The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A world federation > Comments

A world federation : Comments

By John Avery, published 4/12/2018

We have the power to choose a future where international anarchy, chronic war and institutionalized injustice will be replaced by democraticand humane global governance.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
A stronger United Nations is the absolute worst thing that can be done to ensure peace. The world environment is constantly changing, and what is needed is many little experiments going on all over the world to find solutions best adapted to the local environment. That cannot happen if all world policy is dictated from a single place.

In addition, don't be so sure that the values you hold are held by the majority of people on the planet. If we implement a world wide democratic system, many of the rights you enjoy may soon be voted out by majority opinion.

The best way to ensure peace is to harness the worst aspects of human nature, not the best. In practice, this means selfishness, which means making money from trade. Relying on people to be good is a guarantee of failure.
Posted by SilverInCanberra, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 9:57:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stick to chemistry, John Avery. You're out of your depth on world governance.
Posted by calwest, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 10:22:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You don't have to read too far to see this bloke wants the world ruled by the elite, & he considers himself one of them.

Only an utter fool would attribute the lack of a world war to anything that happened at the UN. It was, & still is MAD, mutually assured destruction that has kept the threat of major world war at bay.

The fact that the US could obliterate both China & Russia simultaneously, & get their entire leadership in that has kept the threat well down.

The fact that they had a pretty fair chance of doing almost the same to the US, & probably get it's leadership in that too, has not been detrimental either. Elites only start wars if they are pretty sure they can win, & personally profit by them.

On the other hand, elites & bureaucrats are definitely the worst people to run anything. When you think about it you can see that China only started to prosper for the masses, after the cultural revolution. Having one of those worldwide, would probably do more for the common man than any UN or anything similar.

Not too sure about that either, when you consider the idea that the French Revolution was actually only a change of elites.

The only time a world government would be helpful to the majority is if a true external threat appears, although little green men are probably less dangerous to us than any grouping of our own elites.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 10:52:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So the solution for the problem that states are too big is... an even bigger state.
The solution for the problem of big brother is... an even Bigger Brother.
The solution for concentration of power is... an even bigger concentration of power.
The solution for tyranny is... an even bigger tyranny.

Go figure...
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 11:09:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, the lion will one day lie down with the lamb, and go vegan. Yes, one day, if we all simultaneously link arms and say "Om", all will be sweetness and light.

Yes, imagine no heaven, no countries, no possessions, a world where people fundamentally change their human nature spontaneously, somehow, where everybody shares everything, loves each other and lives in eternal peace.

Wouldn't it be lovely ? To work in such a society ? But revolutions all need more, not one but three components: uncritical workers (let's call them "Stakhanovites"), managers (let's call them "Lenins" or "Stalins") and executioners (let's call them, Dzerzhinskys, or Yagodas, or Yezhovs, or Berias, or Andropovs, they're all much the same; I don't know the names of major Chinese or Cambodian or Cuban or Romanian executioners).

So, brother and sister, when the New Day comes, which are you going to be ?

Fatuous nonsense: Russia and Ukraine sharing a government ? India and Pakistan ? The Saudi fascist dictatorship and the Iranian fascist dictatorship ? Britain and the EU ?

All Utopias lead almost immediately to fascist states. After all, all those who disagree, who aren't 'with the program', must somehow be extracted, for the Good of the People. Nobody is allowed to point out necessary adjustments to the Perfect Plan, even as the All-Knowing Leadership makes them.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 11:37:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Too many competing interests and old men with far too much
power/those who would change things with a rational plan, achieved via a series of first place preliminary steps. First being a war on poverty/want. Second the revesal of ongoing desertification/the emptying out of drought caused refugee camps.

Easy enough if the arms race is replaced using say a fifth of those committed resources, to the rollout of MSR thorium. Because it is something we cannot run out of/these reactors can also double as waste burners that very safely, progressively reduce the world's stockpile of nuclear waste, all while providing the world's cheapests most reliable, safe, clean, carbon free power!

The second is the roll out of deionisation dialysis dsalination that provides 95% potable water at quarter of the cost of traditional desalination. Also cost effective for broad scale cultivation/food/fibre production.

These two in combination are the only truly affordable option that will be available 24/7/capable of relatively rapidly reversing both desertification/climate change similtaneously.

When we have eliminated poverty/unmet need, we will have also eliminated the basic reasons nations choose to go to war! In its place dozens of now more prosperus nations engaging in trade that grants multiple benefits to others.

Replicated across the world, and it could be? We could agree to set up a guiding comitte with all nations represented, to nut out a workable arrangement for the UN that one, gives it teeth/two removes the power of veto, or the ability of the better resourced to buy power/influence.

There would also need to be a companion body with power to prosecute, as the essential anti corruption body! Would need among other things, the power to compell and test evidence with covertly deployed, space age lie dectection! Possible if we start right now and beaver away for a couple of centuries.

