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 fear a one world government???

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I think that what people need to understand is that it is not government that controls the people.

What dictates to people is value. What value is placed on, is qualities outcome. As of now our value is on currency and what the value of that currency can afford us.

The currency is worthless other then resource for fire in reality. The loss of control then comes from knowing that what you value has no value in reality making one feel "worthless" and unstable.

The more you value the goods that they produce the higher they inflate that value and lending you the promissory note on the value you are placing on said item. It is your desire for the item that you are paying for. Not the item itself. Every thing you own will be in a landfill sooner or later...it's worthless, all of it.

So what's left. Item's of sentiment. Those physical reminders of a time and feeling perhaps a purpose, but also these things are garbage. We put value in a temporary thing, we don't commerce we disperse.

One world government is to the world to be of one mind. We won't be that till we see each other, till we hear each other, till we work together and rejoice together. All the world is a stage...

Peace




posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Nice!!!!! Star for you.

To me it is PEOPLE who are of value, priceless in fact.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Bingo. The love of money, or power over another. The fear of insecurity, even though that self is teeming with it. The problem is, people fear for their own, or merely their families security. This leads to perpetual conflict, war, domination, manipulation, divide and conquer, the stifling of the human spirit. We can transcend this, but we have to want to. As another stated, anything less will be a shotgun wedding. We are, however, very close to collectively discovering the center of our logic, in my view. Some already have. And those some will spread to many. The hell we have collectively created is leading many to desire and focus on a potential heaven. On what we focus, that is our destination. If most are focused on a hell, and how one should bend to hell rather than bending hell to suit heaven's purposes, that shall be our final destination.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
What concerns me more is the global issues they are fabricating out of thin air to clamp down on Human Rights. What global issues?

-War on Terror
-Man Made Global Warming
-Swine Flu


Every single one of them totally fabricated out of thin air to induce fear on the public, thus allowing a more submissive population to give in to their demands which 'coincidently' takes our rights away at the same time.

It is no coincidence all of these global events are just allegedly happening. Every single one of them is a joke. Their only real concern is the internet.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Why fear a "one world gov't"? I see the gov't ops are out in full force today aren't they? The ole, "we're from the gov't and we're here to help you? Man has had thousands of years to create his "one world gov't", and all he has done is screw it up big time!

There is a one world gov't coming, and when Jesus sets it up, we will all be as one, for the sinners, along with their master satan, will be no more!



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Obviously you are being sarcastic.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Why fear a one-world government? There is such a thing as a government being too big to be effective. How could you merge all the nations together when there are so many differences between them?
Religon
Wealth/Standard of Living
Previous form of government
Language
etc...
The only way I can see a one-world government is to have the world chopped up into provinces that would be what countries used to. (ex, the province of Canada, the Province of Japan...) And if you chop up the world into different provinces with different rules, how is it different from what we have now?
I fear a one-world government because it will collapse. If it were to collapse, who knows what would happen after...



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
There is an old saying: The path to hell is laid with the best intentions. This would be a bad mistake. Now before you gripe at me here is how I got there, and these are the points:
1) Standard of living: It would mean those countries who have a higher standard of living, are out numbered by more poorer countries and to have a truelly equal goverment, those higher standard countries and its citizens would have to come down and lose part of its assets.
2) Loss of rights, specifically the freedom of speech. We take that right for granted, but under a one world government, that would have to go, as it may offend someone else in the world, and forums such as this would be monitored and possibly shut down, to prevent offending others from another part of the world. (Any one remember problem where a cartoon with Mohammad was printed and the response by the islamic world?)
3) Taxes, Taxes, Taxes. Just got to enjoy those taxes.
4) More government control, so you live in a country, you now only have 80% say in how it is run, and the rest is based off of a one world government, and if say a person gets into power who does not like your country, well the laws or rules against your country, could you deal with it?



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
My uncle like to say that Socialism has utterly faild us in the U.S., as the system which is supposed to simultaneously protect us from Corporate overlords taking over while also providing us with enough economic freedom that we can also have a reasonable amount of individual prosperity.

I like to tell Uncle that it is not any particular system which has failed us...it is the PEOPLE who are entrusted to make it work which fail us. Either people are too greedy or power hungry to abstain from abusing their authority...or on the consumer level people just want EVERYTHING: They want to be provided for but don't want to give up anything for that provision.

