COMMENTS:
Well, for starters, it is not going to happen in the near future. I know this is a little bit off of the question, but realistically, are the powerfull countries gonna relinquish some of their power voluntarily?
I think that the League and later the UN have shown that world governments are failures.
I think we should watch and see what happens with the European Union. If those countries can overcome their difference to form "a more perfect union" then it might be possible.
But when I look at the UN and see they way they are acting currently (Kofi, El Bareidi) I don't think that I would want to turn over soveirgnty to that group.
What's NOT wrong with it?
If governments can be taken over by the private concerns of Big banks and Corporations, then it is too great a risk to take to allow a World government into being.
In essence, it looks good on paper, like a line from Lennon's song, 'Imagine.' A global village, a Utopia, a brotherhood of man. The problem with it however, is that the designers of this 'vision' are rich bankers and industrialists who have little or nor regard for human life and ultimately would seek to dissolve sovereignty of nations in favor of corraling the world's population into global slavery via the New World Order. This is not a conspiracy theory, however ludicrous it might sound. Plans have been afoot for more than a century by the global elite for a centralized world government, and this is where the world is ultimately headed... unless we wake up and realize that we are in danger of being lulled into this nightmare gradually, by degrees.
The United Nations, the EU, G8, the global free market and trade agreements such as NAFTA and GATT, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are all social experiments to soften us up for this end game, which will be disguised as something peaceful and benign.
The USSR is what one world Government looks like.Its Corporate Capitalist Government only its the fulfillment of Capitalisms movement toward monopoly.
C.R.A.P
Centralisation.
Regimentation
Accumulation
Privatization
Lt. Cmdr. Al Martin ( US Navy, Ret. )
Government-sanctioned narcotics trafficking. Wholesale fraud. Illicit weapons deals are part of an ongoing criminal enterprise called " government ."
The high-level perps are never indicted. Meanwhile hundreds of witnesses and hapless participants have been liquidated.
Organized crime ( actually a white-collar crime syndicate comprised of government bureaucrats, military officers, intelligence officers and con men or " beltway bandits " ) has in essence taken over the US Government.
but don't these scenarios already being played out on the nationwide basis?
How would having one nation on earth make it even worse than it already is?
by LCD on Sun Nov 07, 04 6:08am
[+]
We'd all be as good as dead. There would be no redress, no system of checks and balances, no freedom, no way out. It would be hell on earth.
Ultimately, the only thing that can make governments show even slight respect for their citizens' human rights, is the threat of competition. That is, a government can get only so tyrannical before its people "vote with their feet" by moving to another country where the government is better, or at least not as bad. The worst governments understand this totally, which is why they forbid their people to leave, and back it up with walled borders and machine guns aimed inward. But even there, some of those citizens manage to escape, providing freedom to themselves and hope to their countrymen.
Now, what is going to happen when there's only one government on Earth, which has not the slightest motivation to respect anyone's human rights, no restrictions on its power, and escape from which is physically impossible? That is a world which I, for one, will not permit myself to live. And if you will, you will soon come to envy me even in my grave.
Final thought: why not NO governments for the world? Has what government given us been worth 600 million corpses? {That's the lowest estimate of how many people killed by governments throughout history.} Could anarchy possibly be any worse? I would gladly take my chances with anarchy before I accept one-world government.
'but don't these scenarios already being played out on the nationwide basis?
How would having one nation on earth make it even worse than it already is?'
If your nation becomes tyrannical or corrupt you could always flee to another nation. And there are hopes that the freedom loving part of the world will come to your aid (britain and the US). Under a single government where do you flee if it becomes tyrannical? Who will come to your rescue?
This is just one of the many valid complaints against a world government.
** karma **
No it cant get any worse.
US , Britain and Western Europe are the administrative center that operates the rest of the world. The west is and has always been the threat to freedom and controls the third world.
The only way to freedom is to destroy the west
When this happens the Totaliatarian govs around the world will fall with it
The thought frightens me!
Also, I don't see how this would effectively end war. People would just rebel. We don't need a government to declare war. An attack is attack. People are always going to battle. It's human nature. As destructive as it is, it's part of the evolution process. Survival of the fittest. It's also one of the ways - not the only way and not necessarily a necessary way (!) or a good way, but yet all the same, a way - we humans get things accomplished and further develop our ideas, thought processes and ultimately species.
mags: True, but governments get the best toys.
