Can anyone help me persuade my boss that his ideas for a global government are straight out of the N

Global government already exists and I hope it continues to develop, especially from a legalistic, humanitarian and commercial perspective. We live in such a globalized international society today that we need laws governing not just interaction between states, but between multi-national corporations, individuals, courts (given the increasingly trans-national nature of law) and so forth.

2 global courts already exist, which I would say is a positive thing. The International Court of Justice, which has jurisdiction over state to state relations, and the International Criminal Court, which can trial individuals accused of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

In my opinion, these courts are somewhat flawed, given their minimal jurisdiction, lack of flexibility, and lack of funding. Of course, their jurisdiction should be limited to states which accept it, in order to not impede sovereignty, but at the same time, states such as the US have rejected it's authority simply to avoid war crimes prosecution.

A more global approach is necessary, billions of dollars are exchanged everyday on a trans-national basis, goods are shipped all over the world, people migrate every day, migrants are brought to work in different countries, millions of goods are passed through customs unregulated, the banana industry is more regulated than the gun industry. A global approach is required to ensure security, efficiency and sustained economic growth and development throughout the world.

The internationalisation of resources is highly unlikely, but there is some merit to the idea. However, for pragmatic reasons, it can be rejected almost immediately. Saudi Arabia is not going to cede sovereignty over it's oil reserves, and even if they were internationalised, it is likely the more powerful states will ensure an un-equitable division of resources. It's a stupid idea if you are realistic.

However, your fears of one world governance are stupid. The world has been increasingly trending towards global governance since the establishment of the modern nation-state and the increasing inter-state conflict this bred. WW1 and WW2 highlighted the necessity of effective global governance to manage security concerns, conflict, economic disputes, economic crisis and a host of trans-national problems (terrorism, disease epidemics, financial crisis etc). Inter-state conflict has drastically decreased since WW1, although it will never be eliminated entirely.

Global governance is a practical solution to a global problem. It doesn't mean that states have become irrelevant, quite to the contrary, they are still the predominant actors in the global political arena, and global governance can only occur if they willingly cede some degree of sovereignty.

I read the "About Us" page at the site in the OP...

It almost sounds like they are a part of the NWO.

If not they are definitely serving the same agenda.

That site has all the same attributes of all other MSM.

EDIT: I just reread your post below which pretty much invalidates my thoughts...

Originally posted by Wolfetone
Its really spooky how accurately he basically outlined the elite plan down to the Project Blue Beam bit.

I can't stress enough, this guy is 100% not elitist in any way or would ever have read anything about the likes of uniting behind a martian threat. It just came out of the blue . He's a down to earth ordinary Joe Soap who is quite outspoken against our own government and he genuinely believes that this is the best solution.

Originally posted by Wolfetone
reply to post by crankyoldman

 

I'm afraid I've tried all that. He believes that my view is very much in the minority. What I was hoping for is that with ATS'ers leaving replies on his article he might start to believe that I am not alone in thinking his ideas are a carbon copy of the elites plan to control us. He writes around 3 or 4 op ed pieces a week and this is the first time this rabbit has been pulled out of the bag. I'm aiming to kill this train of thought before he starts expanding it

you maybe against it thats your choice logically it all makes sense for natural progression to do these things , he is entitled to his opinion he is not an idiot or foolish , he is a realist . how much longer do you think this planet can carry on like this ,also how would your boss feel you putting his company up on ats for all to flame him from here ? so i guess i am here to kill your train of thought of old world mentality

Originally posted by Wolfetone
Its really spooky how accurately he basically outlined the elite plan down to the Project Blue Beam bit.

I can't stress enough, this guy is 100% not elitist in any way or would ever have read anything about the likes of uniting behind a martian threat. It just came out of the blue . He's a down to earth ordinary Joe Soap who is quite outspoken against our own government and he genuinely believes that this is the best solution.

I like your boss sounds like a smart guy . i too have been saying these things even before i knew about the nwo or project blue beam . he really isn't alone into coming to this conclusion it is just logical

Your boss is a communist, quit your job and cease contact with him.

