We Are Headed Towards World Totalitarian Rule

[aquatus1]

I can appreciate that. Although ofcourse, I do think it is quite obvious the governments of a lot of nations are more 'motivated' to 'govern' in favor of big business than their constituants. I also think this is not an exception to the rule, but a structural phenomena based on the nature of how the system works, how it is designed. To keep 'exercising your right to vote' is to legitimize that faulty system.

Governments are more motivated to govern in favor of big business because they are allowed to do so by the people who voted them in. Of course the people voted in are going to take advantage of it; that's the nature of humans, not of governments. To refuse to vote accomplishes nothing in terms of achieving greater control, of sending a message, or anything of any practical value. Voting, on the other hand, gives you the ability to legitimately demand of the person you voted in a certain obligation of reciprocity.

One can ignore the present trend, the division of society between the haves and have nots - where rights are added to the former and taken from the latter - but it will come back and bite said person in the **** at some point in time. And when that time comes, that person wouldnt even have those despized whiny fat-asses from the good ol' U.S. of A to seek any form of support from.

Protip: It isn't a present trend. It is the history of humanity. It has all happened before, and it will all happen again. The difference is that we are finally at a stage where we can do something about it that doesn't involve yet again descending into savagery.

And I wouldn't use the word "despise". Not respect, certainly. Mild contempt, sure. Would I ask them for any support? No. To be perfectly frank, I would consider them to be a liability at best. Much like George Washington, I find that individuals with guns, not organized into a well-regulated militia, to be not only an ineffective mode of defense, but even a negative one, meaning that it would actually be preferable to not have them than to have them.

'Tyranny' as a rule doesnt arise from one day to another - never has, never will - it grows with minute incriments, babysteps. Crazed and deluded as these whiney fat asses might be, its not as though they have no basis to work with. Or would you say all is fine & dandy in the good ol' U.S. of A.?

I would say that you have a rather curious view of tyranny. As a rule, tyranny does indeed arise in a dramatically short amount of time, and it is certainly not subtle about it. What country are you thinking of when you state the above? What example is in your mind when you talk about an established democratic government slowly subverted into a tyranny? I personally can't think of one. History teaches us that tyrannies arise from very specific circumstances, live a rather predictable existence, and then fade away, either when the tyrant dies or as a victim of its own success. I'm curious to hear your support for your above claim.

[Phaeton80]

Governments are more motivated to govern in favor of big business because they are allowed to do so by the people who voted them in. Of course the people voted in are going to take advantage of it; that's the nature of humans, not of governments. To refuse to vote accomplishes nothing in terms of achieving greater control, of sending a message, or anything of any practical value. Voting, on the other hand, gives you the ability to legitimately demand of the person you voted in a certain obligation of reciprocity.

Agree completely, people will commit these self- enriching acts over the heads of the public because the public allows it to happen. I do not agree however not voting will not achieve anything. I would pose the direct opposite, again; given the design of the present system. Voting in another 'sponsored candidate' from this two party system will do nothing but consolidate the status quo, simply because that person is merely (s)elected by virtue of corporate 'donations'.. This individual is, for all intents and purposes, owned by 'artificial persons' whom have very different interests than those of 'natural persons'. This faulty system is legitimized - ie. approved - by every vote made. If and when enough people refrain from voting, this system will collapse - lose its 'legitimacy' - because of it. Left to its own accord, with the self enrichment culture already prevalent across the board - in addition to the very limited two party landscape - nothing is going to change any time soon without actually changing the system itself. Or would you put your cards on a new Obama, hoping for a new savior promising 'change'?

Protip: It isn't a present trend. It is the history of humanity. It has all happened before, and it will all happen again. The difference is that we are finally at a stage where we can do something about it that doesn't involve yet again descending into savagery.

Well ofcourse, these are re- occuring cycles. With 'present trend', I meant to state we are presently swiftly sliding on the downward part of the parabola, yet not quite far enough to be powerless to move against it. If there was ever any real chance to effectively act against it. it might very well be now.

And I wouldn't use the word "despise". Not respect, certainly. Mild contempt, sure. Would I ask them for any support? No. To be perfectly frank, I would consider them to be a liability at best. Much like George Washington, I find that individuals with guns, not organized into a well-regulated militia, to be not only an ineffective mode of defense, but even a negative one, meaning that it would actually be preferable to not have them than to have them.

