Can anyone on /x/ tell me why there is so much resistance to a potential One World Government?
Let me say that I don't buy any conspiracy shit. There is no NWO, no one pulling the strings. But I wish they were. Nation states are primitive. They create conflict, they are responsible for WANT in the modern world. Their value is purely ascribed, not intrinsic.
The world is not ready for this, I admit. But in the coming centuries, we will begin to push beyond the boundaries of our own planet. In that context how will nation states make sense? A OWG is the only logical end to our species. Any rational, peaceful person can see that.
So why is this concept so repulsive? Why are there so many conspiracies born of the fear of a unifying government body?
My assumption is that it comes from the same schizo persecution complex that fuels most shit on /x/. Am I wrong?
>inb4 gtfo shill
>>17798020
The world will pass away and so won't it's people. Our lives are temporary, why live them under the control of some world government?
We each are in charge of our own reality, so to have government officials who already don't know what their doing imply they are in charge then we are surrendering to the wrong people.
All you need is God to guide you, not world leaders and some NWO govt.
However, if there is a World Govt, there will be a residence group to overthrow it and reform it and then it's kinda like another world govt
>>17798036
So... paranoid persecution nonsense? There is no reason to assume that this government would exist to spite and subjugate you.
>>17798051
Not really persecution but the essence of freedom could easily fade and being lead by corrupt political leaders is always a problem everywhere.
Each nation has their own laws, and they are only world laws and not incorruptible and eternal spiritual laws you know?
>>17798076
Spiritual laws, in this case the Judeo-Christian spiritual laws, are extremely mutable and open to interpretation. These interpretations change depending on where and when one is.
Calling them eternal and infallible is ignorance of history. Indeed, it is ignorance of the world around you.
More to the point, the petty differences between man are responsible for these different in interpretation- of spiritual law aswell as natural law. Eroding these differences would erode conflict, and is the only reasonable path towards a future for our species.
Great so when shit laws are passed, there is no where left to move to
>>17798109
Have you ever actually moved somewhere because of a law being passed?
Besides, obviously this wouldn't be a democracy. Our future is too important to be left in the hands of an ignorant rabble. It is also too important to be left to the greedy. Scientists and philosophers will be our kings and we'll all be way fucking happier for it.
>>17798099
I didn't mention Judea Christian, for the sake of whatever your religion may or may not be, but the law that is eternal and infallible and not just for Judea Christians or any other label you know? It doesn't matter what race or religion, the Absolute Truth is the Absolute Truth.
The laws of the world are faulty, and the life of the world is temporary, so to be subject under a temporary system of world government is like living a life sentence in prison and before death you look back and wonder "what if I lived this life outside of this prison"
>a bunch of technocrats with no allegiance to any particular people want to rule people with conflicting values
what could go wrong?
one world government is the obvious evolution of a society that has global internet access.
who cares what the paranoids think
>>17798099
*tips fedora*
What an amateur understanding of Christianity
>>17798121
No but my parents moved to a diff state when I was little because of those reasons
>>17798076
You seem to be under the impression you have freedom now.
>>17798109
Also...different locations may require different laws due to whatever circumstances affect them and not other areas
>>17798137
We all are under the impression we have freedom.
We all are under the impression that we are in bondage.
Yet, there are no such things as impressions because impressions are only illusions.
>>17798129
Enlightened response.
>>17798123
Is there any evidence that this is a bad idea? Closest analogue to a technocracy I'm aware of is Singapore. Obviously it's a micro scale, but it's a nation with extremely low incidence of crime, high standard of living, and an economic giant. Meanwhile the surrounding area, composed of the same ethnic groups, is barely emerging from the 3rd world.
>>17798122
So you're just fucking crazy. Tremendous.
>>17798128
Exactly. It's inevitable.
>>17798140
Such as? All cultural differences are ultimately petty in the face of our species' future.
>>17798158
>evidence
Just look at the EU m8. If they can't do it for a continent, what makes you think doing in on 7 continents is a good idea?
