Enemies of Globalism, I challenge you.

If the past has its way, the future will be stillborn

Salutations, Loki. You have put your head in the lion's mouth. It is an old lion and sick almost to death, but it still has all its teeth and it's doing its damnedest to chew you up and spit you out. Resist. You have the right of it. And sooner or later, your ideas - which are also my ideas - will prevail.

Sadly, our victory may have to be celebrated over the corpse of the old, divided, warring world - this world of nasty, egotistical, greedy children your opponents love so much that they will embrace it even unto death.

For death it will be. No, not murder at the hands of fanatical globalists, but simple suicide.

I disagree with you that human intelligence is evolving rapidly. In fact it isn't evolving anything like rapidly enough. Before the human race grows up properly, it will need to be taught some lessons. And the lessons will be taught: overpopulation, resource depletion, environmental despoliation and climate change will see to that.

According to James Lovelock, the first scientist to treat the entire Earth as a single organism, the human population of our planet in a hundred years' time will be roughly a fifth of what it is now. That rump of humanity will be live in conditions far less congenial to human life than the ones we presently enjoy; for perhaps thousands of years to come, they will struggle to survive, their numbers ever declining. Their lives will be hard, nasty, brutish and short. Technological civilization will all but disappear. Much human knowledge and culture will inevitably be lost. But we may hope that some of it will survive, and that its inheritors, having learnt the lessons of the Century of Catastrophe now upon us and the long, long Dark Ages to come, will be able to think straighter and clearer than the good folk who have opposed you on this thread.

In those far-off times, having learnt better from our near-fatal errors, we humans may begin again. It will be almost impossibly hard and I don't doubt that we shall have to fight the forces of revanche yet again; but with the benefit of experience we, or rather our intellectual descendants, may yet prevail. Then there will indeed be no possessions, no countries and no religion too.

Either that, or the lights go out for ever.

[edit on 1-9-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by justamomma

Ma'am, you posted the words of Brock Chisholm: 'To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.'

I live in a country that was declared a secular nation-state by British fiat over half a century ago. The British didn't stick around to enforce their decree; they declared us independent and left us to sort things out for ourselves. Today, that secular nation-state exists in name only; the majority ethnic group has hijacked it and uses its powers and resources to oppress, persecute and make war upon the other ethnic groups that share the country.

Those of us who would like to see our ravaged and divided country heal itself know that it will not happen until loyalty to the nation-state supersedes ethnic loyalty among all our fellow-countrymen. Yet we know at first hand how hard this is to do, and we know why: it is because ethnic ties are ties of language, life and blood, far closer to the heart than mere patriotism ever can be. Stilll, we know it can be done, because it has been done in nearly every successful nation-state now existing. You're American, I believe; well, your country is living proof that racial and tribal loyalties can be subsumed in the broader (and totally artificial) allegiance known as national patriotism. In America, English and Irish, Catholic and Jew, Black and White live and work side by side in peace. They may not love each other, but for the most part they get along.

Beside this magnificent feat, the mere subsumation of national patriotism in allegiance to a world state is easy. It is an amusing irony that Americans are mostly so violently opposed to globalism, because their country, of which they are so proud, is living proof that it can be done and that it is worth doing. If Jefferson were alive today, you may be sure he'd be standing with Loki and me on this.

Chisholm was wrong, you know. To create a world state, it is not necessary to remove anything from people's minds. It is necessary only to implant a concept that encompasses and supersedes all preexistent loyalties, one that unites all men and women in the acknowledgement and celebration of what they have in common: our humanity.

Globalism is humanism.

I seem to have brought this thread to a premature close.

What, will no champion of antiglobalism enter the lists against me?

Come now, all you rugged individualists, where's your stuffing?

"It is necessary only to implant a concept that encompasses and supersedes all preexistent loyalties, one that unites all men and women in the acknowledgement and celebration of what they have in common: our humanity."


