One World Government

So I was looking at the post about a one world union and it got me thinking. Our human society has been growing into larger and larger political entities. We started with family, to clan, to village, city, city state, kingdom, to nation state. So since everything is trending to bigger inclusion is the one world government a foregone conclusion? Kind of like a federated government of all the worlds nations? If it is why is this the case? If it is not why is it not the case? Also what are the pros and cons of the situation of a one world government.

(oh and please no NWO or Satan is coming stuff, just the politics and sociology of the situation)

 

The idea of a one world government is nothing new. It is the aspiration of most insane tyrants from history's past. Going back probably before the pharaohs of Egypt, Caesar, and including the likes of Genghis Khan, Muhammad(blood be upon him). Including earlier incarnations like Stalin and Hitler.

A one world rule should always be rejected, always. Lest ye lose your independence and freedom.

 

I'm currently subject to about 5 levels of government, not counting the various bureaucracies that aren't directly in that heirarchy that also have regulatory, tax and enforcement arms. None of them represent my interests. I doubt if another couple of layers of bureaucracy would improve the situation. Better we should work towards One Person Government as opposed to a One World Government.

 

(oh and please no NWO or Satan is coming stuff, just the politics and sociology of the situation)
This is the prelude to the whole case for a NWO. Don't LOOK at the Emperor. Just listen to him.

 

Are you kidding me?

My city can't even agree with the next town let alone half the country.

 

The trend has been towards bigger and bigger groups coming together. Why would that trend stop now? The EU would seem to be a trend towards more and more nation state cooperation.

Also with bigger groupings of people why do we have to lose independence and freedom?

 

So, you want to talk about a one world government, but not the NWO, which IS one world government? You're being contradictory. Do you want to talk about it or not?

 

Cooperation or domination?

 

I believe the NWo is a secret cabal of elite bent on ruling the world. I am more interested in the progression of the human political state that has tended towards gathering in ever greater numbers and sophisticated groupings.

- - - Updated - - -

I would say cooperation not domination. The military option has been tried and cannot keep the people together. It would have to be accepted by the people to work.

 

It's no secret. Plenty of the elite have come right out and admitted it (Bush Sr, Gary Hart, Kissinger, David Rockefeller, etc.). So once you take "secret" away, what you have is an "elite cabal". Well, who the hell else is going to run the one world government? The homeless? This elite cabal are the ones in charge of the governments we already have, so of course they would run the next level as well.

Well, here's the progression as I see it. The elite start a big war, then they propose more world government (i.e. centralized power) as the "fix" for the problem they created. WWI=>League of Nations, WWII=>U.N., WWIII=>?.

 

It's going that way anyway. To the elite, the trick is to make it look like "it just happened that

way". This mollifies the masses, and helps the elite to believe that they were fated for the

role all along anyway. Manifest Destiny, and all that. I suspect that it's going to happen.

Then, we'll go through a period where the Christians buy up a lot of bill board space, and try

very hard to ID the antichrist.
Along the way, who knows enough to say if it's all the natural course, or the fulfillment of

prophesy?
For myself, I take it all to be strong reason to remain on my own spiritual path, working

constantly to be "in the world but not of it".
Looking at the course of actions and events regarding the current POTUS and his

predecessor, there is a strong argument to say that we're being systematically maneuvered to

the point where the end is upon us, and nothing can save us but the NWO.

 

Crawdad: "I would say cooperation not domination. The military option has been tried and cannot keep the people together. It would have to be accepted by the people to work."

And I wouldn't say domination requires the military. The EU is an excellent example. Oppresive rules and regulations are being forced on people just as in the U.S.

 

A One World Government would mean a global dictatorship, with no chance of separation or secession. Would we really want that? If anybody thinks it would stop or prevent wars, they are dead wrong, and apparently have never studied the general concept of Civil Wars. I want a world with choice. If I don't like my present area, whether it be the law, the environment, the job market etc. I want the choice to move elsewhere. That's what makes (or made) America one of the greatest nations in the world. We have 50 different states to choose. And even then, we still have the freedom to move out of the country if we so desire. Say no to a One World Government.

 

It does seem as though a single-government world (the term 'one-world government' is a little sideways) is kind of inevitable. Power naturally consolidates through competition. Martial supremacy shifts from one faction to another and creates complicated chains and hierarchies. Some people -- conspiracy theorists by definition, I suppose, even if they're right -- say that we already have a single-government world because everything is decided by the economic transactions and military maneuvers of stable, predictable actors on the international stage, so if you broaden the definition of 'government' to include dictatorial economies, they might have a point.

The pros and cons are the same that they always are. The biggest pro is that an unopposed authority can get a lot of things done, which is great if those things are actually good ideas. The biggest con in the same thing, since those things may very well not be good ideas and there's nobody to stop that government from carrying through on a bad idea.

My hope is that when we arrive at a single-government world situation, that government will be democratic and populist, with a constitution that protects the civil rights of all individuals.

My expectation is that the powers that be will never allow the world to be run by anything like democracy.

 

I'm oppose to a one world government because I don't want a couple billion dip-s**** from some third world septic tank electing our leaders.

 

No offense intended to the south, but I've never been crazy about letting them elect my president, either.

 

Yep, they sure screwed up the last two presidential elections. Come to think of it, a couple billion third world types couldn't screw us over any more than we are now.

 

Horrendous idea.

The median income level for the "middle class" in the context of the entire world is between $1,200 and $3,200 per YEAR(approximately). The poor in the world live on less than $1,200 per YEAR (not month... YEAR). If you make more than $32,000 then you are one of the 1% as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

With the policies of income redistribution that the left engages in, almost everybody in America except the super-elite would have their quality of life DRASTICALLY reduced.

Horrendous idea.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey... you guys are the ones with West Virginia. Don't blame us.

 

Who's you guys?

 

Yankees

 

It's amusing to see that some here still think there would be "elections" in a one world deal.

 

I'm not a Yankee

 

I wonder...

Alexander the Great would have thought our level of global military power and control a fantasy. So would Queen Elizabeth. Pure, utter fantasy. At this moment...they could weaponize space on a whim, if they haven't already, and there seems to be the formation of large economic blocs that supercede individual national sovereignty. BRIC, EU, and proposals of Middle Eastern, African, Pan-Arabic, and Pan-Asian unions still run about so I wouldn't put it out of mind to conclude that in 100 years, the world will be perhaps 7 - 10 large economic blocs whose states function more like provinces.

I think the goods and bads of it are similar to the goods and bads of a city, a nation, or an empire. The goods and bads seem to increase side by side.

 

do you really want ape-men from the 3rd world telling you what to do?

No thanks

 

I know it's scarey but remember that a lot of paranoid liberals who won't reveal their location also vote.