One World Government

I'd like to see some discussion about this. There seems to be a lot of hinting at this being a likely future, but this notion is met both with enthusiasm and trepidation depending on who you ask.

On the one hand, a single world government would reduce war drastically, as nations would no longer be separate entities competing, but rather as partners cooperating unilaterally to support all, with one hand directing the process. There begins the Pax Terra in which all mankind works toward the greater good of all mankind, not just the betterment of their country. It would give the world a sense of greater purpose and direction, with nothing left to conquer but the stars.

On the other hand, such a government would be literally unchallengeable, now devoid entirely of rivals to keep them in check. It would answer to no higher authority, even in the case of a democratically elected system. Ultimately someone would seize the reigns of empire to achieve "ruler of the world" status. And then we are made mind slaves slowly, over time, completely oblivious.

Or none of the above, and something entirely different. Just trying to present some positions to start debate

What are your thoughts?

Or it may work out just fine.

 

The people behind this push for a world government would like us to believe in this happy utopia where there is no war or poverty and everyone gets along with their neighbor in the global village.

What they won't tell you is that they are the ones who have been behind all the major wars and the massive and ongoing poverty and suffering in the world. They are the ones who funded communism into existence as the dialectical antithesis to capitalism. They are the ones who helped bring Hitler and the Third Reich to power, and are keeping the third world nations in a state of perpetual helplessness through the IMF and World Bank today. They are the ones who have deliberately devalued the currency to create economic termoil and thus dependency on the government via a socialized welfare state.

This was all designed to create the popular mindset that the only solution to the world's problems is a world government, where national sovereignty and individual freedoms are relinquished for the so-called "greater good" of the collective. They always create the problems to then offer the solutions to the problems they created, otherwise the people might not go along with it.

So you have to get the people thinking it's in their benefit, while at the same time keeping them ignorant of real history. This is where we are at today, because the average person is absolutely clueless of anything that isn't reported by the media. They are simply tought to worship political leaders (puppets), who they are supposed to have faith in to solve all their problems, and parrot whatever they hear on the news. They have instilled a sense of perpetual childhood in the public mind, where the government is their daddy and there to serve them well as they work and pay their taxes like good slaves, which are in turn used to build their own shackles.

The people pushing for this do NOT want what's best for humanity. If they did, they wouldn't be doing what they're doing in such secrecy. But even so, we know the people and groups that are behind this. We know what they have done before and are doing now. They want to enslave and control humanity. They want to greatly reduce the world's population to a more manageable level. It is they who are the ones behind so-called Islamic terrorism, who are in turn using fear to get the public to accept a totalitarian system where everyone is tracked and monitored and kept in line under an iron fist. That is what these people want, and that is exactly what they are bringing to fruition.

 

Mmm. That was well said.

On a more abstract or perhaps spiritual tangent, there is never going to be a stop or end to war, as long as increased food production continues. An increased food supply leads to over-population and as a result we as humans figure that we need to increase food supply in order to feed an unrestrained population. The whole thing is a cycle and the more the people on the planet, the more people will be fighting over resources. Until we can learn proper population control, we may be able to work with the resources we already have.

A utopia where people no longer kill each other over resources or conquer them for what they have goes against the natural order of survival.

Minimal manipulation of the environment and the natural world around us is preferable and ensures longer life for human beings on this planet, than it would be to draw the world out on a grid and have Jacob assign 12 territories to his 12 sons. Humans need to stop playing God.

 

So basically you are advocating Malthusianism? The idea that there's too many people on the planet and that we must cull a certain percentage to a more sustainable level? First of all, what is overpopulation and who determines what overpopulation is? Much of this talk about overpopulation is simply propaganda that is being churned out by elitist think tanks whose members are staunch eugenicists and want population reduction -- not to save the earth but to better manage the people. We can go back to the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth, which was put out in 1972 and was later found to be based on deliberately skewed computer models. This is not surprising when you look at the people behind this group -- war criminals like Henry Kissinger -- and see some of the horrible things they have written over the years. Have you ever read Kissinger's NSS Memorandum 200?

You talk about finite resources, but would we really have this problem if the globalists were not destroying the food-producing potential of the third world and suppressing vital technologies that would eliminate our dependence on oil?

