Why is one world government a problem?

reply to post by rickymouse


In America's past, there were things that existed that deserved being praised, but there were also things that deserve to be scorned as well. I once looked at our countries past through rose colored glasses, and also with a heaping helping of state propaganda. Sadly, it was just an illusion when held up to scrutiny in studying other countries in comparison.

reply to post by DakotaCensus


Absolute power. Corrupts. Absolutely.

reply to post by purplemer


Anyone can make an infographic.

I would like to rephrase my question. How would a world government assume absolute power, given than no current national governments have managed to do so? At least not for very long.

Originally posted by DakotaCensus
reply to post by purplemer

 

Anyone can make an infographic.

I would like to rephrase my question. How would a world government assume absolute power, given than no current national governments have managed to do so? At least not for very long.

A one world government has almost assumed power already. It is being done through the banking empire. Own the money and you own the country a very simple strategy that works. Have a look at a list of the Rothschild central banks worldwide.

reply to post by DakotaCensus


The problem is not about having a one world government, the problem is that a certain malevolent group is trying to make it happen. The reason we know this is because many prominent people have tried to warn us about it, for example:

Eisenhower said in his final speech as President: "We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration".

John F. Kennedy said, "For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

Winston Churchill warned in an article published in the February 8, 1920, issue of the London Illustrated Sunday Herald that: Bolshevism is a "worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality..."

David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

Then there are the "Georgia Guidestones" written in eight different languages, which are strange, not only in what they say, but also because the owners have never been revealed. The stones say:

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

All of this corresponds directly with the "Protocols of Zion" which also talks of drastically reducing the population and of "social duty" over individual rights, i.e., Collectivism.

A one world government is certainly not desirable for us if there is the slightest chance that it will lead to despotism and a world where "our kingdom will be distinguished by a despotism of such magnificent proportions as to be at any moment and in every place in a position to wipe out any(one) who oppose us by deed or word."

There is a way that a world government could succeed and it would be fair to every individual person on the planet. This government would consist of only one person with no other people on the planet.Oh wait, I forgot of inner conviction, scratch that thought.

Good post, much appreciated. My motivation for this thread was not to refute the notion of a single world government being bad, but to assume to skeptical position and reason it down to hard facts, and definite opinions.

Moving from the nature of a power, corruption, etc, to the statement that opposition is routed in those who are promoting it is one such hard piece.

Back to the skeptic position.

You cite many different groups, is your intention to say that they are all related or perhaps facets of the same group behind a push for one world government?

Also, I hadn't heard of the Georgia Guidestones, but sounds like fruitful research. Will check it out, thanks.

reply to post by jacobe001


Until you eliminate greed and preverse minds, only then will any collective government work as intended. The constriction of ones freedoms due to the selfish devices of the uber powerful will always be the MO of them that are in charge.

until you change that, we as a species will never truly have real freedom in its intended state of being.

And spiritually yes, we are all careening to one destination that will be the evolution of humanity to the next level of genetic mutation. Although.....it may not be what you expect.

Because apart from anything else, it's fairly simply bad engineering.

Nature doesn't design anything monolithically. It uses massive reproduction, with the smallest individual per-node size possible. A better design would be a tribal model at the local level, with lines of communication which progressed up to the intercontinental level.

Globalism doesn't exist, and isn't being implemented, because it is in anyone's genuine best interests. It is being done because psychopaths only make up 10% of the human population, and they need to concentrate political power as much as they can, in order to overcome that ratio.

What hurts the movement is that there are allot of idiots who have no idea what they're talking about. You have some people claiming the new world order will physically enslave everyone (lol is all i can say) you have some people who claim the new world order will lead to (peace), you have some people claiming the new world order is (run by evil jews to kill the white man) even though truthfully 95% of the people involved are not jew's and in general all elitist are involved, you also have people claiming the new world order is a way to (kill off religion) you have others claiming its about (forcing Christianity on everyone).

Id say ignore those who harbor racist, feelings, delusion, and bigotry.

The world order will change everything but for the average westerner (western european) EU citizen, American, Canadian, even Mexican likely. The world will be better for them than what it would be if things were not orchestrated. You see its far far to much for me to explain and would be a very very long post, but sooner or later the west and the people of the powerful nations right now and their citizens would be at a disadvantage in many way's in the future if what is going on now ceased to go on. Now morally and from a perspective of humanitarianism and peace and love, and religion professing love and the peace movement in general it would be a good thing to stop all of what is going on. But it would lead to the taking over of other nation's in the world and your quality of life would be effected in many many way's and for the worse.