>>17798158
>Such as? All cultural differences are ultimately petty in the face of our species' future.
Because you can't guarantee every place or area will develop at the same pace or with the same drive, and it's authoritarian to try and push it to be so.
>>17798172
The EU doesn't work because it exists to serve nations. It's priorities are wrapped up in nationalist dick measuring. There is no actual unity in the EU. As our cultural differences are eroded by globalism, nationalism will become meaningless, and a OWG that truly values the species over the nationality will be possible.
>>17798185
Is like tryna get fast food workers to all be the same worker but like they all dress the same and some work harder than others and some people don't work there at all and work a different 9 to 5 job or whatever so like yeah man smoke it up 420 blaze it
>>17798185
Idiots left alone make terrible decisions. Fuck em. Enlightened despotism might actually see our species make progress, at least compared to the moronic mob rule of representative democracy.
>>17798051
ALL governments exist to subjugate you. That is their entire point: To impose the rule of their laws on those within their jurisdiction.
>>17798020
>A OWG is the only logical end to our species
/thread
Bwahahah
>>17798020
>There is no NWO, no one pulling the strings.
This is ignorance to a degree. There may not be a small cast controlling world affairs, but there is certainly a small cast controlling particular nations which only grow bigger with time. There comes a point where they in fact will be akin to a NWO.
where as I agree with your premise that unification can be beneficial for humanity as a whole, it really depends on the unifyer.
I think (or at least IMO) that the majority of outlash at the concept of a NWO hinges on this concept. If we unify under a corploitical agenda for example, it's not in the interest of humanity, but it's in the interest of the business.
We can see this sort of unification in the past and it is known as a monarch. There really is no difference.
>>17798020
>Any rational, peaceful person can see that.
If you want peace people need choice aka freedom. There is no possibility that there will ever be a successful single government without fascist rule because people all think differently.
This would never bring peace outside of a forced, manufactured "peace" where all opposition is immediately crushed for the "good of society".
If you've ever really looked into who has power in this society then you wouldn't be so eager to have a single ruling body. People grasp at power when they want power. They get it when they're willing to do whatever it takes to get there. It's NEVER really the good guys who are in charge and giving them absolute power is a bad idea. Self-policing never works so who would make sure things were okay if they ever went in the decidedly wrong direction?
>>17798212
Governments exist because individual humans aren't worth much. We require society. Society requires goverment and law or else it descends into chaos. Self-governing anarchy is a fucking fantasy.
>>17798222
I suppose I agree. All I meant re: no NWO is that there is no international shadow organisation running the world. There are forces that dictate how nations behave, but they're all essentially self-interested capitalists.
NWO means "NO WHEAT OK?"
THE AWAKENING HAS BEGUN GLUTEN FREEDOM IS AT HAND.
if dubs this is true
>>17798274
>>17798274
>but they're all essentially self-interested capitalists.
This is true, but at some point the self-interested capitalist realize that joining each other to suit each others self-interest are beneficial to both parties. This is how monopolies form. Which we see most prominently in the ever expanding corporate globalization. There are corporations out there that have more money than most countries, with this sort of financial leverage it is a very small hurdle to affect governments and their laws regardless of their global location.
>>17798306
Yeah, this is all true. Globalised capitalism creates huge problems, but then so would globalised communism. Capitalism at least leads to competition, and thus technological progress. It's a stepping stone, a necessary evil that will, with proper legislation, lead to a better future. But you raise good points about political leverage- it will be difficult to make these changes as long there is a massive difference in technology worldwide. But this gulf will gradually close, as it already is, and a OWG will form from the bones of global capitalism.
>>17798302
It actually means No Working Ovens. THE TIME OF OVEN TYRANNY IS AT AN END
>>17798020
Because the people at the top who have caused all the issues with the planet today directly are the ones trying to institute said government.