The same pitfalls go for a One World Government.
Are we ready for it?
Communism needed (and lacked) the committment of people to make it work. Morale was a bonafide factor in that. The Soviet Union was TOO BIG to be able to provide for all the states and peoples living under it's wing. A few people at the top got fat....and what it is that other than simply a little capitalist bubble within the communist system, with some people getting fat and others starving. Western Capitalism is the same shirt turned inside out. Socialism seeks to balance this by having a shirt which is reversable for different scenes and conditions, keeping it all at the happiest possible medium for everyone...rewarding people for hard work...and making sure that no one can pull a "fast one" and take the whole pot for himself.

Ok, so "World Government"?
A world government could adopt any of the above economic models.
I'd say that at the center of human sin is capitalism, and as I said a capitalist bubble exists within even the most utopian of ideas (communism), people looking to extract personal benefit from whatever the existing sytem is: Parasites, basically. So all these models can have a weak spot for parasitic political corruption. All these system need the committment of PEOPLE. How many people in the world do you think REALLY fill that bill? That's why I say, ARE WE READY?

The merging of world governments and political systems is inevitable because of 21st century transportation and communication. We are all watching this happen, it is simply a phenomenon as all the people of tthe world slowly become familar with each other. Of course any system is stronger when the parts are united...but WHAT SYSTEM WILL IT BE? Some people see the natural phenomenon of globalisation coming...but they want to organize it and tap into it in a way that benefits THEM. That's problem with humans. So there is a battle for the earth, basically. Duh. The schizms are still between people who embrace the sinful nature of corporate capitalism, and people who embrace the sinful nature of communist-like fascism. The cold war is NOT over, and it's not just between Russians and Americans. In the 80's the USSR weakened because it got too big and couldn't maintain itself anymore. Now in the 2000's the western capitalist empire has also been weakened by the fact that it got too big, too powerful and too confident...and too corrupt by being able to throw so much weight around. So who will inherit the global government?

Are humans too bipolar to be able to have such a thing?
The only way we can make it work is by merging the best points of both capitalism and communism into an attentuated form of socialism. OR... we can resist globalisation completely and try to maintain a world with variety and diversity and voluntary segraregation. War may be inevitable unless we do one of these two things as the trend of globalisation spreads across the planet.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by brofjw
 


>>>THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Becuase a one world governemnt is Totalitarion* just like stalin, hitler, mOusolini, Ceasar, Calligual 2 imfamous and sick emerors of rome, back the day...would you want people like that telling yuo how things are gunna be? a place where everything and everyone now is the same, without variety.... not much of lifle to look forward too



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
The global heat is really getting turned up because of how many different types of people and ideas are confronting each other now. Many still hold the sentiments of their fathers and grandfathers and GREAT grandfathers. Sometimes these sentiments and dogmas last in younger generations without even knowing WHY. They just inherited it and don't know what to do with it. Unlike their fathers and grandfathers they confront it instead of alienating themselves on the basis of old beliefs like old men frequently do. The heat gets turned up and that's when the melting-process begins. There are skirmishes everywhere between certain groups who have always been at odds with each other, armageddon really. These skirmishes may be totally unrelated, 21st century technology makes it possible for people to confront each other in every way possible.

Anyway, this will go on for several generations and each subsequent generation will be slightly more intgrated with the rest of the world. I'd say that this process wil go on for the first half of the 21st century before we start to see some signs of natural stabilization. However, as global leaders start to realize what is happening they be able to offset what is happening by adopting foreign policies which have the same effect of mood stabilizers in schizophrenics. Alot will simply happen on the personal level as people become less ware that they are being intgrated because they ARE somewhat integrated. It's like the needle at the dentist. It hurts going in but after a few minutes it doesn't hurt anymore. It took some time after WWII before the Japanese-American offspring of American sailors and Japanese women began to blend in without the anger and sentiments of the war haunting them. But eventually it happened. The same will happen with Christians and Muslims, Americans and Russians, etc. It will take time. World cultures are in the process of confrontation and integration now. This is really thew process of armageddon.

Yes, there's always the possibility that someone somewhere will go nuclear during this process and unleash a chain of events that truly threatens human survival. There's also always the possibility that secret governments will be formed to reisist globalisation and preserve their way of life in some underground fashion, emerging occasionally to plunder and harass us with the aid of sleek black triangle-shaped ships (hint!). We already know that governments operate with clandestine methods of self-preservation. These types of things have always happened in history, But now we're on a global level in the 21st century. That's the only difference. We all live here, so after this process is over we won't really recognize anything anymore as quite the way it has been for hundreds of years. The old-world shadows will soon be moving on as a New World Order moves in.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
i understand what you are getting at but its not that simple. it depends on the type of government and there would be a lot of problems with religion and stuff like that. it all depends. please say the type of government and it would make deciding alot easer



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I am all for one world government.