If the world was one big country, there would be wars over state lines.
Cath: True, but sometimes they wind up 'missing'...
It is always only the richest, most powerful people in the world that want a World Government. A Nobel prizewinner who had something to do with creating the Euro reecetnly suggested creating a global currency. It is part of creating a homogenised, medicated, pliant population. Eventually, with RFID chips and identity chips we will have literally no privacy left.
Anybody who thinks that hey World Government might be like quite cool sorta like Star Trek or something needs to get their fucking head right before repeating the latest nugget of One Worlder propaganda.
The people who claim that a World Government will stop wars are the ones who are creating the wars in the first place. Please get your heads round that. Who else create the wars? Normal people with tons of debt and no influence?
"Survival of the fittest." - Darwin was referring to the clash between different species... we are all human. Darwin's texts just like religious texts have been manipulated for political purposes.
I am not yet convinced that world government is a bad thing. And before cretin_slap rates me down, why not outline the disadvantages instead and enlighten me by 'taking the blindfold off of me'. Instead of rating me down, you should try to be patient and enlighten me.
ZIG- "global slavery" - I would like you to elaborate. What global slavery? Communism? Then why didn't the West join hands with the Soviets if Western elites approved of communism.
Neal_Anderthal- "threat of competition" would still exist. The world government would be federalist. Observe current federalist systems: states/provinces actively compete economically with one another for investment, hand-outs from the federal government, etc. There would still be the threat of people leaving one state for another. Everyone is assuming that the world government will be completely centralised- MORE realistically it will be federalist- national boudaries will become 'state' boudaries.
Enlighten yourself and stop making such stupid assertions about me, EUROTOPIA. If you are unsure that the World Government will be bad then you simply don't know enough about it. At least you do not say it is inevitable.
I researched it. I worked out who was organising it. I researched why they were doing it and how. It is not only chilling but fascinating as well.
Now it is your turn. However, with a name like yours, EUROTOPIA, I expect you have already researched it and made up your mind, which would make your previous questions meaningless set ups in an attempt to ridicule me.
You are paranoid IF (and only if) you are assuming my questions are an attempt to attack your position.
Forgive me EUROTOPIA, but I was getting mixed up with the other ballot. On that one you mentioned crop circles, SARS etc. You asked me if I thought that the NWO were behind it. My point was that you won't find out just by asking me. My denials or confirmations would mean nothing to your understanding of the subject. You'd have to read a lot more than the people on this site to be able to come to an informed decision about The New World Order (which is now called the Global Village or whatever). Once you have read the case for the opposition then the only step left is to see it happening in the news and realise that I was right all along.
And you won't win converts, c_s, if you whack them down for making a statement with which you disagree.
PS: I'm running out of karmic cheeks to turn. I hope your rage subsides and better judgment returns soon.
mags: Well, that is a good point!
EUROTOPIA: Communism was itself a social and economic experiment. Lenin and the Bolsheviks came to power ONLY because it (Communism) was allowed to flourish as an interesting prelude to other areas of the world becoming copycat regimes. And how wonderfully it worked for a while..
Follow the money. How did Lenin manage to overthrow the Czar (who was first cousin to England's King George V)without any military intervention or aid from the outside world? Because The Rothschilds, planned the 1917 Russian Revolution, and along with other industrialists and capitalists like Schiff (who invested $20 million), Sir George Buchanan, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers, the partners of J. P. Morgan (who gave upwards of $1 million), Olaf Aschberg (of the Nye Bank of Stockholm, Sweden), the Rhine Westphalian Syndicate, a financier named Jovotovsky (whose daughter later married Leon Trotsky), William Boyce Thompson (a director of Chase National Bank, who contributed $1 million), and Albert H. Wiggin (President of Chase National Bank), helped to orchestrate and finance it.
The Rockefellers pledged financial support after the Czar refused them access to the Russian oilfields, which was already being pumped by the Royal Dutch Co., which was owned by the Rothschilds and the Nobel brothers, who was giving Standard Oil plenty of competition on the international market. But even though John D. Rockefeller owned $15,000,000 in bonds from the Royal Dutch Co. and Shell, rather than purchase additional stock in the usual way, the devious old weasel helped to finance the Revolution so that he would be able to get Standard Oil firmly established in Russia.
