Financial Times: "And Now for a World Government"

reply to post by Office 4256


I dont think we have much choice in regards to being tribal. I think we are biologically wired that way just like ants or dogs.

Sure there will always be a few who can control their instincts and be enlightened, but the vast majority of the human species will remain tribal and guided by animal instincts.

reply to post by Alphard


Nonesense. Hunter-gatherer societies inhabitated the earth for nearly 98% of human existence with shared decision making and true equality. Government and all it's many forms of superior beings ruling inferior peoples is a modern invention forced on peoples world wide. As to a one world government, that will never happen. People are far too greedy and selfish. What the Europeans did was create a universal economic system. But there is a catch. In order for a country to be included, they must have a Western style government and adopt the UN's Universal Human Rights Doctrine.

All governments that tried to rule the entire world single handedly have failed and will continue to fail. Selfishness and greed will always create fatal mistakes. Take a look around. Corrupt business and government partners made fatal mistakes disguised by many illusions. The "Fedzilla" (the US government) got too big, too arrogant and now it is failing. Financial institutes got too big, too arrogant and they failed. The stock market got too big, too arrogant. Selfishness and greed are unnatural and will always fail, but they are easily disguised in illusions that the majority of the people will buy into long enough to create another illusion. One world government would never be able to pull off an illusion of that magnitude.

Imagine one world. United. One belief. One culture. Now that would be boring!

I'm sure there are people who can see benefits. Though one should take a look at history to get answers on how wonderful this idea is and where it will lead to down the road. For me when 800 million people say NO. And a small corrupt elite of tyrants who call themselves our leaders push forwards says it all.

Originally posted by Stranded
Imagine one world. United. One belief. One culture. Now that would be boring!

I'm sure there are people who can see benefits. Though one should take a look at history to get answers on how wonderful this idea is and where it will lead to down the road. For me when 800 million people say NO. And a small corrupt elite of tyrants who call themselves our leaders push forwards says it all.

If we were united under a single world government, there would definately not be a single culture. you are not going to be able to take people's religion away from them, thier traditions, thier ideals, and thier view of the world. you will always have cultural differences.

if you're in america, you'll end up living a life with less luxury than your parents, and possibly grandparents, but that doesnt mean life will be boring. you can always find a way to make life interesting...

A one world government will NOT be shown up front to the public because it is going on now and has been for a while. One sentence that always came up in the black dragon society (part of Sinanju) is the fact that the world is not ready and willing to accept what is going on with them and underground. The deficit is a smoke and mirrors ideology that takes your focus off the agendas at hand. And the fact that deception is almost so easy to see regardless of having total knowledge of the bigger picture is appalling. I know that these groups have cures to everything from aids to cancer. They know how to manipulate the forces at will. They know how to stop aging and to clone animals AND people, and have been doing it longer than you think, much longer than has been shown to any living person "above the surface". This is beyond paranoia and conspiracy in reality. People need to really think about the fact that what they are often told by governmental agencies, the news media and the military is NOT the whole story and does not even scratch the surface. It is not to project fear, but to separate black from white and truth from fiction and disinformation from facts. I hope this helps you understand from a true victim of a cult to the front of your door, you need to know this stuff.

Ernie

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth

Originally posted by Alphard
Well I am sure this thread will be full of doomsayers soon enough who see this as the end of the world.. but I say..

good... excellent.. one world government is exactly what we need. let the humanity unite

I'm sure this thread will be full of idealists spouting crap like this without considering the nature of the people taking control.

It will not, and I stress this, be a democracy.

Indeed, BUT..all this talk about democracy as an ideal situation is questionable, I think.

For the sake of the argument, which is in it's place it think, because it is one of the reasons for the EU's existence.
If the majority of the people is full of hatred, backward makes war at the blink of an eye, and thinks only of themselves, would you want to live in that democracy?
I sure don't, I would want to regulate that bunch.

The point is: if you oversee the world, you aim for he best for all. If you look at your situation, you aim for the best for yourself.
That is why we need to work together.

The hard part is that the farther away from the virtual control centre (virtual because such big bodies would at the same time have to be decentralized to work, like the EU) the less you will trust it to work for your benefit.
Singular central control does not work and will not be the future. It is always a dynamic between central and decentral regulation.

Originally posted by Alphardgood... excellent.. one world government is exactly what we need. let the humanity unite

Are you serious? And am I missing something here?