Originally posted by Wolfetone
I work for a website here in Ireland and my boss has just written an article calling for:

Global Government
Global Court
One World Currency
Vaccines to reduce the population
Laying down all arms.

I've been trying to tell him that this is basically the exact same plan the elitist family dynasties of the world have been edging towards for hundreds of years but he is adamant that this can be done.

I'm about as anti-NWO as you can get. That being said:

The goals listed are not in themselves "evil" except, which #4 should just read "Reduce the Population." Here's why. If humans are to survive, as a species, we must, at some point, leave the Earth and colonize other planets. It is literally keeping all of our eggs in one place. Eventually, something is going to wipe out all humans on Earth. Asteroids, plagues, global climate change, Solar storm, whatever. Or maybe something humans do destroys all life on earth, we're getting there. Point is, we need to be able to leave this rock. And since we don't know when disaster may strike, the sooner the better.

To do this, we need to use the Earth's resources as efficiently as possible. Not wasting resources fighting each other over things that don't matter. Muslim, Jew, Buddist, Christian, if an asteroid hits, we all die. We need a single, governing body that is solemly commited to the survival of the human race. We need that government to organize the population and manage the Earth's resources for maximum benefit. If humans are to survive, this must happen, and before it is too late. We just don't know how much time we have.

Now, here is where I differ from the "NWO" as I see it. I don't believe that the ends justify the means. Like where I changed the #4. Sure, I agree that the population needs to be reduced, but I believe it should be done by reducing the birth rate, instead of actively killing people. Problem is, the general population would have to be educated as to why you have to limit the number of children a family can have. Or in some cases, maybe none at all. I believe the NWO mindset is that they want to eliminate "non-productive" people as soon as it is feasable, by any means necessary. And that means concealing their intentions until the time is right.

Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but I still believe in things like honesty. I believe if humans cannot survive without honesty, then maybe the universe is better off without us. Maybe I'm wrong, time will tell.

Your boss sounds desperate and afraid. Just give him a hug and tell him everything will be ok.

But you're absolutely right. This world's bought and paid for, and if we want it back, we're going to have to fight.

I am sorry. I can't help you convince your boss. It is hard to get insane people to understand rational concepts and sometimes difficult for them to understand other things like, the rest of us could never drink enough booze, smoke enough herb or ingest enough psychotropic drugs to EVER allow one guy to be in charge of the planet, for any reason. EVER. Now, if you want to talk about 'No World Government', I'm liking what I hear. Hanging out tribal, I think that worked pretty well for us for a long time, and then we went an got all 'rule' happy and stuff and started creating titles for people that get in charge of telling us stuff like 'you can only have 2 giant elk, and a short -faced Sloth in your garden, and they can only stay there in-between ice ages!

Sent to you from a country that probably is 99% clueless that our government was cooked up a long time ago, in the 'Emerald Iles' by 'tribes' of people who pretty much got it right without having all the administrative crap get in the way!

Also, you might want him to talk to Michio Kaku or some guy named 'Hawking' It might be slightly irrational for the Human Race to disarm itself. These guys are pretty science-y, and they think if there are aliens out there, they might really dig finding a planet that is about as smart as a box of rocks, but full of good intentions!

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
Global government already exists and I hope it continues to develop, especially from a legalistic, humanitarian and commercial perspective. We live in such a globalized international society today that we need laws governing not just interaction between states, but between multi-national corporations, individuals, courts (given the increasingly trans-national nature of law) and so forth.

2 global courts already exist, which I would say is a positive thing. The International Court of Justice, which has jurisdiction over state to state relations, and the International Criminal Court, which can trial individuals accused of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

In my opinion, these courts are somewhat flawed, given their minimal jurisdiction, lack of flexibility, and lack of funding. Of course, their jurisdiction should be limited to states which accept it, in order to not impede sovereignty, but at the same time, states such as the US have rejected it's authority simply to avoid war crimes prosecution.

