It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


There is nothing wrong with a One-World Government

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 02:51 AM
I've been thinking about this all evening. The flaw with the concept of communism is hard to define to someone convinced of it value. What it is is a carrot on a stick used as a lure by evil men. It sounds plausible, it is not. It makes sense, but could never be reality. Those who dangle the carrot know it.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 03:00 AM
I suppose the idea of a one world government wouldn't seem so bad to someone who has never experienced real freedom.

I would suggest thinking outside the box,about every aspect of it.

What do you think it was like to live under the rule of the king of england?.

Go read some history books.

It would seem that many have had conflicts with one world government in the past from what I have read in the history books.

There is some amount of leeway which must be given to the interpretation of any text,teaching,religious,etcetera....just cuz-o-misinterpretations along the way over the years for whatever reason.

If the human race were more mature,we would realise we really don't need any governing body at all except for the purpose of logistics.

The "world order" they are speaking of is a return to the "old world order".

The rest of the world never escaped it,but the rest of the world is trying to suck the U.S. back into the old world order.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 04:13 AM
1) War would End: this is not true why do you think the New World Order wants a one world military? Because there will always be resistance those who wont conform those who choose to live free, they will need to be crushed. One world government would be breeding ground for rebellion!

2)Poverty & Disease Would End: Perhaps for those that conform to the governments way those who choose to be free, will struggle and the New World Order will not help them! In fact they would use disease as a weapon to quell rebellion. They will turn electronic Ids in to weapons, don't conform and your chip is turned off, no money no identification, you no longer exist! These Ids will be required in the new world order in integrated in every facet of our lives with out them our lives will be near imposable

3)Over Population will end: this is true in a One world government not only will those who not conform have to fight to survive, but it is more likely that undesirables, will be exterminated, such as those who stand up against the New world Order even verbally free speech would not be tolerated!

4)Violence will end: Human beings are Violent by nature, though we have the ability to control our selves primal instinct is still a very large part of what we are, if the strictest of punishments such as the death penalty does not prevent Violence what can a one world government offer to stop violence? Banning of Guns? You don't need guns to kill people, there are those who can kill with their hands. Their was murder and violence long before the gun the dark ages are considered one of the most violent times, and baring arms then meant caring a sword. We would all like to think that we as humans are better then animals but at our core we are not it is human nature to destroy!

5) Religious Extremism Would End: In order to achieve that goal religion would have end period, Religion plays an important part in society, it the basis for morals and the way we treat others. More then likely those who do not conform to the system will be the religious Extremist of the New world order!

[edit on 4/4/2009 by Verd_Vhett]

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 04:22 AM
I was always a skeptic of a one world government, but really - when i think about it, it doesn't seem bad bad at all. There is loads of things that countries would benefit from.

Its not like 1 group of people would rule the world, it would be a council, and a council from each country to speak. Yes corruption would 100% be imminent, but it happens, and can be worked round, because of the councils. And in the long run, it would be great, and worth it!!

At the moment there is "Super Powers" A mean come on, when you think about it there is like, what? 4 countries that are big players in the game? USA, Russia, China, UK? (UK is only small but has its hands in everything)

There would be no need for super powers, just councils from each country - Like the UN at the moment - If a country in the UN wants to go to war for example, they have to get a majority of votes to do so
This is what it should be like, for everything. VOTES!!! That way, when the PEOPLE say NO. it means NO!!!

Things can only get better.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:08 AM

Let's say that the "right to bear arms" is banished

What? Last I checked, it's not the "legal" firearm owners robbing banks. You do know it's moderatly easy to get a gun off the street.

What criminal in his right mind would kill somebody with a gun registered in his name that ballistics can match to him?

Im sorry but you've been duped into believing something thats simply not true. statistically in the United States, Gun control has failed, it does not work. Criminals are too smart for your petty laws.

Legal firearm owners registered there weapons becuase they obey the law. You are trying to punish law abiding citizens.

Not that you mind, becuase reading your ENTIRE OP clearly shows you have absolutly no care about your personal freedom.

Abolish war? There would be resistances and gaurilla warfare EVERYWARE. Every city in the world would be like baghdad, where its not safe to go outside.

You havent put much, if any thought into what you are suggesting!