You need to ask yourself what is real and what is being manipulated for political and socio-economic reasons.

Is overpopulation a problem? Sure. Are we currently overpopulated? I don't think so. I think the power brokers in their think tanks would like us to believe so, but I believe the planet can sustain many more people, granted they (the power elite) are not creating the problems to justify the cry of overpopulation.

 

Taking a step back from the grim realities of the worldwide authoritarian regime.

It would be nice and more beneficial to have a single united humanity. Everyone worldwide with the same mindset and focus. No more divisions, no unnecessary competition. Because right now people are focused on their own country's prosperity. They're not going to be worried about the environmental destruction or pollution in some third world country that it takes to get that wealth. Competition doesn't allow it, and the divisions justify it. I think that if humanity became a single movement, then the world would actually be a better place.

I also believe that in order to accomplish something like the colonization of space we'll need a human effort, not just a single government's or corporation's. But this is all utopian idealistic thoughts, completely ignoring human nature. And I really want to explore space .

 

As long as you understand that, there is nothing wrong with dreaming.

 

No, I've never read Kissinger's NSS Memorandum 200. I've been reading David Quinn's Ishmael, and I can't wait to move on to something else.

I never said anything about culling people.

Why do you not think that we are currently overpopulated? Because we produce enough food to feed 6 billion, yet we are only 5 billion?

You may want to ask yourself what is real and what is being manipulated for political and socio-economic reasons.

The world was not designed to have 1 species play God and control the environment as much as humans have in the past 12,000 years. It doesn't make sense to increase our population billions at a time each 5 years because we keep increasing food production and count on our resources to garnish some kind of sense of a sustainability measuring stick.

That just doesn't make any lick of sense to me.

 

So how do you stop people from reproducing? You can do what the World Health Organization has done, sterilizing African women without their consent. Do you support that? I know I don't. And what's this about one species controlling the environment? Do you place animals above humans? That's kind of that whole PETA mentality that humans are evil and destorying the earth. Maybe we should all just resort to mass suicide because we're harming Gaia.

 

No. You know that I don't agree with any of that crap and falsehood.

I never said that I even wanted to stop people from reproducing. But it's funny that as a culture we debate over coffee if we want to have 3 or 4 kids and bring children into the world although many of us bring them into it and we cannot care for them for a plethora of varied reasons -- all of which are perpetuating a population crisis. We create more mouths to feed and keep having to rape and pillage the lands each day and cut down trees in the forest, plant gardens in the ocean so we can harvest more, more and more food to care for these people.

Much like you speak about waking people up to the behind the scenes intricate networks of corruption and elitist control, I feel as though people need to wake up to the natural world and realize that society is at war with the world, we feel as though we must always conquer it and rule it as we please. We keep taking more than we need from it.

 

The people behind a one world government are zionists.

I made the comparison about how they are trying to fullful Jewish prophesy concerning the arrival of their messiah, the Moshiach.

These people aren't religious themselves but specialize in using the beliefs of others in their agenda.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=4533950&postcount=4

You'll be branded an anti-semite if you agree. Be prepared.



x

 

The fact is that the wealthy elite who have been making a great deal of money out of economic globalisation would not want a democratic global government that would very likely limit its power and be more able to tax their wealth.

As pointed out in the book ‘The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order’ by George Monbiot democratically elected global institution could go a long way to right many of the wrongs of economic globalisation by making those that are profiting from it to be accountable to the worlds people.

It suits the wealthy elite to have a disunited world while they can act globally, a united world with integrated tax, legal, social, environmental and fiscal policies would limit their power.

We are unlikely to limit economic globalisation so unless we as a people can regulate it the few will have greater power than the many. So if our goal is to limit the power of the global Establishment shouldn't we be working for a democratically elected global government not against one.



Here is lecture on the - The Age of Consent given by George Monbiot

Part One
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=2775208&postcount=8
Part Two
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=2775210&postcount=9

 

But what happens when you already have everything money can buy, and still want more?

The only thing left you is power. The height of which is world domination.

This is the holy grail of the super rich.


x

 

But the rich have always sort influence (e.g. power) and it was a lot easier before the advent of democracy, because although not perfect democracy can be a check on wealth based power (and in my opinion should be) it becomes a matter of checks and balances to me at the moment the balance has tipped in favour of wealth, I would like the balanced restored.