There is no solution for civilization or even the human race, other than the creation of world government. - Albert Einstein


Few Advantages:
1. World Government can reduce or prevent the war and so the destruction by war is reduced or prevented.
2. World Government can reduce the military expenditure.
3. Fluctuation of exchange rate will be removed because the World Central Bank will issue the international common currency.
4. Thus, establishing the World Government is a political policy but at the same time it is the most effective economic policy. Especially, these benefits are important for developing countries.
5. It will cost much less to institute “collective security” for the world than to maintain an armed force for each of the 194 sovereign nations, just as it costs much less to have a police force protecting all of us against all threats than it would be for each family to arm itself in case a neighbor from
across the street may attack.
6. The tax burden for security for your lifetime may well be cut in half by a democratic world government, and the actual security that can be delivered will be far greater through a democratic world government than it is in a current world of 194 national armies and 194 spy agencies.
7. Business needs stability to operate, and war is the opposite of stability, even if a few industries profit temporarily from war. A future where a company can operate smoothly and profitably for thousands of years is possible only if we construct a democratic world government.
8. There are enormous injustices in the world, and history surely teaches us that there is no peace without justice, no justice without law, and no law without government—in this case, world law and democratic world government.
9. With further mechanisation the supremacy of humanity over space and time will gradually increase. The necessity of having a world government will thus, also be felt in the heart of every human being. Gradually the people of one part of the world will have to meet the people of various other parts more frequently, and for this, definite attention will have to be made to create a better understanding between people.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by December_Rain]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mellisamouse
[..]

A one world government could end this rediculous codex crap probly too...

[..]


I'm not sure but I'll assume you're speaking of the Codex Alimentarius? In that case, you'd be delighted or frightened to know that this Codex Alimentarius is a plan of the FAO (Food & Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) and the WHO (World Health Organisation). Notice how both institutes are parts of a global shadow-government if you will; they do have some power in all countries (take for example WHO's pandemic level influence) and tend to govern global affairs.



The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations.

from www.codexalimentarius.net...

Also notice how those global institutes and their rules seem to be intended for 'protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade'.

If there's anything that gives you a taste of a one world government, it's the FAO, WHO and their plans, like the Codex Alimentarius.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Will Global government stop inter-national-state wars? Sure, it will. But the price will be permanent Global Civil War (GCW tm).



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Here are some more Pros and Con's to World Government:

Pro:
I. Many of the most serious problems in today’s world are international, whether they are of an environmental or a political nature. To attempt the solution of these problems through the negotiation of nearly 200 individual sovereign states is futile. Even if any agreement is possible (and agreement is by no means guaranteed) it will be characterised by insufficiency because of compromise between the many different power interests of the separate sovereign states. Consequently, nation-states should cede sovereignty over very important international issues so that effective action can be taken.

Con:
I. The issue of human rights is indeed universal. To that end, intergovernmental cooperation has secured the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and numerous subsequent conventions. There are many intergovernmental conferences on human rights and other global issues such as the environment. And where agreements are not reached, or are not satisfactory, this reflects the genuine difference of interest and opinion amongst the different nation-states; it would be wrong for a global government to impose a single policy in these circumstances.

Pro:
II. Nationalism is an outdated and discredited ideology. National differences are unimportant when compared to the similarity of every nation’s position with respect to the environment and basic human rights and dignities. We should be prepared to address these issues from a cosmopolitan perspective; there is no peculiarly Welsh, Spanish, Swiss or Zambian perspective on the melting of the polar ice caps, human rights or the elimination of world hunger. These are universal issues that demand universal solutions.

Con:
II. Aggressive nationalism is not a necessary component of the nation-state. Many states, most notably the Scandinavian states, pursue dedicated internationalist and humanitarian policies. Using the nation-state model as the method of political organisation does not commit people to ultra-nationalism. New political models such as the European Union, NAFTA and ASEAN show the possibilities of voluntary cooperation and pooled sovereignty in particular areas without requiring a global body.