The picture of a certain group of civilians you are painting here does sound negative, crazed dangerous group of people.. I wouldnt know because I dont encounter that sort of people where I live. That would indeed pose a liability to the general public. Another liability however, is to sweep all people critical of the present state of affairs on the same stereotypical heap. Which would be very unwise, obviously.

I would say that you have a rather curious view of tyranny. As a rule, tyranny does indeed arise in a dramatically short amount of time, and it is certainly not subtle about it. What country are you thinking of when you state the above? What example is in your mind when you talk about an established democratic government slowly subverted into a tyranny? I personally can't think of one. History teaches us that tyrannies arise from very specific circumstances, live a rather predictable existence, and then fade away, either when the tyrant dies or as a victim of its own success. I'm curious to hear your support for your above claim.

That depends on what point one would define as 'tyranny rising'. Would that be when a coup is made by a tyrannical political party, when a tyrant actually assumes or is elected into power? Or is it when we see certain steps made within an existing democracy which facilitate a growing elitist element within that society? Which slowly but steadily removes rights and liberties from the one group, while maintaining or even increasing thesame for another. Alexis de Tocqueville had some interesting thoughts on the subject of tyranny arising from democracy. To provide some examples of good (ideological) intentions (relatively) slowly turning into forms of tyranny I could mention Ancient Greece, the Roman / Byzantine Empire, Napoleonic France, and 20th century Cuba. Quite sure I could name more if Id put some time into it.

"Tyranny may appear suddenly, through foreign invasion for example, but it most often works its way insidiously through the political system."

http://www.amazon.com/The-Path-Tyranny-History-Societys/dp/0982604017#reader_0982604017

[+Hammerclaw]

Oh yes, multiculturalism under one government rule worked so well in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, let's try it out on the whole world, this time.

[Ichihara]

Oh yes, multiculturalism under one government rule worked so well in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, let's try it out on the whole world, this time.

people cant agree what color is most beautifull...

[ellapenella]

Yes, good point Rhuairidh.. When there is only one voice, one ruling body, it would be beneficial to conflicting claims to land and sovereignty.

Question ofcourse is, do the advantages outweigh the risks? Which empire, which political union to date, has been unmoved by corruption? Look at Rome, the US, the UN, the EU.. If these are indicative in any way, and they are, we should simply not desire such a course.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Only a matter of time, unless ample safeguards are implemented to shield against such developments. Evenmore, if one has any knowledge about the present 'movers and shakers' who are promoting this 'one world government', extreme scrutiny is in order.

Lots of really strange things are occurring . Like weather anomalies , if that's even the correct term to categorize the many floods, earthquakes , sinkholes, landslides ect...

And all the fighting going on , the fraud going on globally . Makes me take a few moments and reflect on the cause of why America became a great Nation , America was a beautiful concept, still is . I'm grateful to be an American , I know in my heart why America is so great.

I refuse to give up hope , at least not just yet . I know that there's so called leaders making wrong choices 'cause of their twisted ideologies , as if they know better than George Washington and other greats, they don't .... thinkers like this admin. are destroying lives everywhere, and for what - political agendas ? ...

I think that when a person loves God they have true compassion. The letters left by the founders proved insight that they had true compassion , they were believers despite of the peoples failures along the way at times.

God is merciful and loving , and sometimes , people have to go to war, because if they don't , people like Isis and their sick twisted ideologies will harm humanity.

When I reflect on all wars throughout time , it's apparent that it's always been because of a seriously dangerous radical group trying to conform and control everyone to their standards of ideologies .

It would be wonderful if other nations in turmoil would adopt such amendments written in the constitution for their nation , and try to hold onto them.

As for talks of new world order , there's too many congressmen that would not allow it, and that's why after so many years it has never happened.And it never will. I just want my nation back , the way it was intended to be, even though it will never be perfect , it still had that greatness about it....

Hopefully 2016 will begin with a leader that is fair, and of true compassion , someone with love of the founding fathers dream.....

Edited August 13, 2014 by Reann

[Phaeton80]

The blueprint for the USA is, or should be the template for the rest of the world (US Constitution - Bill of Rights) imo. It is the last bastion of true Freedom, even to this day. This is why it is being destroyed from the inside. This is also (mostly) why I am so concerned regarding the developments there, and why I would defend it (meaning the US Constitution) with my life - eventhough I am not a US citizen, nor have I ever been. Eventhough the US ruling body has been a major factor in almost all negative int. macro developments, starting after WWII (transference of world superpower role from British Empire to US of A).