Or alternatively, do all who have preceeded us, thrown into the too hard basket or confine it to cloud cooku land, where most protagonists will declare it belongs!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 4 December 2018 11:59:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"We cannot leave this to the politicians. We have a responsibility towards future generations to take matters into our own hands,"

The French and Soviets identified the ruling class and stopped them from breeding . A few live off the coast of Iceland , west China and Tasmanian caves. Like smallpox, eradicated in 1980 , injection progammes can eliminate politicians fertility.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 12:12:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone who supports the UN even in its present form is raving; they haven't invented a word for someone who churns out stuff like this, because until recently, nobody would have suggested such nonsense.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 12:26:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

«Yes, one day, if we all simultaneously link arms and say "Om", all will be sweetness and light.»

Yes, one day this will be so again, except that human population will then be far too sparse to be able to link arms and we will enjoy our solitude anyway. It is not possible to have it in our day and age, not with the sort of population numbers we currently have.

Human numbers must drop drastically and if we won't do it voluntarily, then some war or plague will do it for us.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 12:30:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It could work . OLO is easily able to converse about technical details , review options and resolve agreeable solutions. Many Australians are eager to contribute as full and sober members.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 12:44:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The UN aside for a second.
The builder-berg Group have been very active in this cause now for over a century, only to have taken up the baton from the Rothschilds.
They started all this world dominance rubbish.
The BG have been called the Elite since the last century.
They are also known as the 'king makers' because they have been behind most of the POTUS.
The RC's are working towards world domination.
I don't want to believe it but there has been too much stuff recorded, then disappear soon after.
Try as you might to find any 'real' dirt on the RC's, you have to piece a myriad of different stories and info, to get even a hint of malfeasance.
Who financed the Napoleonic war with Britain?
Who gave a million pounds to both sides to finance the war and be there to pick off the winnings/spoils when one of them was victorious.
He 'rigged' the outcome and in doing so has held the world at ransom ever since.
Who was behind WWII?
Who was behind 9/11?
I know it sounds preposterous, of course it does, it has to, otherwise we would find out the truth and in so doing go after the bastards, every last incestuous disgusting one of them.
Anyway that's my opinion, maybe someone else has something to back some of this up with.
Posted by ALTRAV, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 6:11:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Miguel told Alfonso that Bilderberg paid for tortillas at Tegucigalpa and control 70% of the caravan while Rothschild own the chassis. The spare tyre is anyone's guess , info on it was lost at the Guatemala border.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 8:55:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since the end of the 19th century, university educated elites with the conviction that they are the smart ones, have had this utopian dream that they could create a world without human conflict. That is a noble goal, but I think that by now they should have the wit to figure out that they are dreaming the impossible dream. The elites figured out that kings and royalty could not create a perfect society. Emperors were just regal usurpers, and free market democracy had not achieved nirvana either. So Marx invented socialism, which promised heaven on Earth, and they have been stuck on that groove for almost 150 years.

Socialism promised everything. There would be no crime, because everybody would be equal, so why would people commit crimes? There would be no war because workers would not kill workers. Everything would be affordable because there would be no profit motive. Government's would be Big Brothers who's job was to look after the welfare of everybody.

And how did that work out? Socialism has been tried in 47 countries and it has failed in every one of them. 100 million dead.

But like a deeply religious person who has a compulsive need to think that he will somehow live forever, socialists need to believe that it has to work. It never worked on a national level, but now they are trying it on an international level. Now they demand open borders and free everything. And of course the UN supports their view.

That is because the UN is just a corrupt organization which, like leftist parties everywhere, panders to non European ethnicities and encourages them to be the agents of those whom wish to destroy western democratic, free market civilisation.

My closest example of the decline in western civilisation would be the total idiocy present at the fall of Singapore. With the Japanese Army advancing upon them, most of the residents of Singapore were more concerned with maintaining appearances and pretending that catastrophe was not drawing closer every day, than actually acknowledging reality and doing something practical to prevent their own destruction.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 8:58:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://eacpe.org/a-world-federation/

The books an eye opener, you get more 'fine-print'.

- Roadmap of the New World Order -

I had a flick through Chapter 8 'Obstacles To a World Federation' and then continued through Section A on AI.

Too many things here to mention, but they're telling us their plans.
People really have to read all this stuff for themselves.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 11:29:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given Avery's chipmunk like idealism I've taken the liberty of filming

him in action http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn7eHkCRYg8
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 12:17:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LRGO
"My closest example of the decline in western civilisation would be the total idiocy present at the fall of Singapore."

Philip S links Soros to taxes paid to Dutton's refugees. The UN began at the end of 1941 and the socialist Aust Army brought Japan to Singapore with its Marxist Co-Prosperity pansy and poppy druggies.
Posted by nicknamenick, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 6:05:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nah, you all have it wrong !
There is one group that has control of about a third of the world
countries and is rapidly taking over Europe.
They will push the UN aside as they already have control of the more
significant UN bodies. At present they will all sign the Migration and
refugee compacts up for signing this month in Morocco.
By implementing those compacts they can send their civilian armies into
more countries.
Any country dopey enough to sign up will not be able to use armed force
to repel their invasion.

