Disturbing Headlines

[dduckwessel]

I find this article disturbing for a number of reasons but most notably because it's not good to put all the eggs in one basket...

 

http://www.care2.com/causes/education/blog/in-2-years-china-will-surpass-the-us-in-science-research/

[Deepwater6]

I guess the only constant in this world is change. I believe that the new world order some promote will give each country a specific role in that order. For some it may be their finaincial services, for others it may be technology. For the USA however it seem's to be the military. As someone once said, "No the USA is not the policeman of the world, but when somebody needs a cop who do they call"?

 

 

 

I find this article disturbing for a number of reasons but most notably because it's not good to put all the eggs in one basket...

 

http://www.care2.com/causes/education/blog/in-2-years-china-will-surpass-the-us-in-science-research/

[dduckwessel]

I believe that the new world order some promote will give each country a specific role in that order.

 

You obviously believe the new world order is imminent?

 

For the USA however it seem's to be the military. As someone once said, "No the USA is not the policeman of the world, but when somebody needs a cop who do they call"?

 

Like I said, all the eggs in one basket...China has so many more people than the U.S. and Canada combined, which also means they could easily outnumber us and become the future policeman of the world. If they're close to being #1 in science what will stop them from becoming #1 in everything?

[Deepwater6]

I wouldn't expect it to happen completely for generations to come, but it does seem to be gravitating in that general direction. As for your question as to what's going to stop them them from becoming #1 in everything I don't have an answer for you.

 

 

You obviously believe the new world order is imminent?

 

 

 

Like I said, all the eggs in one basket...China has so many more people than the U.S. and Canada combined, which also means they could easily outnumber us and become the future policeman of the world. If they're close to being #1 in science what will stop them from becoming #1 in everything?

[dduckwessel]

I wouldn't expect it to happen completely for generations to come...

 

I don't know, there's more and more talk of it and I'm personally beginning to think that Einstein was right that nationalism is the cause the world's problems.

 

The negative repercussions of a one world government are all too evident. If you have good leadership, we will live well, but bad leadership...and the chances of that happening are quite good, as one-party governments easily turn into dictatorships.

[joekgamer]

Why would a world government have to be a 'one party' government?

[dduckwessel]

Why would a world government have to be a 'one party' government?

 

Logically, how would you disperse the power?

[joekgamer]

Voting? Elections?

[dduckwessel]

Voting? Elections?

 

 

Shah of Iran, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, etc.

 

What voting? What elections?

[joekgamer]

Those are local governments. There is no reason to believe that a 'world government' would end up like that (or, admittably, a democracy).

[Deepwater6]

I think a world government would not work until we have a generation not raised with religion. I don't think that will ever happen, but we are still working towards a world order. Ironically many cultures who have religions that teach acceptance have it drilled into them at a early age to hate anyone associated with another religion. Most of the bigger religions have elements of their following that think this way.It's so disturbing because it doesn't have to be this way.

[dduckwessel]

Those are local governments. There is no reason to believe that a 'world government' would end up like that (or, admittably, a democracy).

 

Hitler wanted a one-world government, or it was his plan and one in which he got close to attaining.

 

In some ways a one-world government would alleviate a lot of problems but in other ways it's just too risky. We haven't quite evolved sufficiently where money and power have ceased their hold over the human ego.

[dduckwessel]

Most of the bigger religions have elements of their following that think this way. It's so disturbing because it doesn't have to be this way.

 

The religions I'm concerned with are the extremism ones. They do not respond to evidence or logic or even self-protection (suicide bombers, martyrs). People who've never been involved in religion may not truly understand what a formidable opponent it can sometimes be. They may try to converse with an extremist religious person but in the end, shake their heads and walk away. It's going to take something BIG to shake those people out of their supposed utopia.

 

I for one am all for religions demise but then there's the practical people who bring up a really good point. If religion is gone, who's going to take care of officiating weddings and funerals (comforting the bereaved) and the other spiritual comforts? It would leave a huge void and how would society fill it?

