Global New World Order! Okay, so what?

I actually used that example for that reason, instead of using North Korea =) If you honestly believe that, then okay no point arguing. I will just agree to disagree, and hope your right

[edit on 24-10-2007 by b309302]

You did a full 180 there at the end but I'll try and add to that...

I don't think we need to bomb anybody for any reason. Bullets may be needed for peace to be attained but I think very rarely and that kind of logic is very simple minded. I'm not saying you're simple minded but the idea of "they won't be my friend, so I'm going to shoot them until they want to be my friend."

In order for a global union to work, we'd have to evolve as people of that union. We'd have to give up nationalism, racism, and religious intolerance, which could only better mankind and elevate our species thinking. There would have to be a whole new renaissance for us to understand one another as human beings for this to work effeciently. We'd have to solidify our trust in our brothers and sisters, instead of fear them, or hate them.

I feel a lot of you are focusing on the most negative aspect, the worst case scenerios, instead of looking at the brighter side of the possibility. We have mistrust because WE as human beings don't take the responsibility of learning and seeing firsthand what it truly is to trust your neighbor. We allow ourselves to be fed this hate speech rhetoric from every region in the globe. I've been around the block and I've found that for the most part, people are good. We have similar intentions. We have to rid ourselves of fear of whatever it is you fear, to make progress as a person and as a society.

A global union shouldn't be achieved through anything other than trust and reconciliation. No bullets or bombs involved.

reply to post by b309302


Well even in the case of North Korea, there was heavy political pressure to reunite before they ever went to war. War was the obvious answer to simple minded diplomacy. Same with Vietnam. The only region where civil war is common would have to be North Africa. That's a mess that is going to take all nations to figure out.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


No offence intended, but where did i go 180?

It's probable i didn't explain myself properly.

reply to post by Throbber


With the alien race/intergallactic federation thing.

No offense given nor taken. That just threw my train of thought off. I was skimming the post and my brain had a thought disconnect and had to read it 2 times over. Anyway... Long way off but nevertheless an exaggerated point of why a global union would be best suited for the big, bad future.

DeadFlagBlues >

Do you honestly believe that a single method of rule can cover so many different peoples? I hate to bring up the whole Muslim topic again but look at the hard liners there who are adherent to Sharia(sp?) law and would not tolerate being under a liberal system; what would they do in such a situation where the laws of the land permitted the debauchery that is common in western influenced countries? How do you please so many different groups in order to make them stand beneath a common banner?

And destruction of culture is definitely required for what you envision; the people must be made to think of themselves first and only as Citizens of Whatever and not as say as Americans, English, Germans, Dutch, etc. The knowledge of a country's history and the inevitable fight to attain freedom from a parent country would seed thoughts in the people which could lead to future revolts under a One World Government.

How many people do you think would stand in opposition of such a world government, how many would rather die on their feet as proud members of X religion and Y country than spend the remainder of their days bow to a power in a far away country that may or may not care about their choices since they aren't seen as progressive, etc?

Of course you can always look at history to see how well humans govern their subjects; look no further than the previous two world wars and some of the leaders involved in them. So many dictators over the course of history have risen to power on promises of a utopia and an unimaginable empire but in the end illustrated the great human weakness that brings even the best laid plans to a terrible, tragic and often blood soaked end. And you would trust a mere human to be true to their word, to never become enticed by power and money, to deny what so many before them embraced? Call me a pessimist and a cynic but there isn't a human alive today or tomorrow or ever who is truly immune to the natural process of corruption.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


It works both ways - if an alien race were to visit earth and discover us killing each other and playing secret wars with one another over resources (like oil), i believe that alien race would be fearful of simply handing over technology to a race that shows signs of imperialistic ambition.

What is the purpose of helping another race when all it will do is chaotically expand, slowly but surely taking up every piece of habital space it finds?

We have an entire universe to play with, it is absolutely pointless for a galactic-spanning species to fight over resources when there is no enemy (i.e; non-negotiable entity bent on eradicating all life) to oppose it.

The question is whether or not we'll be able to realise that before we get there.



All we need to do is understand and help one-another...


EDIT: Essentially, what i was saying is that - even though it's a long way off, what we do now and what we do later are linked.

The end of this part of humanity will affect Humanity's Ultimate Fate.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by Throbber]

reply to post by Helig


As of right now, I don't think we're ready for that kind of step in society, however I think movement in that direction is needed for the sustenance of the human species. As I've mentioned before, it will be the next serious of evolution as far as social dynamics are concerned. The reason why the NAU is being so craftily persued is because we, as dumb Americans, would be insane with rage knowing that we have to be as one with our northern and southern counterparts. We've instilled this false sense of self importance that has to be done away with for the good of man as a whole. that's not just America, that's worldwide. No borders, no nationalism.

