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

reply to post by daskakik

Cool, have you followed the thread?

It is arguable that had you followed the thread, you would not have been compelled to ask that question.

My point is exactly as you say, "governments cannot control individuality". So how would a one world government strip peoples individuality as TattooedWarrior claims? Even most governments in place have not done that.

Either language is speaking you, or you are speaking language. While in response to my reply you claim, and I've read your earlier claims, that governments cannot control individuality, your language reveals something else all together. Perhaps this is because you are not saying precisely what you mean, or perhaps it is for some other reason. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is because you did not say precisely what you meant when you said that most governments "let" people be individuals.

My point with this is that those who speak language and not allow language to speak them tend to be critical thinkers. Critical thought is not some biological advantage that some people have, where others do not, it is a discipline that must be worked ones entire life. However, and I can only speak for governments within the United States, the state of public education is in total disarray, and it is becoming increasingly clear that critical thought is not only not taught as a discipline in public education, including a collegiate level, it is being suppressed.

It was Martin Heidegger who said that language speaks us, we do not speak language. Think about that statement. While it is a truism, and all one has to do is follow this thread to see how true it can be, it is not even close to the truth. In fact, it seems as if Heidegger allowed language to speak him when he made the statement, because anyone of us can find people who are quite precise in their language. The term legalese is a fine example of a class of people who certainly speak that language and do not allow the language to speak them. If Heidegger were speaking language himself this means his thoughts would be aware of the fact that not all people allow language to speak them. Some do, some do not. Perhaps because language spoke Heidegger this shaped his thinking and he simply could not see that there were actually people who spoke language, and did not allow language to speak them.

What I am saying is that some people insist on their mind acting as the driving force of their individuality, where others insist they are the effect of their body's and/or other environmental influences, or other people. Those who see their mind as something separate from their body's tend to be more causative than those who see their mind as being a biological function. By affecting language in a way where people use it without regard for what the words actually mean, this can amount to a form of control.

The English language has become so diluted and polluted, and willingly chronicled this way by lexicographers that it is worth noting and paying attention to. Even if there is not an insidious effort to pollute the lexicon and create a form of Orwellian double speak, it still remains true that by allowing language to speak us, we are affected by that outcome. Given the long history of governments steady march towards an aggregation of power, it would be naive to think governments can be trusted regarding the control of individuals. One needs to be aware and make prudent choices if they hope to exercise their own free will.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by daskakik

 

No government, anywhere, can "let" people live as individuals. Any individual, anywhere, can "let" governments trample all over them, and they can avoid their own individuality in order to submit to a collective, but governments cannot control individuality.

Cool, have you followed our little part of the thread? "Let" was just a lazy word choice. Sorry.

My point is exactly as you say, "governments cannot control individuality". So how would a one world government strip peoples individuality as TattooedWarrior claims? Even most governments in place have not done that.

edit on 10-7-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Look at the U.S. friend...its like once a month a supreme court ruling strips us of our natural born rights...the difference between now and a one world order is atleast we know who's screwing us.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Edited before you posted.

Sorry again, could have saved you alot of typing.

reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist


well all i can say is that you should take a look europe and brussels.
if a world government is run in the same way then we are all f***ed

reply to post by mutatismutandis


Yeah but citizens in the US complaining about the government isn't about clothes, hairstyle, body modifications or whatever it is about you that makes you you. Granted they are of a more serious nature but the post that I was responding to originally stated that individuality would be stripped. It was nothing more than an emotional argument with no real truth behind it.

reply to post by awareness10

So what you THINK ABOUT YOU BRING ABOUT.

It's this kind of crap that really pisses me off.

*WHERE IS MY SPACESHIP?*

Lord knows that I think about it all the time, why don't I have it?

By your logic, I should have thousands of spaceships!

Do you really think fighting against the very thing you DONT wish to create will somehow Uncreate it?

Remember kiddies, the only way to stop global tyranny, is to pretend that it doesn't exist, and submit to it.

XD

Seriously? this is what you believe?

I pity you.

reply to post by mutatismutandis

Look at the U.S. friend...its like once a month a supreme court ruling strips us of our natural born rights...the difference between now and a one world order is atleast we know who's screwing us.