 

Is it selfish of me to want religion gone when it's such a comfort to so many others? Just because I feel a certain way, isn't that narcissistic? Granted I certainly would like to see religious extremism gone, but just to be devil's advocate (yes I do mean it literally because religion is not God's idea), is religious moderation really so bad?

[Majeston]

I don't know, there's more and more talk of it and I'm personally beginning to think that Einstein was right that nationalism is the cause the world's problems.

 

The negative repercussions of a one world government are all too evident. If you have good leadership, we will live well, but bad leadership...and the chances of that happening are quite good, as one-party governments easily turn into dictatorships.

 

 

Einstein was correct, Nationalism is the major problem, but, it was a necessary evolutionary step in the inevitable march towards one world government. And by the way, there will also be one world currency and one world religion eventually and one world blended race.

:)

 

a blast from the past..1934

 

"Sovereignty is power and it grows by organization. This growth of the organization of political power is good and proper, for it tends to encompass ever-widening segments of the total of mankind. But this same growth of political organizations creates a problem at every intervening stage between the initial and natural organization of political power -- the family -- and the final consummation of political growth -- the government of all mankind, by all mankind, and for all mankind.

 

Starting out with parental power in the family group, political sovereignty evolves by organization as families overlap into consanguineous clans which become united, for various reasons, into tribal units -- superconsanguineous political groupings. And then, by trade, commerce, and conquest, tribes become unified as a nation, while nations themselves sometimes become unified by empire.

 

As sovereignty passes from smaller groups to larger groups, wars are lessened. That is, minor wars between smaller nations are lessened, but the potential for greater wars is increased as the nations wielding sovereignty become larger and larger. Presently, when all the world has been explored and occupied, when nations are few, strong, and powerful, when these great and supposedly sovereign nations come to touch borders, when only oceans separate them, then will the stage be set for major wars, world-wide conflicts. So-called sovereign nations cannot rub elbows without generating conflicts and eventuating wars.

 

The difficulty in the evolution of political sovereignty from the family to all mankind, lies in the inertia-resistance exhibited on all intervening levels. Families have, on occasion, defied their clan, while clans and tribes have often been subversive of the sovereignty of the territorial state. Each new and forward evolution of political sovereignty is (and has always been) embarrassed and hampered by the "scaffolding stages" of the previous developments in political organization. And this is true because human loyalties, once mobilized, are hard to change. The same loyalty which makes possible the evolution of the tribe, makes difficult the evolution of the supertribe -- the territorial state. And the same loyalty (patriotism) which makes possible the evolution of the territorial state, vastly complicates the evolutionary development of the government of all mankind.

 

Political sovereignty is created out of the surrender of self-determinism, first by the individual within the family and then by the families and clans in relation to the tribe and larger groupings. This progressive transfer of self-determination from the smaller to ever larger political organizations has generally proceeded unabated in the East since the establishment of the Ming and the Mogul dynasties. In the West it obtained for more than a thousand years right on down to the end of the World War, when an unfortunate retrograde movement temporarily reversed this normal trend by re-establishing the submerged political sovereignty of numerous small groups in Europe.

 

Urantia will not enjoy lasting peace until the so-called sovereign nations intelligently and fully surrender their sovereign powers into the hands of the brotherhood of men -- mankind government. Internationalism -- Leagues of Nations -- can never bring permanent peace to mankind. World-wide confederations of nations will effectively prevent minor wars and acceptably control the smaller nations, but they will not prevent world wars nor control the three, four, or five most powerful governments. In the face of real conflicts, one of these world powers will withdraw from the League and declare war. You cannot prevent nations going to war as long as they remain infected with the delusional virus of national sovereignty. Internationalism is a step in the right direction. An international police force will prevent many minor wars, but it will not be effective in preventing major wars, conflicts between the great military governments of earth.

 

As the number of truly sovereign nations (great powers) decreases, so do both opportunity and need for mankind government increase. When there are only a few really sovereign (great) powers, either they must embark on the life and death struggle for national (imperial) supremacy, or else, by voluntary surrender of certain prerogatives of sovereignty, they must create the essential nucleus of supernational power which will serve as the beginning of the real sovereignty of all mankind.

