DescentBB

New Lies for Old

In 1984, Golitsyn published the book New Lies For Old,[13] wherein he predicted the collapse of the communist bloc orchestrated from above. He warned about a long-term deception strategy designed to lull the West into a false sense of security, and finally economically cripple and diplomatically isolate the United States. Among other things, Golitsyn stated:
"The 'liberalization' [in the Soviet Union] would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party's role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed."
"If [liberalization] should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated."
"The European Parliament might become an all-European socialist parliament with representation from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. 'Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals' would turn out to be a neutral, socialist Europe."

This guy should go to Vegas. He hit the nail on the head at least 4-5 years before all this started and what he predicted is exactly how it is now.

As I understand it, communism is not truly the over-reigning goal, it is (and I guess you could say always has been) just a tool for controlling the masses--for doing away with individual liberties. The broader conspiracy is control of the planet by means of a centralized government run by an elite who feel it is their place to dictate how the world should be run.

Anytime you want to start a topic, I'll probably join in if I see an opportunity, but I don't think there's any room for doubt as to what I've just stated. All you need to do is open your eyes and ears and look around you--look on any of the media sources. They say it differently than I did--one of the biggest obstacles to seeing it for what it is being that it is presented in a very different light, and you are encouraged to think about it differently (and to think about accusations such as I have made as "intuitively crazy", basically). There is a conspiracy, but conspiracy doesn't mean what you think it means. They want a single, world government, but it is not presented as being bad as it is in the Bible. One of the ways to arrive at the truth of it is not to accept anything that is shallow--the whole world has gone shallow, we have shallow relationships, shallow friendships, shallow business dealings, shallow, guilty-based charities, shallow means of deriving pleasure in life, shallowness in entertainment (soaps, ...), shallow upbeat attitudes. Shallow people will not have a problem accepting shallow explanations and shallow moral justifications.

There certainly is room for evidence as far as the "how".

You guys (some of you), have called me arrogant, and perhaps in some ways it has been true, but my assertions have been based on a strong moral conviction about right and wrong, and at times I do my best to apply it to specific situations to determine the right and wrong of it. I've never felt it was my place to actually dictate the course of other people's lives. I believe that we are all responsible for our own lives, and that we also bear some responsibility for how our lives impact others. What's I'm trying to point out is that there is a big difference between believing that you can know right and wrong, and believing you know how to best delegate the resources, freedoms, and lives of others. I find the attitude of some of these people in power to be really very troubling.

I'm sorry, I've never been convinced a one world government is a bad thing.

Convince me it’s a good thing…

Good or bad it's pretty much inevitable. The only decision now is gonna be who benefits and who doesn't.

flip wrote:Good or bad it's pretty much inevitable. The only decision now is gonna be who benefits and who doesn't.

No the question is, who will control the power. I think it would too easy for a dictator type winding up in control.

It may be that one of the questions could also be "when?". And if "when" must be now, there is still a matter of exactly "how?". It will happen, the Bible predicts it. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean I have to take it lying down.

woodchip wrote:I think it would too easy for a dictator type winding up in control.

Yes, and I think that's the root of the "one-world government" fear. But this is why I'm not worried and actually looking forward to a one-world government:*

First, it looks to me that there are a growing number of global problems that need serious attention, and soon. I feel like the world could benefit from a globally elected organization to help create policies and enforce them for the benefit of not just humankind, but all life (within reasonable limits, of course).

Second, if this theoretical organization was truly not in the best interest of all, I don't see how it wouldn't fracture immediately. Even the most horrible dictatorships eventually crumble, sometimes from within. If the people aren't happy it won't work in the long term.

Third, as much as a one-world government could potentially help us all live a better life, I don't see how it's even possible. There is too much greed, too many conflicting ideologies in the world for it to even form.


* This is my uneducated opinion. I haven't thought a lot about the subject so any flaming is welcome as long as there is a good point because I've never taken the time to flush out these ideas.

The problems I see with a one world government, right out of the box…

1. Taxes: we will have to pay another tier of taxes…not like 4 aren’t enough. (Local, State, Federal and Sales…yes, and there are even more)
2. Control of resources in one governing body. (only way to have any power at that level)
3. Usurping their power.

Those are just off the top of my head.