They are literally the worst possible choice at this point and its nothing more than a power grab thats going to make things even worse for everyone else.
>>17798158
>Is there any evidence that this is a bad idea? Closest analogue to a technocracy I'm aware of is Singapore.
Considering the nasty shit corporations/banks/Military industrial complex gets away with now and the things they do to be allowed to do so, yes there are literally mountains of evidence.
>>17798201
t.Someone who doesn't live in the EU
Beacause of the people who lives in each country, They have their own opinions, culture, festivities...
But there are some things ''near'' to a country of countries.
The UK is composed of England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland + Crwon territories. But those all parts of the UK were united by using force (Invasion of native-americans, australian people etc...)
Spain, The USA, France, India, China, Norway... those all countries have divisions (Provinces, or states)
Maybe the solution is to unite the world but conserving all those frontiers, cultures, and idioms
Yeah, I also don't see why a OWG would be a bad thing, if it is democratic. Nations only hold us back, if the whole world took care of each other everyone would live much better lifes.
>>17798348
>Globalised capitalism creates huge problems, but then so would globalised communism
Then why would you pretend that one worldwide government is a good idea? Listen to what you're saying. If completely different systems would be totally fucked up then it's not the various systems, it's the idea of having a global government that's faulty. You shouldn't defend your ideas even when you realize they're bad, just to be right.
>>17799695
I agree except for democracy...
The majority of people are easily swayed; democratic elections are easily controlled with savvy marketing.
Our choices aren't our choices
1984
>>17798020
You are either retarded or a stooge.
OWG is the global fascist state of the Antichrist, every problem that nations "create" is in reality the work of the NWO.
This is not a conspiracy, many leaks prove this as a fact.
No go read Saint John's Apocalypse.
>>17799275
>>17799498
Basically this. The people working towards world government right now aren't that great, even discounting NWO-type theories. They're authoritarian, corporatist assholes. Maybe if it wasn't Rockefeller, Soros, Koch, Bush, and Clinton being the major players in the trade deals that work towards world government.
I'd like a UN-type organization that actually worked and whose delegates were directly elected, not selected by already-elected politicians or their employees. The way world government is coming around now looks more like an EU - complete power over its member states with representatives from member states who are essentially powerless with the policy being dictated by the bureaucrats.
>>17798036
You and your God can fuck off back to your parent's basement........
I agree with OP in some ways.
First of all, there is no demon or anti-christ, or jesus or god, that's just fucking retarded and we all know it. All there is are people being dicks to each other, face up to it for fuck's sake and stop making shit up to excuse our behaviour. Humanity is horrible.
The more I see on a NWO the more I agree with it being a good idea on paper.
The problem however is that people are inherently corrupt, and a NWO would be the most corruptible piece of shit I could possibly imagine.
I agree with the overall aim of a NWO (if the conspiracy is to be believed, which is really isn't) but even if it initially had the best intentions humanity itself would fuck itself over, just like it always has, just like it always will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g
There is only one way to implement a Global Government without stomping on people's freedoms. And it goes like this:
If a locale region within a nation has a law that disagrees with the nation's law, then if either at the locale level, or the national level the law says the action is legal, then it is legal. But if the nation says it's illegal, while the locales agree it's legal, then it's legal while in that locale region. But if the nation says it's legal, and the locales say it's illegal, then it's still legal. The only way to make an action NOT permissible is if both the locale and national levels outlaw it. But, if even one of those levels make an action YES permissible, then it is legal at all levels lower.
This is the mathematical definition of freedom. You can basically do whatever you want, except place restrictions on others' freedoms. If you want to do a thing, nobody can really stop you. You can always just declare yourself a sovereign nation of one, and go streaking in the streets. But, by doing so, you give up the privileges of being a local. They wouldn't have to serve food, or supply energy to a sovereign nation outside of their jurisdiction.
