one world government control...not for me thank you

1. 66

   SparklingJewelposted 13 years ago

   ...there's this thing called sovereignty, individual and national, that some don't seem to appreciate. Maybe its because they don't understand their own degree of brainwashing that they have accepted.
   I don't claim that everyone is right about everything, but Agenda 21 and the UN ideas of one world government really ring creepy and enslaving...an idea of minds that have lost their freedom and individuality.
   
   
   http://endoftheamericandream.com/archiv … governance

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Dave Mathewsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      One World, One Ruler, One Government, World Peace, No More Illness, Pain and Sufferings, No More Natural  Disasters, No More Hunger, No More Need For Money,this is going to be the future of the world.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         And just what in history would lead you to assume all that, Dave?

         replyreport
      2. 66

         SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         ...ok robomaton man

         replyreport
      3. 60

         Eric Newlandposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I'm extremely interested in hearing how we're going to end natural disasters.

         replyreport
   2. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Another non-issue.
      
      They (Woodrow Wilson) all saw these periods as opportunities to implement idealistic proposals for global governance in the sense of new collective efforts to address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve, while always respecting the right of nations to self-determination. These proposals led to the creation of international organizations, such as the United Nations and NATO, and international regimes, such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which were calculated both to maintain a balance of power in favor of the United States as well as regularize cooperation between nations, in order to achieve a peaceful phase of capitalism. These creations in particular and liberal internationalism in general, however, would always be criticized and opposed by American ultraconservative business nationalists from the 1930s on.[8]...
      
      In the 1960s, right-wing populist individuals and groups with a producerist worldview, such as members of the John Birch Society, disseminated a great deal of conspiracy theories claiming that the governments of both the United States and the Soviet Union were controlled by a cabal of corporate internationalists, greedy bankers and corrupt politicians intent on using the United Nations as the vehicle to create the "One World Government". This right-wing anti-globalist conspiracism would fuel the Bircher campaign for U.S. withdrawal from the U.N.. American writer Mary M. Davison, in her 1966 booklet The Profound Revolution, traced the alleged New World Order conspiracy to the creation of the U.S. Federal Reserve System in 1913 by international bankers, who she claimed later formed the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921 as the shadow government. At the time the booklet was published, "international bankers" would have been interpreted by many readers as a reference to a postulated "international Jewish banking conspiracy" masterminded by the Rothschilds.[12]
      
      Claiming that the term "New World Order" is used by a secretive elite dedicated to the destruction of all national sovereignties, American writer Gary Allen, in his 1971 book None Dare Call It Conspiracy, 1974 book Rockefeller: Campaigning for the New World Order and 1987 book Say "No!" to the New World Order, articulated the anti-globalist theme of much current right-wing populist conspiracism in the U.S.. Thus, after the fall of communism in the early 1990s, the main demonized scapegoat of the American far right shifted seamlessly from crypto-communists who plotted on behalf of the Red Menace to globalists who plot on behalf of the New World Order. The relatively painless nature of the shift was due to growing right-wing populist opposition to corporate internationalism but also in part to the basic underlying apocalyptic millenarian paradigm, which fed the Cold War and the witch-hunts of the McCarthy period.[12]
      
      Wikipedia

      replyreport
      1. 66

         SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         ...well, looks like they got wiki, too 

         replyreport
2. 0

   EmpressFelicityposted 13 years ago

   The trouble with a one world government is that there's nowhere to run to if it turns into a tyranny.
   
   And "no money" translates as "kiss the last of your freedom goodbye".

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      +1

      replyreport
3. 66

   SparklingJewelposted 13 years ago

   a quote from one of the many elitist of the Bilderberger group who want us to continue to be their slaves....
   
   
   "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." --
   
   David Rockefeller

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I've read that on the internet. I think, initially, they thought the internet, like the media, was their friend, now I think they believe it is their enemy. Too much freedom for their liking and their big protector Murdoch, is on the ropes. Interesting times.

      replyreport
4. 73

   Shanna11posted 13 years ago

   As long as I get to be head of the one world government, I think I'm okay with the idea.

   replyreport
5. 61

   luvpassionposted 13 years ago

   Will there be pie?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      kimberlyslyricsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       

      replyreport
   2. 66

      SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ...maybe, but I am sure they will convince you to have your cake and eat it too...for a price 

      replyreport
6. 69

   Ralph Deedsposted 13 years ago

   My impression is that nobody is advocating doing away with national sovereignty. They are talking about developing more effective international mechanisms to deal with various very real cross-border problems that require cooperation among nations on a regional and world wide basis--control of communicable diseases which result from increasing international travel and shipment of food; piracy at sea; terrorism; criminal drug cartels; currency transactions; human rights issues; international air traffic control; trade regulations; nuclear containment and disarmament; copyright enforcement; trafficking in child prostitution and so forth.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      luvpassionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Mr Deeds I'm always amazed at your grasp of world politics and politics in general.
      
      As long as there's pie

      replyreport
   2. 0

      EmpressFelicityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Do you not think that "requiring" countries to - say - commit a certain percentage of their GDP to giving overseas aid or implement recycling schemes is tantamount to having a global government? How else would these things be enforced?
      
      Unless of course it's all just a talking shop. But then again, a lot of British people probably thought that when we joined the EU. How wrong we were.

      replyreport