Anti-Globalists Please Give me Your Thoughts on This

[Computer]

Anti-One World Government? Please Give me Your Thoughts on This

The paper, "One World, or None", was published in the wake of World War II by prominent scientists, many of whom had worked on the bomb. They seemed to be the driving force behind the one world policy, because they wanted to end the possibility of horrendously destructive war between nation states. I know that many of these scientists were highly involved in setting post-war policy with the DOD, including the matter of our relationship with Russia. Maybe this is an anti-war conspiracy driven by very intelligent scientists?

Now, that seems like a noble cause. I'm not saying that I support world government, but might the situation be more complicated than the elite bankers trying to enslave everyone?

Now, I happen to be against global government myself, but I'm trying to get a greater understanding of the forces shaping the secret movement. My problem is that it's secret, therefore elitist and undemocratic. What happens when there is one government, with advanced technology, and it becomes corrupt and tyrannical, as ALL governments have the tendency to do, because the people who compose them are imperfect?

 

[Computer]

"One World, or None" was published by the Federation of American Scientists.

http://www.fas.org/oneworld/index.html

 

[constituent]

we've created this problem b/c we had too much money and power....


now, we need more money and power to make sure we don't use it on anybody.


sheesh.

 

[NeoRayden]

Ok let me point this out real quick. Most of us are not "Anti" Globalists. Actually most of us who understand the true meaning of freedom understand the need to have a global marketplace and a global sense of equality and freedom. However that is where we have to cut it off.

In order to ensure freedom we must have countries and governments that run those countries just as we do individual state governments. They protect our rights from becoming centralized and eliminated faster.

Any one that understands the true meaning of a free people understand that these rights are given by our creator and these rights are individual rights. Because of this all "Humans" have these rights and since they are individual in nature they cannot be assumed by the group for the purposes of coercion of the minority.

 

[Computer]

The other issue I have with One World Government, is that the people who seem to be in the driver's seat for it, like the Bush faction, believe that our Constitution is horribly outmoded. Yet, they also cling to an even more outmoded superstition, Christianity. Thus, they are not wise leaders, but believe in an apocolyptic fairy tale book and have a torture/death instrument, the crucifix, as their symbol. That's scary.

A one world government composed of truly wise, incorruptible men, such as the Jedi council (nerd alert), would be another matter. However, even the Jedi Council was overthrown by a tyranical fascist, Senator Palpatine.

I would really like some input about the FAS document from someone who has studied this phenomenon. It seems like one of the oldest One World documents I can find, thus, it might give insight into their motivations, which could be anti-War. Though, now they use war to promote their one world anti-war agenda, how ironic.

 

[Gadsden Flag]

Edit: Wrong thread

 

[asgardshill]

I blame the late Gene Roddenberry for popularizing one-world government and making it so apparently appealing a concept. His Star Trek franchise portrayed central control and governance of an entire planetary population as a viable and attractive option, with fuzzy-bunny glossing over of the monumental problems and destruction of human and individual rights that would inevitably ensue.

Yes, the spaceships and adventure are cool eye candy. But the underlying philosophy, the sand that the foundation of the genre is built on, is every bit as dangerous and treacherous as my ex-wife in the throes of PMS.

Good thing that real life is not like TV (right, American Idol?)

 

[apropos]

The problem with a world government is a lack of representation. If we look to the EU as a pilot program of a transnational government, we see that the people living there have no say in the political process. The people rejected the EU constitution a few years ago, but that hasn't slowed down the process an iota. We already have enough trouble getting our representatives in DC to listen to us. Is there any realistic argument that says this condition would improve by expanding the size and jurisdiction of government? Enlarging things usually amplifies existing problems instead of removing them.

My theory is that it doesn't matter whether the intentions for more government are good or bad; the end product is always, without exception, bad. Hayek explains this thoroughly in his book, Road to Serfdom. Government is force, and if you intend to manage your citizens' lives, you are going to find a lot of people who aren't on board with the game plan. The world controller in Huxley's Brave New World mentions of this dissenting segment of population, and concludes that little can be done except exile the dissenters or shoot them. At the end of the day, after the debates are over, what else could be done if live and let live is not an option?