'One World Government' doesn't sound very uniting.

Wasn't this 'One World Government' thingie about 'enslaving the masses'?

reply to post by wayno


"I believe a democracy could work on a national scale if
1. the electoral college system was done away with
2. campaigns were subsidized 100% by the government so as to eliminate influence of big business (ie eliminate corruption)"

....I would only add:
3. Remove all CORPORATIONS from Government!!!
4. Have people serve as representatives of their area by lottery let them be chosen like jury duty currently is.

RogerT
Unfortunately, the majority of 'the people' are selfish, immature, ignorant and bigotted individuals who find it hard for the most part to think beyond their own front door, if that far

Take into consideration that a huge proportion of the worlds 'people' are barely surviving, and the utopian idea that we can 'all live together in harmony' at this point in the planet's evolution, is a little bit of a stretch.

Benevolant 'dictatorship' is the only way I can see that we could achieve some kind of global peace and harmony. Unfortunately, any candidate(s) worthy of holding this position would not want it, and anyone wanting it would immediately disqualify themselves.

Unfortunately the immature, ignorant and bigotted individuals you speak of always end up as our leaders. The same leaders who never listen to their own people. The same leaders who are mainly responsible for the state this world is currently in and the same leaders who are conspiring behind our backs to bring about a dictatorship. Nothing these people do ever works, or benefits anyone but themselves, so it's safe to say their OWG dictatorship would be an absolute disaster. That's a certainty.

Excellent idea Cindy That's the only way forward. Nothing else will work.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by kindred]

reply to post by kcire


It doesn't have to be and thinking of it as such shows that you are pretty narrow-minded.

In general, the only way I see a "one world" government of any kind actually coming to fruition already has: the UN, and look how weak they are. They'll just reincarnate it again under a new name.

reply to post by kindred


I think you missed my point. It is the average Joe that is selfish, bigotted and unable to think past his front door, not the leaders that get elected (they belong to a far more malevolent category for the most part)

People say they care about others and profess their humanity and good deedliness, but how many will share their last loaf of bread with a complete stranger when their own family is starving. Not many I'd wager. You only need to read one or two threads on ATS to see how easily even self proclaimed 'aware' people turn to aggression and confrontation when they feel threatened, challenged or just plain contradicted. Self included

That may be a bad analogy, but there are countless others in everyday life to demonstrate the point.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Office 4256

 

I dont think we have much choice in regards to being tribal. I think we are biologically wired that way just like ants or dogs.

Sure there will always be a few who can control their instincts and be enlightened, but the vast majority of the human species will remain tribal and guided by animal instincts.

I half agree with you on this.


The thing you have forgotten is the "mechanism" behind this and how it can fall back on itself.

Being tribal is a by-product of being shaped by your environment and unifying with those around you with similar goals and similar adversaries to those goals. And Ultimately, all based on survival, or at least the perception thereof.

Now, let's say that an individual find him or herself in a situation where the majority of those around are of the enlightened ilk. Well then, the very mechanism which makes people tribal now makes them enlightened.

It's really all a matter of concentration. Concentration determines existence. One enlightened person in a mass of unenlightened folks makes the survival of that mode rather slim. However, if you have a common occurance that causes many to become enlightened, then you have a different story altogether.


Remember, organisms are emergent and fractal creatures, not designed and linear. Ultimately, life is simply adaptable and will , on the whole, adapt to anything in order to survive.



[edit on 11-12-2008 by HunkaHunka]

I famously said two things about this financial crisis:

A) Britain will consider Euro membership (we've seen the discussion develop over the last few weeks.)

B) A world government will formulate.

China wants a single currency and a non-nationalistic United Nations. The campaign for a United Nations Parliament, which is financed by the UN itself, holds a conference each year. Countless politicians from Europe and North America have voiced support and attend the conference.

