One world government

[Sambo]

Why is this such a boogie man?

It may not be one president or prime minister for the world, but some time in our future we will be one in many ways that we aren't at present. Provided that our species  survives.

[georgesucks]

Why is this such a boogie man?

It may not be one president or prime minister for the world, but some time in our future we will be one in many ways that we aren't at present. Provided that our species  survives.

In one camp, some nuts out there will say that the one world government is the work of Satan. They will say that in the bible is not for a one world government. I think that a "one world government" will happen and i hope its more like in star trek.

[Sambo]

Star Trek...

I have a feeling that we will never see a Star Trek movie or franchise the way Gene molded them.  The marketing culture running them now wouldn't trust a product with hope and wisdom embedded in the storylines. 

[onan]

Why is this such a boogie man?

It may not be one president or prime minister for the world, but some time in our future we will be one in many ways that we aren't at present. Provided that our species  survives.

Can't you imagine the safety net that would be needed? No off shore accounts to hide monies. Plus the devil wins.

[wr250]

In one camp, some nuts out there will say that the one world government is the work of Satan.

it wont be the work of satan. they will say "the work of the antichrist"

They will say that in the bible is not for a one world government. I think that a "one world government" will happen and i hope its more like in star trek.

they also say that Jesus will return and rule the world. looks like a one world govt to me.

a star trek type world govt would be ok. however a one world govt would also invite more corruption. we see the corruption happening in washington dc , london , paris, moscow, beijing, etc.

[Little Hater]

Why is this such a boogie man?

It may not be one president or prime minister for the world, but some time in our future we will be one in many ways that we aren't at present. Provided that our species  survives.

Seems simple to me. If you have a government that controls the whole world, who is there to fight it if it goes bad ? Human nature isn't going to change any time soon.

[West of the Rockies]

Star Trek...

I have a feeling that we will never see a Star Trek movie or franchise the way Gene molded them.  The marketing culture running them now wouldn't trust a product with hope and wisdom embedded in the storylines.

Actually, Star Trek was the very first thing I thought of when I read this thread's opening comment.  Naive as I am, I'd like to believe we one day can learn to put aside our differences and come together in a spirit of cooperation and exploration.  I rewatched Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot segment from Cosmos (it was linked on NPR).  There is so much wisdom and hope in those four minutes of film.  Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I miss Sagan. 

[Ben Shockley]

Irony and hypocrisy know no end with regard to right-wing ideology.

The very people who scream and kvetch and dread the idea of "one-world government" are the same people who want and expect U.S. military hegemony over the whole world.  The righties who think that it is the God-given right of the U.S. to invade and do airstrikes and drone hits all over the place, with no regard for other countries' sovereignty, on the merest hint of a "threat," are technically arguing for the entire world to be subsumed in the polity known as "the United States of America."  In essence, they are arguing that the whole world is the territory of "the U.S.A.," which effectively means that the whole world is (the property of) "one nation," which effectively means "one-world government."
Right?

[heater]

You are trapped in the left-right debate.   Unless you are a fan of professional wrestling this will only cause you harm.  I'm not saying you are wrong in a narrow sense, I am saying you are limiting your own view point when I know you are smart enough to see it's not left vs right.  Its moving on vs maintaining power.  There is no left or right political party, there is Me and You.

[Ben Shockley]

You are trapped in the left-right debate.   Unless you are a fan of professional wrestling this will only cause you harm.  I'm not saying you are wrong in a narrow sense...

Why, that's mighty white of you to admit that I just might have a leg to stand on, when I note the hypocrisy inherent in the facts that:
1) The people most worried about "one-world government" are the nutty arch-"conservatives."  The John Birchers, the neo-fascists worried about the mud races moving in, the tax protesters / Freemen.  You know-- paranoid / xenophobic "right-wingers."
2) The people most cocksure about projecting U.S. military power all over the world like they own the place --and thus effecting a "one-world government"-- are people who love to feel powerful or special.   Jingoists, imperialist capitalists, the neo-cons and their fear-crazed supporter-symbionts, the pro-Zionists and the Rapture-ready fools of the "Charred Israel as Jesus Bait" crowd, the people who can't accept that the Berlin Wall came down nor that the Chinese have cars and houses and nukes now.  You know-- authoritarian / superstitious / anachronistic "right-wingers."

