A one-world government is inevitable, so why oppose it?

The evolution of man dictates that a global, democratic government is inevitable in the foreseeable or distant future. We first started out as families, congregating into tribes and clans that had a set of rules or laws if you will and a primitive governing body, which became villages and small communities, eventually becoming cities and then the nation states we see today. Thanks to the internet, the global economy, and the information age which helps news travel around the world in such short time intervals, we have become more interdependent on each other. A flood in south-east Asia can produce profound impacts on the economy of western Europe, and a drought in parts of Africa can likewise affect the Chinese economy. As more and more people around the world interact through mediums such as the internet, media, and other possible informational devices that are developed, the world is starting to become more unified and integrated. Eventually, when all third-world countries industrialize (which is a matter of when, not if), we will see a world-government in the works.

So, why oppose it? Why oppose human evolution? I've heard all the arguments against a one-world government, and frankly, none of them hold any merit at all. The most common one, "There are simply too many religions, cultures, and ethnic groups to expect a democratic one-world government". The U.S also has a very diverse mix of ethnic groups, religions, and cultures and they happen to make it work and are democratic for the most part. Should the U.S become more decentralized, then? Should they split up into 50 countries, and then decentralize further into defining their borders by cities? That is what the argument implies. If the U.S can be a stable democratic nation, then a world government can be a stably democratic as well. Each nation would be a state, and the former presidents of that country would be its representative. There would be varying laws between the states, but a federal government to oversee such things as climate change, research and development, a space program, and education of all citizens.


If we are ever to colonize the stars, cure most diseases, solve poverty, and become a knowledge-based sentient species with a largely educated population, then a one-world government is of most importance. We spend trillions of dollars on military technology, our top scientists working on heavily funded military projects and weapons that specialize in killing and suffering, and there is the constant possibility of a nuclear war which could end civilization as we know it, not to mention documented climate change and the impacts it has on our planet. So, why oppose the one-world government? Albert Einstein was quoted to have said to the U.N: "IN ORDER to achieve the final aim - which is one world, and not two hostile worlds - such a partial world Government must never act as an alliance against the rest of the world. The only real step toward world government is world Government itself." Carl Sagan once said,"Human history can be viewed as a slowly dawning awareness that we are members of a larger group. Initially our loyalties were to ourselves and our immediate family, next, to bands of wandering hunter-gatherers, then to tribes, small settlements, city-states, nations. We have broadened the circle of those we love. We have now organized what are modestly described as super-powers, which include groups of people from divergent ethnic and cultural backgrounds working in some sense together--surely a humanizing and character building experience. If we are to survive, our loyalties must be broadened further, to include the whole human community, the entire planet Earth. Many of those who run the nations will find this idea unpleasant. They will fear the loss of power. We will hear much about treason and disloyalty. Rich nation-states will have to share their wealth with poor ones. But the choice, as H. G. Wells once said in a different context, is clearly the universe or nothing." Cosmos

I oppose it because of the Psychopathic, evil and power crazy nut jobs who not only want this one world government, but also want over 90% of the earths population eradicated. It also seems likely that they will want only one race in this new world..

It has bad news written all over it.
The question is..
Why NOT oppose it?

Originally posted by TechUnique
I oppose it because of the Psychopathic, evil and power crazy nut jobs who not only want this one world government, but also want over 90% of the earths population eradicated. It also seems likely that they will want only one race in this new world..

It has bad news written all over it.
The question is..
Why NOT oppose it?

You have absolutely no evidence to support your ridiculous assertions. There are no "global elites" that want to control the world and reduce the population. No human organization can perpetuate this "ultimate plan" for years and years without any thing going wrong. That just not plausible.

As for the growth rates of the world are stable and will be declining as more and more countries start to industrialize. Countries that currently have high growth rates also have high death rates as well, so the population rate is stable and directly proportional to our scientific advancements in medicine and biotechnology.

Secondly, there is no reason why these "global elites", if they exist, would want a totalitarian world government. That would imply that first world nations would need to cede their sovereignty and, at the same time, pay exorbitant taxes just to bring third world countries up to par. Why would these "global elites" devalue their currency, when they already have total control over third-world countries by means foreign aid and international loans? Assuming these ancient megalomaniacs exist, the status quo is much more favorable than a totalitarian one-world dictatorship. This global conspiracy is founded on epic nonsense. There is no "group" behind the scenes, I'm afraid. That is the reality.

I don't believe that people like you still hold opinions like this. The above post says it all.

I do get where you are trying to come from and a NWO lead by A One World Government would be beautiful but I'm afraid the right kind of people would not be running this Utopian Government and never will. We don't live in an ideal world.

Those who wish to RULE you are Evil People and unless you do your own research - no one thread on here can update you - nor should they have to.

Suggest you start reading all the evidence for the reality of the situation.

Please don't even bother to respond to my post - I am sorry but I couldn't even discuss this with some one so naive - hope you find your way!

How do we know that its bad in the first place to oppose it? Got any other ideas to bring together the people of this world apart from NWO? Its not what we think it is. But may be..

"democratic government"

Originally posted by quedup
I don't believe that people like you still hold opinions like this. The above post says it all.

I don't see what you are trying to insinuate here.

Originally posted by quedupI do get where you are trying to come from and a NWO lead by A One World Government would be beautiful but I'm afraid the right kind of people would not be running this Utopian Government and never will. We don't live in an ideal world.

So, by that logic, if a bad president is running the U.S, then wouldn't all Americans be oppressed and genocide become rampant? Obviously, 300 million people of different ethnicities, religions, and cultures cannot be governed democratically by just one government. So, the U.S should decentralize into 50 countries, don't you agree?

Originally posted by quedupThose who wish to RULE you are Evil People and unless you do your own research - no one thread on here can update you - nor should they have to.

That is a misnomer. Research typically implies some factual data or ample scientific experimentation at hand to come to a logical conclusion or inference. Do you have any form of Data or evidence that this "global elite" exists? Quotes taken out of context and youtube videos do not constitute the evidence I am looking for. Is that what you consider research?

Originally posted by quedupSuggest you start reading all the evidence for the reality of the situation.

There isn't any. Just youtube videos with cheesy background music and quotes taken out of context. Hardly constitutes tangible evidence and or data.

Originally posted by quedupPlease don't even bother to respond to my post - I am sorry but I couldn't even discuss this with some one so naive - hope you find your way

I am not naive, just a realist. Human evolution, according to historical data, dictates that we are heading towards a democratic one-world government, as countries slowly become industrialized and assimilated by regional unions. This is the future.

What's truly naive is the delusion that humans can govern themselves and will value their fellow humans' liberties. Now that cannot be any further from reality.

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist

Originally posted by TechUnique
I oppose it because of the Psychopathic, evil and power crazy nut jobs who not only want this one world government, but also want over 90% of the earths population eradicated. It also seems likely that they will want only one race in this new world..

It has bad news written all over it.
The question is..
Why NOT oppose it?

You have absolutely no evidence to support your ridiculous assertions. There are no "global elites" that want to control the world and reduce the population. No human organization can perpetuate this "ultimate plan" for years and years without any thing going wrong. That just not plausible.

As for the growth rates of the world are stable and will be declining as more and more countries start to industrialize. Countries that currently have high growth rates also have high death rates as well, so the population rate is stable and directly proportional to our scientific advancements in medicine and biotechnology.

Secondly, there is no reason why these "global elites", if they exist, would want a totalitarian world government. That would imply that first world nations would need to cede their sovereignty and, at the same time, pay exorbitant taxes just to bring third world countries up to par. Why would these "global elites" devalue their currency, when they already have total control over third-world countries by means foreign aid and international loans? Assuming these ancient megalomaniacs exist, the status quo is much more favorable than a totalitarian one-world dictatorship. This global conspiracy is founded on epic nonsense. There is no "group" behind the scenes, I'm afraid. That is the reality.

edit on 9-7-2011 by MathematicalPhysicist because: (no reason given)

My god where have you been the past.. forever?
David rockefeller one of the most powerful and rich in the world openly talks about one world government. AND de-population. Bill gates also talks about the need for de-population.. That alone makes your statement against me void. Have you heard about the Bilderberg group?

..
Just so you know how talked about this is and has been.


Watch Zeitgeist or Wake up call: New world order.

Get out from under your rock.. please.
It wouldn't bother me except for your comment against me..

The council on foreign relations was started by the elite. (Undeniable)
The council on foreign relations started the UN.

My god I could sit here for ages proving you wrong.
Go research it yourself..

reply to the title: Because the NWO has it's own evil agenda that me and the billions of others it hopes to control have had no say in.

i belong to no body

Originally posted by prof7
"democratic government"

The question whether or not the NWO exists as evident from some of Kissinger's and Bush's speech. But why and for what. No one knows

Lol, the elite don't have to really go too far out of their way to kill off humanity, they get paid by us to babysit us and when catastrophe strikes, leave us to die because theyre to lazy to mobilize the reasources. once the bad days are over they can reap the rewards of a smaller elite society with absolute freedom for them, that is power by a bunch of hip young multi-race type business people that operate as the remaining economy, and probobly a proletarian class just for good measure. it's nothing more then an elaborate business scheme, pumped up on royal fortunes, corporate empires, and national treasurys, as well as the personal investments of TPTB. a scheme, nothing more nothing less, a real life example of cancerous human greed, and hopefully within a couple years shall be dealt with.

OK Imagine - you have a one world government and a world that is compartmentalized (that's the way they like to run things isn't it)
So you have each country/nation/continent being responsible for a certain produce (because that's what they would do) ie., Japan produces the world electrical goods; US produces Umm lets say wheat and corn; UK produces veg of some discription and so on and so on. Sounds good doesn't it. Until you fall out with those in authority???

But imagine the control that gives those on the throne. Just stop and think about it!

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist

Originally posted by prof7
"democratic government"

reply to post by TechUnique


Had Zeitgeist already been debunked here on ATS threads?

Originally posted by radkrish
reply to post by TechUnique

 

Had Zeitgeist already been debunked here on ATS threads?

edit on 9-7-2011 by radkrish because: (no reason given)

I don't mean the video as a whole, just the parts which provide the evidence that disproves the points made in the OP. Various parts of the documentary may have been 'Debunked' but certainly not all of it. I personally can't remember too much about it, 'Wake up call' is the one that really stuck with me.

Hence why that was the one I embedded.
I'm sure the OP will refuse to watch the video though and carry on making these claims.

Originally posted by TechUnique
My god where have you been the past.. forever?
David rockefeller one of the most powerful and rich in the world openly talks about one world government. AND de-population. Bill gates also talks about the need for de-population.. That alone makes your statement against me void. Have you heard about the Bilderberg group?

David Rockefeller is a philanthropist and it is possible he may have said such statements, but like all philanthropists and humanists, his personal views only stop with him. He is not a politician, has no power, etc. and can't enact anything. Personally, I find your statements libelous and you have yet to produce ANY documented evidence of him or Bill Gates stating such things. Even if Bill Gates were to say that, he simply does not understand the dynamics of population growth nor does he have any credibility over the many scientists that are advisers to congress. It is hilarious how you correlate a wealthy person who may say ridiculous things with a hidden agenda. Correlation does not imply causation, if you may have realized.

Originally posted by TechUniqueWatch Zeitgeist or Wake up call: New world order.

Zeitgeist has been debunked countless times, and they have no evidence to support any of their ridiculous claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and they don't even have ordinary evidence. Just many quotes taken out of context and a cheesy background music, like most conspiracy videos claiming to be "in the know".

Originally posted by TechUniqueGet out from under your rock.. please.

This is typical of people with no credible evidence to support their claims.

Originally posted by TechUniqueThe council on foreign relations was started by the elite. (Undeniable)
The council on foreign relations started the UN.

Have any documented official evidence that the council of relations was started by the elite, and the United Nations was started by the council of foreign relations? If you want to respond with more conspiratorial youtube videos as evidence, then don't bother. You clearly don't, in that case.

Originally posted by TechUniqueMy god I could sit here for ages proving you wrong.
Go research it yourself

It seems that "proof" is a relative term here. When you prove something, you need at least evidence and data at hand to reach a logical conclusion. Youtube videos and quotes taken out of context do not fall under evidence, and are anecdotal evidence at best, which is the lowest form of evidence. I am not going to waste my time researching something that does not exist.

I think if someone could come up with a completely transparent model that is also based on democratic principles. We do need some type of global institution, yet at the same time we also need more localism. Its a dichotomy that needs to be addressed. The nation state is too small to deal with global problems but too big to deal with local problems.

The problem is the one world government being pushed for at the moment is anything but transparent or democratic, look at bilderberg or the other groups like the CFR or Trilateral commission, Often holding secret meetings, pushing for policy that takes on a global nature. So I oppose the current philosophy of a one world government, but believe we as a species have the ability to create a corrupt free, democratic and transparent global government. Maybe thats being way too optimistic

reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
Ok maybe Zeitgeist was a bad example, I haven't watched it in years and can't quite remember the content. Watch the over video I posted. Actually watch it as well before you say I haven't provided you with evidence again.
I mentioned that video pretty quickly in this thread.

Originally posted by quedup

OK Imagine - you have a one world government and a world that is compartmentalized (that's the way they like to run things isn't it)
So you have each country/nation/continent being responsible for a certain produce (because that's what they would do) ie., Japan produces the world electrical goods; US produces Umm lets say wheat and corn; UK produces veg of some discription and so on and so on. Sounds good doesn't it. Until you fall out with those in authority???

But imagine the control that gives those on the throne. Just stop and think about it!

You clearly haven't thought this matter through. There will be equal representation of all countries, just like there is equal representation of the states in the U.S, as checks and balances to the system from becoming corrupt. Even if it does become corrupt, 6 billion people can easily revolt and overthrow them and institute a better leader that they desire. The U.S has private industries that specialize in different industries in the various states. This can be emulated throughout the world. The states (former nations) of the world will still have some autonomy over their own laws and regulations, just there will be a universal constitution to abide by and funds allocated for research development, space program, education, and climate and geographical changes to an internationally federal body. Yes, sure sounds such a government can turn corrupt quite easily, doesn't it?