First of all, you obviously don't live in America. Things aren't peachy keen between all the races.. do you not read the posts on this board? For now, it is being supressed under the surface, but that is never good, is it?

a) you have one race that feels they are entitled
b) you have another race that is fleeing major cities to get away from violence and the destruction of the cities and is in fear of certain other races underlying hatred
c) you have another race that is mooching off of our resources
d) you have some cultures being forced on the rest while other cultures are being denied
e) religious differences and lifestyles that are causing heat

You live in denial of reality if you think that we can all celebrate being one together in harmony... no doubt while holding hands singing kum ba ya.


To understand reality and why it won't work you should simplify it by taking it back to the very core of nature.

Do you see animals getting together to celebrate their oneness as the animal kingdom? No, because it is not natural.

Humans, regardless of intelligence (in fact intelligence would tell you that oneness will not work), can co-exist, but they will never live happily in a globalist state no matter how much you try to deny reality. They may be able to co-exist, but intermingling and continuing to force ppl to deny their loyalties is NOT natural. And I hate to tell ya bud, but America is proof of this.

And to force this on individuals who would be happy just living their life within their small community without being imposed upon is unfair to their right to live their life the way they choose.


[edit on 3-9-2008 by justamomma]

Well one of the most common arguments against the idea of a global union is that it's not 'human nature' Well, to be fair, I don't think the blanket term of 'human nature' should be used, rather it's a standard deviation within the population that produces violent people, or agitators, or etc. Regardless of the source of corruptibility in humans it is not universal. There are people out there who yearn for this new world.

But unfortunately so many of us are stuck in the methods and limitations of an 'Old World' point of view.




I propose that there is a way to make this work to the benefit of all. Perhaps GE patent seed is not the answer to the world's food problems. But on the other hand some sort of established non-hegemonic trade system wherein third world countries rich in resources have an opportunity to profit from them, so that they can also take care of their people. A sorely needed restoration of sanity into the world.

It is you, not I, justamomma, who could benefit from some mind-broadening travel and research. Of course I know things aren't 'peachy keen' in America. That is why I wrote

In America, English and Irish, Catholic and Jew, Black and White live and work side by side in peace. They may not love each other, but for the most part they get along.

I am familiar with American history and current affairs. I am also familiar with the history and current affairs of many other countries, including of course my own, and with world history in general. Conditions in America are not ideal, but they are far, far better than in nations torn apart by actual shooting wars between ethnic groups, faiths, linguistic groups, social classes and so on. Even the battle of the sexes counts fatalities in some countries - witness the burying of women alive in Pakistan recently.

As for your point about different species or animal social groups being in conflict, this is only one side of the story. Human beings are easily able to expand their in-groups to include former out-groups. That is how tribes evolved from aggregations of hunter-gatherer bands, ethnic groups from aggregations of tribes and nation-states from aggregations of ethnic groups. There is absolutely no reason why the process should not continue to encompass the human race - apart, that is, from racism and bigotry.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Loki


Hypothetically, let's say that you were setting this whole "utopia" world up. Would you allow for those who appreciated the so called "Old World" view of life for its intrinsic value to live peaceably in their own self sufficient communities? Or would this view require the participant of every human being regardless of what they deem best for their personal life? If it did, what would happen to those of us who oppose it personally in our lives?



[edit on 3-9-2008 by justamomma]

Originally posted by AstyanaxConditions in America are not ideal, but they are far, far better than in nations torn apart by actual shooting wars between ethnic groups, faiths, linguistic groups, social classes and so on.

No doubt. I don't take the freedoms I have or the blessings in my life for granted in the least. I don't impose onto others lives and I still have a say so in not allowing others impose onto my life.

I am all for you and the OP living your life in your fantasy filled world so long as it isn't forced on me

reply to post by crimvelvet


So, let me get this straight.