A more global approach is necessary, billions of dollars are exchanged everyday on a trans-national basis, goods are shipped all over the world, people migrate every day, migrants are brought to work in different countries, millions of goods are passed through customs unregulated, the banana industry is more regulated than the gun industry. A global approach is required to ensure security, efficiency and sustained economic growth and development throughout the world.

The internationalisation of resources is highly unlikely, but there is some merit to the idea. However, for pragmatic reasons, it can be rejected almost immediately. Saudi Arabia is not going to cede sovereignty over it's oil reserves, and even if they were internationalised, it is likely the more powerful states will ensure an un-equitable division of resources. It's a stupid idea if you are realistic.

However, your fears of one world governance are stupid. The world has been increasingly trending towards global governance since the establishment of the modern nation-state and the increasing inter-state conflict this bred. WW1 and WW2 highlighted the necessity of effective global governance to manage security concerns, conflict, economic disputes, economic crisis and a host of trans-national problems (terrorism, disease epidemics, financial crisis etc). Inter-state conflict has drastically decreased since WW1, although it will never be eliminated entirely.

Global governance is a practical solution to a global problem. It doesn't mean that states have become irrelevant, quite to the contrary, they are still the predominant actors in the global political arena, and global governance can only occur if they willingly cede some degree of sovereignty.

Yeah, good for you!

I'm with it too and not ashamed to say so.

I'm Irish, I'm British, I'm Russian, I'm Chinese....it's all nonsense already really... Identity via cultural food type, accent and location of birth

Jewish, Christian, Muslim... that round makes my skin crawl honestly, what indoctrination is worse than that set?

Call it what it is "Culture" let people keep it but stop elevating it to the top priority of self...

I call what most people are fighting for Trash Imho... self limiting, obsessive, anti intellectual, boring.... I have to say it NWO get's my vote....

Constitution was great lets be a real big part in drawing up a new one so the freedoms that matter count, belief in God is okay if the details mattering goes away... religious people should be a part in worshiping God together not arguing over the details... these are schools of thought opinions, reduce them to such.

Everyone dying over ideas... it's ridiculous, I want a house, I want access to modern technology to screw who I want and fall in love with who I want and food to be plentiful... beyond that, ISMS can go take a fling frack off a cliff....

Health Care... Just build it with health care lol

Set a day of the week we all take off on.... Saturday, Sunday who cares lol

It's all seriously asinine and primitive any other way... The vaccines to kill people we can leave out particularly if participate (people get carried away) a good healthy debate... and nation states become "states" everyone gets a representative by population and size of state... we tax in to fix the broken places as a global effort...

US of E, it would be awesome.

reply to post by Wolfetone


I left a comment on the article - even if it hadn't been requested I would have felt compelled to anyway.

The views expressed are frighteningly naive. I spend too much time with people who question msm - I wonder how many other people actually believe this stuff. He's not pulled these ideas out of the blue after all - they've been getting planted in his head (whether he realises it or not) all of his born days.

Crazy crazy crazy

Hi Wolfetone, (or is that really you Barry? ) lol

Hadn't heard of fecktv.com until you decided to rally support here to educate 'your boss!'

Nice,
well it worked and I will be back to browse the site further, good luck with it.
Ask yourself - I mean 'your boss' would he be so keen on a single world government if Fine Gael were to set it up?

ps. if you got a mention on Broadsheet.ie (be creative) or an ad, it would really take off...... just sayin'
good luck from a fellow Irishman.

If he's written this article, what makes you think your boss is not in on NWO, for apparently he is in that group, that would be my immediate thoughts.

reply to post by Wolfetone


He is very naive to think this won't be corrupted. Why? Because bad guys are bad guys. We, the good guys, want to do things peacefully and talk. What will the bad guys do, they'll kill everybody to get to the top. The pen is mightier than the sword, I think not. They write a piece of legislation the bad guys don't like, the bad guy will put two in the back of they're heads.

The way we're going right now, there's no way the good guys are going to come out on top. For this to happen we need to stop suppressing new tech that will render oil and metered power obsolete. We need to get back to our roots learn to make gardens and be self sufficient. Get back some pride in our lives that we lost with consumerism.

The only way humans will survive in the long run is if we have a one world government.