Most of you really do not know what is going on.
It is not like they want to keep it secret, they are boasting about it !
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 10:43:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BAZZ, I am one of the biggest cynics on OLO, and I have my theories, but am reluctant to air them, for obvious reasons.
I am curious as to the info you have and who you think is behind what agenda.
If you are not too put out, I would really like to know your thoughts on anything relating to the idea of world dominance or the 'one world order'.
At the very least it may help me confirm or modify my current beliefs based on idle research and information collected so far.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 12:03:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BAZZ
"It controls 1/3 of world taking over Europe ".
YouTube founded by Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim, who were all early employees of PayPal.

https://www.youtube.com/unitednations
Official Channel of the United Nations. It is a front for the Saudi-Iran monolith and Theresa May just exited before the crunch.
Posted by nicknamenick, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 3:36:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A credit to you, John Avery, for this brilliant and compelling offering.

You have so clearly identified the deficiencies in the current operation of the UN and posited a viable plan for its reformation - so that it may eventually be capable of living up to expectations and ultimately have a real chance to realize its foundational objectives.

I see a real prospect for a World Federation, exercising an appropriate range of universal laws, within which 'umbrella' the world's nation states would then operate as individual federations, fully maintaining their own individual legal frameworks - but with their individual powers being appropriately constrained.

A multinational UN armed force, operating only within the full authority and authorization of the UN 'Federation', within it's, the UN's, established legal framework, could also be very effective - but only so subsequent to the required 'reformation' of the UN itself. (No veto powers.)

None of this would be easy; but then few worthwhile undertakings are.

The aspirations (hopes) expressed are indeed so very commendable:

<<We, the people of the world, not only have the facts on our side; we also have numbers on our side. The vast majority of the worlds peoples long for peace. The vast majority long for abolition of nuclear weapons, and for a world of kindness and cooperation, a world of respect for the environment.>>
<<We need a sense of the unity of all mankind to save the future, a new global ethic for a united world. We need politeness and kindness to save the future,politeness and kindness not only within nations but also between nations.>>
<<To save the future, we need a just and democratic system of international law; for with law shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.>>

We must live in hope.
(To be continued).
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 11:23:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont'd):

But, I think it will take more than the posited world-wide Get-Up-like movement of the masses to convince the world's 'powers' to fully embrace the most worthy objectives identified in your article:

<<We live at a critical time for human civilization, a time of crisis. Each of us must accept his or her individual responsibility for solving the problems that are facing the world today. We cannot leave this to the politicians. That is what we have been doing until now, and the results have been disastrous. Nor can we trust the mass media to give us adequate public discussion of the challenges that we are facing. We have a responsibility towards future generations to take matters into our own hands, to join hands and make our own alternative media, to work actively and fearlessly for better government and for a better society.>>

I note Allan B has made a creditable contribution on page 1 of this thread, whereas other posters generally appear like an uncoordinated rabble. (No offence intended - just an observation.)

Again, thank you John Avery for persevering in casting pearls, but I am unfortunately unable to identify an appropriate mechanism to duly propagate your most worthwhile proposition.

Hopefully an IT expert may step forward to undertake this challenge.
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 11:23:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Altrav that is a big request !
Obviously I was referring to the Islamic Jihad movement.
I believe that there is a left wing sub movement that has a world
government as its objective. I have no idea as to how well it is
organised, and how monolithic it is.
I would suspect it is a loose collection of amateur conspirators.
But I could have that wrong and it is more formally organised.

They seem to have made an informal association with the Islamists.
Why does "Making a Pact with the Devil" come to mind ?
Notice how the left quickly leaps to the defense of muslims.
They, the left, need to read about the Islamic term "Useful Idiots".
The left will be the first to face the three choices.
Germany's National Socialists had agreements with the Jihadists.

The UN Human Rights Commission is run by the Islamic countries and
a while back was chaired by Saudi Arabia even though the Islamic
countries have not signed the UN Human Rights Treaty.
UNESCO was in a similar situation when they declared that the Jews
never had a connection to Jerusalem.
It only needs a few more countries to fall into line and the
Left and Islamic alliance will have control of the UN.

I do not know how you can resolve all these bits into one conspiracy.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 6 December 2018 7:38:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why don't homosexuals start their own schools rather than expecting the rest of us to conform to their demands?

The problem, of course, is that the LGBTIQ community would have to raise the money to establish such schools. And that shouldn’t be any great problem for them. After all, they raised millions last year for the same-sex marriage campaign. As a group they seem to have large amounts of disposable income. And surely QANTAS and the other large business groups who backed them would do some of the heavy financial lifting.