If you are actually reading the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court it is hard to understand why it is you believ the SCOTUS is stripping you of your natural born rights. If, however, you are relying upon the main stream media, or any media for that matter, including myself in this post, to inform you on what has actually been ruled and why, then it is perfectly understandable why you have come to believe this.

While the SCOTUS has made some bad decisions through out the U.S. history, and even some dubious or questionable ones, as a whole it is that judicial branch that, quite frankly, has been the only real advocate for the people and individuals. Indeed, Bond v United States, just rendered this past June, is a stellar decision that makes it perfectly clear that individuals have the absolute right to challenge bogus legislation that tramples upon their rights. This ruling was unanimous at 9-0. It is rare the SCOTUS rule unanimously but they sure as hell did on this ruling, which was a total support of individual natural born rights.

Of course, at the same time they also made the Wal Mart ruling, so most people have no idea about Bond v United States, but think themselves well informed because the mainstream media has told them that once again the Supreme Court is in the "pockets of the corporations" because they ruled in Wal Marts favor regarding class action suits. Nary a word has come from the MSM regarding Bond v United States.

About a year ago, President Obama actually used the State of the Union address to chastise the Supreme Court over the Citizen's United ruling, and of course, the MSM again did its level best to convince the public that the Supreme Court was in the pockets of the corporations, simply because it was a corporation who challenged the Bipartisan Reform Act that deigned to "chill speech" during an election cycle.

The chastisement the so called "Constitutional expert" by Obama was applauded greatly by Congress and the main stream media, none of whom seemed all that interested in acknowledging the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision which was primarily based upon the First Amendment, which states:

"Congress shall make no law..."

Congress had no authority to "chill speech", and the Supreme Court correctly struck that portion of the campaign finance bill down as unconstitutional. President Obama, Congress, and the main stream media don't want you to know this, and would rather get you all riled up and angry over perceptions.

Don't take my word for this, read the case law yourself and find the truth out for yourself.

This world goverment will be different they'll use money,food & technology to enslave us past opressers just had weapons.

if you controll food you controll everything nobody can survive without it & think about it if you grow to much food (enough to survive off) they'll tax it saying its a business and thats today imagine what the NWO will do.

People who want a one world government and see the prospect as a good one, that is, people who basically ignore every other attempt mankind has made to organize anything, are, in my opinion, dreamers in the worst sense of the word. On a smaller scale, Hitler saw Nazi ideology and methods as a utopian ideal for Germany. He was a fantasist like many other utopians, but he was practical enough to realize that everyone wouldn't accept the Nazi ideal.

Utopian fantasists always seem to end up organizing firing squads. Mundane stuff like working out problems practically, muddling through, compromise, live and let live, to each his own, different strokes for different folks, etc., are seen as quaint oddities that could easily be dispensed with if people would just forget about all that unnecessary individuality, that parochial nationalism, that peculiar taste people have for their own ways that causes them to organize themselves of themselves, by themselves and for themselves.

I think at the root of the one world government mindset is a kind of "back to the womb" longing, to escape a world that chafes too much and is too hard on baby soft skin and is just too difficult to manage without effort.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I think at the root of the one world government mindset is a kind of "back to the womb" longing, to escape a world that chafes too much and is too hard on baby soft skin and is just too difficult to manage without effort.

Funny I was thinking the opposite. There's nothing utopian about a one world government. Also there is nothing that says that the people will have to fit a mold. One worlders have always seemed to me to be about embracing multiculturalism and celebrating the differences that exist.

It's always the nationalists that complain about foreigners not adapting as if wanting to keep ties with their roots is a bad thing. Or talking about other countries being this or that without having ever been there. They even use phrases like "it's shows a lack of respect" or "it's a slap in the face". They are the ones that seem to have the baby soft skin.

Originally posted by daskakik
Funny I was thinking the opposite. There's nothing utopian about a one world government. Also there is nothing that says that the people will have to fit a mold.

In what sense would that be a one world government then?

One worlders have always seemed to me to be about embracing multiculturalism and celebrating the differences that exist.

I think that is true in a cosmetic sense, but only in that way. It's posturing really, I believe. One worlders are really globalists, the people who run Coca Cola for example. They embrace and celebrate cosmetic differences. But this is just a device, I think.

It's always the nationalists that complain about foreigners not adapting as if wanting to keep ties with their roots is a bad thing.

