Good side of the One World Governement

Everyone always talks about the NWO/OWG being a place of control restrictions and fear, but what if.......

You have a map of the world handy?
Take a look at it, do you see those lines that separate regions by country?
Ask yourself a simple question, how did those lines get on that map?
You didn't put them there, but you recognize them as boundaries of where certain types of people are from.
What if they weren't there? What would be on the map? Who would we go to war with?
Divide and Conquer, as with the World divided into pieces, it is much easier to control.

The elite are able to control the sheep, by keeping them in flocks, and making them believe everything outside of the border is a pack of wolves.
Everything that makes you believe that you are different from someone else is just another way to control you, if people believe they are different and have irreconcilable differences, they wont join together and demand better things for one another.

If you aren't willing to demand better things for your neighbor, why should he demand better things for you?

Nationality, Race, Religion, Economic Situation, Political Party, Language, Education, Sexual Orientation, Age, these are all things that you can look at someone and find a difference between the two of you. The more you have in common, the likely you are able to relate to them. The less you have in common, the less that abuse affects your mind, because the chances that it would also happen to you are less likely.

Why should an (insert country A) care about a 12 year old in (insert country B) working for pennies a hour to make shoes to be shipped back to the (country A), they aren't (country A), they aren't (My Religion), they would otherwise be starving if they weren't making my shoes, they don't have a good education system there. If it is happening in your own backyard to your own people though, then it is a problem (for most)

What if the objective of the NWO isn't to combine the world into a One World Government but to divide the hearts and minds of the people by giving them things to be afraid of, what if it is easier to control you as long as you have fear or hate of another country, religion, or someone with better economic means.

What if the only path to freedom is a One World Government where people the world over are all invested in making the world better, not by eradicating each other, or conquering each other, but by helping one another to achieve the next level because they are all apart of the same system. How differently politics would play out if there were no other countries for your to compare your standard of living to, and only had one force to blame it on.

The reality is that, the only thing on the other side of the border is more sheep looking at you as you look at them, and we are all the wolves., blaming each other, instead of the ones who divide us.

a reply to: fatkid

Absolutely a one world order is the only way to go. Unfortunately the powers that be have the wrong end in mind. And I think you are correct, I do not think they are trying to unite us but to continually dividing control us.

a reply to: fatkid

I think eventually the borders will fade.

I personally think the first step is a global constitution that defines both common human laws and global rules of conduct.

The global rules of conflict will be put into place to resolve discrepancies between nations. A world where we see arbitration as the path to solve our difference and not war.

An expanded Bill of Human Rights needs to be incorporated into such a system, as our founding fathers understood the law itself was the only way to protect our freedoms against theocracy and mob rule.

This is something that I got from ATS™ some time ago. *If You are the author or if You know the author please let Me know so I can credit them for this.

Worship equals War Ship.
It is disguised as "worship" but it is truly War Ship. Yes, get that initial giggle out and continue reading My words, as 'worshipping' is the biggest reason for wars.
Those men who build languages for MASSES to think in, are very versed in metaphysical natures.
When You pray to something that You do not know is truly there, You join the 'War Ship'. You worship something You don't know of and cannot see. You divide Yourself from Yourself and everyone around You.
Well in this language We call this "Blind Faith" Now when You have many factions worshipping, just different names that are man made, now there is 'division', the opposite of being WHOLE.
Now You've entered the 'War Ship' You clash with those who pray to the SAME CONCEPT under different names (Gods have no identity, just bogus names Man made up) This is inferior mentality.
Even though they are all human, all came from the SAME SOURCE, all are 5-based beings (think pentagram geometry)
One becomes concrete in what they worship, they judge and demonize those not praying to the same NAME.
Now You have war/division.
ISIS is defending it's concepts because the ONLY power those who join the War Ship have is physical chaos to those who oppose. Internally their people are weak and are not worthy to ascend to their internal potentials.
STOP worshipping and start accepting ALL, no matter the name they worship and if Your 'TRUTH' needs to be pushed then how TRUE is it really?
Truth needs no book, no doctrine, no dogma, no heirarchy. Truth stands on it's own, the rest is just pushing to compete with Truth and that is falsehood.

They will control the world, but they will still pit them against each other (the principalities) as they have been doing for hundreds of years.

a reply to: fatkid
You can't have a foundation of inequality and violence and expect a positive outcome. The ruling class can never have rights the peon class doesn't have if you want an actual civilization. The sole purpose of modern government types is to employ violence against minority groups, so the sole purpose of One World Government would be to attempt to guarantee that nobody can escape harm and violence. The ruling class is allowed to war with nukes while the peon class is allowed to turn in their pea shooters to the police. The ruling class is allowed to take others money without their individual permission through taxation while the peon class all goes to jail for theft and extortion the same exact action. People understand that government is founded on consent, its the first thing the New Hampshire constitution says for example. However, they somehow break down and say only 51% have to consent and the other 49% can be their slaves. Such a system only can lead to chaos.