They won't. They prefer to pressure government because the entire strategy of gay activists is built upon the Marxist paradigm involving the re-distribution of power.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 6 December 2018 9:34:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BAZZ, I believe in any endeavour in life, it is rarely only one entity doing something in isolation.
There are always different groups who are, possibly even co-incidentally working towards the same end, so it may not ever be the case for only one group, it may be several and in fact they are not in concert, but ultimately they will be in conflict, unless they capitulate.
My pet hate has become the Rothschilds and what they stood for and have become.
I'm not worldly enough to understand, nor spend too much time researching these things, but I have noticed anomaly and extractions of certain facts and information after they were once available, for all to see, but now, no more.
Why?
I find it conspicuous and suspicious, at the very least, yet fully expected if you are trying to cover your tracks.
I do believe there are, more than one group who arrogantly believe they want to run the world.
We can only hope, that these people, being the flawed animals they are, will never be able to come to terms with the thought that anyone else but their group should be in charge, and in so doing will set in motion the elements of their own undoing.
Dissent and disunity will eventually disrupt any dreams of world dominance.
We can only hope when/if that day comes, the groups will not find consensus and in fact begin a long and protracted battle against each other, leaving us alone.
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 6 December 2018 10:12:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn, exactly, and I still cannot find any reason for all this turmoil in schools and the need to hold the queers to a higher level of respect than the rest of the population.
What these fools are demanding falls well within the purview of discrimination.
Discrimination AGAINST the straight community.
They preach equality, but demand preference.
How does that work?
Nah, gather em' up and shove em' all back in the closet, then throw away the key.
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 6 December 2018 10:19:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by SilverInCanberra, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 9:57:56 AM

Answer- Thanks for your comments. Your views seem to coincide with mine. At least John Avery acknowledges some of the issues with the UN but seems to come to the wrong conclusion. Power needs to be kept low in the hierarchy. Otherwise the population is powerless and hasn't self determination. Sometimes the answer is to say "you stay on your side of the fence I'll stay on mine"- but when countries don't manage themselves such as their population it tends to bleed across borders and create instability- also business interests seek to dismantle borders to increase their markets- they need to be managed- in line with balance between Conservatism vs Libertarianism and Globalism vs Localism. Generally we shouldn't try to improve on nature- and should respect the community structures that have stood the test of time. John Avery seems to be a creature of the academic community that sees that the more minds working on problems of humanity the more chance of coming up with solutions- and the best chance of avoiding arms races. Sadly the academic community suffers from the common issue of assuming that man is naturally good- whether man is good or virtuous is influenced by the principles of their family, their community, their culture, their nation. Democracy is based on the idea that the people know what is best for themselves- but is destroyed when the planet is the electorate. Locke and Hobbes disagreed about the nature of man being naturally good or bad. It is related to the human condition that we have the choice of greatness or depravity. I agree with your comments about the experimental nature of communities and see it as embodied by Raphael Sanzio's masterpiece The School of Athens and the conflict between Rationalism and Empiricism and also Subjectivism. The main reason for conflict is scarcity due to population- there are too many people in the world.
Posted by Canem Malum, Friday, 7 December 2018 12:17:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 6 December 2018 10:19:27 AM-
Discrimination AGAINST the straight community.
They preach equality, but demand preference.
Nah, gather em' up and shove em' all back in the closet, then throw away the key.

Answer- I tend to agree. Diversity conflates possibility with probability and isn't democratic. Similar to the racist argument tries to paint straight people as gay bashers. The fact is most people aren't gay and don't feel comfortable with gay culture and don't accept gay culture as normal- but most people also understand that there are people that are different in the community and are happy with that so long as they don't proselytize it as normal. Many that use the term racist also seem to paint some as murderers and baby killers. Sadly to admit to supporting your own race is quickly becoming against the law in the West. The capitalists don't want community forces to undermine their efforts to increase the size of their markets. The socialists don't want the community to undermine their class warfare battle-lines. But what of the community- neither of the major parties care. As the Delai Lama says "Europe for the Europeans". We need to dis-empower the word racist- I can see no other way than to admit to it- and to challenge accusers such as socialists as to their racism. Socialists are racist! Every culture deserves their own nation! It is a battle between those that want change and those that don't - between Classical Liberals and Conservatives. Vote Conservative.
Posted by Canem Malum, Friday, 7 December 2018 12:57:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been buoyed by many on this thread. Thanks. Please keep it up.
Posted by Canem Malum, Friday, 7 December 2018 1:02:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is something utterly half-witted about this thread. World government ? The unity of all countries in the world under one government ? Are you kidding ?

Back in the fifties and sixties, amongst African liberation leaders like Nkrumah (Ghana) and Nyerere (Tanganyika/Tanzania) and Kenyatta (Kenya), there was a major push for the eventual federation and unity of African states. I still have Nkrumah's "Africa Must Unite". How did that go ? Have any two African countries 'united' ? Well, yes, Tanganyika and Zanzibar. Bits of Cameroun and Nigeria, i.e. those bits currently suffering uprisings and massacres. For a while, Mali and other west African countries formed an uneasy alliance before it collapsed.

