children (when I have them) or my children's children becoming mental slaves in a society where the people are just as happy to keep each other down as the TPTB are. I want to ensure that no psychological locks are put on them as have been put on you.

Read the following: Animal Farm, 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451... just for starters.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It's rather simple, really.

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist
The evolution of man dictates that a global, democratic government is inevitable in the foreseeable or distant future.Cosmos

You start your thread by a brain fart... I just couldn't read the rest, sorry. You base your point on a linear and narrow-minded conception of History, and one that is Eurocentric.

If you are so convinced that there is some sort of evolution process DICTATING History, than would you explain us how come Europe, about 1500 years ago, went from being one of the biggest and most well-organized empire of history, to fall in the #hole of the Dark Ages, drowned into the chaos of endless petty rivalries and hundreds of bloody dictators keeping the people in near-total ignorance. How did "we" went from the glory of the Antiquity to wooden castles full of poo, and villages where half the people were dying from viruses? While during that same era, there were other people on the planet living in a MUCH more evolved civilization than Europe.

Or how the system of "democracy", these days, needs to be despotically enforced, through economic terrorism (the austerity measures), brutal paramilitary police in the streets, and continuous wars of invasion abroad, where the distinction between civilian and military casualty no longer matters. If it is a natural process, it doesn't need to be FORCED, right?

The greatest flaw with contemporary scientists: a near-total lack of any wider perspective of things...You are being so programmed to be over-specialized that you lose contact with reality, not even being aware of what you're really doing and the consequences of it. Like torturing and murdering animals in laboratories while chatting with colleagues about yesterday's football game... or developing GMO seeds that will destroy entire crops and people's health as well, while you're using your fat paychecks to buy yourself organic food.

reply to post by surrealpoet


The problem with your approach to this is that while there is a certain amount of "Globalism" which has expanded national economies, it doesn't necessarily command a need for a One World Govt to run things centrally. This is the crux of the issue for me, as Centralization means the State runs all our lives. This is called COMMUNISM, or MARXISM. Sorry for the caps but it needs to be said. It's the same Communists running things from the Obama admin. Why would anyone want that?

There is nothing wrong with 'one world government' as a pure idea. Its simply an extension of national government which is an extension of regional government which is an extension of local government and so on.

There is no reason it would have to be tyranny any more than a national government would have to be a tyranny. Tyrannies develop when citizens are asleep at the wheel.

Nor would it have to be socialist in nature.

However, we are not ready for it.

We don't have a system of government in place anywhere, yet, that could scale to that level and provide accountability. The systems we have now are all based on the best thinking of the 18th century and they haven't even been able to maintain their purity and function as intended at national level.

We don't have the organisation and have not yet converged sufficiently on social and moral issues for it to occur naturally. We would all have to see ourselves as humans first and races/nationalities second. Some large religions would need to reform to be truly accepting of compromise.

What would be a disaster would be an attempt to impose such convergence before we are ready for it. That could well end up in the dystopian scenario discussed by many people here. You cant really civilise people at the point of a gun, it never works out well.

We'll have to remain a squabbling bawling child species for some time yet.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by surrealpoet

 

The problem with your approach to this is that while there is a certain amount of "Globalism" which has expanded national economies, it doesn't necessarily command a need for a One World Govt to run things centrally. This is the crux of the issue for me, as Centralization means the State runs all our lives. This is called COMMUNISM, or MARXISM. Sorry for the caps but it needs to be said. It's the same Communists running things from the Obama admin. Why would anyone want that?

You're wrong. Obama's nowhere near a commie. And not all communist movements were for a global centralized government. If you don't see a difference between the anglophile Fabian Socialists (H.G. Wells was one) with revolutionary communists, you need to go back to read some books.

Obama, like the last few Presidents, is a FASCIST. Fascism supports a central power based on repressive, violent public policing, a unitarian vision of society and State as an organic community, and the full merger of (some) corporations with the State... aside from defending a very exclusive wealthy caste against all the rest, with a central figure of authority having the monopoly of violence. This is what you have in Amerika, now.

..especially since the UN's Resolution 1973, a negation of the 1973 War Powers Act, which means a shift from the power of the Congress to the power of a dictator... just like when some tyrant usurped patricians in Rome, to become the Emperor.

This is the symbol of fascism:



And here it is, displayed right on the walls of the US Congress



Fascism: Power to the rich, through unity.

Communism: Power to the "proles", through communes.

And no, Obama's surely not a proletarian.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
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.