Jefferson said the best government is the one that governs least. There are centuries' worth of wisdom in that quote. It draws not only from a knowledge of political history but an understanding of human nature. There is no Jedi council in real life.

On a side note, without Christianity and its belief in the sanctity of the individual, the belief of individual rights would never have taken root on the soil of Western Civilization.

 

[fmontez]

I blame the late Gene Roddenberry for popularizing one-world government and making it so apparently appealing a concept. His Star Trek franchise portrayed central control and governance of an entire planetary population as a viable and attractive option, with fuzzy-bunny glossing over of the monumental problems and destruction of human and individual rights that would inevitably ensue.

Yes, the spaceships and adventure are cool eye candy. But the underlying philosophy, the sand that the foundation of the genre is built on, is every bit as dangerous and treacherous as my ex-wife in the throes of PMS.

Good thing that real life is not like TV (right, American Idol?)

Oh, I like that... The Federation... hmmm, that is way more appealing than UN. Seriously though, Sci-Fi worlds have often had that philosophy, and it has had an influence.

One world government is inevitable, it will happen. Our job is to make sure that some semblance of personal liberty remains, i.e. powers not strictly granted to the Federal World Government shall remain vested with the respected Country.

Change is a scary concept, but don’t let that fear ruin your life.

 

[FreeTraveler]

One world government is inevitable, it will happen. Our job is to make sure that some semblance of personal liberty remains, i.e. powers not strictly granted to the Federal World Government shall remain vested with the respected Country.

Change is a scary concept, but don’t let that fear ruin your life.

BullS***!!! One World Government is NOT inevitable, and will NOT happen unless the citizens keep getting dumber due to our government schools. That's why Dr. Paul and similar educational programs are SO important!

Government is a PERFECT example of the old axiom, "The bigger they are, the harder they fall." When a small country screws up the way it governs, people have options, and the inevitable collapse impacts relatively few people. Not so with a One World Government.

Centralized control NEVER works in the long run (read your history books) and the bigger the empire, the faster it falls. Worst case, our job is to be here to put things back together in a more decentralized manner. Best case, our job is to start that decentralization ASAP with Dr. Paul and other politicians that represent the people's interests.

 

[InLoveWithRon]

The paper, "One World, or None", was published in the wake of World War II by prominent scientists, many of whom had worked on the bomb. They seemed to be the driving force behind the one world policy, because they wanted to end the possibility of horrendously destructive war between nation states. I know that many of these scientists were highly involved in setting post-war policy with the DOD, including the matter of our relationship with Russia. Maybe this is an anti-war conspiracy driven by very intelligent scientists?

Now, that seems like a noble cause. I'm not saying that I support world government, but might the situation be more complicated than the elite bankers trying to enslave everyone?

Now, I happen to be against global government myself, but I'm trying to get a greater understanding of the forces shaping the secret movement. My problem is that it's secret, therefore elitist and undemocratic. What happens when there is one government, with advanced technology, and it becomes corrupt and tyrannical, as ALL governments have the tendency to do, because the people who compose them are imperfect?

The thing is, if you actually follow the money trail, and realize the money is whats inspiring the globalization, and powerful bankers seizing more and more control of it everyday, you'd quickly realize its done to control the public financialy and other wise.. The proof cannot be argued. It cannot be denied.

 

[ThreeFireflies]

One World: Whose?

One Worlders have, for nearly a century, been using threats of war to scare everyone into siding with them. Meanwhile, globalist scientists were using national defense as a cover for medical atrocities. Apart from the usual sadism, the atrocities were motivated by the only two issues I'd consider meaningful to those people: a) the population of the planet, and b) immortality (or virtual immortality). They're after immortality and they can't have it without depopulating the planet. That means all the people who threatened or annoyed them have to go. Top of the list: stupid people whose aggression can't be easily controlled. "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policies." - Henry Kissinger. Also on the list: stupid people who are too old or too sick to produce goods and services for the elite. This is all very obvious and would probably be patiently explained to you by David Rockefeller were he not afraid of getting shot. He was born lucky; we weren't, so we ought to get out of his way. He'd add that Libertarians are preaching essentially the same thing, but aren't willing to take ACTION to meet their needs. They'd prefer to let nature take its course, which it would....but that would involve major risks for the human race.