Communism was a giant game of Monopoly, no more, no less, with the players laughing all the way to Zurich. The Romanov fortune was divided up, a few spoils were thrown to the 'cause' of the Revolution, but the lion's share went straight to the Bank of England, care of Cousin George.
Lenin, Trotsky and Karl Marx were simply figureheads, but the whole world was fooled for a very long time... And how. The whole scenario could easily be repeated on a global scale.
Let me also ask ... I interpretted World Government to mean *any* form of world government; however, a lot of the arguments against seem to be in opposition to a particular instantiation that they see coming.
Do you see *any* form of world government to be bad? Or specifically the one your foresee?
I think so, Cathexis. You cannot trust individuals with that much power. Even organisations that start off with good intentions can go bad. However, the World Government that many "foresee" (the world government that various elite figures admitted they are working towards in their own words) is the one that has the best chance of coming about. Maybe if people who were proven to have the interests of the vast majority of the globe's population at heart started talking about World Government then it might get a more sympathetic ear. But who have we got pitching World Government to us? Henry Kissinger (a war criminal), G W H Bush (ex CIA head + war criminal) Clinton, Gorbachev. We know that these people are liars. Or do we?
It still comes down to Governing what.
And the Bolshie overthrow also involved the Tsars former intelligence network The Okhrana as agent provocateurs to infiltrate the communist party eventually constituting 4 out of 5 of the St Peterburgs commitee
The Okhranas name was then switched to Checka , then GPU , OGPU , NKVD and then finally the KGB and are still going today
English banking sources were also involved
Stalin was one of the agent provocateurs with the Okhrana
The simple infiltration of the communist party and the overthrow of the Provisional Government and spreading of propaganda through Pravda publication as well as eliminating the Social Democratic party and the mensheviks simply demonstrates the REAL world of money and power away from the dreamy nonsense of how people think it SHOULD be
On July 14, 1992, during his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, then candidate Bill Clinton told the American people that he knew there was an " international network " at work in the world, and that " he had no aversion to it. "
He said that he owed his start in politics to a professor that he had at Georgetown University named Carroll Quigley. Professor Quigley wrote a 1348 page book entitled TRAGEDY AND HOPE while Clinton was a student there (1966) in which he said:
" There does exist an international Anglophile network which operates in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists and frequently does so. I HAVE NO AVERSION TO IT "
Good points, bmn.
Quigley went to Oxford. He was an insider and even went so far as to endorse what these people have done to our world. The book was still covered up to a large extent.
Here's why.
A quote from the book "TRAGEDY AND HOPE"
by Carroll Quigley on page 1247:
The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shift in policy...
Exactly....see how slimy they are? The left-right divide is a complete fallacy, a hollow promise, because each is scratching the other's back, so to speak. Everything is fabricated so as to give the semblance of opposition, but they're two different tentacles of the same octopus. Which is exactly why Kerry conceded this election so soon, even before Ohio was counted with 21 electoral college votes in the balance. That was the plan all along, obviously.
Incidentally, Clinton was a Rhodes scholar as you probably already know. Cecil Rhodes was committed to the subversion of America...which is why Clinton had to attend Oxford under the watchful guidance of Quigley.
"Survival of the fittest." - Darwin was referring to the clash between different species... we are all human. Darwin's texts just like religious texts have been manipulated for political purposes.
The phrase 'Survival of the Fittest' is used by many Scientists when assessing various behaviours. One example is reproduction, which most often occurs within species.
So, Eurotopia, I find your wannabe counterpoint ineffective and unnecessary, as it did not detract from my comment.
It annoys me when people use scientific THEORIES for political purposes. It is just as bad as religious fundamentalism being mixed with politics. Politicians have manipulated Darwinism to justify their oppression of other people. I will not accept any excuse for one civilisation to oppress another, be it religion or evolutionary scientific theory. Both have been manipulated for immoral reasons. I laugh when I hear Darwinists complain about religious fundamentalists and viceversa. They have a lot more in common then they think. They both look for justifications for immoral invasions.
I’m not sure if I made a comment on his ballot I think I did before but I can’t find it.
Anyway a global government is wrong, if there was a global government it would be a global fascist government where our rights are taken away and getting one would require America to not be one of the worlds superpowers so the global elite would have to bring America down and that would suck because although it may have its problems I think America is great.
by seon on Mon Jun 20, 05 6:32am
[+]
|