[NiteMarcher]

D. Eisenhower

Late senator Daniel Inouye

http://youtu.be/t4Ku1CzaR9g

[Likely Guy]

As nations clump together like a snowball, the blurred lines between nations will fade. Eventually nations will be nothing more than territories within the ruling associations. As the great divide between the Rich & Poor expands, the likelihood of Totalitarian rule becomes more likely. As the Rich get Richer,the rich will buy more power. Loyalty to nations will diminish as loyalty to wealth becomes more important. The world is driving towards a world of Freelancers that will sell their services to the highest bidder. As the Rich get Richer, the more influence they have on nations. All this has been happening for years under the disguise of economics, free trade agreements. NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and the European Union are completed blocks. When there are enough completed blocks in the world, they will forge together in the interest of economics. The world will not be won over by wars, the world will be won over by economics. Only 'rogue' nations that defy the economic snowball will see wars.

Yeah, sure. I'm sure that this same sentiment has been expressed world wide since the time of the Romans or Ghengis Khan.

...and yet we're still no closer to world totalitarian rule.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Likely Guy

[Frank Merton]

Who knows what the future holds. I personally think a benign autocracy without political parties would be close to ideal, but it has such a danger attached to it that most, probably rightly, would never allow it to happen. How does one be sure the autocrat will stay benign?

A single global government, though, is needed, and we pretty much have one. Not the United Nations -- it is getting better but still is pretty much a joke, but the network of international treaty organizations, especially the WTO, combined with all sorts of conventions dealing with specific problems, such as global warming, freedom of the seas, human trafficking, endangered species, money laundering, human rights, and so on.

As nations learn more and more how to act together to pull errant nations into line using embargoes and sometimes force, and as economies and political systems move more and more toward each other (i.e., socialists become more capitalist and capitalists become more socialist), and as the overall level of health and education and living standards improves and evens out, a single world seems inevitable.

[Likely Guy]

Damn it Frank, when you used the term 'benign autocracy' I was going to call you out onto the carpet. But the way you further explained it, it makes sense.

We are, after all, a family of neighbouring states. When our neighbour beats his wife or child, shall we not collectively castigate them?

Edited September 11, 2014 by Likely Guy

[DONTEATUS]

Its not a color thing ,Its more of a Have`s ,Have Nots kinda thing ! Until we rid our planet of such differences in class,and wages were always going to be up against the wall !

que "PINK FLOYD"

[Erowin]

Unless the world becomes one giant country, with one ruler (not going to happen) this is pretty impossible. We're humans. We won't all get along no matter how rich some of us might be. World leaders have tried and failed to work together many times because someone disagrees or gets the short end of the stick and gets angry. Every country forming a single secret agenda they all follow is basically impossible.

[Likely Guy]

Unless the world becomes one giant country, with one ruler (not going to happen) this is pretty impossible. We're humans. We won't all get along no matter how rich some of us might be. World leaders have tried and failed to work together many times because someone disagrees or gets the short end of the stick and gets angry. Every country forming a single secret agenda they all follow is basically impossible.

The premise of this thread might be that "the elites (i.e. rich people) are conspiring to control the global economy, perhaps outside of democratic means. (I'm going to being lazy and I'm not going back to the OP.)

But isn't that something that the super-rich and super-powerful have done since time immemorial, even before there was a 'global economy'?

I don't believe that there's a global cabal to control the world, because the richest people in the world 50 years ago aren't the same people anymore. As long as the rich people are fragmented, there can never be 'world totalitarian rule'.

Edit: I'm quite happy to be a plebeian.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Likely Guy

[Frank Merton]

A one-world totalitarian government is not likely as things are going, but it could happen. What we are headed for instead is an absolute mess.

[Phaeton80]

A one-world totalitarian government is not likely as things are going, but it could happen. What we are headed for instead is an absolute mess.

..Which ('absolute mess') is exactly what would usher in, or foment rather, the definitive consensus we require a one world government to attain 'peace'.

Utter BS ofcourse, but that is how the masses would, or will see it.

[Frank Merton]

Human history is an absolute mess and there is no sign this is about to change.

[darkmoonlady]

Human history is what it is. I would most assuredly rather be alive now than at any other point in history. Go back fifty years or a hundred and soon its no civil rights, women have no vote, further back slavery, further back you were at the mercy of feudalism, further back you were at the mercy of invaders who murdered your whole village. The news of late seems dark and it is but in the context of history now is the best time to be alive. Our tiny little blue planet isn't perfect but all the gloom and doom stems from the fact that if something bad happens anywhere we hear about it right away. A lot of the world is peaceful, prosperous and happy.