Really, this is all we need to know about the NWO right here in this video of George Bush Sr. And isn't he delightfully vague, but the UN is big part of it.

Mod note: Read before posting. Don't name-call or troll. Ignorance is no excuse. You have been warned. -- Majic

We all know power breeds corruption and greed. So is it a good idea to give a select few the worlds power and resources?

I don't need to answer that just think about it, logically rather idealistically. Honestly I would love for a united world but not if that means the above; I would rather the world leaders had some degree of consequence if they stepped over the line.

The issue is not the world as one, it is whoever will take charge. Obviously the greedy corupt people of today wont hand over there power, so they will always be influencing the system. Maybe if we build a spaceship we can start fresh on Mars lol.

reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
There has always been a Global Elite that dictates the world. Why do you think they call them influential people? They influence all of us. We all would like to be the next Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. I'm not saying Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are part of the global conspiracy but the rich and powerful have influence on us all. They always have and always will. Just as during the Civil War the Southern Aristocrats who were slave owners only made up a small percentage of the southern sentiment toward slavery. 98% of the soldiers that fought for the south didn't even own slaves and some of them lived so far out in the country that they never even seen a black man before. Yet they fought anyway for states rights and to preserve slavery because they were influenced by the 2% that had the money and power to own slaves. Even at today's standards a slave was expensive to own. A slave at auction would go for $2000.00 at least and you had to feed and shelter them. Your typical southern soldier was a poor dirt farmer unable to own slaves but influenced by the 2% southern elite that could afford slaves. Influenced enough to give their lives to preserve Southern Aristocracy and slavery. I use the Civil War as somewhat as a metaphor as to what is happening today. The rich and powerful meet every year to set the global agenda at "The Bildergerg Meeting." It is a think tank of the Global Elite. One of the things that is always talked about at these meetings is over population of the planet and what can be done about it. Whether they believe they are doing good or bad for mankind it doesn't matter. These people have influence on the rest of the population.

Originally posted by OwenGP185
We all know power breeds corruption and greed. So is it a good idea to give a select few the worlds power and resources?

Dont they already have it?

I don't need to answer that just think about it, logically rather idealistically. Honestly I would love for a united world but not if that means the above; I would rather the world leaders had some degree of consequence if they stepped over the line.

You mean consequences enforced by a global governing body?

The issue is not the world as one, it is whoever will take charge. Obviously the greedy corupt people of today wont hand over there power, so they will always be influencing the system.

Your description of how a One World Government might be mis-used sounds A LOT like how things currently are.

I fail to see how a world governing body could be worse than the current state of affairs where a handful of Western leaders pill age the world with no consequence.

Originally posted by dajabba
centralized power leaves a lot of room for corruption,

Indeed. Of course, decentralized power that currently exists gives default power to the powerful corporations who dictate what governments should do. That is why a lone US state, or African nation, for example, can do little to thwart the efforts of a company like, say, BP.

Corporations fear a 'one world government' more than anyone else, because it would challenge their hegemony.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by OwenGP185
We all know power breeds corruption and greed. So is it a good idea to give a select few the worlds power and resources?

Dont they already have it?

I don't need to answer that just think about it, logically rather idealistically. Honestly I would love for a united world but not if that means the above; I would rather the world leaders had some degree of consequence if they stepped over the line.

You mean consequences enforced by a global governing body?

The issue is not the world as one, it is whoever will take charge. Obviously the greedy corupt people of today wont hand over there power, so they will always be influencing the system.

Your description of how a One World Government might be mis-used sounds A LOT like how things currently are.

I fail to see how a world governing body could be worse than the current state of affairs where a handful of Western leaders pill age the world with no consequence.

I agree it is not that much difference, however if they do something over in China for example, the rest of the world looks and says thats wrong. Or if America the does something the rest of the world realises and can make sure their own goverment doesnt go down the same route. If we all became one world, we would all end up subject to things like TSA, the general public will only see one type of society which is almost like how a communist rules their people by only exposing their activities in a good light and anything other than their ideal is bad and punishable.

Basically being able to see the wrongs around the world shows the general public not to allow it in the future. I know it should be common sense to see right from wrong but I think most lack it or have no care for it.

Mod note: Read before posting. Don't name-call or troll. Ignorance is no excuse. You have been warned. -- Majic

Originally posted by liejunkie01


Wake up my friend........We are paying almost $4.00 for one gallon of gasoline? This is not necessary. This is proof that the rich are running the show.