EU Parliament passed a motion to support a United Nations Parliament. It is not a factitious idea or a fallacy, it will occur. Obama is a fundamental advocate of the United Nations and wants UN reform.

yes indeed, a one world government is an excellent idea of course, it just needs to be run by decent feet on the ground people and not profiteers and neo-con sickos taking everyone to the bloody cleaners. the NWO could, amd should imo, be about the world uniting in spiritual harmony, and sharing knowledge and advancing our civilization. coming together and using all the skill in technology to benefit all. they know its acheivable, but greed prevails.

i for one have alot of faith in the human spirit, and the idea the black nobility have for mankind is folly and cannot work. people will always eventually break from control. there may be alot of pain and hardship to get where we need to go in the future to reach some form of global inlightenment, but we will get there im sure

one-world-government = stability, peace, prosperity

one culture = great

one people = amazing

nationalistic life hasn't done the planet that much justice....

look at China, The Middle East (give them credit for trying), Africa, everywhere except Europe

they are all a disaster...stuck in the 1900s

we have to modernize these cave men at some point

[edit on 11-12-2008 by ConservativeJack]

reply to post by True_Gnosis


I completely agree. I too was raised in a highly diverse, multicultural society. I have very little "national" interest in my country, Canada, in the sort of sense that a group divides oneself for purposes of exclusion, where only members directly benefit. However, what this experience has fostered in me is a sense of community and spirit. I feel like I have been given a responsibility to protect the interests of all citizens of this world, and I will protect my country and my neighbors, and what we stand for, at whatever cost. This "supranational" sentiment is what must be provided for posterity, if ever a governance on a global level is to be accomplished. That said, I do not see national entities conceding legislative power to one organization until they become more unified in their vision, which should be the ultimate goal.

The European Union has accomplished this to a great degree. Today, I believe, when ever someone mentions Europe, it is in the sense that it is not a just continent of many nations, but a nation founded on the continence of all its members.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


I think it probably goes beyond nurture or environment. I think its genetic. A good verified example of this in another animal is the family formicidae aka ants. Ants can sense genetic differences in their own species, if an ant strays genetically too far from one colony's genetic makeup it will be treated as hostile. This causes ants from the same species to treat other colonies as hostile. They compete, fight over resources, and attack each others colonies. There are a few exceptions to this. Argentine Ants who are so genetically close across their entire species they are more like clones and do not treat other Argentine Ants as hostile regardless of origin.

Unlike ants we can ignore our instincts, but many people choose not to and are driven by them.

I agree people can adapt to survive, but we don't do it as a species. Humans do it as individuals. Each human is primarily driven by extrinsic motivations, physiological and safety needs. Within many humans this can expand to include immediate family, but it simply will not expand to the species as a whole. It will expand to more distant family creating tribes and clans who have close genetic kinship, but the need for survival will not drive the human species into unity. What it will do is get humans to kill each other. The more desperate they become the more aggressive they will get. Humans desperate for survival would commit mass genocide before they unified as a species. Basically the more desperate we are, the more animal like we become.

The only potential way for humans to have any sense of unity is to make sure all their physiological and safety needs are met. This enables them to focus on more aesthetic needs and intrinsic motivators. They then have the comfort to focus on philosophical and political matters, but they still need an outlet for aggression and competition, e.g. sporting events.

At this point in our species history it is simply impossible for any sense of true unity. There are far too many have-nots in the world, billions of them. Most of the wealth and power among the human race is concentrated in the hands of the few, while billions of people's physiological and security needs are not met. This results in desperation, aggression and conflict between the suffering, those that sympathize with them, and the few who are viewed as taking advantage of them.

Much of the Third World already views the Environmental movement pushed by the few as colonial imperialism. Much of the Muslim world views the liberal democratic reforms as imperialism and anti Islamic. The liberals pushing these agendas need to understand that the people in these countries are concerned with physiological and security needs. They simply cannot afford to worry about abstract potential scenarios or other intellectual motivators.

While the liberal west dreams of idealistic utopian world governments, billions across the world are more concerned with their next meal or if they'll even live to see their next meal.

Intellectuals have to understand that those billions live in the here and now. They need immediate needs met and want immediate extrinsic rewards. Trying to convey potential and possible threats to survival in the future, e.g. climate change, nuclear war, etc., is useless.

So I don't see any true world government representing the human race appearing anytime soon. Someone, the comfortable few, might throw together something they call a world government, but it will not represent everyone and the have-nots and those that sympathize with them will view it and its first world members as hostile imperialists. That alone is enough to guarantee the world government's implosion and fragmentation.

reply to post by pause4thought

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Benjamin Franklin

reply to post by whiterabbit85


"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

--Benjamin Franklin

If you're for it you better hope it works. Because once you put that much power into the hands of such a small group there is no going back. Right now if you have a corrupt government you get a corrupt city, state, or at worst country. And there are other city, state, and national governments to oppose it. How do you stop a corrupt world government.