[Frank Merton]

There has been technological, social, and even moral progress in much of the world. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[aquatus1]

..Which ('absolute mess') is exactly what would usher in, or foment rather, the definitive consensus we require a one world government to attain 'peace'.

Utter BS ofcourse, but that is how the masses would, or will see it.

BS? How so?

It is precisely the same way it has happened throughout history. It isn't BS. It is human behaviour.

[user150743]

To all those folks out there who think it is inevitable we end up under the auspices of the NWO; take a good hard look aound. We are there folks, we are there, lock, stock and barrel. The part which p*sses me off the most, we have been locked in for eons and just won't stop kicking the door trying to get out............................to........what ? We are incarcerated on this planet and our keepers know this and we have been over the barrel thanking them for the pleasure serving them and shafting us, asking them; as Oliver Twist voiced, " More Please. "

[Frank Merton]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Wolf! Wolf!

[Jack_of_Blades]

Unless the world becomes one giant country, with one ruler (not going to happen) this is pretty impossible. We're humans. We won't all get along no matter how rich some of us might be. World leaders have tried and failed to work together many times because someone disagrees or gets the short end of the stick and gets angry. Every country forming a single secret agenda they all follow is basically impossible.

Exactly. As I've always saw it: someone has to have an insane amount of faith in humanity to believe that a NWO isn't only happening but that

it will "work". Which in a way is sad. We almost need planet unity to expand outwards into the solar system.

FFS, we're an animal that can't agree on which way the toilet paper is supposed to hang. And people believe there is a massive, secret global society

that is able to remain completely tight-lipped and manipulate everything behind the scenes while also getting along? It's almost egotistical to believe

humans can pull that off.

When I reflect on all wars throughout time , it's apparent that it's always been because of a seriously dangerous radical group trying to conform and control everyone to their standards of ideologies .

Except it hasn't. More wars have been fought over resources and who gets the right to sit in a pretty chair than heroic battles against infinitely evil despots. It's important to note

that the winners get to write the history books too. For example if the Founding Fathers had lost they may have ended up being known as a small band of terroists that

tried to hijack some British colonies because they didn't want to pay the cost of being protected during the French and Indian War.

Hopefully 2016 will begin with a leader that is fair, and of true compassion , someone with love of the founding fathers dream.....

So long as career politicians are a thing, I think it will be more of the same stuff we've been dealing with for decades.

[mister]

World government can come in many packages. It can be a world regulatory body that regulates co2, or a global army to fight terrorism like Henry Kissinger and Bill O'Reilly suggested this week. All they need is one global organization that has the ability to tax. Once they have that, they can expand the organization from there.

[Phaeton80]

BS? How so?

It is precisely the same way it has happened throughout history. It isn't BS. It is human behaviour.

..For the very simple reason we do not need a one world government to attain 'world peace'. To the contrary. A one world government constitutes more of an undesirable construct than a desirable one, in this context.

Because true 'peace' is attained through Freedom, which equals self determination, which implies local sovereignty and a large degree of self sufficiency. If we can use technology to create prosperity throughout the world like we have done in the West, and add some 'maturing' of the Human race, only then will we have a real chance of true 'Peace'. In my opinion.

Any 'peace' imposed on us by a world government is no peace at all, but more a consolidation of suboptimalisation (I strongly believe a bottom up rule is superior to the top down version - the latter almost per definition causing suboptimal performance). A great potential for an institutionalisation of (implicit) global serfdom. Especially, especially given the present (childlike) state of Mankind. Such power will corrupt, without any doubt.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Phaeton80

[Frank Merton]

World government can come in many packages. It can be a world regulatory body that regulates co2, or a global army to fight terrorism like Henry Kissinger and Bill O'Reilly suggested this week. All they need is one global organization that has the ability to tax. Once they have that, they can expand the organization from there.

Yea worldwide unification will sneak up on the nativists and jingoists and so on of the world. International regulations for things like environmental issues, organized crime, trade policy, tourism, and all sorts of other things are badly needed and slowly are evolving. As it is these organizations do have an ability to level taxes -- on nations rather than individuals -- and at the present time countries can avoid paying these assessments, although with consequences.

I think this sort of a system is not really that bad. It isn't nice and neat but maybe lack of neatness will protect people from autocracy.