Long story short i think it safe to say several things would happen with the world order in full effect

1) one world currency controlled by IMF
2) Military power largely controlled by a few nation's all the power in the world
3) setting up of people to rule certain area's of the world
4) elimination of strong sovereign states (i dont think however all would need to be eliminated)
5) Population reduction & control. Frankly there are way to many people on the earth an elimination of 50% at least, preferably i believe they would eliminate 80% of the world's population. Which could be easily done more easily than you think, you just use food as a weapon keep in mind Africa will have 2 billion people before you know it and there are 1.5 billion people in India, etc etc. The people in nation's that are powerless could be the first to go. Only those in the industrialized countries (which have stable populations under control) would likely be unaffected.
6) The nation's like EU states, and the USA have populations with stable, slow growth and people who are intelligent (some at least) and work and do jobs that are vital. Elimination of such people would be pointless ideally in a nation like the US it would be ideal to eliminate the poverty class, the welfare people, those who dont work and use the system. It would ideal to have middle class, working class, and the upper class (lawyers, doctors, etc) they are not "elite class"... It would be ideal to have basically a large working, middle class..Folks in the suburbs would be least likely to rebel, take up arms, and cause damage to the establishment because they all have (for most part heads on straight) they work, they want things in life and a government needs a civilian population. They need a population of people who will work its vital and a population filled with enslaved folk, or folk held down by the system and limited in all freedom will eventually turn against the government. However in having everyone middle class but not enslaving them or holding them down like say some governments have done in the past and allowing some freedom's in turn you have a more stable society, the middle class is not plagued with many problems they have now. In addition id imagine crime would drop as crime, poor people, all those who cause trouble would need to be eliminated as they do nothing to offer or advance the establishment.



However there would be plenty of bad likely a decrease in religion, a increase in corruption from the individual rulers or provisional state's ruling certain regions. There would be huge eliminations of the world's population and anyone who is an enemy of the world order.

US has always been apart of it since the US was formed. Some people like to paint this false image that america was taken over by the evil corrupt and that our presidents never played a role in it. They are so wrong its much more deeper than that. Oh and yes i realize jfk was killed and not in favor of it thus he was killed but the same cant be said for most other presidents.


Dang i am really tired forgive me for grammar mistakes

anyhow surely the elite would benefit the most from the world order that is going on right now and is planned. But despite what some wish to say many of those who critique it who live in their nice homes in the west would actually be the ones who benefit vs the people who live in war torn countries, or countries that are poor but sit on vast amount of resources. What do you think would happen to the poor people in countries that are weak but sit on lots of resources?

^^ these people are a "problem" that is their country, their land, their resources which are needed and they are the ones without order or who would be willing to lose it all (or dont have) to fight. They are the ones who could potentially if left unchecked turn their nation around and emerge as a new world power.

what do you think would happen to say the guy who lives in nyc in his nice to decent condo and works as a intern while attending law school? (not a threat)

what would happen to the guy who is a doctor living in chicago? Is he the prime threat or the person that needs to be eliminated? If anything this man would go along with change

I'll admit, I'm a 20 year old upper-middle class Canadian university student and the things I'm going to say will be offensive and wrong to some. I'm an agnostic atheist.

I would be willing to give up many of my civil liberties and material objects in favour of a fascist/communist NWO (more communist) entity if it meant the betterment of human civilization, growth, and expansion. I realize that in the process there would be mass depopulation of poorer, rebellious, and religious countries. However, IMO, it's these nations and people that have been holding back the intellectual and technological growth that humanity can potentially achieve. Our differences in race and religion have created our borders which in turn have lead to national sovereignty. IMO it's backwards to the growth of humanity because we're stuck focused on our differences and how to kill each other. Our old ideas stagnate the mind. Our economies compete with each other instead of sharing resources towards one common goal of human evolution. The way we are now it's always going to be about national, racial, or religious expansion instead of unified expansion. We could accomplish much more with a unified effort of the world's resources, technology, and intellect.

And this is where people will really get ticked off. The one true religion is no religion. It is the belief that we are all mortal human beings that live on a deteriorating planet and that we need to UNIFY in order to advance our species. To me it doesn't seem farfetched to think this. This is why Eisenhower said in his final speech as President: "We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, ATHEISTIC in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration".

It isn't really hostile, it's more accepting than anything to come together and realize we're all the same, if not for miniscule differences in genes. Sure it will be ruthless in purpose because some people still cling onto traditional ideologies instead of opening their mind to emergent ones. It's those people that hold us all back, they're stubborn and can't be reasoned with. We will never get anywhere as a species if we stay the way we are. Things change, the environment changes, but parts of our society can't accept the fact. When the Sun is gone, what will your religion mean then? As bad as it may sound but ruthless force is the only option for long-term prosperity. Our governments and secret agencies already commit these crimes of murder in foreign countries to push their global expansions. This wouldn't be much different in principle. Most of the youth are already desensitized to this violence on the news and whatnot and it could almost entirely be abolished once we unified under one ideology.

Now on the topic of absolute power corrupting absolutely, I have a rebuttal. Let's say we do establish this NWO and pretty much 99+% of the population (whatever that # may be at the time) is supportive. The leader(s)/government have already expanded across the whole world and control everyone and every resource. What corruption could they possibly do by that point. They have nothing more to gain except bettering humanity as a whole in order to retain their leadership position. IMO, there would be some corruption in terms of trying to maintain this Leader position or corruption to try and obtain this position. But really the only things that a world government institution can do is set up projects to better our technological and intellectual abilities. Every action would be an expansion in some sort. The only way this could fail is if the leading power was truly evil and corrupt in its essence to the point that it would deliberately hurt humanity.