I am saying you are limiting your own view point when I know you are smart enough to see it's not left vs right.  Its moving on vs maintaining power.  There is no left or right political party, there is Me and You.

Uh-huh!  So how will my life and the world condition improve if I force myself to ignore facts that you apparently admit may be true?  No, not everything is "left vs. right."  But this situation, where I specifically chose to point out hypocrisy on one side of the political spectrum, IS BY DEFINITION a matter of political directionality.  Ya know why?  Because I made the observation, and thus I made the definition.

How about if I tell you that you're sorely deluded if you think your name in this forum is "themudking?"  Not that you're "wrong," in a narrow sense, to have taken that name, but you limit yourself to have written in English.  You need a more-inclusive, deeply-meaningful name, that gets beyond all that baggage of clunky old English.  In short, you are myopic, and just a piece of deadwood trapped in a historical eddy, if you don't immediately create an Esperanto user name.

I'll certainly agree that there is a "you" and there is a "me."  But when "you" and "I" (see, that's a change of case) disagree on sociopolitical issues, there becomes "difference," and when "difference" manifests as gradation between apparent opposites or extremes in a variable --something observable and measurable-- a spectrum is formed, with definite directionality:  "THIS" at one end, "THAT" at the other, gradations of THIS/THAT in between.   If we display the spectrum thus formed in horizontal linear fashion, ya know what you get?  Directions.  Specifically, left-to-right.
So in other words, one known for now as "themudking," when "you" and "I" generate enough difference, a "left" and a "right" automatically come into being.  Doesn't matter what you call which.  But they exist, and my post was predicated on that utterly axiomatic assumption.
So how about taking your sappy anti-political "ignore the facts" rap somewhere you won't have your ass handed to you for your troubles?

[Juan]

Who gets to decide who runs this one world government?

[Yorkshire pud]

Who gets to decide who runs this one world government?

Me, naturally. 

[Ben Shockley]

Who gets to decide who runs this one world government?

In a pragmatic sense, the entity who cannot be overpowered is that government.  You figure out who that is.  The jingoists et al that I mentioned above (who I'm sure would condemn the very idea of OWG, let's call it) apparently subconsciously want "the U.S." to be the one superpower, and thus "the OWG."  Of course, those people also claim a total distrust of "the U.S. government," so exactly who the legislating/bureaucratic body is supposed to be, I don't know.

Since most jingoists and authoritarians are also militarists, I would guess that the average right-wing American thinks a junta of American military officers should rule the world.  Until that junta steps on the interests of any of the other various groups I mentioned above.  But then-- having installed that junta (or whichever American elites you deem worthy) with supreme power and having built the necessary sustaining culture of fealty to authority, what do you do about it?  Nothing.

[Juan]

Suppose it's the Muslim Brotherhood and they order all gays, Christians, and Buddhists killed?  Where would the intended victims turn?

[West of the Rockies]

Who gets to decide who runs this one world government?

"The world is a mess and I just need to rule it!" - Dr. Horrible

[Ben Shockley]

Suppose it's the Muslim Brotherhood and they order all gays, Christians, and Buddhists killed?  Where would the intended victims turn?

Simple answer:  that's impossible.
How would "the Muslim Brotherhood" (whatever and whoever that is) seize pragmatic global power?  That is, how do they reach the status I mentioned earlier: of being "the entity who cannot be overpowered?"  They have no military arm (fevered imaginations of Faux"News" commentators aside), and that is what makes pragmatic power.   How would they impose an edict like you mentioned on populations that outnumber them by factors of thousands to one, and which enjoy at least indirect or institutional protection by nation-states that pragmatically outmatch "the Muslim Brotherhood's" non-existent military by factors of infinity-to-nothing?