Pro:
III. World Government should be an ideal towards which we gradually work. The obviously universal problems of human rights and the environment obviously cry out for universal solutions. But gradually, we can foresee other issues such as taxation-policy, education and law and order being decided at international level. The principle behind this is that humans are fundamentally similar. Ethnicity, religion or other cultural considerations can add variety and spice to daily life but they should not be obstacles to the recognition of globally shared interests and, consequently, to the introduction of global decision making.

Con:
III. World Government should not be our ideal because it is blatantly less democratic than government on the nation-state model. The smaller the political unit, the more powerful is the individual vote. Individual citizens will always have more influence over local authorities and nation-state governments than they will over putative supranational entities. We value democracy and therefore oppose World Government because it dilutes the strength of an individual’s influence over policy. Voting rights would also be impossible to arrange fairly in a global parliament. If the current one-state, one vote system was retained then a coalition of small nations would be able to impose policies upon those states with a large majority of the world’s population. If representation was on the basis of population, then China and India would often be able to act together to impose policies upon the rest of the world.

Pro:
IV. We live in a market world. Financial transactions and trade are conducted trans-nationally. Every state is in competition with every other state. This reality has necessitated trade-partnerships, such as NAFTA, and even movements towards social and political union, such as the European Union. The next step is to enfranchise people on a global scale. If many of the trends, transactions and phenomena that affect their lives are global, then people should have a direct say in global decision-making. There would be no better way to ensure this than by creating a Global Parliament.

Con:
IV. National or regional identity is a real phenomenon; people identify themselves with their neighbours. This doesn’t have to be in a cultural or shared-historical way, it can be as simple (and as telling) as shared a socio-economic position. Conflicting, vested interests will remain and will be defended. To presume otherwise is utopian dreaming. It is entirely pointless to dream about such entities as World Parliaments because powerful, prosperous nation-states simply will refuse to cede their sovereignty to such entities lest they lose any control over the maintenance of their own comfortable societies.

Pro:
V. The creation of a global parliament would end all wars. The interplay of political life would engender and reinforce an attitude of community and shared goals. Armed conflict is anathema to such a mindset. Just as the history of consensual, shared decision-making via the parliamentary process has virtually removed violence from the menu of political action in Western liberal democracies, so would a practice of parliamentary debate and decision effect such changes on a global scale.

Con:
V. It is utopianism at its absolute worst to dream of perpetual peace being brought about by a World Parliament. It is difficult to see how the power balance of international relations will be altered. States that are big enough and powerful enough will continue to pursue aggressive and oppressive policies in defiance of resolutions demanding them to cease. They will do so because they have the material and military capacity to ignore attempted restraints on their actions. To give two examples, Tibet would not enter this Parliament as a full member but as part of China, Chechnya would still be part of Russia. What dictates whether wars are prevented is realpolitik; action is taken when it is in the interests of those states which are powerful enough to act. When war can be prevented and it is strategically useful to prevent it then action is taken (the Gulf War). But where action would involve incalculable losses and serves no immediate self-interest (Chechnya and Tibet) it will not be taken.

Pro:
VI. Currently there are several important international institutions not under the control of the United Nations, for example the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. These organisations have a huge influence upon global development but are unaccountable to those they are supposed to serve and often appear to be serving the interests of a few rich nations, especially the USA. Such economic power should not remain without democratic checks and the global policy framework that the United Nations can provide.

Con:
VI. The current system of multilateral institutions works quite well and we should not put the strengths of these organisations at risk by ideological meddling. Not every state chooses to join the World Trade Organisation so it would not be correct to place it under UN authority. Nor would doing so make it more democratic; decisions are now taken by representatives of (generally elected) member governments on a basis of unanimity and consensus, not imposed by a distant world government by majority vote. As for the IMF and World Bank, they rely upon funding from rich nations so it is entirely appropriate that these stakeholders retain their influence upon policy-making.

In lieu of the advantages and disadvantages of a World Govt., I believe the pro outweighs the cons. What's your view?

[edit on 26-11-2009 by December_Rain]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
small state government should have the main controls in a large government.
its the every day people that need to keep control.


not the NWO



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Let me put it this way,the Bible says the ruler of this "world government" will be the Anti-Christ.

In my book,that's very,VERY BAD!!!



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoob
small state government should have the main controls in a large government.
its the every day people that need to keep control.
not the NWO


No reasons, no logical explanations? Not a good way to state your point.



Originally posted by On the Edge
Let me put it this way,the Bible says the ruler of this "world government" will be the Anti-Christ.
In my book,that's very,VERY BAD!!!

LOL







 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join