 

 

Peace will not come to Urantia until every so-called sovereign nation surrenders its power to make war into the hands of a representative government of all mankind. Political sovereignty is innate with the peoples of the world. When all the peoples of Urantia create a world government, they have the right and the power to make such a government SOVEREIGN; and when such a representative or democratic world power controls the world's land, air, and naval forces, peace on earth and good will among men can prevail -- but not until then.

 

To use an important nineteenth- and twentieth-century illustration: The forty-eight states of the American Federal Union have long enjoyed peace. They have no more wars among themselves. They have surrendered their sovereignty to the federal government, and through the arbitrament of war, they have abandoned all claims to the delusions of self-determination. While each state regulates its internal affairs, it is not concerned with foreign relations, tariffs, immigration, military affairs, or interstate commerce. Neither do the individual states concern themselves with matters of citizenship. The forty-eight states suffer the ravages of war only when the federal government's sovereignty is in some way jeopardized.

 

 

These forty-eight states, having abandoned the twin sophistries of sovereignty and self-determination, enjoy interstate peace and tranquillity. So will the nations of Urantia begin to enjoy peace when they freely surrender their respective sovereignties into the hands of a global government -- the sovereignty of the brotherhood of men. In this world state the small nations will be as powerful as the great, even as the small state of Rhode Island has its two senators in the American Congress just the same as the populous state of New York or the large state of Texas.

 

The limited (state) sovereignty of these forty-eight states was created by men and for men. The superstate (national) sovereignty of the American Federal Union was created by the original thirteen of these states for their own benefit and for the benefit of men. Sometime the supernational sovereignty of the planetary government of mankind will be similarly created by nations for their own benefit and for the benefit of all men.

 

Citizens are not born for the benefit of governments; governments are organizations created and devised for the benefit of men. There can be no end to the evolution of political sovereignty short of the appearance of the government of the sovereignty of all men. All other sovereignties are relative in value, intermediate in meaning, and subordinate in status.

 

With scientific progress, wars are going to become more and more devastating until they become almost racially suicidal. How many world wars must be fought and how many leagues of nations must fail before men will be willing to establish the government of mankind and begin to enjoy the blessings of permanent peace and thrive on the tranquillity of good will -- world-wide good will -- among men?"

 

Next: Law, Liberty, and Sovereignty

 

http://urantiabook.org/newbook/ub/ppr134_5.html#P134_5_10

[Majeston]

I wouldn't expect it to happen completely for generations to come, but it does seem to be gravitating in that general direction. As for your question as to what's going to stop them them from becoming #1 in everything I don't have an answer for you.

 

The answer is that nothing is going to stop them.

 

1934 quote

 

 

 

"The formative period of Chinese civilization, opening with the coming of the Andites, continues on down to the great ethical, moral, and semireligious awakening of the sixth century before Christ. And Chinese tradition preserves the hazy record of the evolutionary past; the transition from mother- to father-family, the establishment of agriculture, the development of architecture, the initiation of industry -- all these are successively narrated. And this story presents, with greater accuracy than any other similar account, the picture of the magnificent ascent of a superior people from the levels of barbarism. During this time they passed from a primitive agricultural society to a higher social organization embracing cities, manufacture, metalworking, commercial exchange, government, writing, mathematics, art, science, and printing.

 

And so the ancient civilization of the yellow race has persisted down through the centuries. It is almost forty thousand years since the first important advances were made in Chinese culture, and though there have been many retrogressions, the civilization of the sons of Han comes the nearest of all to presenting an unbroken picture of continual progression right on down to the times of the twentieth century. The mechanical and religious developments of the white races have been of a high order, but they have never excelled the Chinese in family loyalty, group ethics, or personal morality.

 

This ancient culture has contributed much to human happiness; millions of human beings have lived and died, blessed by its achievements For centuries this great civilization has rested upon the laurels of the past, but it is even now reawakening to envision anew the transcendent goals of mortal existence, once again to take up the unremitting struggle for never-ending progress."