You're still wrong about needing the destruction of culture, or any one culture to further advance any sort of globally united agenda. Look at ancient Mesopotamia or even the Roman empire. Culture flourished, as it still does to this day in west europe and even parts of the middle east. Because we unite as a people doesn't automatically mean we give up our culture. That's a misguided understanding of cultural unification.

Also, I think your view of "world government" is a little simplistic. It wouldn't operate in a drip type fashion or ancient monarchy. We've come to a point where democracy would be the only route we'd except for anything in modern times, with the consideration of a few who would disagree. The system wouldn't be 2 parts as in, King and people. There would be a network of government supporting people on all levels, as we do now. World government doesn't mean domination of ancient times. It means a progression in social reform and economics.

Who says it will have to be a non-democratic dictatorship? There's a mile wide grey area that the majority of you seem to be missing. It's not going to be anarchy and it's not going to be a fascist dictatorship. You need to put more thought into it than, black/white. There's a million possibilities for governments on all level, and just as we should determine what is suitable for the people living in the region under specific circumstances. Not so cut and dry, you know?

[edit on 24-10-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

I don't understand why nobody has responded to my idea of a tyrannical government forming out of a border-less world. Don't you realize that if were to operate on a galactic scale we have to first unite (with borders, different countries, and ideas) on a galactic scale. The only way to freedom and a good world is for multiple countries to unite under a republic that are willing to oppose one another. In the scenario that one country were to become tyrannical, it is up to the other countries to stop that country and change it back into a republic.

reply to post by Techsnow


Why don't we just leverage tyranny through the people of the republic instead of having another tyrant government do it for us?

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by Techsnow

 

Why don't we just leverage tyranny through the people of the republic instead of having another tyrant government do it for us?

Wow did you make that make no sense on purpose? I have no idea what you are trying to say there.

reply to post by Techsnow


First, let me say that, I'm not going to mess with this "galatic" bull#, because it's irrelevant.

I disagree with your idea of international checks and balances. It's simple minded and would further perpetuate that cycle of "us against them," that's been in place since tribes segregated themselves from others. As a republic, it is a citizens duty and responsibility to relieve his or her nation from tyrany and oppression, not the responsibility of often times an equally tyrannical nation. Social dynamics have to progress beyond a constant leveraging of one nation by another.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


Did you even read my two posts?

Don't you realize that once a tyranny is formed its pretty much impossible to stop it from the inside? You wonder why so many people oppose a NWO... this is the reason! B/c we know that once a tyranny starts you cant stop it w/o an outside force!

the problem is that in the end there will be 2 classes of people the rich and powerful and us slaves

reply to post by Techsnow


Of course you can. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That can be applied to something like this as well. As a people united, we have incredible leverage with our own governments, local and otherwise. We have yet to utilize those powers though, for what reason, I will never know.

reply to post by jstatz


Pessimistic to say the least. There's a grey area that everyone conveniently skips over. It would blow your mind to see the kind of social evolution if a globalized nation would ever come to terms.

I also wish I could live to see the day when money was phased out, which I would like to talk about more but isn't immediately relevant.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


theres always someone in charge. power corrupts and total power corrupts totally

reply to post by jstatz


Yeah, "absolutely" and all that.

Who says world government wouldn't be a utopian, or communal type of government?

I think everyone that's read this has been linking "aboslute authority" and "world government," which is a mistake.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


Dead flag blues... every post you have makes less and less sense! Of course you can what!! BLAH BLAH BLAH! WTH are you saying!!!!!!!!!

You seriously make NO SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


You're talking about the research pool?

The confluence of ideas and theories that would come together as a result of world-wide co-operation perhaps?

You're right, of course - the benefits of that kind of organisation could do a lot in terms of the various ailments that humanity seems to be suffering from right now.

You'll excuse me for bringing the thread up to the point of far-flung future strategic thinking.

But again, what Techsnow was saying is worthy of notice - however there will always be a better option to political systema; we need to remember that no system is perfect, that's why it's called a system.

Surely, the only perfect system is one without a system - although i don't think society is anywhere near ready for the social guidelines to be removed yet.


What we need is a method for progression, which can gradually evolve as we progress - we need to bring other people on board, in otherwords.


No system is always right, always perfect.

It's up to the individuals to make the system work, because the simple fact is that people don't want the system to work them.