It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

why do you hate unity so much.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Ok, well seeing as the other NWO topic i made is not getting the answers i want, i'm gonna ask a different question. WHY DON'T YOU WANT A SINGLE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, IM SURE ITWOULD NEVER HAPPEN BUT WHY ARE YOU AGAINST IT?




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Democracy may appear to be the lesser of all the political evils but in fact, democracy does not exist.

What we actually have is a pseudo democracy, that deludes the electorate into believing they are free and indeed, compared to other sociopolitical economic systems, it does appear to be so.

However, wage slavery is just another form of slavery.

Any NWO/OWG will be nothing but a systemic construct designed to control resources.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Hi there!

Is for You EU a good example of big democratic entity? Do You know how it was(still is actually) about legalisation of Lisboa Treaty? For 27 member states there was direct referendum, where people could speak for themeselves only in Ireland...they say "no" so... after a few months there will be new referendum again...and probably after a few months again till the rulers will get their "yes".
And as far as I know there was almost no informations for the people about the meaning of that document...It seems that only lawmakers bothered themeselves to read that monstrous thing...probably each of them only the part he/she was rsponsible for. To their "subiects" thei say only that the new "European Constitution" will make the Europe function better...

In fact democracy works the best only in very small societies like in ancient indoeuropean tribes and nations. In Ancient Greece it was almost real thing Even more in Scandinavia, between Slavs, Scithes, Sarmatians, Celts since there was often more egality between the sexses.
In modern world direct democracy-seems to be alive in Switzerland.

Peace



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by unclekrabz
WHY DON'T YOU WANT A SINGLE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT,


Your post is very short and I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Do you mean a single one world government?

Why would anyone want it?

The government that governs least, governs best.
And that means governing on a SMALL scale.

A one world gov't would not only be a mess, but it would be a cesspool of corruption (as we see with the UN) and it would induce slavery to the state.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
The further the government is from the people, the less "in touch" it is with them, the less representative it is of them and the less concerned it is with their problems.
A one world government would be very far removed from individuals. I believe there absolutely must be a vehicle for people around the world to cooperate on the larger issues, but in no way should there be an over-riding ruling body, run by people from the other side of the globe, with different cultures and values making decisions that affect my everyday life.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Because our forefathers LEFT BEHIND the status quo when they were FORCED TO LEAVE the old empires or outright RAN FROM THEM. To hell with the OLD EMPIRE that is trying to create the NEW EMPIRE. If coming to North America was SO GREAT then why didn't the MONARCHY set up shop over here too?



[edit on 4-7-2009 by Atlantican]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by unclekrabz
Ok, well seeing as the other NWO topic i made is not getting the answers i want, i'm gonna ask a different question. WHY DON'T YOU WANT A SINGLE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, IM SURE ITWOULD NEVER HAPPEN BUT WHY ARE YOU AGAINST IT?


When any government uses lies, cover ups, assassinations, secret oaths and propoganda as a tool for any motive. Common sense dicatates that it is not for a great purpose in my opinion.

How can doing wrong achieve anything right in the end?

I am not against unity in this world but I am against the above being used to create a false unity before its time.

There is a reason we all speak different languages and have different cultures by default.

This will come to pass however and most people will think its a great thing when all our seperate countries are starving and scared. Up pops the answer to all our worries.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by XXXN3O]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by teapot
Democracy may appear to be the lesser of all the political evils but in fact, democracy does not exist.

What we actually have is a pseudo democracy, that deludes the electorate into believing they are free and indeed, compared to other sociopolitical economic systems, it does appear to be so.

However, wage slavery is just another form of slavery.

Any NWO/OWG will be nothing but a systemic construct designed to control resources.



How do we, in the United States, live in a pseudo-democracy? First of all we live in a republic, not a direct democracy, and we've always said as such. Before the 1950s, a common nickname for the USA was just "The Republic".

We still vote, we still have choice, we still have voice. How is this false?



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
We still vote, we still have choice, we still have voice. How is this false?


Is a slave more free if given the opportunity to choose whether to be bound in chains or to be caged?

Choice in an election is not the same thing as freedom any more than changing the channel makes television programming a democratic process.