If anything, Africa 'disunited': South Sudan broke away from Sudan, then has had its own bitter civil war ever since, mainly it seems, Nuer vs Dinka. Maybe Nuer vsDinka vs Shilluk vsNuba, etc. Civil war is the current fashion in Uganda, the CAR, Chad, Somalia (should Somalia be the test-case for successful world government?). South Africa can't even 'absorb' Lesotho or Swaziland. So African unity, one African government, is a long way off then.

If not African unity, then what about Asia ? China and India (and Pakistan) (and Afghanistan) under one government ? China and Vietnam ? Burma and Burma ? Bits of Sri Lanka with the other bits ? Japan and Korea and China ? China and Taiwan ? One Asian government ?

Central Asia ? Maybe. The Middle East - Saudi and Iran, under one government ? Maybe under Turkey, with Erdogan as the new caliph ? What, Turks, Arabs and Persians under one government ? ILTST.

Europe ? Russia, Ukraine and the rest of Europe under one government ? Even the EU and Scandinavia ?

Canada and the US ? The US and Mexico ? ILTST.

Brazil and the rest of South America ? A united Caribbean, at least just to field a decent cricket team again ?

And the most unlikely: Australia and NZ under one government ?

When any two countries anywhere form a single government, get back to us.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 7 December 2018 4:30:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe,

The article, and the concept outlined, are not about establishment of a 'World Government', but an altogether different fish - a 'World Federation', established by a major overhaul and reformation of the UN, to make it truly effective and give it the best possible chance of realizing its foundational charter of objectives: including world peace, economic harmony and stability, and fair developmental opportunity for all nations.
The proposition includes changed UN voting arrangements - with banding of small nations, so that each UN vote would be representing around the same number of citizens, and perhaps approximating that of the US, say - and with no veto powers, either in the congress thereof or, and perhaps most particularly, in the high-and-mighty Security Council.
The Federation might operate somewhat similarly to the EU, as far as Law and Business Regulation, and such, but each world state would still operate as a sovereign nation, but with its powers and laws being constrained under the broad 'umbrella' of the agreed powers and legal authority of The Federation.

Since the UN has operated very much like a limp squid and toothless tiger in recent times - slow to act and mediocre in action - and being easily manipulated by large powers coercing or 'bribing' small nations (who all have one(1) equal vote (an absurdity in itself) to vote 'their way'. (Viz 'Whaling Commission' manipulation as a similar example.)

Where's the downside to such a Federation? I mean, how much worse could it be to the way the UN and UN Security Council operate now? And, potentially so much better - if, and a big if, it would be possible to get all UN states to agree, particularly the 'big' ones (including of course, the likes of 'The Frump')!
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 8 December 2018 3:58:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The UN is now disqualified from any part in such a Federated government.
It is now largely under the control of the Organisation of Islamic Countries.
The OIC has its own Human Rights organisation and those members
have not signed the UN Charter of Human Rights as it conflicts with
Sharia Law and the Koran. However that does not stop them being
members of the UN HRC and even chairing it !

It has become an absurdity and another bit of Lefty Lunacy.
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 8 December 2018 5:32:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In reply to recent post by Saltpetre.

The article makes subtle reference to Confederation vs Federation. Suggesting that the current model is Confederate and the author wishes to move it to a Federal model. My reading is that the Federal model is more authoritative- it would increase the power at the top of the hierarchy. The article also suggests changing the UN structure to a Westminster- Separation Of Powers- style structure with Executive (UN Military Force), Judiciary(International Court), Legislature- but the outcome will be a world dictatorship as many commentators here have suggested.

Currently the UN is reliant on member states for their executive policing function. I have struggled with this too. But questions have to be asked- what would the UN use such a force for- and should the UN have juresdiction within countries through conventions such as the CCPR - Convention on civil and political rights- and the current pressure put on countries to create laws that coincide with these principles.

Overall the UN or similar organisations shouldn't have powers within countries but only between countries- to say otherwise is genocidal and utopian- it takes away the right of self determination- it tries to manage the individual from the top when it has no idea of the individuals circumstances.

There is the issue of genocide within countries and how to prevent it- better genocide of the few than genocide of the many- a work in progress.
Posted by Canem Malum, Saturday, 8 December 2018 9:59:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good points, Canem, but my understanding is that any UN armed force would be comprised entirely of voluntary contributions from the member states (except perhaps for a UN advisor or two). No separate UN force.

A World Government? No way. The proposal is only for a Federation approved and supported by the member states - for their own good, and for the good of the world at large.
So, the UN Federation would have to act like an arbitrator to resolve differences and disagreements between states - but with the power to apply pressure to achieve compliance, by law and presumably by sanctions, and with the application of force only as a very last resort - and then only of course with the approval of perhaps a two-thirds majority of the groupings or cadres of the member states.
I mean, you don't think one could launch an armed force (of any dimension or composition) against the US, China, the EU, or just about anyone other than perhaps Somalia or Yemen - and then only to restore order and economic stability/efficacy.
As all nations, and particularly US, China, UK, EU individual member states, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, all very much treasure their individual identities, cultures and quirks, a World Government of any ilk is so highly improbable as to be virtually an impossibility - unless, say, Earth was attacked by an alien invasion force.

