It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill Gates Says Life Would Be Much Easier With A World Government

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
On the issue of one world government---I'm agin it. So is my cat. She refuses to surrender her kingdom to some far-away authority. If Bill wants to talk with her she is available. She'll explain to him about herding cats.




posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

It is what I meant, but when the dictates of the state put that hierarchy in conflict for the religious ... what then?

Not sure what you mean there.

Anyway, hierarchy is exactly the problem. I just don't see how we can have a global structure of dominance because we are extremely diverse. One state might differ culturally when compared with another and there are also many localised traditions which become known to the rest of the world. If there is an overall global leader, what if they feel that fish & chips should not be a part of our diet? Good luck telling that to people in Grimsby.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 03:18 AM
link   
ketsuko:

On the question of religion: It is a private and personal undertaking. Fine. But what happens when the so-called needs of the many outweigh the needs of your private and personal undertaking? Are we to put state on a higher pedestal than God?


Religion 'is' a private and personal undertaking for the individual. However, religionists (those who hold to a religious faith) capture future adherents of their religion almost as soon as they are born, and then programme their little developing brains throughout childhood conditioning them to unquestioning obedience to that particular religion, so that as they get older they perceive the world through the lens of religion only. It is mental child abuse.

I would much rather see religion not taught to children until they reach their early teen years, so that they can then make a choice for themselves as to what (if any) religion they accept. If they choose not to accept a religion, or a belief in a god, then that should be their right without incurring a consequence. Always remember that parenthood is guardianship, not ownership.

Government (as the state) have one remit only, to ensure a safe environment in which society can grow and progress, with its citizens able to enjoy unfettered access to the noble principals of freedom, liberty, and free expression of individuality. If the citizens had that, then they would support government in its task. The problem is, government does not need all citizens for support, just a majority, so we often end up with just over 50% of the population enjoying the real benefits of society, whereas the other lower percentage struggle for the same quality of lifestyle. This has been in place for many decades, but has also seen society become deliberately more stratified (through wealth) to the point where it is at now.

The One World Government (OWG) that I perceive as being beneficial will not exist for many years, possibly in the hundreds. The OWG's origin and foundations will be fascist, and enforced upon us all by a number of means; economically, sociologically, authoritatively (backed by a militarised police force and a global surveillance apparatus). You will see both a dilution and restriction in freedoms and liberties, and a constricting clampdown on individuality. You'll still have some freedoms and liberties and individuality, just enough to provide an illusion that things haven't changed, that democracy is still functioning, but they will be controlled, mostly by ourselves as we will police ourselves for them through peer pressure and media mob mentality. Remember, we are only at the beginning, we are simply seeing the scaffolding being put in place. There's a long and tortuous road ahead.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
It is a private and personal undertaking. Fine. But what happens when the so-called needs of the many outweigh the needs of your private and personal undertaking?

Most UN lit I have seen basically states says that every person has freedom of religion and may practice as long as they don't harm anyone else.

Other than a handful of examples from the past century, where people got religious about atheism, I think the biggest threat to any religion are other religions.


Are we to put state on a higher pedestal than God?

I'd rather not have either on a pedestal.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire

...religionists (those who hold to a religious faith) capture future adherents of their religion almost as soon as they are born, and then programme their little developing brains throughout childhood conditioning them to unquestioning obedience to that particular religion, so that as they get older they perceive the world through the lens of religion only. It is mental child abuse.

That's a bit generalised, but fair points on the rest of it. Children definitely need space to develop into their own self. I don't agree with the baptism of children, but it's routine in places.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBlackTiger

I agree but it isn't absolutely necessary. Where we are at now, yes it's necessary.

BUT, we could transcend these types of government and we have done without them before. Nature people's of all kinds have in many cases lived in harmony and peace without any kind of government.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I wasn't talking about you.

What if the state enacts a policy that directly conflicts with my religious beliefs? Am I to put the state on a higher pedestal than God?