You can ONLY set up One World Government by giving unequal rights of violence against minorities. I find that disgusting. One class of people commits violence to force the minority into their system of world government, while the minority class is disallowed from committing violence to free them self from their evil overlords.

A legit government can ONLY be formed by parties who have a signed and written contract with negotiating power for all parties involved. So, unless this one world government has the signatures of the entire world population, it is not a legitimate entity. Today's governments are not governments at all, they are sad jokes spreading chaos.

Furthermore, governments have yet to base any of their policies on what works. Portugal has a drug policy that worked for them to reduce fatalities by over half. How many countries then adapted the policy? None, because your One World Government doesn't give a @#$% about you or anyone except them selves and their personal opinions. Facts about policies that work are irrelevant to them. Just like Trump has no clue what a wall would accomplish between Mexico and the US but its his personal opinion and he'd sooner drop dead from a liberal attacker than figure out what the wall would actually do from an economics study. I don't know what a wall would do so surprise surprise I'll say no lets not spend any money quite yet on that.

a reply to: fractal5

I like how you turned this into an anti-trump rant; however, I think your arguement falls apart somewhere around nukes.... why would a country nuke itself?

As far as minorities go if you combine Southeast Asia, and east Asia - those populations add up almost 1/3 of the population of the world, and South Asia would put it st over 1/2.

Your reference to "legit" government being signed by all parties is based off of one point of view, the question is, even if it was the "only" way - why wouldn't you want it?

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: fractal5

I like how you turned this into an anti-trump rant; however, I think your arguement falls apart somewhere around nukes.... why would a country nuke itself?

As far as minorities go if you combine Southeast Asia, and east Asia - those populations add up almost 1/3 of the population of the world, and South Asia would put it st over 1/2.

Your reference to "legit" government being signed by all parties is based off of one point of view, the question is, even if it was the "only" way - why wouldn't you want it?

I'm not sure what the implication is that Asia contains most of the world's population. What does that imply?

And yes if all parties agree to One World Government, then by definition I'd want it as I'd be one of the parties. However, all the people I know who want One World Government want it to enslave me to their system of theft and violence. So, I find it unlikely that I would agree with such a system. I do believe taking without property is morally wrong when you don't have the consent of the owner of that property. However, nobody else I know in urban areas agrees and thinks theft should be a way of life and the duty of a One World Government. So, should such a government attempt to control me, I will resist, the same as I resist immoral taxation right now by ensuring that I'm getting back as much as I'm putting in so as to refuse funding immoral violence.

I'm also not sure where you are going with the Trump comment. The only way PART of my post could an anti-Trump rant is that his wall would turn out to be very harmful idea, so that may be you projecting your own views of what a wall would do for America. Its annoying that you think any hypothetical tiny anti-Trump snippet in my post as a side-point that somehow makes my entire post or even the entire thread anti-Trump. I wrote a lot of thoughts. I used Trump because he is the politician du-jour. Had this been a few months ago, I would have used Obama's stupidity as an example instead. They are all idiots and none of them have interest in which policies are effective. Not just Trump... all of them.

One World Government will be no more effective than 250 governments because the people in such governments would be just as stupid but in a globally average way instead of a locally average way. But unlike a world with 250 governments, you can't escape the ignorant masses to a country with slightly less ignorant masses.

We live in a world where certain political philosophies create vibrant successful places. If you then average out the world under one political philosophy then we have one average place with the average bad values and the average level of creativity everywhere (which by the way is quite low IMO, leading to less being created). I don't like average. I like places with cultures that produce more success that I can move to by voting with my feet to support and expand.

a reply to: fractal5

That is interesting, who do you know that wants to do this to enslave people?

So you think it is best for all of humanity if there is one great place where a small amount of population lives, because if we all lived under the same government it would somehow make the entire world a worse place....

You just said you think it is better for a small amount of the population to have it good while the rest live in mediocre societies, how is that different from this slavery thing you are talking about?

How can you watch Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" and think otherwise?

It's just plain stupid to continue a divided world.


www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: fractal5

That is interesting, who do you know that wants to do this to enslave people?

So you think it is best for all of humanity if there is one great place where a small amount of population lives, because if we all lived under the same government it would somehow make the entire world a worse place....

You just said you think it is better for a small amount of the population to have it good while the rest live in mediocre societies, how is that different from this slavery thing you are talking about?