The World could do far worse than have an honest, impartial, honourable and just overseer to offer wise counsel and stern reprimand to wayward movements, and more importantly to work for a far fairer utilization and distribution of finite resources and far greater cooperation to promote and realize the equitable achievement of political, economic and quality of life aspirations (and due entitlements) of all of the developing world states.
(Could also perhaps find an effective way to counter climate change, and most importantly to establish effective mechanisms to halt, and even reverse, current trends towards environmental and biodiversity catastrophe - before it's too late.)

Utopia - or Paradise Regained? (Ad infinitum?)
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:45:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From the Article...

At present, the UN is a confederation of absolutely sovereign nation-states. But in a world of all-destroying modern weapons, instantaneous global communi-cation, and economic interdependence, the absolutely sovereign nation-state has become a dangerous anachronism.
Furthermore, history has shown confederations to be fatally weak.
....
In general, political federations have the power to make laws which are binding on individuals, thus avoiding the need to coerce their member states.
....
It would be helpful if the UN had a standing armed force which could act quickly in such emergency situations. The force could consist of volunteers from around the world ...

__________

The article doesn't address the fundamental "supply side" scarcity of resources and "demand side" population issues behind conflict- it appears to attempt to solve the issues by a monolithic authority. The idea behind the design of the UN is such that "everyone and no one" gets to be the boss of the world. But we have moved beyond this now- population is now probably the biggest threat to humanity not nuclear weapons. In fact nuclear weapons may be the only thing that can stop population.
Posted by Canem Malum, Sunday, 9 December 2018 1:35:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aristotle: Politics. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) describes the happy life intended for man by nature as one lived in accordance with virtue, and, in his Politics, he describes the role that politics and the political community must play in bringing about the virtuous life in the citizenry.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-pol/

So Aristotle promoted responsibility (virtue) over simplistic freedom.
Posted by Canem Malum, Sunday, 9 December 2018 1:46:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Patrick Deneen discusses the ideas of Alexis de Tocqueville that apparently favoured local forms of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville

Tocqueville warned that modern democracy may be adept at inventing new forms of tyranny because radical equality could lead to the materialism of an expanding bourgeoisie and to the selfishness of individualism. "In such conditions, we might become so enamored with 'a relaxed love of present enjoyments' that we lose interest in the future of our descendants...and meekly allow ourselves to be led in ignorance by a despotic force all the more powerful because it does not resemble one"
Posted by Canem Malum, Sunday, 9 December 2018 1:48:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Judging posts.

Very good post by Loudmouth, who pointed out that African attempts at federation failed miserably. Few people know that idealistic South American attempts at creating a United States of South America in the 19th century, also failed miserably. Similarly, the idealistic Arab attempt to create a single Arab state failed. And now we have the spectacle of Europe falling apart.

Saltpetre is still dreaming the impossible dream of a world federation, citing the fact that most people long for peace. That may be so, Saltpetre, but totalitarian societies exist where what most of their people want is immaterial to what their rulers want. And their leaders usually see their right to govern as being the authority to act on their people's collective good. And that good can be anything from military expansion in order to gain vital resources, to ensuring that their population collectively pleases their God so that most of them will go to heaven.

World federation is exactly like socialism and multiculturalism, my dear Saltpetre, how many times must it fail before you figure out that it is dancing with the fairies? Federation can only happen in places where populations are racially akin, people are bound by a common language, and the disparate cultures that individuals identify with are so similar, that there are few barriers to a general agreement as to what constitutes right and wrong behaviour. Example, USA. But now the USA is falling apart again, this time through imported racial and cultural differences.

Very thoughtful posts by Canem Malum, and I agree with most of what you say, especially "that there are too many people in the world." As such, our planet is heading towards a new world war in which the democracies are once again badly placed to win. We in the west will still be debating human virtue and transgender pronouns as our multicultural communities fracture, and when the first nuclear tipped missile from a totalitarian state incinerates us.

The idea of World federation and common humanity are entirely white, western, liberal ideals. Other cultures think we are crazy.
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 10 December 2018 5:03:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My dear LEGO,

I don't think any of us really doubt precisely that desperate scenario you have so splendidly illuminated.

>>The idea of World federation and common humanity are entirely white, western, liberal ideals. Other cultures think we are crazy.<<

Precisely! And can you really blame them? After what the brilliant white westerners have thrust upon them through time?

Maybe it's beyond time for some real and honest reparation and repair. And, a lot more understanding and R E S P E C T!

In Oz we battle with our own repair conundrum, following a mere 200 years of 'new history' - and we are a mere 25 million in our undershorts. But in other quarters wounds run so much deeper and with far, far greater complexity - and at 7.7 billion and rising, that's a lot of repair and a lot of crow-eating.