Let me give you a more easily understood analogy:

When I was a child my mother allowed me to choose what kind of vegetable I wanted with my dinner but no matter what I chose I had to finish it all.

I wasn't free to decide to leave some vegetables. I wasn't free to decide to forgo the vegetable on any particular day. Though I was still able to choose and I still had a voice, I was obviously not free.

Jon



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by unclekrabz
 


I'm not against it. It's a fantastic Idea on paper. Like communism or Socialism. All very good ideas, all terribly impossible to implement correctly.

Here are a few reasons why.

1) The same set of rules for everybody is stupid, you're never going to get everybody to agree.

2) Getting small groups of people to run even bigger parts of the world is stupid, it just compounds our current problems.

3) Power is corrupt, and you can bet your bottom dollar that there would be more back room deals in a One World Government scenario than any other's combined.

4) Like minded people are always going to group together, with common ideals, and goals, to remove, oppress or disrupt the current system. If you make everybody go underneath this "blanket" government system, than there will be more of these groups, in greater numbers.

5) It's not required. As much as it pains me to say it, we aren't idiots, we can be left to our vices without killing each other. Big Government is an illusion and it doesn't work.

You can't count on just a a few guys to decide what's best for all the rest. You need complete citizen involvement with government and it's simply impossible to accomplish in this kind of system. You need very small federal government, and very large municipal government.

Again, the idea is fantastic, but people are PLACED into power these days, they never earn it, which is why you can't have this type of system, because the majority always end up loosing to the elite.

Edit To Add: You can't have transparency, Oversight, or Accountability when this system is in place, which is the whole point of a democratic system.

~Keeper

[edit on 7/5/2009 by tothetenthpower]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Voxel
 


So what exactly do you want the "freedom" to do? I don't see how you're forced to vote; if you don't like the Democrat Peas or the Republican Carrots, you can actually vote for a third party, or not vote.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Like any other monopoly, it's evil because it gives a small group of people too much complete control over something.

It's bad enough when Microsoft controls everything digital, could you imagine one company ruling the whole world!

And of course if we get a really bad apple that would mean Armageddon. it's just a horrible idea really.

Now, a unified world in spirit, where humanity came first and nationality second, that would be awesome.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Donnie Darko]



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I find it helpful to think of world government like teaching.

If a teacher has only ten students they have more time to listen to the needs of those students, recognise any students that are troubled and offer support and guidance to those who need it.

If you then increase the amount of students to thirty, the teacher is less able to hear the needs, offer guidance, and spot those who are troubled.

It is much the same in government.

Someone who manages only one small community will be better able to hear the needs of that community. If that person manages lots of communities, then they are less likely to hear the needs of one community among many whose voices also need to be heard.

One person with the power to make rules for all cannot possibly hear or consider the needs of everyone they are making rules for. They cannot listen to everyone, such a thing is impossible. They listen to those with the loudest voices, and those people are often not the ones with the greatest need.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngelInterceptor
I find it helpful to think of world government like teaching.

If a teacher has only ten students they have more time to listen to the needs of those students, recognise any students that are troubled and offer support and guidance to those who need it.

If you then increase the amount of students to thirty, the teacher is less able to hear the needs, offer guidance, and spot those who are troubled.

It is much the same in government.

Someone who manages only one small community will be better able to hear the needs of that community. If that person manages lots of communities, then they are less likely to hear the needs of one community among many whose voices also need to be heard.

One person with the power to make rules for all cannot possibly hear or consider the needs of everyone they are making rules for. They cannot listen to everyone, such a thing is impossible. They listen to those with the loudest voices, and those people are often not the ones with the greatest need.


Yup. Which is why we need to go back to city-states. Athenian democracy baby!
(though with a constitution because the common citizen can be sick).



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy

Originally posted by teapot
Democracy may appear to be the lesser of all the political evils but in fact, democracy does not exist.

What we actually have is a pseudo democracy, that deludes the electorate into believing they are free and indeed, compared to other sociopolitical economic systems, it does appear to be so.

However, wage slavery is just another form of slavery.

Any NWO/OWG will be nothing but a systemic construct designed to control resources.