Spidey wrote:The problems I see with a one world government, right out of the box…

1. Taxes: we will have to pay another tier of taxes…not like 4 aren’t enough. (Local, State, Federal and Sales…yes, and there are even more)
2. Control of resources in one governing body. (only way to have any power at that level)
3. Usurping their power.

Those are just off the top of my head.

I don't see how you could have a truly functional world government, if you still maintained the minute, local level stuff, so perhaps your taxation argument is moot. I agree that the control of resources would have to be a must, and control of global resources would entail massive, massive incentives for corruption. As for usurping current power structures, I agree as well, and in fact, am convinced that matter will prevent the formation of any effective one-world governance.

Going by observation and a little predisposition, the only way a one world government is possible is in the aftermath of a huge economic meltdown.

No the question is, who will control the power. I think it would too easy for a dictator type winding up in control.

Yep, eventually, a one-world government will end up a dictatorship, if history has any say that is.

flip wrote:Yep, eventually, a one-world government will end up a dictatorship, if history has any say that is.

Except a one-world government never happed, so I'm not sure what history will tell us. Should we look to the rule of Alexander the Great?

Never will happen either. People are just too fractious and mistrusting of one another. I'd be nice to see a workable and fair world government like in Star Trek, but I think Roddenberry was too much an idealist with delusions of grandeur.

Yep, that's the type of people that would do it. Problem with your argument TC is that it doesn't take a majority vote to do it. If the people who get together like the G8....etc so on were to decide to establish one seat of power, you would hear about it on tv. Nothing anyone could do if the group of people who run things were to agree on it. Plus, a disaster of some type could help the idea along, especially economic, but I imagine manmade and natural could play into it. I'm convinced a one world government is not only being talked about but it also right as we speak being planned. All it would take is the same mindset as right after 9/11.

But a one-world government is a potentially planet-saving thing. I know a lot of people are scared of the unknown, but damn, we need to take a chance. I think it will be worth it.

It's not a new idea and in any incarnation it has never worked. The best we could ever hope for is to stay separate and trade with each other. Once we ever make that step towards total consolidation(not long imho), there is never any going back. I guess if there are checks and balances in place and individual liberties are held in the highest regard, the transition probably wouldn't be too bad. It's the 50 years after it's inception I see no hope for. We will go all the way back to feudal times where there is a lord over a certain geographic area, appointed by some group of douches on another continent.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:As I understand it, communism is not truly the over-reigning goal, it is (and I guess you could say always has been) just a tool for controlling the masses--for doing away with individual liberties. The broader conspiracy is control of the planet by means of a centralized government run by an elite who feel it is their place to dictate how the world should be run.

Anytime you want to start a topic, I'll probably join in if I see an opportunity, but I don't think there's any room for doubt as to what I've just stated. All you need to do is open your eyes and ears and look around you--look on any of the media sources. They say it differently than I did--one of the biggest obstacles to seeing it for what it is being that it is presented in a very different light, and you are encouraged to think about it differently (and to think about accusations such as I have made as "intuitively crazy", basically). There is a conspiracy, but conspiracy doesn't mean what you think it means. They want a single, world government, but it is not presented as being bad as it is in the Bible. One of the ways to arrive at the truth of it is not to accept anything that is shallow--the whole world has gone shallow, we have shallow relationships, shallow friendships, shallow business dealings, shallow, guilty-based charities, shallow means of deriving pleasure in life, shallowness in entertainment (soaps, ...), shallow upbeat attitudes. Shallow people will not have a problem accepting shallow explanations and shallow moral justifications.

See, this is weird. It looks to me like you are describing Laissez-faire economic theory to me: Selfish economic agents whom are only supposed to be concerned with their own small worlds, all out for themselves, always ready to stab eachother in the back the moment it becomes profitable. To me this is exactly how you have described it: Shallow. I'd also add: lonely, brutal and animalistic, inhuman.
This is why it's never gelled with me.

I can undertand how people think the world is going the way of Socialism (and even Communism eventually), i tend to think it's a natural progression of humanity, an inevitable consequence of greater human peacefullness, cooperation and civility; Coupled with an inevitable technological increases in our modes of food/stuff/etc production. I basically think it's naturally emergant, inevitable. (ie: if you believe we were designed (i don't) then this would be the state of governance that we were designed to eventually achieve.)
But i don't get why it's a "conspiracy". To say it's a conspiracy seems to imply that these ideals are NOT attractive on their own merit, that people are being tricked into them. But i don't understand that, because to me socialist ideals are indeed attractive ideals. I don't think it's a conspiracy if a bunch of people simply hold different ideals to your own. To me i see it as weird/curious that a lot of people apparently DON'T hold these ideals.