Alliances of the WTO (SPS Agreement), USDA, EU, Defra, EAAP, WFP, IDF, OIE, ILRI, WAAP, ISO, ICAR PSAS, as well as JBS and others, and the PSAS regarding funding such as the IFAD, GPA, in compliance with the FAO/WHO/CAC per the DHS new ADC which may result in escaping pathogens and FMD outbreak, using tracing methods established by the IDTRAK DNA Banking System, will end small farms while Montesano and others monopolize all organisms and plant life within the pending BT Crops and Livestock patent controls, putting the asylum of lunatics in control and completely in charge.

or am I way off?

Sounds like globalism is the way to unite all of the human species alright.

and

reply to post by justamomma

I am glad you replied in this vein, because it allows me to respond to your earlier post directed at Loki.

Just as the USA is a grouping of semi-autonomous states and the European Union a grouping of considerably more autonomous nation-states, a globalized world would almost certainly be comprised of smaller regional entities, each with a good deal of freedom to make laws, levy taxes, and develop its own financial and administrative systems. That would give people a great deal of leeway concerning how they choose to live and be governed.

That doesn't mean, however, that the activities of racists, cultural chauvinists, religious exclusivists, would-be tyrants, tax evaders and people who take the law into their own hands would be tolerated, any more than they are in a properly ordered modern nation-state.

Given your views as expressed on this and other threads, justamomma, I fear you would find life in a globalized world no more to your taste than - frankly - life in New York City or Greater Los Angeles today. The fact is, you already live in a globalized world; you just haven't admitted it to yourself yet.

Originally posted by infolurker
I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution Of The United States.

Not the mythical United Federation Of Planets!

There was a reason our ancestors came to America (at least most of us from immigration) and that was the world was and still is a sewer of corruption, greed and tyranny.

Yes, There are more people and countries under the fist of tyranny today than free. Why on earth would you want to join that mess!

Perhaps one day (doubtful) there will come a day when Republics & Democracies flourish throughout the world and we can come together but there is no way in hell I would forfeit an inch of our sovereignty to a foreign power or body! (especially an organization that is far more corrupt and evil than our own corrupt politicians!)

Dream on. If you want America, come under the force of arms and take it. It will be a good fight.

I agree.If you socialists/communists want america youll have to take it by force since im not voting for any socialist into power in Canada or the US.Socialism is a failed state.Its what happens when people abdicate their responsibility as citizens of a nation.If Obama gets elected his administration will have more than just the economy to worry about.

reply to post by Justice11

If you socialists/communists want america youll have to take it by force

What makes you think a global metastate would have to be socialist or communist?

The America you mean to defend with your life is a regionalized metastate. It isn't socialist or communist.

I, my friend, am a dedicated supporter of capitalism. One of the nice things about a globalized world is that in it, local trade tariffs and customs duties would much harder to justify and to levy.

Globalism means free trade, and free trade is good for business.

reply to post by Astyanax


I do understand what your point is and no, I am not in denial but rather I accept certain aspects of it. But that is the whole point, at this point we are at, I still have a choice as to what I will and won't accept. Mind you, not accepting certain aspects have involved some personal sacrifices... but I am allowed to make those sacrifices as of right now.

I am aware of the cultural differences and I do enjoy interacting with ppl around the world. But I also am a very private person and make sacrifices to maintain my right to have a say so in my life (whether real or imagined is all relative to the state of mind one is in).

When you get into "thick" globalism though, as was addressed in the op, then it becomes a different story. It very much is about the erasing of one's person identity in favor for the humanist outlook. So, trying to trap me into your one world, holding hands, view is pointless.

If you don't like my view and how I want to live my life, well.. that really isn't my problem, now is it? If you have the problem with it, sorry about your luck.

I like my opinions and my way of doing things. I have one life and I will make the choices for what works for me and what doesn't. Thus far, I am good

reply to post by imd12c4funn


Yes you have it and do not forget CDC and the FDA. I just read they are jumping on the bandwagon of food control "From Farm to Fork" This means All foods, plant and animal wil be subject to regulations that make the backyard garden impossible. See the Guide to Good Farming Practices Source: www.oie.int/eng/publicat/rt/2502/review25-2BR/25-berlingueri823-836.pdf