I wish to point out that if only predatory traits are preserved by the gene pool, all others having been debased or eliminated, our species will soon be extinct. Predatory traits have to be expressed sooner or later - especially in a world where competing sources of pleasure are rare. Globalists don't think beyond their appointed end of all wars. They assume that they or their ancestors will be radically different people then, with no particular effort or insight on their parts - no risks. I think they're insane. Given their goals, their experience must have been grotesque. How can they make the sweeping decisions they want to make with any objectivity?

 

[crashm1]

I was re-reading Expanded Universe by Robert A. Heinlein last month ( last read when I was 16 or so, I am now 45), it's a compilation of his short stories written throughout his writing career with an afterward for each story. One of the things that struck me was how many stories he'd written after WWII were focused on how a world government was imperative so we didn't destroy each other in a nuclear free for all. The extremes lengths he suggested we go to were pretty scary when looked at now 50 or 60 years later. He sounded much more like Rudy or McCain. It gave me some insight to the foaming at the mouth of those who say we must defeat radical Islam. Still don't agree with it. Much of his later writting was libertarian as far as cultural mores and a Minarchist approach to government. Probably a good thing I started with Stranger in a Strange Land and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Sci Fi in general does tend to use a single world government of varying types an awful lot. I think it's because 1) it's a given for most people that at some point there will be a UN like federation of nations 2) it's easier when talking about multiple worlds and universes and 3) I think there is an assumption that there are enough worlds out there that like minded individuals can settle on a planet to run as they deem fit so you could have a world or galaxy of anarchists here and a world of say Mormons over here and off in solar system number three the Muslims. Sort of an expanded version of Earth.

 

[johngr]

The other issue I have with One World Government, is that the people who seem to be in the driver's seat for it, like the Bush faction, believe that our Constitution is horribly outmoded. Yet, they also cling to an even more outmoded superstition, Christianity.

The few front men who are nominal Christians probably are using their "faith" cynically. And Jews comprise about half of would-be authoritarian rulers of the world. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1191257286817

 

[ClampIt]

Nature hasn't found one world government.

If one world government is inevitable it must somehow be more efficient or effective than city-state alternatives. If that's the case, it seems like we would see a parallel in nature.

One World Government isn't supported in nature. The idea of only one termite mound, one bee hive, or one ant hill being more efficient and effective would seem to have asserted itself given the time and opportunity of millions of years.

Instead, nature seems to find benefit in competitive autonomy even in highly social systems. Though this is hardly a proof that one world government can't work, it certainly seems to point in that direction.

What is the benefit of one world government?

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

The paper, "One World, or None", was published in the wake of World War II by prominent scientists, many of whom had worked on the bomb. They seemed to be the driving force behind the one world policy, because they wanted to end the possibility of horrendously destructive war between nation states. I know that many of these scientists were highly involved in setting post-war policy with the DOD, including the matter of our relationship with Russia. Maybe this is an anti-war conspiracy driven by very intelligent scientists?

A scientist would look at this.

In the last 100 years, how many people have been killed by wars between nation states?

In the last 100 years, how many people have been killed by their own governments?

 

[werdd]

I blame the late Gene Roddenberry for popularizing one-world government and making it so apparently appealing a concept. His Star Trek franchise portrayed central control and governance of an entire planetary population as a viable and attractive option, with fuzzy-bunny glossing over of the monumental problems and destruction of human and individual rights that would inevitably ensue.

Yes, the spaceships and adventure are cool eye candy. But the underlying philosophy, the sand that the foundation of the genre is built on, is every bit as dangerous and treacherous as my ex-wife in the throes of PMS.

Good thing that real life is not like TV (right, American Idol?)

i think its likely why all trekkies are liberals.

 

[CitizenPlain]

One world government?

That idea has been around for a long time.

Many have tried to gain it. Nepoleon, Hitler,
Stalin, even Jim Jones?
Who do you think is really behind it this time?

Why do they hate individual divesity? Are
they all that insecure that others can't be free
to be different?

Or do they think they should run the world?