I don't think that is what nationalists really complain about. Immigration issues are complex, but in essence nationalists are really complaining about what they see as the destruction of their values and ways by an influx of outsiders with different values and ways.

Or talking about other countries being this or that without having ever been there.

Most people don't travel and most people unfortunately underrate others. It must be some kind of psychological defense mechanism.

They even use phrases like "it's shows a lack of respect" or "it's a slap in the face".

There are etiquette issues there for sure. People tend to see these things in a very personal way, as if they invited guests into their own homes who then failed to conform to the norms of the household.

Accomodating immigrants is sensitive work, on both sides.

They are the ones that seem to have the baby soft skin.

When I use that phrase, I'm not being superficial or insulting in the ordinary way. One worldism to me is a call to authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is a kind of naivete. The belief that there is a trustworthy authority in this world is a dangerous delusion, a dangerous, childish delusion. One longs for childhood, for the protective parent, who smoothed the way and dealt with all the problems of the world. The ultimate source of this feeling is a desire to return to the warmth and protection of the womb and ultimately to achieve the annihilation of the self.

Hitler in a nutshell.

I think you touch on genuine issues, but I don't think one worldism is the route to the solution of probems of the sort you mention.

reply to post by daskakik

Funny I was thinking the opposite. There's nothing utopian about a one world government. Also there is nothing that says that the people will have to fit a mold. One worlders have always seemed to me to be about embracing multiculturalism and celebrating the differences that exist.

There is nothing Utopian about Utopias. Utopias are hopelessly naive, seeking to perfect what is as if what is is not perfect enough, but those who believe in Utopias never seem to grasp that their quest for perfection will be never ending. This phenomenon tends toward Machiavellian-ism, where the credo "the end justifies the means" is the foundation of their efforts. Of course, in reality, it is always the means that justify the end. If one uses nefarious means to obtain an end, no matter how noble that end may be, the outcome will be nefarious. If one uses ethical means to obtain the same end, the likelihood that an ethical end will result is far greater, than by using nefarious means.

In terms of "multiculturalism", all cultures, by their nature are about making distinctions from others. The religious cultures define themselves as much by who they are as by who they are not, and will often point to those who are not they as examples of why their culture is preferred. "Multiculturalism" then, becomes a culture in itself, as is evidenced by your own argument, where you seek to distinguish "one worlder's" from those against a one world government. The claim that one world advocates celebrate the differences that exist is demonstrably false, as again can be evidenced by many in this thread - although you do not seem to be one of them - who launch vicious attacks on those who do not agree with them.

I think this issue is really all about balance. Everyone wants to make the world easier to live in so that our baby soft skin won't be chafed as much, but the question is how to do it without weakening ourselves and putting ourselves into untrustworthy, unscrupulous hands. How do we maintain checks and balances to guard against abuse of power and control?

Checks and balances to executive power have been obliterated in the United States, at least during the administration of George W. Bush. I think we should try to restore those safeguards before we transpose our ideals to an all encompassing one world government.

Until we can manage one national government satisfactorily, we should refrain from attempting or working toward one world government. Such asperations give the appearance of a scam given the state of actual governance, virtually everywhere.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
In what sense would that be a one world government then?

I don't know because I have never seen anyone say a one world government = utopia. It might help in getting certain things done but it would not be free from the same imperfections that exist today.

I think that is true in a cosmetic sense, but only in that way. It's posturing really, I believe. One worlders are really globalists, the people who run Coca Cola for example. They embrace and celebrate cosmetic differences. But this is just a device, I think.

I meant individuals who think a one world government would be a good thing. They usually focus on the spreading of the respect of human rights. Corporations are on the other end.

I don't think that is what nationalists really complain about. Immigration issues are complex, but in essence nationalists are really complaining about what they see as the destruction of their values and ways by an influx of outsiders with different values and ways.

Most people don't travel and most people unfortunately underrate others. It must be some kind of psychological defense mechanism.

There are etiquette issues there for sure. People tend to see these things in a very personal way, as if they invited guests into their own homes who then failed to conform to the norms of the household.

Accomodating immigrants is sensitive work, on both sides.

This is all about being overly sensitive. That is what I thought you meant by baby soft skin.