What then? Nuclear holocaust to clear the slate for snow-white open slather? (And may the devil take the hindmost!)

Or, a genuine, hard-boiled go at a brotherhood of MAN (apologies to PC, Me-too and all fighters for other teams), and a genuine, no-holds-barred reversal of 'outrageous fortune' for all the downtrodden?

May we all be blessed in the path we choose to follow.
(Hail Frump? 2020 - sooner? What me worry? Bags packed for the hereafter?)
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 10 December 2018 7:30:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Mr Saltpetre, if you are white yourself, then I seem to have bumped into yet another white race hating self flagellant who thinks that racism is terrible. Congratulations, it was people like you with this contradictory attitude which first got me thinking straight. You can't go on and on about racism and then quite openly imply that the white race is responsible for everything that went wrong on this planet.

What the deplorable white westerners have "thrust upon" everybody else is what made the modern world. Those that emulated our commerce have prospered. Those that emulated our secular democracies and our separation of political, executive and judicial powers have become free nations in their own right.

Which white western ideas do you despise? Freeing worldwide slavery? Universal suffrage? Female suffrage? Female equality? The 40 hour week? Police forces? Fire brigades? Electricity? Flight? Railroads? Cars? The Internet?

Its funny that you hate white western society when everybody on planet earth is trying to barge their way into white western countries. The South Americans are not trying to migrate into Pacific Islander countries. The Pacific Islanders are not trying to immigrate into China. The Chinese are not trying to get into India. The Indians are not trying to get into Muslim countries, The Muslims are not trying to go to Africa. And the Africans are not trying to get into South America. All of these people want to live with the white guys.

Do you think that they know something that you don't?

The funniest thing about contemporary white hating "anti racists" is their current propensity to exhibit absolute glee that white people's populations are in decline and they are being displaced in their own countries by non white immigration. The Zimbabwean blacks rejoiced at chucking out the white man, and after nearly starving to death , they are now they are trying to get the whites to return. South Africa is the next African success story. You are like the educated Cambodians who cheered on Pol Pot's troops, them wondered why they were being sent to the killing fields.

Amaaaaaazing.
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 10 December 2018 10:13:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Mr LEGO,

Amaaaaaazing indeed!
But who is really the white racist here?

>> Federation can only happen in places where populations are racially akin, ..... etc, etc.<<

So, is Sharia Law ok? Or child brides, FGM, sex slavery, starvation, disease, War Lords, or even 'shock and awe'? Leave 'em to their own devices, but if they step over the line then bomb the crap out of 'em?
Yeh, yeh, a real philanthropist.

>>Those that emulated our commerce have prospered. Those that emulated our secular democracies .... have become free nations.. <<

Of course 'we' don't exploit (or have ever exploited) any of those desperate to emulate Western success?

>>Its funny that you hate white western society when everybody on planet earth is trying to barge their way into white western countries. <<

So, all those 'others' had better keep out, hey?

And, why would they be desperate to emigrate, to claim refugee status on the basis of what's left behind for them, or has unintentionally or otherwise been brought about (or left to come about) 'at home'?

Ok, the West can't be held responsible for all the world's problems, but in any universe it can't be right for some to have so much and others so little.

I have never advocated that all doors should be slung open, but I do believe it's time Western Powers grew up, buried the hatchet and worked out a way for everyone to get along - and then to set about sharing this world's finite resources more equitably.

The world may have a chance to enable all nations to be comfortable withing their own boundaries, while hopefully respecting universal law and human rights, and thereby stem the widespread diaspora - or else?
Surely the developing world deserves a 'fair go' and a leg up to achieve a sustainable and equitable quality of life for all its citizens?

A proposed bolstering and reformation of the UN can only come about through cooperation and actively embracing fair play and a fair go for all nations, all citizens.
No racism involved.
Posted by Saltpetre, Monday, 10 December 2018 2:44:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
May I quote Dima Vorobiev:

The idea sprang from the Christian monasteries. People there worked, they prayed, they had a little spare time and used it to enjoy themselves. Sooner or later they asked themselves and everyone around: why can’t the whole humanity live the same pious, quiet and spiritual lifestyle as us? There will be no wars, no angry people, no famines, no suffering?

Then, Marxists came with a very practical answer: we can make it work, they said, if we mandate that everyone give up their private property. Everyone will work for everyone else’s salvation…….. We put the whole surplus into a common pot, and everyone will decide how to spend it….

There turned up to be just one problem: humans are shaped by evolution to be a bunch of lazy, selfish, sneaky, predatory ...s. Only fear of pain, starvation and death gets us off our idle backsides to make ourselves useful.
. ……….The only way to make it all work, they found, was to create a class of Communist enforcers.
Dima Vorobiev
Posted by don coyote, Monday, 10 December 2018 3:16:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for your feedback Lego- it's gratifying that at least one person was able to prove their grasp of the key point- "there are too many people". You also made some very interesting points.