Juan -- dude-- try watching or listening to a little less of whatever you watch or listen to.  Try "The Waltons" or "The Andy Griffith Show" in place of a couple hours every day of the stuff you're absorbing now.

[Yorkshire pud]

I watched a fascinating programme the other evening, presented by Jeremy Clarkson (yes, of Top Gear fame). It was about the Arctic convoys that sailed to Russia from the UK. Stalin had essentially laid it thick (and he was right), that Germany was going to overthrow Moscow if the UK didn't supply thousands of tanks, ammunition, guns, and aircraft in short shrift. Churchill knew he had no option, and the convoys were sent. These were merchantmen, aged 14 upwards, not used to the horrific cold of the Arctic. There were American and Brit's amongst them. It wasn't a war they'd ever envisaged. They weren't naval sailors.

PQ17 was such a convoy; and was destined for disaster due almost entirely to an individual in the Admiralty. The person who issued the orders never answered or explained his reasoning, although all the intel suggested he should not have issued those orders.


The point I'm making is this: Hitler could have had a one world government. He had at his disposal two battleships that between them were the most advanced in the world. That they were not used to their advantage is fundamental, and fortunately came down on our side. Bizmark and her support vessels (as well as U boats) could easily have destroyed every merchant ship between the USA and the UK, but she spent her very short life being chased into the Bay of Biscay where she was disabled by Swordfish biplanes, and eventually damaged to the point where her crew scuttled her.  Her sister ship Tirpitz spent almost all her life in a Norwegian fjord, several attempts where made to sink her, until eventually Lancasters managed it with 12000lb bombs. The capture of the enigma machines and code breaking at Bletchley Park was also the 'untold' reason for the turn of the tide.. Hitler had the largest airforce, easily. He had troops who worshiped him as a living god. He was determined to control the world. He very nearly managed it by 1940.

One world governments per se, might not be a bad thingâ,,¢, IF we're really sure it's going to lead to what we would like to live by and for. On recent history, I'd say the difference between a totalitarian regime and not, isn't left/right as such. It's deciding if our particular street/ village/ town/ city/ county/ country/ continent can really benefit from blind subjugation of another, or does it make us all lesser for having that mindset? Or would we be better for trying to see other citizens, not as 'foreigners', but citizens who just happen to not be the same? In my experience, people are people..They have similar doubts, complaints, fears, aspirations to you and me. Irrespective of their race, religion, colour, caste or sex.

2p (or 3c) supplied.

[Yorkshire pud]

Suppose it's the Muslim Brotherhood and they order all gays, Christians, and Buddhists killed?  Where would the intended victims turn?

Oh don't restrict blind hatred to the Muslim Brotherhood. There are truly evil alleged Christians (they're not, they just hang their coat on the bible hook and claim it's 'gods will'). But like fanatical Muslims, they too have followers who truly believe what they hear is right.

[West of the Rockies]

I suppose, Ben, that Juan is noting that the OWG could be helmed by unsavory folks.  I am hard-pressed to see it happening anyway, but the OWG idea does inspire a lot of dread to be sure.

[Quick Karl]

Fucking fairy tale.

[Ben Shockley]

This is going far afield from the stated topic, and I so hate to do that, but, I have to take exception, Pud.  All differences of opinion and fact-interpretation, of course, are stated with the greatest respect for the Pud ~~~

Hitler could have had a one world government... He very nearly managed it by 1940... He had at his disposal two battleships that between them were the most advanced in the world...   Bizmark and her support vessels (as well as U boats) could easily have destroyed every merchant ship between the USA and the UK, but she spent her very short life being chased into the Bay of Biscay where she was disabled by Swordfish biplanes, and eventually damaged to the point where her crew scuttled her.  Her sister ship Tirpitz spent almost all her life in a Norwegian fjord, several attempts where made to sink her, until eventually Lancasters managed it...