So what do you think a gallon of gas should cost?

You do know that without US taxpayer subsidized price supports those prices would be even higher, right?

Originally posted by Echtelion

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by surrealpoet

 

The problem with your approach to this is that while there is a certain amount of "Globalism" which has expanded national economies, it doesn't necessarily command a need for a One World Govt to run things centrally. This is the crux of the issue for me, as Centralization means the State runs all our lives. This is called COMMUNISM, or MARXISM. Sorry for the caps but it needs to be said. It's the same Communists running things from the Obama admin. Why would anyone want that?

You're wrong. Obama's nowhere near a commie. And not all communist movements were for a global centralized government. If you don't see a difference between the anglophile Fabian Socialists (H.G. Wells was one) with revolutionary communists, you need to go back to read some books.

Obama, like the last few Presidents, is a FASCIST. Fascism supports a central power based on repressive, violent public policing, a unitarian vision of society and State as an organic community, and the full merger of (some) corporations with the State... aside from defending a very exclusive wealthy caste against all the rest, with a central figure of authority having the monopoly of violence. This is what you have in Amerika, now.

..especially since the UN's Resolution 1973, a negation of the 1973 War Powers Act, which means a shift from the power of the Congress to the power of a dictator... just like when some tyrant usurped patricians in Rome, to become the Emperor.

This is the symbol of fascism:



And here it is, displayed right on the walls of the US Congress



Fascism: Power to the rich, through unity.

Communism: Power to the "proles", through communes.

And no, Obama's surely not a proletarian.

edit on 10/7/11 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)

NO! You are wrong. Obama is a Marxist and Fabian Socialism is just incrementalism. If you know anything about Communism, you know that on their own webpages they admit openly that Socialism is merely a bridge to complete State ownership of all the means of production(communism), and it is clear that that is exactly where Obama has been going with nationalizing the health, auto, and financial sectors of our society. So please, do not lecture me on this. Why people keep trying to make Obama out to just be another Bush is beyond me. But truly, whether you want to call it communism, socialism, globalism, capitalism, cronyism, or whatever else, it amounts to the same thing, what Bush Sr said they want is the UN to run everything or right.


And besides, whoever said that Obama is a proletarian? Don't you know that the ruling elite ran the communist society of the Soviet Union? Was Stalin a Proletarian? But whatever. Communists know that everything leads to a One World Govt with a ruling elite.
Speaking of fascism, fascism is really an aspect of Leftism. It is just a bit right of the far left. It is just part of the hegelian dialectic which sets up a false left/right paradigm for the purpose of "conflict management". Antony Sutton is very prolific on this subject.

Oh yah I nearly forgot, the plan is to nationalize the energy sector too. Obama wants to sack the coal industry in favor of windmills and solar panels. But don't forget that even in a hybrid car, you still have to plug it into a wall socket. Have fun with your electric bill. Plus Obama spent taxpayer money on Brazil's national oil company Petrobas, while putting a moratorium on our own drilling in the Gulf. Why would he do that? Do we have any stake in Petrobas? Remember what Maxine Waters said about "Soci" uh uh uh "Basically taking over and the government running all of your companies" ??????

If not let me refresh your memory

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist

Originally posted by TechUnique
I oppose it because of the Psychopathic, evil and power crazy nut jobs who not only want this one world government, but also want over 90% of the earths population eradicated. It also seems likely that they will want only one race in this new world..

You have absolutely no evidence to support your ridiculous assertions. There are no "global elites" that want to control the world and reduce the population. No human organization can perpetuate this "ultimate plan" for years and years without any thing going wrong. That just not plausible.

I always have to laugh at people like you. First of all, MUCH has gone wrong, the most obvious being the internet. Their plan was leaked many years before the internet but never saw the light of day. Now that it's been exposed they are desperately trying to get control. That's the only reason that the plan has not been completed yet.

Secondly, you defend your argument by screaming for evidence as though the lack of evidence of an opposing view is evidence of your view as fact. Then if someone asks for evidence of your view you'll hide behind the lie that the burden of proof is not on you. Wrong. If you want to deal in facts as you claim, then evidence from you is required just as much as from the opposition.

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist
There will be equal representation of all countries, just like there is equal representation of the states in the U.S, as checks and balances to the system from becoming corrupt.

Here's a challenge for you, and if you refuse it you lose all credibility IMO:

Define "evidence". What do you need to be absolutely convinced that the NWO is what TechUnique says it is?

Provide such evidence to support your claim above.