Using a more realistic example, if the U.S. were a free nation, then the Federal government would not be undergoing periodic raids on certain marijuana farms in States where marijuana is decriminalized. The fact that the Federal government acts as if Federal law supercedes State law indicates that the Federal government is not a free government, and in fact is not actually a U.S. government at all, but some kind of strange foreign power that is not beholden to things like the U.S. Constitution.
cont...
>>17800364
Or with Russia, if Russia were a free nation, then they would not be able to annex eastern Ukraine, since eastern Ukraine doesn't want to be part of Russia. Crimea is perfectly free to join the Russian empire if Crimea wishes to do so. However, neither Crimea or Russia, if they were nations of a free world, would have the authority to decide for other nations how those other nations implement their laws. Even if it was determined that Ukraine was already in fact a part of Russia, and had always been a part of Russia, that still wouldn't make it permissible for Russia to implement laws at Ukraine's local level.
However, if people of Ukraine decided they wished to join the Russian empire, then they would be free to do so, since in a free world, even at the locale level a locale region cannot prevent a person from doing anything that is legal on a national level. The only way, in a free world, for a locale region to make something NOT permissible is if both the locale level and the national level above agree that such an action would not be permissible, and only if the person it would not be permissible for considers of their own volition to be a local of the regions which consider it not permissible.
That's how freedom works. It's ain't complicated. The day a Global Government wants to implement that kind of system, I am all for it. God help me, but I might have to actually do something about it, and explain to people over, and over again how freedom works possibly with diagrams.
>>17798020
Sovereignty...
Duh!!!
>>17800386
This is how to successfully implement a Global Government, in such a way that every country maintains its own sovereignty.
The catch is, by its own admission, this system can't be forced upon everyone. I can share it with you, and you can share it with others, but it only works if every single person who joins this style of thinking does so by their own choice.
Think of this model as a test for freedom. U.S. leaders frequently call themselves the leaders of the free world. Well, are they the leaders of the free world? Not according to this system. According to this system, they do not pass the test. So, either this system is incorrect, or it is correct. You tell me.
>>17798020
>One World Government
Not going to happen until climate change kills most people and the people left fight who will rule the survivors.
>>17798201
>As our cultural differences are eroded by globalism
Haha to think there are people so ignorant about human nature.
>>17800707
Don't make fun of anon, it's not natural.
tradition. old habits die hard.
>>17800707
I've lived on four continents. Yes, people are different, but not as different as they used to be. People in China watch the same movies we do. People in the Gambia eat at McDonalds. Everywhere people have access to the internet and a command of the English language, they have access to the whole world. This familiarity is gradually eroding the barriers between cultures. It's inevitable.
>>17801095
But they do die, one funeral at a time.
>>17798274
>individual humans arent worth much
Imbecile. We are worth nothing. Societies are worth nothung. All value is given. A convenient fiction. Society? It is just am abstraction for the interactions and processes among individuals. Individual? Every moment you are a different being due to the constant input your mind is subject to. What we are is just a set of patterns.
A world government would just leave us with no alternative in case shit hits the fan. Descentralization on the other hand helps us.
If you were truly rational and not just trying to impose your valies and bullshit as objective fact, you would not be saying the idiotic drivel you are spitting.
>>17798020
In civilization it means game over...I don't want a black screen before i end my life like a normal person
>>17798020
It has the potential to give the few more power over the many
I agree with you, OP.
This was an interesting read.
https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
>>17800364
So, you're OK with regions where it's legal to torture and rape children to death?
>>17801483
Decentralisation helps us to kill each other. It helps us create haves and have-nots. It helps us to kill our planet. Nation states are the root of famine, war and bigotry.
As a species, we thrive because of community. For our entire existence, this community has been limited by our technology. Now we have the ability to expand our community to a global scale, and eventually we will, and we'll be stronger for it.
>>17798020
because diversity is important.
>>17801541
The many are simple and need to be guided.
The newly built mass irrigation system in Libya was bombed by NATO along with the factory used to build the pipes so it could not easily be repaired.