Not so much slavery as surfdom. One general principle underlying my belief on that is the non-aggression principle which states it is wrong to initiate violence against another person for any reason. People in urban areas believe they have a right to all of my property at any time they choose so long as they can outvote me to take everything I own through taxation. And if I don't pay their tax bill, they will destroy my life. Well that is a problem because I don't support an organization that uses extortion to get their way. They (today's society) believes that as an individual it is morally wrong to take my property without my permission. However, when they gang up on me using voting it is suddenly okay for that gang to take away my property without my permission! Wow, I strongly object. I would consider myself a voluntaryist in that I do believe government is only by consent of the governed. But, you can't have a consent of only a few of the governed as today, or a minority of the governed as today in consent. You need FULL consent of the governed. Government is founded on consent and therefore if you want a strong foundation you need full consent. The government needs my permission to take my money to be used for any wars, or any government programs. I'll pay for the social services that I want, and not pay for the ones I don't want. As for charity, leave that to charities because they can do it efficiently unlike governments.

I think its better for a small sliver of people to have it good while everyone else suffers because the alternative is for even more people to suffer as a whole by forcing the small sliver of people into a culture that does not suit them. Different strokes for different folks. I like my freedom. I will sacrifice lots of security for my freedom. Other people don't want to do that. So here is an idea: have the people who don't value freedom as much have their own society and culture, while I live in the Live Free or Die state of New Hampshire and can have my guns and freedoms. The places who would prefer to feel safe by banning guns could then have their own culture of gun grabbing and that is fine. So my point there is that different people are happier with different sets of laws.

One World Government would be something I could support only to the extend that universal morals are enforced universally. The truth of the matter is when you get down to it there is universal morality on a large number of points. Those points could be enforced globally. All other points must be enforced only locally or you have violent conflicts.

a reply to: fractal5

The *America* Government was founded on consent, government existed well before the republic......

The one world government wouldn't be called America, sometimes you have let go of what you know to get something better, that is what our founding fathers did.

So you would be ok with a one world government broken down into states?

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: fractal5

The *America* Government was founded on consent, government existed well before the republic......

The one world government wouldn't be called America, sometimes you have let go of what you know to get something better, that is what our founding fathers did.

So you would be ok with a one world government broken down into states?

Assuming you mean United States by "America Government", American government was not founded on not consent but violent revolution. At the root, 13 founders forced the other millions into their system, and many thousands were conscripted by force into the revolutionary army. I do know someone who's family history involved such conscription. There was no voting on that meaning not even minority consent was achieved in founding the United States. Consent means, "hey can I do X?" and then getting back "yes, you can do X". Nobody in the founding of the United States went around saying, hey, do you want to participate in The United States of America? Nobody did that, so there was no consent. I can't imagine how you would say there was consent. Who asked permission? Who?

Would I be okay with a one world government broken down into states? If those states can withdraw upon changing their mind, then yes, otherwise you have minority culture slavery where a majority culture asserts physical violence upon a minority culture to force its "superior" ways upon the smaller group. And likewise, individuals must be able to withdraw at any time just as with any well written contract. Individuals not part of any one government are still under the government of natural law. So for example, if that person were to commit violence against another, then others would be stopping them by physical force.

In this way there is already world government because universal moral values are world government in a similar way that we are all governed by the laws of physics regardless of whether or not we'd like to opt out. There is no society that for example condones "hey that person looks attractive I'll go and make that person be my bed buddy by force". This is referred to as common law which has no boundaries. Common law is accepted in court today. You can go to court today in the United States and cite a court case in China as your defense. So, to the degree world government should exist, it already does exist. What doesn't exist is the proper education that defines this existing government that outlines the exact philosophies that allow it.

Every law and every government rests on a foundation of philosophy. Without defining the specific philosophies in question, you do not have a stable foundation for government. And the only degree to which you can have world government is the degree to which everyone agrees with a specific principle. Laws cannot and should not be defined by geographical boundaries, but boundaries should exist and those boundaries should be cultural and personal network boundaries bound on consent, and otherwise bound on natural law (ie taking other's property without their permission is morally wrong). Man's law is almost always in contradiction with nature's law.

The only laws that can be universal are the ones with universal agreement. Each culture needs its own state, a separate body of rules for that culture. Because, different cultures have different morals. But, there are universal morals, and those are in effect and can made formally as world government. And again, this is reflected as common law in the court system.

a reply to: fractal5

I don't think you understand what consent is......

I'll give you some links
Dictionary
Wikipedia
Upenn.edu
Harvard law review

The reason governments are found on consent is because once the people stop consent to being ruled, they rebel

Sorry I dont want to live in a global Islamic Pol Pot UN Agenda 30 wonderland,any species that loses diversity soon faces extinction

a reply to: khnum

I find your statement contradictory, as a Islamic pol pot UN agenda 30 wonderland would be very diverse.

a reply to: fatkid

Sorry I am not interested in dishonouring my forefathers and ancestors many of whom died in major wars to prevent nutcases establishing world governments,read your bible one world government=bad.

I think the best part of one world government would be all the doomsday threads about the antichrist.

a reply to: khnum

Can you give me an example of a major war that was fought over someone trying to establish a one world government?

a reply to: fatkid

WORLD WAR 2