We already have a semi-funtional global government. The United Nations. Do we pay a UN tax? Not that i know of. Nation by nation we all engage in this organisation voluntarily. I see it as emergant, inevitable. Isn't it natural to be a part of such a group? The only other alternative is to be Isolationist, and i can't see how that could be a good thing.
The way things are going, I don't think we'll really need a global government - ever. Humanity seems to be going in a good direction the way things are. Due to economic reasons international wars are a much rarer thing. I don't have many big fears, one of my comparitively bigger ones is that we'll all increasingly be under the rule of corporate interests. The recent corporate sponsored, globally-organised, governmental crackdown on intellectual property is an example. It worries me because i ultimately feel that intellectual property (as the basis of most monopoly practices, and thus the cornerstone of scarcity based economies like Capitalism) is a problem that needs reform, and i hope we can eventually get to an economic level where we have no need for protection of intellectual property. But this is a whole 'nother big topic.

vision wrote:But a one-world government is a potentially planet-saving thing. I know a lot of people are scared of the unknown, but damn, we need to take a chance. I think it will be worth it.

"The planet" ......... doesn't give a rat's backside about what the little pretending-to-be-intelligent creatures running around on the surface do. The planet will still be here long after humans are a wispy memory.

Big governments face controversy over the way resources are allocated now. I don't get how anyone thinks that a bigger government wouldn't also face even bigger controversy over the way resources are allocated.

dissent wrote:

vision wrote:But a one-world government is a potentially planet-saving thing. I know a lot of people are scared of the unknown, but damn, we need to take a chance. I think it will be worth it.

"The planet" ......... doesn't give a rat's backside about what the little pretending-to-be-intelligent creatures running around on the surface do. The planet will still be here long after humans are a wispy memory.

Jesus, everyone needlessly picks the 5hit out of the most harmless comments here. Planet-saving == making life better for all living beings on the planet by addressing disastrous human-created problems. Of course I agree that the planet would be better off without us on it. But it would be nice if we didn't kill off millions of species while we kill ourselves.

dissent wrote:Big governments face controversy over the way resources are allocated now. I don't get how anyone thinks that a bigger government wouldn't also face even bigger controversy over the way resources are allocated.

Right, and if you read my earlier post you'd see I think it's improbable to have a one-world government for that reason among others. My point is that I don't see a one-world government as an inherently bad thing like the conspiracy theorists do. It's actually something we should try and achieve.

vision wrote: Jesus, everyone needlessly picks the 5hit out of the most harmless comments here. Planet-saving == making life better for all living beings on the planet by addressing disastrous human-created problems. Of course I agree that the planet would be better off without us on it. But it would be nice if we didn't kill off millions of species while we kill ourselves.

heh. "save the planet" blather is a pet peeve of mine. I did not say that the planet would be better off without us. I like it here. I just think that if people want to save the world, they should use an accurately phrased metaphor, and not bumble on about the planet. mis dos centavos.

My point is that I don't see a one-world government as an inherently bad thing like the conspiracy theorists do. It's actually something we should try and achieve.

But ------ why? (since humans would still be in charge)

dissent wrote:I just think that if people want to save the world, they should use an accurately phrased metaphor, and not bumble on about the planet. mis dos centavos.

Ok fine, but can you suggest a better metaphor? And I don't think "save the planet" is too far out of line since we really do have the potential to do major damage that might take millions of years for the planet to recover from. Yes, I know the planet will easily support life for another 5 billion years, but I'd like for the short time we are here to be better for all.

dissent wrote:

My point is that I don't see a one-world government as an inherently bad thing like the conspiracy theorists do. It's actually something we should try and achieve.

But ------ why? (since humans would still be in charge)

Yes humans would still be in charge. But when humans work together, they have to potential to be greater than the sum of the parts. It doesn't always happen. But since we all have to live together in this increasingly smaller world, it would be nice if we could all work toward making life better for everyone, plant and animal included. There is a chance to do that if we can agree enough, as a species, to create a framework for such a thing.

Improbable yes, but it's a good goal to set your sights on nonetheless.

Actually, not having a single world government may significantly improve humanity's chances of surviving the next great extinction. (Note: I say humanity's chances of survival, not any particular nation.) Diversity has historically proven to be a very effective survival strategy.