There are some that just see the world in a different way- like you I believe that some ideas are wrong- it's possible that they will never see things differently despite evidence to the contrary- but truth is the first casualty of war- all you can do sometimes is choose a side and fight to the death- they will do the same. The fog of war- imperfect information.

The founder of the New Left was Marcuse- his aim was to radicalize and destroy society using Trotsky's Permanent Revolution and Freudian Sexuality- the view of those such as Marcuse is that society enslaves the population. There appear to thread's of the New Left in many organisations including unexpectedly the Liberal Party.

According to some commentators the Western World's Socratic tradition of "the examined life" has been sadly rejected in favor of Mysticism and Dogma.

Radicalism has been favoured over examination- Radicalism is not a culture it is nihilism and the "worship of death".
Posted by Canem Malum, Tuesday, 11 December 2018 12:27:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Yair, Saltpetre. The civilized world must never intervene militarily in Muslim countries because it is much better for the crackpots like the ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood to take over these countries, get a stranglehold on the world's oil supplies, and then develop nuclear weapons. These people are really nice guys. They just want world peace. They have no bad intentions towards us at all. Peace, love and mung beans.

Your implication that western nations only wanted colonies to exploit the people in them, is similar to the standard left wing commie claim that employers are just the exploiters of workers. While in some cases it might have been true, for the most part all the European colonisers did was displace the ethnic rulers who already exploited their own people. Only the Europeans usually ruled responsibly and they gave something back. They built roads, railways, industries, schools, hospitals, banks, bridges, law courts, plantations, and ports. When the socialists succeeded in ending colonialism, most of these places reverted to barbarism. It's funny how the colonised, who once rejoiced in chucking out the white man, now clamour to live with us.

"What was left behind for them" was usually a functioning country with a working economy. Don't blame the white people if their former charges don't have the wit to run with the ball we passed to them.

Your next fallacy is to chant the socialist mantra that disparities in wealth should not exist. Look mate, there are only two economic models. Socialism or a free market. Socialism promised equality but failed miserably in every damned place it was tried. Got that? It doesn't work. Never has worked. Never will work. Free markets produce inequalities in wealth because the smart guys always get rich while the dumb guys stay on the bottom. You can tax the smart guys to pay for the dumb guys but only up to a point. Sooner or later the smart guys go somewhere else where their brains are not exploited so that crooked politicians can't use their money to buy the votes of the dumb.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 11 December 2018 4:16:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not sure if it's crossed anyone's mind, but we have a situation being played out currently which would qualify for the only movement actively engaged in what some would call, a world federation.
But like all bad news it is either masked in PC or not mentioned at all so as to not arouse any suspicions or barriers, thereby making it easier to implement.
I speak of course, about the Muslimisation of the world.
I thought it was not possible.
Forsome time I've become increasingly concerned.
I recall a comment of long ago, made by a Muslim religious leader, who at some point in his speech mentioned to his flock that they (Muslims) will 'win the war and take over the world without the use of bullets'.
It is as though I have been in a coma for the last twenty or so years and have only recently woken up to a world where the Muslims have 'invaded' nearly every country in the world, and for some inexplicable reason, have been forcing their will upon the people and places they have settled in.
My concern is now real and 'in my face', as I realise the words of that Muslim leader, all that time ago.
They have mantra of breeding as many children as possible as opposed to the Western people who have been busy enjoying themselves, having a good time and simply becoming less engaged in the real world and more attached to their fanciful dream world of unrealistic ignorant bliss, meanwhile allowing this disease to infiltrate and overwhelm us.
If the prediction I fear, comes to fruition, it will only take a few more years (30, 40) before we will begin to see the plan enacted.
One example I bring forth is a recent Mayor of Sydney, was so Chinese, he could barely be understood let alone speak english in any way to be reasonable for a Mayor.
And so the stage is being set for what is more commonly referred to as 'World Domination', it's just the non PC way of saying, A World Federation.
Posted by ALTRAV, Tuesday, 11 December 2018 7:10:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont..........
Just to add a another 'real' point or fact.
It was recently conveyed to me about a young English woman who had gone back to her home town in England.
Recently returned she was out and about one day when she was confronted by two young men who began to chastise her about her dress code and that it was too revealing, and so cautioned her.
They declared they worked for the local county or some such thing.
The point I make is that this type of oppression and bullying is the norm in Muslim countries.
They are called, the 'religious police', and they come with certain powers such as the power to 'arrest' or detain you, or caution you and so on.
Now don't get me wrong, but I would the first one to call on one of these sometimes, when I see females acting/looking like sluts.
What happened to the 'women'?
Sorry, gone off topic, anyway, this is merely a sample of what the world would be like under a Muslim rule.
Trust me, even though I would consider adopting the odd Muslim law, in the main it is an overbearing and intrusive, despicable movement and must be removed at all cost and with prejudice if necessary.
Posted by ALTRAV, Tuesday, 11 December 2018 7:29:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy