it's here, and it's stronger than we ever imagined: and I quote
So could the European model go global? There are three reasons
for thinking that it might.
text links to the full article.
OT: N.W.O., as reported by the Financial Times today
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Mike Philbin |
OT: N.W.O., as reported by the Financial Times today |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 2527 (12/09/08 06:47:44) Shocklineraholic |
it's here, and it's stronger than we ever imagined: and I quote |
||
|
Lawrence Dagstine |
|||
|
Posts: 1522 (12/09/08 09:34:45) Veteran Shockliner |
That Montana bit is a scary scenario... And while a world government IS plausible, what about Russia and places like Iran and other places in the Middle East?
There would also have to be Universal Healthcare, one monetary unit (or form of currency), one of practically everything recognized in each and every
individual culture. This would go for unrecognized areas of Africa that are still tribal and other Third World countries or provinces (including those that are
starving from famine). There's a lot involved in making (or even PLOTTING years in advance) of making such an event possible.
Lawrence Dagstine Homepage: www.lawrencedagstine.com
Lawrence Dagstine MySpace: www.myspace.com/lawrencedagstine 
|
||
|
ilurvnick |
|||
|
Posts: 22 (12/09/08 09:48:47) Shockliner |
|||
|
forgottenprisoner |
|||
|
Posts: 36 (12/09/08 10:06:34) |
|
||
|
Steve Vernon Nova Scotia |
|||
|
Posts: 7675 (12/09/08 10:25:37) Top-Tier Shockliner Demon |
|
||
|
sighlon |
|||
|
Posts: 250 (12/09/08 10:31:29) Apprentice Shockliner |
|
||
|
Mike Philbin |
|||
|
Posts: 2528 (12/09/08 10:43:35) Shocklineraholic |
ilurvnick wrote: All nay-saying Shockliners are clearly gonna be saved from Tyranny - I wanna be on their FEMA train to see their smug little faces. 
|
||
|
VeryUnseemly |
|||
|
Posts: 672 (12/09/08 18:05:58) Shockliner |
Just for the sake of argument.... So? Let's pretend any of this can be taken serious - and it can't be - what, exactly, would be wrong with a world government? Last time I checked the E.U. was working out pretty well for those folks. |
||
|
VeryUnseemly |
LOL | ||
|
Posts: 673 (12/09/08 18:20:02) Shockliner |
|
||
|
50FootAnt |
|||
|
Posts: 73 (12/09/08 18:47:58) |
VeryUnseemly wrote: I've wondered that too for awhile. The benefits are many and obvious, but just how bad are the cons? The world is getting smaller all the time anyway, so what exactly are the bad things for a world government?
Pain is weakness leaving the body, and trust me, there's been times when weakness was taking a train.
And running me over with it. |
||
|
mgcardin |
|||
|
Posts: 702 (12/09/08 21:41:20) Apprentice Shockliner |
50FootAnt wrote:The general idea is that such a government would inevitably become totalitarian and therefore tyrannical and despotic. There would be no room for real dissent since a one-world government would by nature and definition be all-encompassing, and would -- so the opponents of the idea argue -- necessarily fall into corruption because of its monolithic control of legal, economic, political, and military power. And the result would be distinctly dystopian. On a slightly subtler level, opponents say the very idea of a single global government clashes with the liberal democratic ideals of individual freedom and self-determination. They say the classical Enlightenment humanism that gave rise to modern Western democratic political ideals leads logically and necessarily to the conclusion that the best government is the one that's smallest and least obtrusive. So they see global government as inherently opposed to the American and modern Western political tradition. |
||
|
Cynical The Eighth Dwarf |
|||
|
Posts: 5 (12/09/08 22:25:26) |
It's a flawed argument, particularly as nearly every Utopian society depends upon a One World Government. Also consider the amount of your government that
is geared towards interactions with other governments, in the advent of the One World Government the majority of that will become redundant without considering
the effects societal changes would have on other departments. Ultimately one very large government will be smaller than a thousand little ones.
|
||
|
Mike Philbin |
|||
|
Posts: 2530 (12/09/08 23:15:54) Shocklineraholic |
No regulation of eugenics drugs like melamine, aspartame or mercury in the vaccines - are there really too many of us? Tazer stories on the rise, increased police brutality, robot helicopters that can avoid building collisions. 'Subversive' recategorised. Oh, where are all the unemployed gonna go? Who will feed them? Is it only me who thinks Obama's massive rebuilding plan sounds just a little like Stalinism? China's human rights record, as an example of Totalitarianism. The end of Free Speech, give up your guns and your rights, army on the streets? Where will be the Neo Siberia for the enemies of the state? Define: enemy of the state? There's no saying that there'll be ANY cooperation between the warring factions of One World Governance - what do you think all the secret sneak attacks on near-Russian territory has been about all this time, does no-one else see that the border of Russia is being surrounded for the Big Bang? You're right though, the Financial Times, they've not got their finger on the pulse of the One Globe. They're just a load of tinfoilhat wearing loons. Me, I'm gonn' ryte me some of that literary equivalent to Power Ballads and ever'thin' gon' be a'right, hick. As long as I got my whiskey handout or my grain handout then there'll be no panic in the derelict cities marauded by bands of unemployed, hungry criminals.