Libya was invaded because Quadafi was attempting to establish a gold and silver-backed African dinar. He was tried of the West's colonial rule and control countries rich in oil and other natural resources. Qadafi funded Sarkozy's presidential campaign. He wanted to counter the "petrol dollar." He wanted sovereignty vs The West.
So NATO forces back radical rebels, arming them and overthrowing this threat to the current global monetary scheme. These rebels were known to fly the al-qaeda flag, and slaughter thousands of people.
This pool of radical rebels and the arms we provided pushed into Syria and morphed into ISIS.
In general, my point is that the global institutions of power that be and the people who run them manufacture war and produce mass slaughter, enslave nations through the financial lending system based around debt, and generally force and dictate behavior of people.
If people are inherently flawed, and power virtually always corrupts, why concentrate it in the fewest and grant them immense influence? Why establish a ruling class as disconnected from the populace as possible?
What value does liberty and choice and freedom have? Is all that matters the overall destitnation of the species as a whole, and mass deception and genocide along the way is fine?
But if you don't even recognize the relatively small amount of elite individuals in immense positions of power and the groups of organizations who influence global society and shape history on a massive scale, then it's hard to even discuss the merit of a one world government.
>>17801650
He never said that in any way.
>>17801660
Technological advancement is not limited by nation states.
Do you not know about the global powers vying for centralized control who regularly create wars, resulting in countless death and destruction of lives and communities, impoverishing millions?
Do you not know about powerful institutions instigating ethnic strife and conflict based on personal identity?
>>17801660
Nope.
It's not about mass community. It's not about putting all the power onto a single monarch. It's about Dunbar's Number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
Too much in the direction of communism, and it starts resembling exactly the kind of fascist nation communism strives to be different from, except the people whose job it is to redistribute the wealth to the "many" are the ones who become the new ruling class. See: 21st century United States. And if it goes the other way, concentrating power onto a few families or kings, then it instead resembles exactly the same kind of communism that fascism strives to be different from. See: 21st century United States.
It's about striking a balance. And it turns out, for most humans, that balance is about at 150 people. That's the number of friends and family they can and should be sharing their wealth and property with. Any more than that, and their brains are unable to distinguish friend from foe. Any less than that, and they go anti-social, and start hoarding everything to the detriment of others.
Exceptions are of course exceptional. I've met individuals (who incidentally had well above average sized craniums) that were capable of authentically socially connecting with at least a thousand people as if they were close friends. In other words, at least 1,000+ people consider this guy their best friend in the world, whereas he considers them all as equals. He's a natural leader.
Likewise, there's more and more individuals each day that do just fine working and supporting themselves, without succumbing to psychosis or rampant greed. They simply want to be a cog in the system, and don't require large groups to meld with, except their workstation and computer at home. Their Dunbar number is lower, but as a result they don't require as much social fondling to stay well.
>>17801698
Under his system, how would such behavior be curtailed?
>>17798020
>I'm okay with someone living 6 thousand miles away dictating how I can live my life.
China is a great and vast land that was conquered and now is ruled by a single government. Is there equality in China?
Were all the countries under Soviet control have a high quality if life?
>>17798020
YOU KNOW NOTHING JON SNOW
If theres no NWO then what is Davos and the World Economic Forum?
"According to political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, who is credited with inventing the phrase "Davos Man",[63] they are people who "have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the élite's global operations" "
Samuel Phillips Huntington (April 18, 1927 – December 24, 2008) was an American political scientist, adviser and academic. He spent more than half a century at Harvard University, where he was director of Harvard's Center for International Affairs and the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor. During the Carter administration, Huntington was the White House Coordinator of Security Planning for the National Security Council. He is most well known by his 1993 theory, "The Clash of Civilizations", of a post-Cold War new world order. He argued that future wars would be fought not between countries, but between cultures, and that Islamic extremism would become the biggest threat to Western world domination. Huntington is credited with helping to shape U.S. views on civilian-military relations, political development, and comparative government.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum#.22Davos_Man.22
>>17798020
The art of war is of vital importance to the State.It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.The MORAL LAW causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.HEAVEN signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons.EARTH comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and deathThe COMMANDER stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerity, benevolence, courage and strictness By METHOD AND DISCIPLINE are to be understood the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions, the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the control of military expenditure.These five heads should be familiar to every general: he who knows them will be victorious; he who knows them not will fail.