People will say that the elite of today that got this ball rolling are too corrupt and greedy to rule the world. That may be true to an extent right now but they're the forefathers of this movement. They had to be this way because of survival of the fittest. If they weren't like this we wouldn't be talking about an NWO in the works. They can't reason with the masses today because they're too unreasonable and individualistic. I'm confident that once/if the process is eventually complete and everyone that's around is accepting, there wouldn't be any more room for greed and corruption.

The greatest challenge by that point, IMO, would be division of wealth. I wouldn't want equality. I would want equity and fairness. Whoever contributes the most whether it be technologically or intellectually should get more. Other problems might be controlling the birth rate of families but by that point we'd have the right people who are responsible enough to know what's right in the name of humanity. We already have the technologies to remain sustainable for thousands of years.

Once again lots of people will probably think I'm a Nazi or something terrible, I'd understand why. I just laid this out as reasonably as I could.

its a problem because it will be communist/socialist meaning if you live less than 5 miles from an oil refinery you will be charged 10.00 a gallon to pay for the transportation of said commodity to whomever the highest bidder is, usually halfway around the world.

same with food, medicine, and other raw materials.

reply to post by DannL


Id love to hear your take on things in about a decade....

reply to post by rottensociety


the GGS were erected by AMORC.

they are signed "R.C.Christian." thats rose cross christian FYI

Originally posted by rainbowbear
its a problem because it will be communist/socialist meaning if you live less than 5 miles from an oil refinery you will be charged 10.00 a gallon to pay for the transportation of said commodity to whomever the highest bidder is, usually halfway around the world.

same with food, medicine, and other raw materials.

There are no highest bidders, there is no competition in the sense of price. Decisions regarding all the major national resources (human capital and physical) would be decided by the centralized government. There wouldn't be anymore private institutions. Literally everything and everyone is owned by the government.

(I.e. Oh, you're the leading scientist in fusion power and you live on the other side of the world, sorry but you temporarily or indefinitely have to move to this region as we're developing a new spacecraft technology here. No borders, no tariffs, no price exploits. The government surveys the world for abundance and scarcity of everything and develops long term plans variable plans for each of them).

The only reason sustainable energies like tidal, wave, wind, solar, and geothermal energies haven't been put to use globally is because of national borders, regulations, tariffs, and energy companies being afraid of emergent ideas.

Everyone puts a cost on everything and that's what holds it all back. One world power would eliminate this and just force the world to pursue these means if we found that they were better for humanity and sustainability.

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by DannL

 

I'd love to hear your take on things in about a decade....

In regards to what? The economy or society?

why is a one world government a problem. Have you seen what has happened to a one European government. Not really worked out too well. Trying to mash culturally different and economically diverse nations is doomed to failure. IMO

reply to post by DakotaCensus

I can answer that.

What's wrong with rahm auerbach taxing firearms?

A man could do some serious power mongering with that sort of data. Technofascist R&D has made it such that everything can be known.

The compliant will be used to round up the noncompliant, indirectly, or directly.

The data will measure exact resistance to unchecked greed and powerlust. The revenues will keep that resistance in a stranglehold. The evil man knows two things: greed and fear.

They have greed down to a political art, see emmanuel, rahm. pelosi, nancy. bush, george 1 and 2, and so forth. obama doesn't count. He is a blind.

Fear, however, unsettles their dream of world domination. There aren't enough armed drones, yet, to decimate the sole checks and balances remaining in our quiver that might appease these men away from their dream. The last resort at our disposal, is firepower. Look for new 'special forces' to be assembled, with intensified psychological training to ensure loyalty, and cultivated to yield the impossibility they might turn on their masters, within our 'armies'.

Watch for a rahm yes man to suddenly burden your bicycle with registration. License plates. Expect to need another license for internet access. Mere formalities, since they already know of anything that moves, or even thinks. They just want ways to formally allow for revenues, and arrests.

The horror of a one world government under any regime except God hisself, is not something I can type on a family friendly website. Because of growing awareness, you can expect botshills, and bullets in the back of your head, with full public approval. They can, and will attempt to accomplish this, because they crave that sort of power.


Think of the poor bastards who opened their gun vaults and posted online, thinking no one would dare to try...

ramh dared. I assume he has come to his senses, but I haven't the heart to double check. It is God's problem.

If you think reasonably and comply then they won't kill you. If you still cling to old ideologies that have only brought us the # world we see today, then tough tits for you.

It's a cold logic but it's what I truly believe.

Those "now defaced" Georgia Guidestones show exactly the type of fight that will occur. You can call it Christ vs. Satan. I just call it religion vs. irreligion. Funnily enough Satan is an allegory for a crisis in faith and a symbol of wisdom and free will in the sense of freethinking.

But I see I've charted territorial grounds here. I don't want to get banned by getting into a fight against religion.