At the moment the wealthy can manipulate governments by playing on against another, putting their money in tax havens or taking the citizenships they chose like a flag of convenience, demanding concessions for moving to certain areas threatening to leave if laws are passed that don’t suite them etc.

And if they are allowed they will buy the media to put there case across and try and freeze out opposing views.

 

I think it's a eventuality.

I don't see it soon. Maybe in my life. Doubt it. I think a few global agreements on genocide and banning slavery and trade normalization would be very worthwhile things.

 

I honestly think that it would be wonderful to have a world government, or at least larger territorial governments.

A whole lot of good could come out of it, even if the people in charge are baby eating Satanists.

 

BSR, you missed out the jews. Baby eating Satanic Jews. Though, tbh, you could just say Jews, the rest is as standard.

 

If you don't have anything intelligent to say, why bother responding?

 

Okay, I was just having a little joke, in addition to BSR's post. Not directed at you, I know you aren't anti-semetic (or khazaric) at all.


I'll throw in my serious opinion on the idea too if you like. A one world government could be both a good thing and a bad thing. A good thing, in a utopian world where people make decisions based on their own morality and beliefs rather than just towing the party line. If the world was without bureaucracy, I'd say go ahead. As it is, it is not, the more people you introduce to things, the more cultures, the more opinions. The less is going to get done. Not only this, but with a one world government, I very much doubt laws could differ greatly region to region. You never know, as big as the EU is on regulation, it does fuck all to try and enforce it on the countries that go against the official guidelines. If a one world government could maintain state sovereignty to a degree (that degree meaning that laws removing human rights and freedoms could not be enacted, but others could, a sort of world constitution if you will). then that'd be great. I somehow doubt it'd work perfectly, but you never know.

 

But the system the elite have created is simply a means to an end. The ones that control and manipulate the world economy realize that money is just paper. They print it out of nothing and have the ability to determine its worth because they control the system of credit/debt creation. They have used this fiat funny money to buy up most of the world's real assets, while the people are left with debt and a hyperinflated currency that lowers the living standard, thus making people dependent on their oppressors just to live at subsistence level.

But what makes you believe the elitists in control would want the people to have a say in such a system? What makes you think such a system would be anything more than an illusionary sham, to dupe the people into thinking it's in their best interests while in actuality sending them further down the road to enslavement? You see, what is described above is how they are selling it to the people, by making it sound like it's a good thing. It is carefully-crafted propaganda by one of their minions.

The fact is -- and you cannot seem to grasp this simple concept -- the same people behind this economic globalization are the same ones moving us in the direction of a world government and offering us the propaganda that it would be a good thing. So if a world government poses such a threat to them, as you claim, why are they doing everything they can to eliminate national sovereignty while creating superstates like the EU and NAU, which overrides national laws and sovereignty and is being done without the people's informed consent?

How would it limit their power? You think a global tax would limit their power? You think international laws would limit their power? You have been unable to explain this at all, despite the numerous times I have asked you.

Again, if it suits the wealthy to have a disunited world, why are they trying to "unite" the world under a centralized economy and government in secrecy? Why are they creating legal structures that override national governments?

You see, we are already under a world government and we have been for quite some time. It's just not an open world government, and therefore isn't realized as such because we still have the illusion of "democracy", so we think we still have a say in things.

But what you would be doing is giving them more power by placing greater control over more people and more wealth into fewer hands. You talk about "global democracy" when you don't even have a democracy in your own country, and neither do we. We have an unelected bureaucratic elite that operates under the cover of "democracy" by giving us our candidates to choose from, all of which are working for the real power brokers behind the public facade. This serves only to provide the illusion that we have a choice, because a naive public that thinks it has a say in its destiny is never going to attempt to overthrow the system from outside of that system.

 

A one world government is an eventuality.

We can all admire the one world government that exists in Star Trek. A whole planet united for the good of humanity. Everybody is taken care of. Peace rules the land. Technology has made life easy.

That is not what zionism promises you.

You will live with intimidation and fear. Your children will grow up to serve as the fist of this New World Order. Your nations will be bled of their wealth and their young people. And if you speak out against it, you will be dealt with.

You better speak out now. While the window to do so is still open.

This train's leaving soon.


x