>>17798020
i am with you op we need to put a TERRAN flag on the moon instead of the american one. (btw i hope once this happens we have a nice looking flag)
>>17798020
People want to have control and think that they have then also control over all the cool things governments give you... Which is retarded.
I am thinking exactly the same. We all might live in full freedom, but also in poverty
>>17801949 Davos man sound like clever people. they see borders and singular governments as what they are: rubbish
>>17801312
and you know what'll happen eventually? The same thing that always happened historically to empires, even ones who had a pervasive culture.
They Get Rejected
They Get Rebelled Against
They Splinter
And The Splinters Fight
every fucking time.
>>17801660
Decentralization doesn't help us kill eachother, it prevents us from killing eachother for trivial fucking reasons.
You put everyone in the same fucking box governed by the exact same laws as they would in a consistent nation, you will see shitfits like never before. Laws stem from culture, and if you think culture is unified across the entire globe than you have seen Jack Shit.
Heres some nice stats from the Middle East alone.
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf
>>17798020
Sure is summery in here, wait till you're a bit older and you will start to get a better sense of why a worldwide oligarchy would be bad.
>>17798020
I'm for the idea in principle but there's a lot that could go wrong. Without a means of starving it for resources, government tends to take over all other aspects of life. Emigration, friction filled and inconvenient though it is, is still a good way for citizens to literally vote with their feet if they don't like what their government is doing. Imagine how much more quickly Democracy could unravel if people under Putin, Erdogan or Xinping had literally nowhere else to go. I think that is really the core of the distrust for the idea, totalitarian regimes don't do so well because talented people leave them. For all the wasteful bickering among the nations nowadays, they do prevent a totalitarian regime from taking over, because the best citizens gravitate to areas with more freedom. A similar dynamic would have to be present in a single world government (a Canton system perhaps?..) or it would be a short step to totalitarianism.
Now, perhaps you're all for Totalitarianianism. All I can say to that is, we probably don't have enough common assumptions to have a productive discussion.
>>17798020
because a one world government will not be democratic whatsoever
>Any rational, peaceful person can see that
Rational and peaceful don't go hand in hand anon.
If you're really rational you'll understand that peace starts when EVERYONE puts down their guns and ends when ONE PERSON picks it up again
I agree that it's a logical conclusion to our race, but it's being forced in that direction. Look at the EU. Forced down the throat of citizens, criticism is ignored, doesn't even have the majority support of the people in it's own member states and is on the verge of collapse because of it's expansion craze, the EU which was designed to keep peace and stability in europe has caused more tension between more member states then WW1&2 combined
wow sure is a lot of dumb fags and bootlicking fedoras trying to sound cynical about delegating your natural rights to a bunch of literal nepotistic criminals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM51M238SHU
>>17798020
sovereignity is a gift
look at what happens in european union.
there will be always us and them mentality
the abuse, the exploitation would be horrible.
you would still have extremely poor regions and rich regions. you would still have masters and slaves. only worse, because all the power would be concentrated officially among the chosen few.
now, at least we can still manifest our destiny, even if it's not as much as I wish we could. but it's still better than nothing
>>17801317
well, then they apparently are revived, because the whole world turns right
and it's only the beginning
IGNOR NONBELIEVERS AND CYNICS! POST TERRAN FLAGS!
>>17801670
Speak for yourself.
Gee, why could people be opposed to a massive, world spanning government imposing a single will on every human population regardless of their widely disparate cultures, languages, and heritage? Must be persecution complexes!