 

http://urantiabook.org/newbook/ub/ppr079_8.html#P079_8_13

[dduckwessel]

Einstein was correct, Nationalism is the major problem, but, it was a necessary evolutionary step in the inevitable march towards one world government. And by the way, there will also be one world currency and one world religion eventually and one world blended race.

 

The one world currency would just naturally be a product of a one world government!

 

Islam appears bent on filling the religion space (not so scary when tempered by democracy, but untempered by it...frightful!):

 

(quote from Wickipedia) According to Guinness World Records, which is a reliable unbiased source claims, “Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion. In 1990, 935 million people were Muslims and this figure had escalated to around 1.2 billion by 2000, meaning that around one in five people follow Islam. Although the religion began in Arabia, by 2002 80% of all believers in Islam lived outside the Arab world. In the period 1990-2000, approximately 12.5 million MORE people CONVERTED to Islam than to Christianity” (Guinness World Records 2003, pg 102)

 

 

An international police force will prevent many minor wars

 

Yes but at what cost?

 

 

Peace will not come to Urantia until every so-called sovereign nation surrenders its power to make war into the hands of a representative government of all mankind. Political sovereignty is innate with the peoples of the world. When all the peoples of Urantia create a world government, they have the right and the power to make such a government SOVEREIGN; and when such a representative or democratic world power controls the world's land, air, and naval forces, peace on earth and good will among men can prevail -- but not until then.

 

 

These forty-eight states, having abandoned the twin sophistries of sovereignty and self-determination, enjoy interstate peace and tranquillity. So will the nations of Urantia begin to enjoy peace when they freely surrender their respective sovereignties into the hands of a global government -- the sovereignty of the brotherhood of men.

 

Sounds like utopian ideology but is it realistic and in this regard you show a naive understanding of the political mindset and the lure of power. Governments always begin well with a lot of promise and deteriorate from there as ruthless leaders decide they do not want to share power.

 

I'm all for balancing the worlds economy so that poverty is drastically reduced but a one world government seems reckless to me. It's too easy for something to go wrong.

 

Citizens are not born for the benefit of governments; governments are organizations created and devised for the benefit of men.

 

Yes and the U.S. and Canada were democratic nations at one time but capitalism is driving the political wheels now. And its citizens only give a damn when it's too late.

 

With scientific progress, wars are going to become more and more devastating until they become almost racially suicidal.

 

I don't say that all of science is benevolent but the driving force behind much of science has often been to 'make things easier for humanity'. They try to remain impartial and make judgments based on evidence instead of conjecture. How can that negatively affect anything!!

 

Granted when science becomes political that's not good but handing over the reins carte-blanche to potential madmen is just not smart.

 

How many world wars must be fought and how many leagues of nations must fail before men will be willing to establish the government of mankind and begin to enjoy the blessings of permanent peace and thrive on the tranquillity of good will -- world-wide good will -- among men?"

 

Just what government do you have in mind Majeston, the UB model?? If so then you are biased but the world needs an unbiased view, one not based on emotion but common sense where equality and justice for all prevails.

 

That was the principles on which democracy was founded in the U.S. and Canada until the large corporations took over America. Now it's a downhill slide. It seems the only alternative now is to consider a one world government but I fear we will just be opening a BIGGER can of worms.

[Majeston]

 

 

 

 

Just what government do you have in mind Majeston, the UB model?? If so then you are biased but the world needs an unbiased view, one not based on emotion but common sense where equality and justice for all prevails.

 

 

 

And you call me naive??

 

Please explain your conception of "equality and justice for all" prevailing on a planet of 6 billion plus people and growing and carrying accumulated baggage. Equality what??? Everybody has the same amount of $$$$,; land? opportunity? water? strength??? genetics???? family???? Should I go on???? Now, who's being naive? You dream is shortsighted and an idealistic fantasy at best. The UB is the best model because it is epochal revelation and provides the detailed analysis as well as the long term solution as well as the inevitable positive result to the problem.