Now this doesn't have to be a bad thing....There can be a good world government! I don't know why people think they are mutually exclusive.
WE need to start doing something about it now, before the evil people enact their plan.

reply to post by Wolfetone


A world government wouldn´t be bad at all, because you wouldn´t have opposing interests anymore under which the population has to suffer.

If there is one shared government, all the resources could be distributed to those who need them, not to those who can afford them.

If we would have one world government, there wouldn´t be a need for military troops, as there are no opposing sides anymore.

A global currency would logically be a lot more stable than national ones, and it would simplify international trade, just like the EURO did on a smaller scale.

I am sure that there are some disadvantages as well, but it wouldn´t be all bad. At least theoretically.

reply to post by Hopechest


"..BUt...but.... The Green Lantern Planet did it"
-mindless generation

I agree with you on this one for sure.

Cant, and wont be done. Theres always a lust for power, too much competition as well. I think of it as the world olympics-only with nations fighting for money and power rather then playing soccer.

reply to post by Wolfetone


Tell your boss to grow up.

Article over,

Edit- On second thought- maybe you shouldnt try to one up on your boss. He might take it personal and fire you for whatever reason he can think of down the road.

Its bad but its not that bad. You have to understand that mankind will destroy itself unless at some point in time we can come together and create a society that is stable.

The elite do have bad intentions for most people but they are not for total destruction of the world, there ultimate goal is a stable world in which they are the masters. Eventually man/the world can become equal



Don't get me wrong I'm against the elitist agenda but a world government is the inevitable. Einstein and many other great minds have said the same exact thing. The only issue is how will this world come about?

Originally posted by Ghost375
The only way humans will survive in the long run is if we have a one world government.

Now this doesn't have to be a bad thing....There can be a good world government! I don't know why people think they are mutually exclusive.
WE need to start doing something about it now, before the evil people enact their plan.

I agree and everyone who say "what if its corrupted". Well yeah it will likely be corrupt at first, everything is but you have to think long term. The big concern is do we want this to come about in a violent way or a more peaceful way?

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
Global government already exists and I hope it continues to develop, especially from a legalistic, humanitarian and commercial perspective. We live in such a globalized international society today that we need laws governing not just interaction between states, but between multi-national corporations, individuals, courts (given the increasingly trans-national nature of law) and so forth.

2 global courts already exist, which I would say is a positive thing. The International Court of Justice, which has jurisdiction over state to state relations, and the International Criminal Court, which can trial individuals accused of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

In my opinion, these courts are somewhat flawed, given their minimal jurisdiction, lack of flexibility, and lack of funding. Of course, their jurisdiction should be limited to states which accept it, in order to not impede sovereignty, but at the same time, states such as the US have rejected it's authority simply to avoid war crimes prosecution.

A more global approach is necessary, billions of dollars are exchanged everyday on a trans-national basis, goods are shipped all over the world, people migrate every day, migrants are brought to work in different countries, millions of goods are passed through customs unregulated, the banana industry is more regulated than the gun industry. A global approach is required to ensure security, efficiency and sustained economic growth and development throughout the world.

The internationalisation of resources is highly unlikely, but there is some merit to the idea. However, for pragmatic reasons, it can be rejected almost immediately. Saudi Arabia is not going to cede sovereignty over it's oil reserves, and even if they were internationalised, it is likely the more powerful states will ensure an un-equitable division of resources. It's a stupid idea if you are realistic.

However, your fears of one world governance are stupid. The world has been increasingly trending towards global governance since the establishment of the modern nation-state and the increasing inter-state conflict this bred. WW1 and WW2 highlighted the necessity of effective global governance to manage security concerns, conflict, economic disputes, economic crisis and a host of trans-national problems (terrorism, disease epidemics, financial crisis etc). Inter-state conflict has drastically decreased since WW1, although it will never be eliminated entirely.

Global governance is a practical solution to a global problem. It doesn't mean that states have become irrelevant, quite to the contrary, they are still the predominant actors in the global political arena, and global governance can only occur if they willingly cede some degree of sovereignty.

wow good post