See where we are now, the Amish are allowed to more or less live in their closed societies as they choose because the state does not demand that it goes on a higher pedestal than God in their lives. But the decision of the Amish to do this does not demand that you or I make similar sacrifices in our lives to accommodate them.
edit on 28-2-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
ketsuko:

What if the state enacts a policy that directly conflicts with my religious beliefs? Am I to put the state on a higher pedestal than God?


That will depend on you and your conviction to your religion and to the state. To be honest, you should not put either on a pedestal, but I am presume you are actually talking about 'regard' and 'esteem', and the way you hold the value of your religion to that of state? Unless you are extreme in your religion, I cannot see why state would enact a policy that would in some way limit your freedom to practice the religion of your choosing.

The Amish community is probably the best example of a religious community that Western societies can happily approve of. As you say, they demand nothing of society, but to be left in peace and untroubled by the world beyond their community. Regardless of my opinion towards religion, I have absolutely no problem with the Amish. I am not sure how they will fare as the world around them changes, and may be, the world will one day impact upon them. I wish all religions were like the Amish community, asking nothing of society.

In fact, I would think most of us are like the Amish members. Each of us just want to live within the community we can be comfortable and happy in, and to live our lives untroubled by the bigger picture, but unfortunately, the bigger picture has a habit of squeezing down on all of us, pressuring us all to conform and comply to a particular vision of control. Feudalism did not die out in the medieval age, it is alive and present today, and just as active in every country.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
I wasn't talking about you.

What if the state enacts a policy that directly conflicts with my religious beliefs? Am I to put the state on a higher pedestal than God?

See where we are now, the Amish are allowed to more or less live in their closed societies as they choose because the state does not demand that it goes on a higher pedestal than God in their lives. But the decision of the Amish to do this does not demand that you or I make similar sacrifices in our lives to accommodate them.

Why would a world government that respects religious beliefs be any different?

I'm sure the Amish disagree with some of the policies that the state has enacted. That is the give and take that they, like other religious people, have to live with. It's a shame but force seems to be needed in order for certain groups to coexist.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ketsuko
I wasn't talking about you.

What if the state enacts a policy that directly conflicts with my religious beliefs? Am I to put the state on a higher pedestal than God?

See where we are now, the Amish are allowed to more or less live in their closed societies as they choose because the state does not demand that it goes on a higher pedestal than God in their lives. But the decision of the Amish to do this does not demand that you or I make similar sacrifices in our lives to accommodate them.

Why would a world government that respects religious beliefs be any different?

I'm sure the Amish disagree with some of the policies that the state has enacted. That is the give and take that they, like other religious people, have to live with. It's a shame but force seems to be needed in order for certain groups to coexist.


But if there is force involved, then it really isn't coexistence is it?


And if the state is doing the forcing, then all we have is a situation like we saw in Bosnia where two groups that can't coexist will only kill one another as soon as the state turns its back.

You can't force tolerance. And I wish people would learn this but a NWO technocracy will only compound the mistakes of the past in their rush to declare that they are surely smarter and brighter and more enlightened than anyone else.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire

I disagree. For someone who is devoutly religious, God is the highest priority in your life. He is absolutely on a pedestal, and to expect the truly religious to do otherwise is folly.

You see, when you are talking about faith and belief, we are playing for all the marbles - this life and the next. What occurs here is but a blip in reality but it will echo throughout our eternity. And you are playing with asking us to put this small part of our lives in priority over the eternal so that your manmade and transient state can have its primacy.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
But if there is force involved, then it really isn't coexistence is it?

Unfortunately, as per your example, only if the force is kept up.


And if the state is doing the forcing, then all we have is a situation like we saw in Bosnia where two groups that can't coexist will only kill one another as soon as the state turns its back.

There you go.


You can't force tolerance. And I wish people would learn this but a NWO technocracy will only compound the mistakes of the past in their rush to declare that they are surely smarter and brighter and more enlightened than anyone else.

Seems to me that they just might be smarter and brighter but they just can't pursuade those that want to keep feuding.

In the end, who is being dumb?



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

If you want people to learn to get along, force doesn't accomplish it. If it hasn't worked before, then why would anyone think it will work this time.