How do we, in the United States, live in a pseudo-democracy? First of all we live in a republic, not a direct democracy, and we've always said as such. Before the 1950s, a common nickname for the USA was just "The Republic".

We still vote, we still have choice, we still have voice. How is this false?


The trouble with elections is, you only ever get to vote for a politician who has stepped up to be voted for.

Electioneering is big business, so you only get those 'politicians' who can afford to enter the race.

You choose which rich politician you want to tell you how much taxes you must contribute from your slave salary and what those taxes will be spent on.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   
I'm not against unity at all,we all should get along..

But what i am against is..

Changing the structure of my country that many,many men have gave their lives for through the ages..I am against the change of the morals this country was forged with..I am against any and all system outside of this country that has legal say of what gos on within my country..I am against the religion that was so entwined in our people become a dwindling minority..

take a look of how the states were in the 40's and look at them now..What are the differences? How can we have unity when we can't even have it within our own borders?



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by unclekrabz
Ok, well seeing as the other NWO topic i made is not getting the answers i want, i'm gonna ask a different question. WHY DON'T YOU WANT A SINGLE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, IM SURE ITWOULD NEVER HAPPEN BUT WHY ARE YOU AGAINST IT?


For the simple reason that follows

Absolute power corrupts ABSOLUTELY.

Any Government official that gets into power sooner or later uses that power to further their own ends, to feather their own nests so to speak.
To give such a small number of people 'lordship' over the rest simply means that ALL decisions that affect YOU will be made by them.

Using their own agenda or interpretations they will no doubt always upset the majority of the population as like the kings of olde in England and other countries , the whispers to the Kings ear makes the choices .

Those that run the Government of the world ( or NWO ) will invariably end up being told by their lackeys that X is 'good for the people' when in real terms means 'good for them'.

Even though we moanand complain about the state of affairs this world is currently in NO singular Government is worth hassle we would or our children would have in trying to live their lives.
The ONLY way it WOULD succeed for teh benefit of the world is if we ABOLISH money all together.
That way there's nothing for them to benefit from and they, if they wanted to be in charge would have to run to world for the benefit of all.

To have a singular Government all they would do is fight amongst themselves for rulership , they would plot and connive against each other in an attempt to rule as one lord and then you'd get the power games.
I agree though a single group of individuals COULD run the world but ONLY if we, the people had the final say in how long they stayed in power and any wrong decisions they made could result in jailtime should the end result warrant it.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
i will answer your question to the best of my ability. a democracy doesn't really exist is the reason, it is not a permanent solution. a democracy always turn into an oligarchy and remember a monarchy really is an oligarchy. see you have been taught by great propagandists that a democracy is a great thing, it isnt. a democracy is a transitional period where the power is still in the hands of 51% not a handfull of men, but it soon will be.

Look to the founding fathers of the USA, they all spoke out against democracies this is why they set up the USA as a REPUBLIC not a democracy.

a democracy is a horrid temporary for of government where 51% can take away the rights and freedoms of 49%

real patriots know this, thats why they dont want it.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by paradox headache
i will answer your question to the best of my ability. a democracy doesn't really exist is the reason, it is not a permanent solution. a democracy always turn into an oligarchy and remember a monarchy really is an oligarchy. see you have been taught by great propagandists that a democracy is a great thing, it isnt. a democracy is a transitional period where the power is still in the hands of 51% not a handfull of men, but it soon will be.

Look to the founding fathers of the USA, they all spoke out against democracies this is why they set up the USA as a REPUBLIC not a democracy.

a democracy is a horrid temporary for of government where 51% can take away the rights and freedoms of 49%

real patriots know this, thats why they dont want it.


Very well said, paradox headache, and my thoughts also. This country started out as a Confederation of States, and then became a Republic. The States, and the people thereof, held the power, and government was small, and served the people. This all ended following the American Civil Was, and with the dropping of the original 13th. Amendment.


"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the united States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

www.thematrixhasyou.org...

Now our government is huge, and the world's biggest employer. We the people have let this happen. We are intelligent, smart, and know the ways of corruption in government, why can we not do something about it?

The Bankruptcy of the United States
www.apfn.net...

The Current Federal Court System -
Why you get the run around, and XXXXXX in the end!
www.apfn.org...



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join