When I use that phrase, I'm not being superficial or insulting in the ordinary way. One worldism to me is a call to authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is a kind of naivete. The belief that there is a trustworthy authority in this world is a dangerous delusion, a dangerous, childish delusion. One longs for childhood, for the protective parent, who smoothed the way and dealt with all the problems of the world. The ultimate source of this feeling is a desire to return to the warmth and protection of the womb and ultimately to achieve the annihilation of the self.

I think the point of the OP is that your view isn't the only one and that sooner or later a one world government will come to be in one form or another. It doesn't have to be all about authoritariansim it could be a world wide 1776.

I'm all for a one world government. I want mine to have no power center. "Countries" would receive feedback from "states". These communications would be shared at the "country" level, and solutions would be constructed based on the availability of worldwide resources and innovation. The ability to freely redistribute resources will eliminate the have-nots. Socialism would only deal in necessities. Luxuries would be from the free market. This will insure everyone has a part and is provided for. The efficiency of government productions emanating from research, communication, and implementation will reduce the amount of time we need to labor.

Laws would be based on ethics. We would then regain our freedoms.

I don't think the globalists or NWO or elite or whatever you want to call them, have this in mind. I feel this is so far from their intentions, my only hope for the life I dream of is to go off grid.

EDIT: No war is a plus no matter how you look at it.

reply to post by daskakik

I would like to see a happy world. I hope we get there some day.

I think the big problems we must solve are human psychological problems, not so much organizational problems. The solution to the latter will flow from the former, not the other way around, in my view.

If we retain our humanity and diversity under one world government, I won't kick about it, but I think one world happiness is more likely to be achieved in a world with many cooperating and in some cases competing governments.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
There is nothing Utopian about Utopias.

One world government isn't about utopia. It's about international cooperation and accountability.

In terms of "multiculturalism", all cultures, by their nature are about making distinctions from others. The religious cultures define themselves as much by who they are as by who they are not, and will often point to those who are not they as examples of why their culture is preferred. "Multiculturalism" then, becomes a culture in itself, as is evidenced by your own argument, where you seek to distinguish "one worlder's" from those against a one world government. The claim that one world advocates celebrate the differences that exist is demonstrably false, as again can be evidenced by many in this thread - although you do not seem to be one of them - who launch vicious attacks on those who do not agree with them.

You are right but I don't think it makes people who think a one world government is a good idea any more sensitive than those that demand that others adapt to their ways.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Citizens United v F.E.C. is a great example of how the system is manipulated however...granted I agree with u that they made the decision to uphold the constitution, but by making such decision our political system has been screwed. It was a catch22 for the courts that the political system incited. My arguement was not that their decisions wern't based in law, but that law has been manipulated for squirly means...was their decision on this worth the cost of future elections? Not that they wern't backed into a corner to do so, but if our system worked such a thing would never had happened. I don't blame the courts for our problems, I blame the whole system and those manipulating it for personal gain, or shady agendas.

Multinational Corporations like Halliburton, Wal MArt, Monsanto, et al are the ones who truly fear a world governing federation. Most here are just parroting their sentiments.

As the world stands now, they and the relative few rogue nation states like the UK and the US get to do whatever they want on the world stage. A world Governing Body would ostensibly put an end to this. Can you imagine if the UN was truly neutral and could have used armed force to prevent the Americans from illegally invading Iraq?

I get why Americans and the Brits might fear a UN-esque body with actual teeth. It might mean they are held accountable by the rest of the world!

Originally posted by Davian

Originally posted by BO XIAN
How's that for starters?

I see not a wink of scientific solid proof in that statement. Nothing but Christian mythology and disinformation at its greatest.

Help yourself to your construction on 'reality.'

I've studied the topic for 40-45 years. . . . beginning as acting director of the University Library Special Collections dept that housed the Norman Allderdice collection.

NORMAN ALLDERDICE COLLECTION INVENTORY:

www.oac.cdlib.org...

And now . . . the 'evidence' is on virtually every flat surface available for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

I've also had the . . . destiny . . . to 'run into' end up connected by various routes to folks who have been in roles to know about such things first hand.

However, folks who are determined to lean so addictively on the fear of a TYPE I ERROR so extremely much that they virtually guarantee being shredded by a TYPE II ERROR . . . seem to rarely tolerate rational facts on such topics very well.

Oddly, while they usually pontificate at intense length about "the scientific" evidence and method, their irrational constructions on reality seem to be the furthest thing from scientific or even remotely fair minded.