"Could have... almost... but... didn't..."  In short: you (rightly) pull the teeth from Hitler's "awesome force" as soon as you describe it.  How many aircraft carriers did the RN have in the Atlantic in 1940?  Quite a few, and obviously enough to sink the Bismarck (and humiliate the Italians at Taranto).  How many did the Kriegsmarine have?  None.  Aside from those --2-- "awesome" 15-inch-gunned German ships, how much of a surface Navy did Germany have?  Very little.  Other modern battleships?  Two?  And all of it was cowed by the Royal Navy to the very extent that the Germans hesitated to do battle with anything approaching an even RN surface force-- hence, Bismarck and co's. "convoy raider" role.  As I alluded to in a post with you long ago, the Kriegsmarine's inability to promise any success in a stand-up fight with the RN was the proximate reason your country was never invaded.  That was the Germans admitting it then, not some dumb-ass like me imagining it 70+ years later.

Beyond all that-- Hitler, "one-world government?"  If he couldn't invade Britain, how the hell was he going to invade North America?  He couldn't beat Britain (as evidenced by the fact that he didn't) when you were the last holdout in the West, and before there was an Eastern Front.  So let's not make a bigger threat out of him than actually existed (as evidenced by the fact that he lost).

Hitler had the largest airforce, easily.

Sorry Pud, but just not true.  The Soviets alone way outnumbered the Germans in aircraft.  Yes, many of those Soviet planes were obsolete, and they lost thousands in just the first couple of weeks of Barbarossa.  But they certainly had them to lose.  The Germans only secured air superiority in those areas where they did by nearly, if not totally, denuding other fronts of aircraft.  Not to mention the fact that "a German plane" was not a Starship -- they could be, and very often were, shot down in droves by competent Allied pilots.  Notice how that "Blitz" of England ended pretty soon in inglorious stalemate (read: strategic defeat for the Germans) by the Fall of '40, and frittered away to little more than a nuisance (strategically speaking) with the start of Barbarossa, and was never resumed beyond that level (even including the V-waffen) for the simple reason that it couldn't be.  That bespeaks a military resource (the Luftwaffe) stretched to it's limit.

~~~ certainly not trying to fight with you, Pud, and I imagine that it's a matter of national perspective: if nothing else, there has certainly been a mythology built up around the "heroic hunt for the Bismarck," for example, since the War.  Nations and peoples need those ~~  :
Maybe my perspective is also colored (beyond the copious reading on WW2 I have done for 40 years) by the endless PC wargames I have played in which I beat the Axis down by no later than mid-'44 -- so maybe I'm prone to dismiss them..?  No, this is really how I see that stuff.

Okay, back to the modern combat of posting 

[Ben Shockley]

I suppose, Ben, that Juan is noting that the OWG could be helmed by unsavory folks.

How would they secure the allegiance of existing large nation-states' militaries, or defend against being deposed by those same?

but the OWG idea does inspire a lot of dread to be sure.

Yeah -- like I said to start with: especially and ironically dreaded by people who as a practical matter want to see an OWG in existence, as long as they think it's hegemony will be in keeping with their ideology.  In other words, people dread a OWG -- if they think it would reflect someone else's ideology.

It's the idea that G.W. Bush was caught not joking about: "this would be a lot better if it were a dictatorship-- just so long as I'm the dictator."

[Yorkshire pud]

Yeah Ben you're right. I think though that (in another parallel dimension thingy) if Hitler had managed to take over all of Europe, UK, a lot of Africa, Middle east, and into Asia, he'd have been a fairly strong position to let his ideology spread. Germans weren't idiots. They were manipulated, and very well. Find scapegoats, exploit fear and resentment...let the monster go. Would the USA have been immune? I would sincerely like to think so. What was the population there back in the mid 40's? 100 million?

I thought Bismark was chased rather than searched for? After she sank Hood in Scapa Flow. No? Maybe not.