Bank Nationalisations? That's Neo-capitalism right there. Oh, and the New York Times just files for bankruptcy, as have a load of other newspapers - well, let's nationalise and�regulate that shee-it. Tell you what, let's regulate ever'thin' and git some Judges (Death, Fear, Fire & Mortis) on the fugg'n streets too. Git sum legalised kilin'. Now, that's a 2000 AD world I wanna live in. Yeah, come on, sheeple, let's rock back and forth under the softly softly media blackout!!! it's all so funny - and I do SINCERELY hope my melodrama is just that. Because history has proven that they come for the writers first. As you were. Mike
Last Edited By: Mike Philbin
12/10/08 00:14:11.
Edited 3 times.
|
||
|
kpaffenroth |
|||
|
Posts: 1064 (12/10/08 07:35:02) Master Shockliner |
mgcardin wrote: Yeah, that's how it always works out in the SF fantasies of this - some figure like Senator Palpatine takes over during a crisis and pretty soon they're rounding people up and killing them or shipping them off to gulags or putting chips in people or collars around their necks. But I'm wondering even if such an entity were democratic, wouldn't it tend toward the excesses of a "tyranny of the majority"? IIRC, Toqueville thinks democracy can work on a national level because any tendencies toward tyranny would be checked, because each faction has to appease and cooperate with other factions (and because if it got really bad, you could always leave, I suppose). But at the global level, the latter would be excluded, and I'm wondering if permanent majorities (whether those were racial or religious or social or political) would be more of a danger.
Kim Paffenroth, Stoker Award Winner for Gospel of the Living Dead, and author of the new zombie novel Dying to Live. Visit him at his blog
|
||
|
kpaffenroth |
|||
|
Posts: 1065 (12/10/08 07:50:29) Master Shockliner |
oh, sorry, one more observation: A big problem with pluralist societies is what holds them together, exactly? If it's not race, religion, language or
ethnicity, then what? Wouldn't that be the ultimate problem of a global government - nothing holds it together except self-interest, and we (for better or
worse) find that people have a lot of motivations OTHER than self-interest (as hard as that might be to grasp).
Kim Paffenroth, Stoker Award Winner for Gospel of the Living Dead, and author of the new zombie novel Dying to Live. Visit him at his blog
|
||
|
pendragon |
|||
|
Posts: 1141 (12/10/08 08:01:38) Master Shockliner |
So, is David Icke right?
|
||
|
Mike Philbin |
|||
|
Posts: 2532 (12/10/08 08:54:11) Shocklineraholic |
David Icke?
Chris, you dare summon that demon to this holy sepulchre! 
|
||
|
pendragon |
|||
|
Posts: 1142 (12/10/08 11:02:21) Master Shockliner |
Mike Philbin wrote:I'm curious whether our North American and Canadian cousins know who the lizard-avenger is... |
||
|
Ron Dickie |
|||
|
Posts: 1937 (12/10/08 13:20:52) Shocklineraholic |
|
||
|
VeryUnseemly |
|||
|
Posts: 674 (12/10/08 20:00:56) Shockliner |
Mike Philbin wrote: WAT. Aspartame - artificial sweetener, that is - is an "eugenics drug" now? Do you know what the word "eugenics" means? I can't see as that you do, because if you did you'd know that you're using it wrong. The term eugenics refers to the selective breeding of humans for desired traits, with the ultimate goal of "improving" our species. This can include "positive eugenics" which involves the intentional breeding of "good stock," or "negative eugenics," the sterilization of "defective" persons. As an issue of personal freedom eugenics is a nightmare, and as science it is profoundly flawed, because we have no objective way of measuring "fitness." I don't a single person with any sense has come out in favor of eugenics since, oh, about 1945. Not a big fan of aspartame myself - it gives me the shits something awful - but I'm going to go ahead and say that it's not an "eugenics drug." To be an eugenics drug it would need to A.) Sterilize at least some of the people who eat it, and B.) be applied only to those parts of the population who are considered (by whoever behind this scheme) to be "unfit." People from pretty much all walks of life eat aspartame. It's in a lot of different foods, so unless you eat raw you're probably going to run into it from time to time. I suppose I'd be open to evidence that it's not a healthy sort of thing to eat, and that it might even make some people very ill, but it's certainly not part of any massive plan to breed a master race or whatever. I guess what you were trying to say here is that the government is putting aspartame in our food to kill some of us? Buddy, you do need to check what those big words mean before you use them. They can get ahead of you, don't know know. I'll cover the rest of this post later. First I need a little bit of time to try to make some sort of sense out of it. |
||
|
Mike Philbin |
|||
|
Posts: 2533 (12/10/08 23:17:18) Shocklineraholic |
V.U.
Me, I just look up "methanol poisoning" (just one of the scary breakdown constituent of aspartame in the heat of the human gut), and know I'll try (where I can) to avoid such a toxic element. And when aspartame is stuffed (unregulated) into food EN MASSE under all sorts of blanket terms like artificial sweetener (when it has an official Trade Name, Nutrasweet), then it becomes not only a very suspicious but also a Eugenics (i.e. negatively-affecting the global population) issue with long-term 'design' consequences. Hey, if you wanna stop being fat but like sugary foods, well just do some fucking exercise after you've eaten a cake. But that's just me, a pragmatist. Even that's not enough though - you can't escape the super-sizing via this artificial sweetener in over 56% of foods - aspartame encourages carbohydrate addiction so you're onto a loser anyway. There's more to Eugenics than direct killing, there's large-scale incapacitation and 'neutering' of the lineage but whatever... Pray, continue - my nameless, faceless friend - I'm on the edge of my fuckin' seat. |
||
Quick Reply
Logo design and background image by Caniglia
