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

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist
The evolution of man dictates that a global, democratic government is inevitable in the foreseeable or distant future.


I oppose a one world government because NOTHING is inevitable in this life other than death. I would surely give my life opposing a one world government. You may think that a one world government would bring peace and harmony to the world, a utopia if you will. Sad to say but history is full of megalomaniacal rulers who promised their peoples utopia and instead delivered a dystopia.




"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." ~ Lord Acton




posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
You yourself appear to put lots of trust in Historical Data - well I suggest you look at the other half of Historical Data.

You should also know that History is and always has been written by the Victors.

The Rothschild s and their Counting Houses along with their side kicks the Rockefeller s and the Gates and their old competitor Soros - you have much of History to catch up on. Learn the difference also between the real Jews (nice people) and the Zionists (not nice) Big differences. Did you know that Israel is owned by the Rothschilds'

Many Many Many Members here have done serious research into Historical Factual Data and some of it has taken years and some people have even died exposing these leaches -

Insults!!!!




posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by quedup
You yourself appear to put lots of trust in Historical Data - well I suggest you look at the other half of Historical Data.

You should also know that History is and always has been written by the Victors.

The Rothschild s and their Counting Houses along with their side kicks the Rockefeller s and the Gates and their old competitor Soros - you have much of History to catch up on. Learn the difference also between the real Jews (nice people) and the Zionists (not nice) Big differences. Did you know that Israel is owned by the Rothschilds'

Many Many Many Members here have done serious research into Historical Factual Data and some of it has taken years and some people have even died exposing these leaches -

Insults!!!!



EXACTLY.
OP: Please watch 'Wake up call: New world order'
You are beating around the bush, I've offered you a video which portrays more than enough evidence. I'm not prepared to waste my E-Breath on this any longer.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
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.


I completely agree and this is the most sensible post in this thread by far. Individual freedoms must be preserved, I am not against that. Former nations will be states and will regulate their own laws, police, and other state issues. The federal government will mostly be responsible for research and development, space exploration, universal health-care, and tackling global issues as well as dealing with any state governments that are either oppressing or wronging their citizenry. Of course, this will still take time and could work in another 200-1000 years. We are nowhere close to that, but we are slowly getting there.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TechUnique
 





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..


And that is a bad thing how? As long as it is not achieved by killing people, depopulation is very much beneficial for humanity.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist

Even if it does become corrupt, 6 billion people can easily revolt and overthrow them and institute a better leader that they desire.


Clearly you haven't thought that statement through. Though a program of depopulation and an enforced police state, the people who once numbered 6 billion will be reduced to a more manageable number.

Do you remember what happened in East Germany with the Stasi? How about what Stalin did in Russia? Ever hear of ethnic cleansing, gulags or purges?

Check your history, man! Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by survivalstation
I oppose a one world government because NOTHING is inevitable in this life other than death. I would surely give my life opposing a one world government. You may think that a one world government would bring peace and harmony to the world, a utopia if you will. Sad to say but history is full of megalomaniacal rulers who promised their peoples utopia and instead delivered a dystopia.


I hope you know, there is nothing to oppose. A one-world government will never materialize in your life, so you can continue on with your life without being paranoid. There isn't any form of world government in the works anywhere in the foreseeable future, but it is inevitable in either 500 or 1000 years, as dictated by human evolution. I doubt your descendants will oppose it when it becomes feasible and necessary.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist
Individual freedoms must be preserved, I am not against that.

But individual freedoms WON'T be preserved if there is one world government.
That is the whole point of one world government.
Total control over everyone.
Forever.
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TechUnique
 


I think the idea of resource based economies makes perfect sense, which is what I think the zeitgeist movies are trying to push. Basically we have finite resources on the planet, we need to stop basing our economic models on the assumption that we have unlimited resources. Both Capitalism and Communism work on this assumption. So both of these models are outdated and we need to think of a better way to move forward based on the scientific knowledge of the resources that are available to the worlds people. Obviously this process wont go down well with everyone.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by TechUnique
 





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..


And that is a bad thing how? As long as it is not achieved by killing people, depopulation is very much beneficial for humanity.


But do you like how it is being done?
Poisoning our foods?
Our water?
Our air?

Who gets to choose who lives and who dies?
Oh yeah, the rich and powerful.
Yay for the normal folk.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by TechUnique
 


I think the idea of resource based economies makes perfect sense, which is what I think the zeitgeist movies are trying to push. Basically we have finite resources on the planet, we need to stop basing our economic models on the assumption that we have unlimited resources. Both Capitalism and Communism work on this assumption. So both of these models are outdated and we need to think of a better way to move forward based on the scientific knowledge of the resources that are available to the worlds people. Obviously this process wont go down well with everyone.


I agree wholeheartedly, I never disagreed with this idea.
I never promoted the current political ideologies either.
What I don't agree with are the power hungry elite and their agenda.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist
The evolution of man dictates that a global, democratic government is inevitable in the foreseeable or distant future.
What makes you think such a government will be democratic? It will be the greatest centralization of POWER in the history of the world. We already see what happens to politicians in power, what do you think will REALLY HAPPEN with global power concentrated like that?


Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicistSo, why oppose it? Why oppose human evolution?
Because I believe it will be the most evil regime ever to cover the face of the earth. I also do not believe in "evolution" or "darwinism"; I do believe species adapt, but fish stay fish and apes stay apes.




Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist 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.
The US is currently a corporate police state, and was never a democracy at all. In our "hey day" we were a representative republic, but those days are over. Our freedoms are basically gone.



Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist 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.
Yes.


Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist If the U.S can be a stable democratic nation, then a world government can be a stably democratic as well.
As shown above, your initial supposition is false, thus the rest of your argument has no foundation.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by survivalstation


Clearly you haven't thought that statement through. Though a program of depopulation and an enforced police state, the people who once numbered 6 billion will be reduced to a more manageable number.

Why would these "global elite" need depopulation? China is quite efficiently governed by incompetent politicians, and it has a population of 1.3 billion. Besides, the more the population, the more taxes that are generated from them. Therefore, if this hypothetical global elite were to exist, it would be in their best interest to actually increase the population. The population will naturally decline, however, as more nations industrialize. So, by the time a world-government does become feasible (all nations are post-industrialist), the population will be relatively small.


Originally posted by survivalstationDo you remember what happened in East Germany with the Stasi? How about what Stalin did in Russia? Ever hear of ethnic cleansing, gulags or purges?

Yes, one anecdote completely discredits my argument? By that logic, why don't we decentralize the U.S into 50 countries, because obviously, a country cannot govern 300 million people democratically?



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

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)
Your argument is farcical at best. Why would they devalue the currency? Ask Obama, ask Bernanke. Read up on QE 1 and QE2. Do you know anything about mathematics or supply and demand?



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
 

Oh god give it a rest please.
For your own sake.
You are arguing the wrong point with the wrong people.
/My last post.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
 

I should have expected such a response from the same person who said:


First of all, there are no "ruling elites". It is just not possible for flawed humans to have continually perpetuated this control over the centuries. Secondly, there is no "sinister plan" for population control.

Ahhh, yes. Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you backstage.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist
 

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.
Do you have any evidence to support this? All the evidence I see says that we are heading for a global police state where 1984 is the ultimate goal.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
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.


I completely agree and this is the most sensible post in this thread by far. Individual freedoms must be preserved, I am not against that. Former nations will be states and will regulate their own laws, police, and other state issues. The federal government will mostly be responsible for research and development, space exploration, universal health-care, and tackling global issues as well as dealing with any state governments that are either oppressing or wronging their citizenry. Of course, this will still take time and could work in another 200-1000 years. We are nowhere close to that, but we are slowly getting there.


Hello - This is exactly how it used to be - read your own words again. You are clearly not old enough to remember but I am. I remember how it used to be - neighbors respecting one another and in control of their own countries.

I'm OVER AND OUT OF HERE! That's the best one yet.




posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Well lets just say I don't oppose it, but have the same vision of our world leading down either two routes: One is of a more streamlined efficient 'one world government', and the other is we keep up this 'eye for an eye, the people who live on the other side of the planet are evil and are terrorists' mentality.

Of course this will call for a one world religion to go along with it - lets admit it, both the bible and koran are but a long played game of telephone, translated over and over again and in summary are nothing but what we ought to use as guidelines to living in this life, and are probably so far different than what the original ones contained.

And many will die in resistance to such a movement, but alas if it's ultimate goal is planetary unity, then why oppose it?
edit on 9-7-2011 by Sek82 because: And what's so wrong with control, oversight, and accountability of all?



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
What makes you think such a government will be democratic? It will be the greatest centralization of POWER in the history of the world. We already see what happens to politicians in power, what do you think will REALLY HAPPEN with global power concentrated like that?

The U.S governs 300 million people of varying ethnicities, religions, and cultures. Why hasn't it become a corrupt dictatorship where there are no freedoms? The same model can work on a global level, but it should not be enacted just yet. Maybe in 500-1000 years.


Originally posted by sonofliberty1776Because I believe it will be the most evil regime ever to cover the face of the earth. I also do not believe in "evolution" or "darwinism"; I do believe species adapt, but fish stay fish and apes stay apes.

Yes, you do not believe in scientific established facts, and yet you push this "globalist agenda" as fact? How ironic.





Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicistThe US is currently a corporate police state, and was never a democracy at all. In our "hey day" we were a representative republic, but those days are over. Our freedoms are basically gone.

This is hogwash. You still have your constitutional rights and can speak out against the government as you please, so your freedoms are intact. There is no reason why that can't work on a global level. Also, if you think pure freedom and unrestricted capitalism is the best model, you're fine with corporations controlling every aspect of your life and passing their own laws rather than a government, aren't you?



Originally posted by sonofliberty1776As shown above, your initial supposition is false, thus the rest of your argument has no foundation.

Actually, my arguments are based on historical precedence and scientific facts. Yours? Based on delusional conspiracies of a "globalist agenda" and rejection of scientific facts.





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join