So, yes, who IS being dumb? Trying to force the issue shows a lack of respect for who people are in favor of what you think they ought to be, and it is that arrogance that leads people away from the idea of the NWO time and again.


edit on 28-2-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
ketsuko:

You see, when you are talking about faith and belief, we are playing for all the marbles - this life and the next. What occurs here is but a blip in reality but it will echo throughout our eternity. And you are playing with asking us to put this small part of our lives in priority over the eternal so that your man-made and transient state can have its primacy.


That may well be part of the faith you hold, but in the end, it is nothing more than an opinion you choose to believe on an unproven and unprovable idea. You are choosing to value that idea over society, and as you ask, if your idea is at odds with that society, then society may well deny you that idea in public. When in the temporal, you have no choice but to subject yourself to its present moment, to do else-wise is where the real folly lies.


For someone who is devoutly religious, God is the highest priority in your life.


Just goes to show how absurd the devout think. Surely, life itself is your highest priority? If you ever found yourself stuck in the middle of a desert with no transport or rations, God won't provide for you, no matter how devout you are, no matter how much you pray for His divine intervention...you will simply die, because your 'idea' in Him won't be enough to survive.

I should think that the OWG will keep and allow religious practice, just to keep the 'devout' quiet, but it won't allow religion to have an authoritative voice with regards to the society it is engineering into realisation.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire

Life itself is my highest priority, but for me, life does not end with the death of my body. My soul goes on. I need to consider the full totality of that.

And your attitudes in this thread do nothing to convince me that I want any part of your NWO. You think that your state is more important than my life.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The only other way that has been tried has been one group conquering the other and it hasn't worked either.

Maybe these smarter people are offering something different? But, it takes two to tango.
edit on 28-2-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

How about a society of mutual respect where you take care of your business and I take care of mine? A libertarian society where the bare minimum is done to maintain a boundary for basic unalienable rights. I don't have to like how you live and you don't have to like how I live. We only have to respect each other's right to be that way and go on with life.

We had that idea once, and the foundational documentations and writings for it still exist.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
The problem is that everything is business structured. Businesses have different structures for different industry sectors. All businesses no matter what type from local retail, farm or automotive mechanic to the government all run on financial profitability. Not run to make individuals happy or healthy. We are conditioned to be happy based on currency value we hold as an individual or how we make ourselves money.

We need to act as a planetary species. A not as separate country's, races or religious doctrines. Our species first and foremost goal should be equality for all humans. Second maintain the fine balance of global ecology. Third strive for progression to benefit our survival without upsetting global ecology.

We value being social, intellectual and understanding. Understanding is different for every individual for what we enjoy or have a talent for. That's why there is so many professions. But the understanding of commerce is should not be a necessity, unless we follow the system in place now.

We are designed to survive on a planet and in communities. But planets eventually run out of resources and we' re able to make a habitat for ourselves to survive in outer space or in the depths of the earth or seas. We are able to evolve and adapt very quickly.
edit on 28-2-2015 by Bralicea because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

What time was that?

It wouldn't happen to be a time when there was slavery. OK, that was extreme, but was it also the time when the 1st president of the US gathered more men than he commanded during the revolution to force the western states to pay a tax on whiskey.

Honestly, I like the idea and would champion it over a one world government, but I don't think I have ever seen evidence of it.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ketsuko

What time was that?

It wouldn't happen to be a time when there was slavery. OK, that was extreme, but was it also the time when the 1st president of the US gathered more men than he commanded during the revolution to force the western states to pay a tax on whiskey.

Honestly, I like the idea and would champion it over a one world government, but I don't think I have ever seen evidence of it.


Ah but then I just get to make the same argument those of you who favor socialism make - we just haven't given it a chance ...


In all honesty, I sadly enough believe the time is coming when we will see it (NWO), and those of us who will not comply will be rounded up and shipped off in the equivalent of cattle cars. And the majority of the rest of you who comply will agree that it is a small price to pay for what you see as a better world and peace and safety. Be careful that you don't get far more than you bargained for.

edit on 28-2-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join