We already have diversity and we still have some pretty big problems.


While we might not have an answer to whether or not a one-world government is feasible or would work if it did, it's seems most of us can agree that the idea shouldn't be categorically dismissed as a inherently evil. That's refreshing. I've always been aggravated with Illuminati talk and such, haha.


... Then again, maybe I'm an Illuminati agent here to poison your minds!

The idea itself, if you separate it from the reality of the world we presently live in, which is being actively steered toward a unified financial and governmental power system, at the expense of individual liberty and interest (and, make no mistake, in the interest of the hypocritical sons of bitches like Al Gore pushing it), is not evil. Only now it's the stuff of fairytales, so what's the point of talking about it? While we're at it, do you guys think a world without gravity would be evil, why or why not? C'mon now, can't you begin from a point even remotely close to reality?

You have to look at it as divisions of power. It's a good thing for each State to govern itself and prevent a strong central government, but it starts getting out of hand if local governments start disagreeing too badly with each other. For instance, CC is encouraged here , no other city or municipality can create laws regarding weapons carry, ONLY the state legislature. This is good because of day to day interaction. So, you don't want each and every county making it's own laws, nor do you want "one seat of power" The key is to keep it divided, not because everyone living in peace and harmony doesn't sound like a great idea, it's just unrealistic to hope for it. What you will end up with is a centralized government under one flag, with many heads and no way to reverse it.

EDIT: And if you have trouble getting your head around that, just look at how Hitler turned a monarchy into a dictatorship through persuasion all his own, yet even he knew he would not get all of it his go around, thus his calling his reign the 'third kingdom". Or think about how influential Rockefeller was, coming from nothing and then through good fortune getting into the oil business at the right time. It only takes one big thinker and a house full of jackasses.

Here is what you pro world govt. types fail to see. In miniature, it has been tried before. Two example:

1) The British and their control, at various times, of India and the far east, America before it was America and various African countries.

2) Russia which controlled eastern Europe and the northern Asiatic countries like Azerbaijan and Kazakh.

In both case Russia and Britain lost control of their holdings. Why? Because the indigenous peoples did not want to be ruled by foreigners. The same would be true of a one world govt. No country will want to give up it's sovereignty, its culture or it's way of life to some foreign entity. So I don't see any way that this would be accepted let alone implemented. One just needs look at history to see the fallacy.

*Sigh*

You know, we do have a voluntary global organization that works for the benefit of all. It's called the United Nations. Sure, it doesn't please everyone all the time but it's the best and only thing we have. If we keep trying, keep learning lessons from systems like the UN when the work and when they don't, we might have a shot at putting together something great.

Actually, we might be forced into something one day if there is a global catastrophe. It think it's a good idea to ponder that possible future organization, no matter how likely you think it is.

How about this: rather than saying "won't happen" or "it will be an authoritarian nightmare" why not contribute ideas on how to make workable system/framework for such a thing? How could it be structured? What role would it play and how far should policy reach? How could policy be enforced? What current working systems can be scaled to a global level?

And if you are convinced a one-world government is pointless and you don't want to contribute positively to the discussion, then please don't contribute at all. No one needs it. If you don't have an imagination, just sit back and read what other's imagine.

Lol, way to raise that bar.

Spidey wrote:This is a debate…

Righty: Obama is un-american.
Lefty: Nah, Obama just has his own vision for america.
Righty: Well I fear for this country blah blah…
Lefty: Blah blah blah…

This is not a debate….

Righty: Obama is un-american.
Lefty: Stupid! Idiot! Ve have vays to suppress the opinions zat ve don’t vish to hear.

Neo-Censorship.

Wow look at that bar rise, don’t let it hit you in da chin!

Explain to me why Obama is un-American?

vision wrote:

And if you are convinced a one-world government is pointless and you don't want to contribute positively to the discussion, then please don't contribute at all. No one needs it. If you don't have an imagination, just sit back and read what other's imagine.

It is your job, vision, to convince us your idea has merit and is remotely possible. Any discussion about it means the cons will naturally be brought up. Or do you propose we blindly accept your premise as being valid?

woodchip wrote:It is your job, vision, to convince us your idea has merit and is remotely possible. Any discussion about it means the cons will naturally be brought up. Or do you propose we blindly accept your premise as being valid?