I went way off topic; but I have had an agreeable few glasses of Shiraz..

[onan]

How would they secure the allegiance of existing large nation-states' militaries, or defend against being deposed by those same?
Yeah -- like I said to start with: especially and ironically dreaded by people who as a practical matter want to see an OWG in existence, as long as they think it's hegemony will be in keeping with their ideology.  In other words, people dread a OWG -- if they think it would reflect someone else's ideology.

It's the idea that G.W. Bush was caught not joking about: "this would be a lot better if it were a dictatorship-- just so long as I'm the dictator."

I don't see it ever happening. From religious wingnuts, to xenophobics always bringing more into their folds to fight any coalition will be insurmountable. I don't think the US has any interest in elevating the standard of living for more than 3 billion people. And the US is probably the most likely candidate for setting the foundation for that government (yeah just my opinion).

[West of the Rockies]

Hey, Ben... well, the OWG fear stems from those on the left who fear maybe a gigantic transnational corporate dictatorship or oligarchy or a religious group of any stripe.  Those on the right fear a non-Christian religious group being at the helm or some corrupt ideological socialist/communist group who squashes down property rights, freedoms, and such....

That's my take anyway....

[Yorkshire pud]

Hey, Ben... well, the OWG fear stems from those on the left who fear maybe a gigantic transnational corporate dictatorship or oligarchy or a religious group of any stripe.  Those on the right fear a non-Christian religious group being at the helm or some corrupt ideological socialist/communist group who squashes down property rights, freedoms, and such....

That's my take anyway....

^^^ This. I think it's the multi national hydras that are feared..Google, Fartbook, Microsoft, etc. They all need info to make them work. In some cases intimate info.

[Ben Shockley]

Yeah Ben you're right. I think though that (in another parallel dimension thingy) if Hitler had managed to take over all of Europe, UK, a lot of Africa, Middle east, and into Asia, he'd have been a fairly strong position to let his ideology spread....

How?
Under what force?  After garrisoning all those places to prevent sabotage and generally coerce the populations -- as the Germans had to do everywhere they conquered, with masses of troops that would shock most people-- who would be left to go a-conquerin' further?  Would the Reich's glorious world-conquering legions consist of levies or mercenaries from... Central Asia?  Moslem N. Africa? (as the Reich indeed resorted to in the desperate days of '44-'45)  Or would the Germans stay in the front lines with one conquered Eurasian or African group occupying and policing another?  How long would that geopolitical house of cards stand up?
Some people go on like this for pages in other forums.

Hood wasn't sunk in Scapa Flow; that was the post-WW1 German fleet.  Hood was sunk out in the North Atlantic, southwest of Iceland.   Yes, I guess Bismarck was "chased."  Ultimately, in a big circle.

Sure, the US could have been invaded if Germany had acquired all the blue-water amphibious craft in existence in Europe and built a lot more, and if they had acquired most or all of Western Europe's navies.   And it might even have been successful if the U.S. somehow missed the many months of preparations necessary to make it happen and neglected to prepare.   But the Germans didn't do that.  And so on.

I went way off topic; but I have had an agreeable few glasses of Shiraz..

I could use some vodka myself, but have none.

[Quick Karl]

You genius philosophers here really are entertaining...

Maybe you should make a Saturday morning children's show?

[NowhereInTime]

You genius philosophers here really are entertaining...

Maybe you should make a Saturday morning children's show?

Lord knows you'd be watching, getting pointers to chat up the kiddies in the park.

[NowhereInTime]

Fucking fairy tale.

Which one, "Quick Karl and his Age-of-Consent Girlfriend"?
"Quick Karl and the Act of Compassion"?
"Quick Karl and the Rational Statement"?
"Quick Karl and the People Who Love Him"?
"Quick Karl and the Educated Perspective"?
"Quick Karl and the Vow of Sobriety"?
So many fucking fairy tales...