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:28 AM
First off, the people behind the "One World Government" are mass murderers, serial murderers, rapists, pedophiles, thieves, profiteers, con artists, drug peddlers, pimps, etc., etc., etc.. If they want your child for pedophilia or human sacrifice they will take your child. Your resistance will amount to your being unpatriotic and you will be punished. You will be ostracized from society or prosecuted and reeducated or killed. You will have no rights whatsoever. You will do the job they tell you too or be executed as excess waste. There will be no freedom of religion. There will only be the state sponsored, brainwash, fantasy religion. These people have slaughtered countless millions by fabricating wars, drug wars, selling drugs, slavery, taxation, false laws, false history, false education, false medicine, etc.. These people are no ones friend not even their families or their own. There is no virtue in these beasts. This will be the high tech dark ages on steroids. Yes, there will be a pacification period where prosperity is likely to rein in order to acclimatize people into thinking it's all for the good, accepting it and relinquishing their freedoms one by one. But in the long term they will systematically reduce freedom in every conceivable way. Greater brainwashing will be taking place among the young, then euthanasia will be conducted with the old to get ride of their influence. You will have no access to truth, only the propaganda they want you to have. Everyone will know parts of the propaganda is a lie but no one will be able to do or change anything for fear of loosing the credits associated with their implanted chip.

That said, the nature of the world is such that the strongest motivations facilitate change. Those motivations are almost never good. People aren't here to be in paradise, they're here to exhaust imperfections. But those motivations seldom result in situations as the perpetrators intend. The perpetrators exhaust their karmic desires while the real underlying result is often quite different. The classic example is the British invading India with no good intention and by the time they leave there is education, common language, transportation system, the start of modernization, etc.. Not what they had in mind.

The people your in love with (the NWO) practice war as human sacrifice. They will perpetuate that sacrifice and increase it in order to reduce the population to manageable numbers. They will use war, disease, poisoning, starvation, etc. to honor their gods. Most of those that survive will be debt slave labor.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:48 AM
reply to post by TruthParadox

We never truly had freedom to begin with? In Truth, the only freedom we each have is Free Will. Freedom of choice. The right of self determination. Whatever form of government or system, whether in history or what many think is currently being proposed (NWO/OWG), as individuals we each must make our own decisions between one option or another. It is our innately human nature to choose for ourselves and by this nature, our rights as individuals to exercise free will, have been formed.

I think that what those who are concerned about perceived negative outcomes of NWO/OWG really fear is the loss of individual, community and national identity, removing the rights of the individual to be self determining.

I also think that now x20 elected national identity representatives have ganged up and put their cards on the table and declared the collective will to achieve world domination, the world has been propelled toward war.

Given historical evidence of what happens when one nation/tribe/group/gang/collective/beast declares the intention to take control of another nation/tribe/group/gang/collective/beast's sovereignty/self determination and consequently, resources, conflict always ensues and where, as a direct result of both the failure to agree census or just because it is in the nature of men to fight, this conflict becomes war. Therefore, any attempt to agree and impose any form of global government, will attract opposition, by the individual, as demonstrated here at ATS, by groups as seen or portrayed in mainstream media and by powers, seen or unseen. For now let's limit powers to other national or ideological collectives that currently exist in the world. I cannot imagine that G20 declaring their intention to rule the globe with monetary control will not be forcefully challenged by other world powers. I cannot imagine that the intelligence services of each G20 have provided their masters with every scrap of information about the collective will and intention of other world powers.

However this conflict actually pans out, I feel that we can all be certain of only thing, whoever the victor, the national or ideological identity of said victor, will be the basis for the social strata of the defeated. And given the choices currently available (G20 and any world powers strong enough to oppose them), the resulting loss of what is left of the individuals' right to self determination.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 06:21 AM
reply to post by depmode21

I agree with you, there is nothing wrong with a one world government, the idea itself is quite literally perfection, everyone in the world, working together to better themselves, one another and the world, only problem at the moment is, the bad guys are at the helm.

This is why it's such a clever move, if we oppose a world government, then we are the one's holding on to the past, the ones halting progression and we can be victimised as such. That is why this is very important to make sure that people know we are not opposed to a one world government, just opposed to this one.

This one will take the power that is already held by the few, and consolidate it to even less people. This will never work, it may aswell be a dictatorship. For a global government to work, it will need to be controlled by the population at large, not the minority, the minority will always get greedy.

Before we can even consider a 'gloal government' we need to sort out our current governmental model, because it doesn't work, why up-scale it, when it's so broken and flawed on the smaller scale, these problems will only get bigger.

For starters, there can be no career politicians, politicians as a job will have to be /deleted, there is no need, the government itslef would need admin staff etc but the actuall decision making would be firmly in the hands of the public. An informed public can do the same thing any politician can do a 'senate' would be needed to make decisions, yet this must be comprise of civilians, the public, I see it as like Jury duty, every six months, the 'senate' would rotate.

This would skip personal agendas for power, influence and money, but rather force people to think about the bigger picture, the many rather than the few, the country (or world) as a whole, rather than individual progress.

Have you ever thought about how we elect our leaders? They run campaigns, costing millions, the most popular wins. Where does this money come from? Anyone who offers it, and it's usually the same people IMO.

So before we have even 'elected' (lol) our official, all the candidates, owe out favours, all the candidates no longer have just their own agendas, but they have the agenda of anyone who invested in them.

I bet that if we had a way to view alternate timelines, we would see that even if different head of states where elected, the same things would get done, key things like Patriot Act, Food Modernization Act etc, would get passed anyway.

Don't even get me started on the Financial system, the first thing that would be done, is to centralise the bank for the world, second thing I'd do, is stop it from charging interest, it would be there purely to regulate and maintain, to print money when needed for the government, no interest, no profit.

/rabble rabble

Sorry about the rant, but alternative ideas are needed, otherwise we won't have a choice but to accept it.


I think that what those who are concerned about perceived negative outcomes of NWO/OWG really fear is the loss of individual, community and national identity, removing the rights of the individual to be self determining.

What I fear is my children being born into a world worse than the one I entered, I fear due to people's lazyness, people's cowardice and people's ignorance my children could be brought up in an enslaved society, a society that gave up their ability to shape their life and their world as they see fit because there was more interesting things on TV.

I don't mind that you don't percieve things the way I do, in fact, I embrace that, I feel it is the very reason why we are alive, but I despair sometimes because the things I see happening and the same things others see, except they don't see the pattern, the big picture (or should that be MY big picture).

I know I'm not right, but I'm # scared at how close I may be and everytime something like this comes out it just reminds me of how close I could be, no matter how much I don't want to be.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 4-4-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 06:54 AM
I don,t understand. even bad situations can become good, but once finally in complete control ,who can make changes?

Why do we have so many missiles in the world that can destroy the world many times over? because someone is being paid a fortune by governments ,who take taxes from the people, we don,t need anymore weapons, spend our money on the peoples needs, they want food not guns, medicines not germ warfare,love not hate

Ghandi was a good basic man,those in charge like to beat those inferior ,then turn on cameras to show the response, but you are shown ,THIS IS WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE REALLY LIKE. they lie to you. this site is awakening people to truth ,are our eyes really opened???

Any leader can appear as perfect,also a wolf in sheeps clothing, even ghandi if in charge could change for the worse.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:21 AM
OP, thank you.

I agree completely with you. I said something on the topic of this a few days ago, and I was flamed with something pertaining a one race world.

We already are a one race world -- The Human Race. We've not been separated long enough to evolve into different races among each other. We're not different internally, only externally. Our appearences make us different.

We need to realize that as a race, and move forward. It's not about the Jews, the Africans, the Asians.. Those aren't different races. They're merely different cultures and different beliefs. All in all, we're the same.

We are the human race.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:44 AM
The only path to a truly functional 'One World Government' is a nasty road paved with much bloodshed and evil plotting. History is perhaps the greatest enemy of such a movement because it shows as power is consolidated down to fewer and fewer people the chances of tyrannical oppression rises. All historical references to such occurrences would have to be removed in order to permit several generations to pass without having this knowledge maintained in their consciousness.

Next up would be the destruction of all religion and nationality. People by and large are proud of their country because its theirs, and much like a parent it in a fashion gave birth to them by being the place from which they grew from. Pride in ones country is a major hurdle for anyone seeking to unite the world under a single unified banner; with people clinging to their heritage you will never have any serious degree of success.

The level of indoctrination needed (which would have to span several generations) would be a truly immense undertaking spanning at least 100 years or more in order to achieve the desired effect on the collective consciousness of the population. People would have to be completely conditioned to relinquish their national identity, their religion, and never have learned a shred of real history lest they see what had happened in the past when power became highly unified.

In short I think as our technology advances the time frame necessary to setup the world for such a thing as a One World government is increasing dramatically. Knowledge, videos, pictures, whole accounts of history can be maintained by private citizens on their key chains and in their desks now; this information truly is the key from blocking any moves towards a One World Government. The more dispersed information becomes and the longer it survives in whatever media its stored the harder it becomes to condition the people to accept any unified power structure because that structure needs every single shred of history tailored to their version in order to craft the consciousness of the people.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:06 AM

Originally posted by TONE23
From a Utopian perspective a one world govt would be fantastic!

In reality it will be catastrophic!

One things that Absolute powers does and that is this: it corrupts absolutely!


posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 09:44 AM
I can't understand how gullible people are. Hasn't EVER the OP heard broken promises?
Hasn't EVER the OP watched as politicians NEVER addressed a particular issue they wholeheartedly promised to?
This world is a nasty place, corruption is rampant, psychopaths dominate regular people. But at least, with this current division of powers, there is some balance since there are several different "factions" so to speak.
Remember when Bush said "either you are with us, or you are against us" on 2001. That was some call for NWO. I can see how peaceful this coalition can be.
I can also see how great will it be when a few of these individuals get unlimited power.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:10 AM
To the people that think this is your eyes and observe...the same ponzi scheme that is destroying the economies is being consolidated into a LARGER ponzi scheme. THIS WAS THE CHANCE TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM, they could have implimented a totally different economic structure but guess what... Hell heres an idea lets create the same system that screwed us but make it bigger. THAT IN ITSELF SHOULD SEND UP THE WARNING FLAG!

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:25 AM
one world government is inevitable to any planet with intelligent life.

i'm sure we'll have to go through a few versions of it till we get it right.


posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:34 AM
I understand why you feel that way.

However, look at how it's being implemented.

  • USA PATRIOT Act, increased surveillance, etc taking away civil liberties in the US
  • Imposition of toll collection on roads which used to be free
  • Trauma-based mind control
  • Moral relativism
  • Replacing American values and traditions with "international" socialist rhetoric
  • Calling for legislative measures like legalizing drug use and gay marriage, as a way to takeover the US government
  • Merging government with business and religion
  • Zionism

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:38 AM
Well if they don't get it right who is going to change a global dictatorship? All of civilization will be at their mercy and what might be right to THEM may not be right to YOU. Perhaps they think to get it right they must kill off 80% of the population and start over. Perhaps they think you have not been productive in society and need to be eliminated?

As YODA said "Do or DO NOT there is no TRY."

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 11:57 AM
The OP makes the claim that a One World Government would result in the following,

Originally posted by depmode21

1) War Would End

2) Poverty & Disease Would End

3) Over-Population Would End

4) Violence Would End

5) Religious Extremism Would End

I think that this represents a very simplistic view of the world and one that is dangerous. I will take these one at a time and point out the flaw in the logic.

1.) War would end. War has been a part of the human race since the very beginning. In fact the oldest written records that we have are accounts about wars between this group vs that group. Marx made the point that all of human history is the result of "struggles" between different groups. How would a unified government end all of this? This assumes that all wars are teh result of political differences, and this is not the case.

There have been many wars fought over cultural differences, economic differences, racial differences, and some that were fought for no real reason at all. How would a different politic change this?

Even the short history of the US shows that a unified government of a diverse population is no guarantee that peace will prevail. Case in point, the Civil War, the Indian Wars, the Civil Rights struggle, and dozens of smaller disputes.

I also find it interesting that when the OP was challenged with the likelihood of corruption existing in the One World Government, his response was to say that 6 billion people would be able to depose a corrupt government. I have to assume that such a move would result in violence, hence war.

2.) Disease and poverty would disappear. First let me say that these are two different things that are not necessarily connected. Millions of rich people die from disease each year. So, let me handle these separately.

Disease is caused by bacteria, viruses, genetic flaws, age, malnutrition, and parasites. With the exception of the malnutrition issue there is little that a unified government can do that is not all ready being done.

I guess that the government could impose a quarantine on all people who have some sort of disease. Isolation could reduce the chance of spreading certain diseases, that is true. However, where would you house the hundreds of millions of people with some sort of disease? Concentration camps?

What would you do about genetic flaws? Prevent these people from reproducing? Maybe forced sterilization or abortion? That would be just lovely.

What about diseases caused by age? Maybe we could impose an "expiration date" for people, like we do for milk? That would be great.

I am sure that the OP actually meant that we could force the pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines that they have been reluctant to develop. OK, but why does the benefit from a One World Government always have to come from the use of force? How does that work when we are trying to reduce violence?

OK, what about poverty? How would a One World Government reduce poverty? The OP specifically mentions redistribution of wealth. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of economics. You can not eliminate poverty by enriching the poor while empoverishing the rich. It simply does not work. The rich are usually a result of education, hard work, better ideas, and a certain degree of luck. The worlds economy is constantly in flux with rich and poor people being made every day and some rich become poor and some poor become rich.

The GDP of the US (the largest in the world) is about 14 trillion dollars give or take a few trillion. That sounds like a lot of money but divide that number by 6 billion people worldwide and you get a little over 2 thousand dollars for everyone on the planet. A person in India might be able to live on 2 thousand dollars a year but a person in the US cannot.

Not to mention the fact that once you suck all the money out of the US economy through redistribution, the GDP will drop very rapidly and soon you will have less than 200 dollars per year to redistribute, because that "wealth" in the US GDP is used to create more jobs, more money, and more goods. Once you kill the golden goose, you get no more golden eggs.

What happens to the world GDP of 40 trillion dollars when you redistribute it worldwide? It becomes 4 trillion and we all starve together. That is the exact opposite of eliminating poverty, that is the redistribution of poverty worldwide.

3.) Over population would end. Well, the world is not "over populated" and so this is a strawman argument. But since the OP went there, let's explore this for a moment. You can take every family on the planet and move them to Australia, give them each an acre of land and still have land to spare. If you did this, then you would have the rest of the planet, to farm, mine, and forest. So, as I said, the world is not over populated not by a long stretch.

This line of thinking comes from the writtings of Dr. Paul Erlich who wrote, "The Population Bomb" during the late 1960's. Dr. Erlich wrongly predicted that the earth's population would be 20 billion people by now. It's not obviously and most sociologist agree that the earth's population has peaked and will actually begin to decline over the next century. Some areas like North America, Russia, Europe, and China, will have less than half their current populations one hundred years from now.

How would a unified government regulate population anyway? Are we talking about forced abortions, sterilizations, and exterminations? These are the only effective means to control population. These are very violent means and are usually enforced at the point of a gun. So much for the elimination of violence.

4.) Violence would end. As I have already pointed out, the solution to the first three points requires violence or at least the threat of violence from the government to the people. So, I think that this one has already been debunked.

On the other hand, let's explore this a bit further. Is the OP trying to put forward the idea that domestic violence would end? What about violence arrising from crime? What about school yard bullies giving the other kids a bloody nose? Surely the OP does not mean that the human race would be so fundamentally changed that nobody would strike another human in anger ever again? I hope that he is not saying that because that would be ridiculous.

5.) Religious extremism would end. How would a political solution resolve centuries old religious disputes? I fail to see the connection between radical religious ideas and a new world order. Unless, the OP is suggesting that religion would be "unified" at the same time as the world's politics?

How would this be achieved without violence? Without enforcement at the point of a gun? How would this be achieved without quarantining those of opposing views in prisons or concentration camps? It can't be done. Religion is at the very center of many cultures identity, they will not give ths up without a fight.

In conclusion, the OPs arguments are very simplistic and childish and show a lack of understanding of history. It is dangerous for anyone to assume that thousands of years of human history can be easily undone, or that a governmental solution would be accepted without resistance. If we pursued this course, billions would die. This "solution" would make the final solution look like a dress rehersal.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:35 PM
This is ridiculous. War would not end if there were a one-world government. You'd have huge amounts of civil unrest due to an even more neglected and an ever-growing poor class and a quickly shrinking middle class. It would be impossible to make policy to deal with such a large amount of people. Haven't you ever heard of the fall of Rome? And that wasn't even a one-world government. It was only half the world, and they were as hands-off as you get. If you can't govern that well with minimal rules and regulations and maximum freedom for the situation, how are you going to do it with the radical amounts of regulation and power these people want? No one learns from history anymore.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:28 PM
The argument that it won't work because of human nature is really not a good one. We don't become static because of it, we keep moving despite it.

A change is needed. It's not the same world we had. Capitalism reached it's peek and toppled. The party is over. Capitalism, as it was, is over.

What I find amusing is that most people that want to hang onto the past and who side against globalization and the sharing of wealth, are religious conservatives. It's amusing because their own religion teaches that there will be a one world government run by King Jesus.

The preeminent mission of any governement should be the fostering of human values such as humility, empathy, compassion, fairness, equal treatment, justice, mercy, forgiveness, and love. For such brings harm to no one, and can only work for the good and betterment of mankind, and nothing more.

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in