Why would you oppose a one world governement?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I am in no mood to extend you any courtesy.

That’s all right. I know better than to expect any from you.

David stole Jerusalem to build a nation state for Jews.

That’s ideological? A bunch of stone-slinging tribesmen fighting each other for territory is ideological?

The entire Middle East is a hot bed of borders created by ideological disputes.

Name one such border, apart from those I have already named.

Both Arabs and Jews claim lineage to Abraham, but the splitting of the tribes has created much of the borders that exist in the Middle East.

In the first place, ethnic and tribal divisions are not initially based on ideology but on genes and culture.

In the second, most of the current borders in the Middle East date back to the era of European imperialism, and served merely to show where one colonial power’s writ ended and another’s began. Nothing whatsoever to do with ideology. Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word – or is it your knowledge of history that is wanting?

Israel is all about ideological disputes! Did you really need this explained to you?

I suppose I do, because, as far as I know, the existence of Israel is a sop to Western European ethnic guilt. The Zionist movement was, arguably, ideological, but it did not draw the borders of the State of Israel.

The borders between China and Russia, at least today and certainly during the time of Chairman Mao, as in the Sino-Soviet borders was all about ideology.

You mean the border between Russia and China did not exist before then? Seriously?

Just because ideologies differ on opposite side of a border does not mean ideological differences drew the border. Do you really need to have such a thing explained to you?

I am unclear what you attempted to do, but it appears you were actually yourself trying to show how borders are created by ideological differences with your last little rant. If this is not the case you should clarify that.

My pleasure. It is simply that I know you are wrong, barring a handful of well-established exceptions. By citing the exceptions, I took the wind out of your bluster. Look how well it has worked! You haven’t been able to cite a single correct example. All you can do is flap your sails, noisily but impotently.

Here’s something to think about. How many borders in Cold War Europe were the result of ideological differences between nations? Count them. Go on, count ’em. How many?

How about some rational honesty? Would you like to have a go at that?

I’ll try. Could you help by showing where and how I have been dishonest?

reply to post by gimme_some_truth

What GOOD would a one world government do?

• The reach of the law could be made universal. International criminals and human-rights abusers would no longer be able to shelter behind the concept of national sovereignty.
  
  
• Global initiatives, such as the UN Millennium Development Goals or the drive to eradicate various diseases, would be greatly facilitated.
  
  
• International responses to huge disasters such as the recent Japan tsunami would also be greatly facilitated.
  
  
• Local conflicts and small-scale wars could be more easily averted, or brought to a halt if they broke out.
  
  
• Citizens who felt mistreated or discriminated against locally would have recourse to international justice.
  
  
• Despotic or discriminatory local laws and customs would cease to be viable.
  
  
• The current artificial constraints on the cross-border movement of human beings, which are illiberal and unjust, especially when compared to the ease with which goods and capital cross borders, could finally be abolished.

I won’t pretend I thought hard about that list. I didn’t need to, because the potential benefits of a single world government are manifold and undeniable. You could easily think of a few yourself.

I thought Bush already tried that.

All I know is shortly after the One World Govt., aliens are supposed to attack us.

Truthfully, as a kid, I used to wonder the same thing. At the time, is seemed logical to do that, I guess now that main question would be "How much would it cost"?
Cost in numbers of people killed, in cultures compromised and eventually erased, etc.

I know it doesn't matter to most, but. . .well, what are we willing to Sacrifice?

reply to post by allenidaho
[m

Name calling is the order of the day for people who cannot express the English language. Skirting the subject is dishonest and ignorant just as name calling is ignorance. The subject at hand was one world government and not religion. You should learn to concentrate a little more of what the subject matter is and not be so sensitive of religion. Simply because you may not have a religion is your prerogative but to criticize another person’s religion is not necessary nor is it intelligent. Name calling is one of the reasons for promoting hatred and disunity and disunity cannot survive in a one world government. Do you now see the picture?

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by 547000

 

Sorry, but i'm not going to wait for God to come along & solve all our problems

I think we are in this on our own.

Then a tyrant must rise and blood must be shed. People who disagree with the state must be silenced or killed. Or brainwashed from a young age. That's the only way unity will come by secular means.

reply to post by daskakik

No one said a homogenized world. The US is under one government and the states are each very different.

I'd guess you haven't read much about the NWO. They most certainly do plan to unify the laws and judicial systems. The plans are for a dictatorship, not any form of democracy. George Soros, one of the key proponents of the NWO, has stated on numerous times that he admires the way China controls its citizens.

Even the Feds are trying very hard to homoginize the States with an many laws. The States are all forced to follow those laws. If you think States have rights then perhaps your didn't notice the outcome of the Civil War.

You are mistaken if you you think some constitution that hasn't been written will protect your rights. Most peoples of the world just don't believe that individuals have rights that can't be ignored. Hell, even the US government and the State governments make laws that usurp the Constitution.

If it would become a democracy, then you are doomed even worse. The people of the world dispise Americans. They would have a great time exacting revenge upon you, personnally. Take a look around the world. It is a mess! Few nations can actually self-govern.

It must be nice to live in your dreamworld.

The reason we cant have a world government just now is because people of any class background or any political power structure are afraid of great change . They are afraid it will upset their way of life.
When none of us are thinking about the future of the human race.

Already our planet is under threat from bombardment from meteors and asteroids when really we need to expand and not keep all our eggs in one basket .
If we can unify the planet and our species then we can start to adventure again outwards and turn our struggles outwards rather than against each other.

Humans have always hated that which they fear, we should fear the unknown , and there is nothing more unknown than the vast coldness of deep space .

Originally posted by Viking9019
Nations are a must for us and its only natural to seperate ourselves so we can ''bring ourselves to our true potential'' because lets face it,we aren't all one and only destruction and confusion would come if we all ''became one''.

As a species,we have no true potential and can you imagine what the world would be like if all borders were gone? having third world folk in our lands turning them into ghettos?(thats alread happening sadly).Its best to leave those who can progress to themselves and those who can't to themselves.
I've also had enough of this divide and conquer agenda they have for the western world and on top of that,the ethnic cleansing of westerners.(yes its an admitted agenda)

Welcome to reality.

Balkanization of all the stable nations is a disruptive process to keep you occupied in your neighbourhood so that you won't pay attention to the 0.01% who want to own everything.

Originally posted by muse7
Also I think that a EU model based government would work, where everyone can move freely and work wherever they want depending on the availability of jobs and such.

Really? Because it's not working here!

Originally posted by muse7
Wouldn't that be better than living in countries, divided by lines in the sand and fighting like school children in playgrounds?

*waits to be called a globalist 37th degree mason rothschild*

Might be a pipe dream on my part, but I had been thinking about this for a while and I think it would take some time to get used to living in such a world, but wouldn't that be the ideal world to live in? Everyone being together without countries separating us and preventing us from reaching our potential as a species, instead we like to brand ourselves white, black, brown, hispanic, etc those things just keep us from reaching our true potential.

I know your hearts in the right place Muse7 and I agree with you on some part that someday we could be a united world democracy with freedom and equality in every home but upon reading everyones replies don't you see we already have been brainwashed not to want to cooperate with one another! I just think we have a long way to go to evolve! I believe the first thing we need to do is learn to get along with just our family members, our spouses, suns, daughters, fathers, mothers and Neighbors! If we can't get along with our own families and friends how can we expect to get along with seven billion people?
Lets just say we did figure out finally how to get along in small groups and we decided to get rid of the borders, religions and the rest that divides us. Then we would just worry about whom will rule us and though it would'nt be a problem with most what about those of us that are A type personalities, would'nt they want a ruling position! These are most likely the same narcissist that are running the world into the ground right now! I think as i've seen others also realize this that we need more leaders and definatly not to centralize the power structures any more! We also need more transparency! I thought that Barrack Obama said he was going to give americans transparency but as soon as he got elected he forgot about that! No suprise here cause he seems to forget many promises as do most politicians on the campaign trail!
Well most people want to believe that the reason we are in such a mess now is cause of someone else but the truth of the matter is most of the time everything that happens is our own falts and we are somewhat responsable for allowing our government, the media and corporations to step all over us! Now I am not saying this to be cruel, i'm saying it to make us all understand that this did'nt happen overnight or in a decade cause this has been happening for the past several centuries! though in the past three decades it has become progressively worse and I think most of us have seen this day coming! At least I did and if you think otherwise then you are probably just lieing to yourself! Did we do anything to try to change things? And will we do anything now to? We all need to consider these questions as well as what is the most important thing we need to change to save our freedom to prosper? How will we go about changing that? Also. Do most Americans have it too good right now and until we see a majority of our population who either realize the truth or live way below the Status Quo, will we ever see any changes for the better in America? Call me a pessamist but I don't believe I will see it!

Not a chance in HELL! ... First, humanity is not mature enough to live under "one world government. Secondly, what nation in their right mind would allow someone like the UN set local laws .... Thirdly, world conquest or domination in a one world goverment is so ripe for a group to control with money ... just like the US Congress ..

not even possible until...
no money needed to live or buy products
end the monetary system as it is
have the technology to feed and clothe the world for free


I don't see any possibility of a "Star Trekenian" world oneness.....

Originally posted by LifeIsPeculiar
reply to post by daskakik

 

I'd guess you haven't read much about the NWO. They most certainly do plan to unify the laws and judicial systems. The plans are for a dictatorship, not any form of democracy.

Well King George had a plan for America but the Founding Fathers had a different plan. Both were to create a nation in this new land so just because someone has a plan for a one world dictatorship doesn't mean every plan for a OWG is the same.

No constitution protects rights. The people have to do it. The constitution is only a guide.

Federal laws don't really hinder culture.

reply to post by Astyanax


I looked through your list here, and must ask, which of these do you actually consider to be a "benefit"?

Also, in the context of a single world government without nations, what is the meaning of "international"?

One world government sounds "onederful" but in reality it amounts to a "one size fits all" procrustean-style bed for humanity.

Totalitarian wealth seekers have tried over and over again to create "one world" governments. I'm sure they will try again.

reply to post by muse7


I personally have no reason to oppose such a thing. Unfortunately, a large number of people worldwide are just not ready (yet) for a such unity. Sad, but true.

reply to post by muse7


Well there are two schools of thought on the world government.

1) Those who think it will be a Eutopian star trek dream.

2) Those who think Orwell, Huxley, HG Wells, Samuel Zane Battens, and Quigley
knew what they were talking about.

I am guessing your lining up for #1 ignoring the writings of ppl talking about the
NWO long before you were even born.

This is an old plan made by old families.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

When a group of ppl start trying to sell themselves as the new rulers of the whole world
you might look into their past before swallowing the hook.

reply to post by Astyanax

That’s all right. I know better than to expect any from you.

By your own rules the obnoxious abdicate any right of courtesy. I am just playing by your rules.

That’s ideological? A bunch of stone-slinging tribesmen fighting each other for territory is ideological?

This you reply to my assertion that David stole Jerusalem. You have allowed your own blind ideology to cloud your judgments. Only a fool would claim that David's theft of Jerusalem was anything other than ideological.

Name one such border, apart from those I have already named.

Sigh. Moab, now known as Jordan, as well as Ammon, Amman now being the Capitol of Jordan. Edom, now considered to be Southern Levant, and Caanan which today would roughly be Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon, and the Western part of Jordan. All of these lands were claimed out of ideology and the belief that God had given the land to them.

In the first place, ethnic and tribal divisions are not initially based on ideology but on genes and culture.

Are you seriously attempting to imply that culture is a function of genetics? Culture is learned, which places it squarely in the borders of ideology.

In the second, most of the current borders in the Middle East date back to the era of European imperialism, and served merely to show where one colonial power’s writ ended and another’s began. Nothing whatsoever to do with ideology. Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word – or is it your knowledge of history that is wanting?

Sure, imperialism has nothing at all to do with ideology. That's the ticket!

I suppose I do, because, as far as I know, the existence of Israel is a sop to Western European ethnic guilt. The Zionist movement was, arguably, ideological, but it did not draw the borders of the State of Israel.

First, why are you pretending that - if your own ideology is correct and modern day Israel was created out of European "ethnic guilt" - this is bereft of ideology? Really? Sure, that's the ticket!

Secondly, are you so caught up in your own dogma that you have to qualify Zionism's ideology with "arguably"? Really? Sure, that's the ticket!

My pleasure. It is simply that I know you are wrong, barring a handful of well-established exceptions.

Ha ha ha ha! You mean: "Outside of there, and over there, and there, there, there, and over there...and well maybe over there, and arguably over there, you are wrong!"

Dear Lord, who do you think you are kidding?

reply to post by sapien82


Sapien, the trouble most people who are capable of unbiased thinking on this subject ACTUALLY have with a one world government, is that there has never been born unto this Earth, a person of flesh and blood , who is so incorruptable, so fair of mind, and pure of heart that every person , in every nation can trust them implicitly to do the best by EVERYONE, and improve the lot of ALL mankind. Well , except perhaps Jesus or one of the other widely regarded religious figures.

The only people who HAVE been born to the Earth who might have been nearly capable of inspiring that trust, would never deem themselves worthy to take the office in the first place, and the only ones who WOULD have the self absorbed , self glorifying nature to take the job,are in fact morally defunct deviants who want to be above everything else, and be insulated from the rest of the world by a shady line of diplomatic nonsense, while absorbing vast quantities of increasingly useless currency.

Fact is, until the motivations that drive man improve drastically, the one world government is going to be too tempting to dangerously motivated and extremely psychotic people. That description also covers all CURRENT world leaders.

Click here for more information.

I am ready for the NWO!

Just give me the word... and I will do my majic.