I think it can be done because we already have the United Nations; it's a possible stepping stone, one where we can test ideas. What I'm asking is for the detractors who simply dismiss world unity as folly to step aside. They doesn't help the discussion. It doesn't do anyone any good to be an absolutist. Cons are great! You notice I've invited them in an earlier post.

I have been thinking about the question of how to attain a reasonable one-world government, but I haven't prepared anything yet. It's obviously a very, very hard question! Speaking of questions, it's seems to me the process is about asking the right questions. I have a few in mind and I'll post them later when I have a chance. It's a busy week for me.

So you want a debate but don't want discourse to get in your way of your ideas. Pretty one sided debate don't you think.

Absolute government corrupts absolutely.
No more uniqueness. Cultures merged and forgotten.
We can't get our government to function when it is responsible for 300 million people, how the hell is it going to get anything done with they have to manage 6 billion people.
No privacy
No Freedom
Riots from Anti-One World Governement
Police Brutality
Can not make the Decisions we need as people
Be used as sheep
No Individuality
A World of Ignorance

What you are posting is not discourse. It's absolutism. It's not creative. It does nothing to look at overcoming obstacles, it just says "can't be done." If there is a lack of freedom, it's in your thinking. You completely proved my point, thanks!

Honestly I think the whole exercise of supposing some overnight takeover/transformation into a single world government is fairly absurd in the first place. If it's something that winds up happening, and I think it probably will at some point down the line, it'll be something that winds up arising organically, based on the changing needs and desires of society. We saw as much with the ill-fated League of Nations, formed in response to the horrors of World War I, and then the generally-successful United Nations, which provided a necessary forum for international diplomacy after the perhaps greater horrors of World War II. As technology advances, we've certainly seen the world become far more interconnected, to the point where we have the makings of a truly-global society...you have to think that, at some point down the road, the concept of fully-differentiated nation-states is going to seem a bit archaic. Hell, the European Union provides a living example of multiple countries forming an economic and political collective for mutual benefit, to the point where they've implemented an international currency. (Granted, the EU faces some significant issues right now, but the concept is still there.)

This whole thing isn't something to be looked at as some foreboding boogeyman, and it's probably not something that would ever happen from the top down, if for no other reason than maintaining forceful collective control over a significant chunk of the world's nations is pretty much impossible. If/when it happens, it'll happen because it makes the most sense for human society at that time. I don't expect to see it myself, but I don't mind the overall concept...I want my Galactic Terran Alliance, dammit!

Since its creation, there has been controversy and criticism of the United Nations. In the United States, an early opponent of the UN was the John Birch Society, which began a "get US out of the UN" campaign in 1959, charging that the UN's aim was to establish a "One World Government." After the Second World War, the French Committee of National Liberation was late to be recognized by the US as the government of France, and so the country was initially excluded from the conferences that aimed at creating the new organization. Charles de Gaulle criticized the UN, famously calling it le machin ("the thing"), and was not convinced that a global security alliance would help maintain world peace, preferring direct defence treaties between countries

The problem with the U.N. is that it was created to bring about World government, so since it's inception it has continually pushed things towards that goal. The U.N. was a joke until the early 1990's when bush senior announced "A New World Order". Now you guys continually piss and moan about Bush and Clinton and Obama, but Bush SR and his friends are the very ones that set this mindset forth. I remember when I was studying for my GED around 96-97 in the history section under American presidents in bold letters was "Bush and his New World Order." The first line in this video he mentions a credible U.N because before that it was a joke. So whether you like the idea or not, the first roots of the idea here to really take hold was started by Bush Sr. and his crew.

Click

EDIT: So to sum it up, World government and peace sound like great ideas, but these are the guys in charge of it, these are the guys directing it's course. It is their idea.

I feel strongly with TopGun's post above.

Anyway, related thought exercise here.

There is no obstacle to world-government that vision's imagination cannot solve, with varying degrees of implausibility, but he cannot be the architect for where this world is already heading...

Cool, I guess we should all give up and stop thinking.

I swear you debate like a stubborn 10-year old. I wouldn't argue with a 10-year old for the same reason.

Thinking? I thought you were dreaming. Thinking is what I was doing, and you ignored it and kept dreaming. Dream on.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:There is no obstacle to world-government that vision's imagination cannot solve, with varying degrees of implausibility, but he cannot be the architect for where this world is already heading...

I don't know how good of a grasp you really have of where the world is heading in the first place.