In Theory: Is One World Government Possible?
Posted by kennc at 08:13, 07 Jul 2005Are we not already developing a unified world language based on English on the internet? We are slowly bridging cultural gaps through our communication on the internet, aren't we? Could this lead to one world government? In theory, is it possible? Would it beneficial for humankind? If so, why? If not, why?
What do you think?
Kennc
Bookmark/Search this post with
- kennc's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
22 November 2004
1 week 2 days
The unified language part is probably overstated in the media's view of this. Discussion groups in other languages are growing, and some groups that started in english are being taken over by Chinese and other languages. There are some statistics about languages of web pages, other languages have been making gains.
World goverment is certainly possible from a technical point of view: we have the means to make a global bureaucracy.
It has a major drawback though for the population: if you don't like it, you can't leave. If you look at human history, people have always left, sometimes because they didn't like how a place was governed. It will be a terrible world when we are robbed of that possibility.
2 March 2005
5 years 17 weeks
Earthling,
I agree with you about the language part. But, why would one world government have to mean one world culture? Wouldn't just make it easier to move around?
Kennc
22 November 2004
1 week 2 days
A single goverment would lead to a single set of bureaucratic rules, which have an influence on your way of life. People have historically left their home country most often for economic reasons, but also because their goverment would not let them live by their own rules.
And, what problems would a single government solve? "No more wars" is a common answer. But there are many problems we have today because we have more than zero governments, not because more than one. Not that I have an alternative to governments, but it is better to be able to choose from a variety of suppliers.
2 March 2005
5 years 17 weeks
I can see your point; but, I'm not talking about implimenting one. I think that slowly, but surely, one is evolving. And maybe, we could learn from our mistakes of the past.
The idea of one world government has been villified and associated with evil for a very long time. I think that the idea should be discussed. Ideas in general are neither good or evil. It's what we do with them that make them good or evil. What's so frightening about this idea?
22 November 2004
1 week 2 days
I see two main negatives with world government.
(a)
You are stuck with it, and as I pointed out, you can't even run away. When people have moved, historically, they didn't go for the prettier scenery or better entertainment. They usually ran from a negative situation, which often was due to their local government. If they can't do that any more, their unhappiness has no escape, and you get more civil unrest, justified or not.
(b)
For a single world government to be a good idea, you have to assume that it is a benevolent government, and that it stays that way. Especially the second assumption is very shaky, given our track record with governments.
Your idea of discussing it is good, hence I'm here discussing it :)
And it's true that we are moving in that direction. I am just opposed to the view of the proponents of a unified world government, it would make things worse rather than better.
2 March 2005
5 years 17 weeks
You aren't the only one whose opposed to it!
The plus is that, if we can face it now and discuss it, we may yet be able to write our own future. A benevolent loosely structured one world government may be possible and maintainable. Furthermore, by facing it now and dicussing it, maybe we can avoid it or make it very difficult to achieve.
What do you think?
1 May 2004
1 year 14 weeks
Human consciousness has to first attain a sustainable threshold of mutation that eradicates the need to dominate before such benevolent government is possible. Otherwise, as the old saying goes, power corrupts absolutely.
2 March 2005
5 years 17 weeks
Richard,
That's the problem! But, what can we do about it? Things seem to be moving faster than we are evolving. So, can we avoid one world government? If not, can we make it democratic? What are other options?
kennc
22 November 2004
1 week 2 days
If we achieve the sort of thing Richard sees as a goal, we won't need government any more. Goverments are basically useful for law enforcement, and for large scale cooperation.
There may be other ways of doing all that, for example having global organizations with responsibilities (and jurisdiction) that are vertically integrated, but horizontally separated. We have things like that now, in standards organizations like the ITU(http://www.itu.int/home/index.html) and the IETF (http://www.ietf.org/) for communications, and FIFA (http://www.fifa.com/default.html) for football (don't laugh, football is important). The ITU is officially a UN organization, in practice there are also large industry influences. Of course, none of these are elected bodies, they are professional organizations not unlike the medieval guilds. These organizations have a lot of power.
We could come up with a system like this, with professional organizations (regionalized when appropriate), without needing a government at the top. An advantage would be that a lot more consideration for long-range goals that the fickle rule by polling which has become popular.
If you have read this far, you probably see some downsides of this. Here are just three: (1) this is very close to globalization dominated by a small number of companies, (2) there is nothing democratic about it, (3) guilds tend to optimize not only technical quality in their field, but at least as much the economic preservation of the current guild membership.
Still, all the benefits for organization can be had without a government at the top. So what is left as a need for that? Law enforcement? Human rights enforcement?
Personally, I hope Richard's global concienceness bit takes a while longer to get here, I want to keep my own for now. No need to mix is with other people.
1 May 2004
1 year 14 weeks
At least, you put it honestly that you would rather not see your consciousness paradigm taken away from your impression of it and replaced against your impression of will.
On the other hand, you must see that this has a direct impact on how you may define structures that may affect government or world affairs.
As I commented above, it will not be possible to have an evolutive and creative world organization that has an integral respect for the individual so long as our current mode of consciousness reigns over our minds.
I am not sure I would call future consciousness 'Global Consciousness' though. I consider that we see future consciousness as global because of our soul experience and that of past civilizations that had not achieved a level of individualization like the one that we have today via reflective thinking. There is no going back, there can only be a move forward.
Anyway, to me a concept of 'Global Consciousness', if applied to the further cession of one's consciousness for the benefit of some sort of collective consciousness is a spiritual concept.
The way I see this, all spirituality will be annihilated to be replaced with the birth of a new consciousness from the ashes of the illusions of the ego. And of course, no one really wishes to go through that when they realize the implications.
Unfortunately for the ego, his permission will not be required. If it were, humanity would be condemned to never evolve and stick to its illusion of progress that, really, is only material progress that benefit to a minority and that will eventually lead to the loss of even that minority.
Because of the vast numbers in the populations, I see that a world government will one day be imposed upon the ancient world by the new initiates in order to stop the destruction that otherwise would exponentially increase and to put an end to the reign of domination and exploitation.
There is too much unconsciousness on this planet to allow a real democracy to emerge and the democracies we have are pale reflections of a concept that supposes that those who participate to this process have a consciousness capable of evaluating the consequences of the direction they undertake as well as the capacity to evaluate the reality or unreality hiding behind the words that are used to direct their decisions.
In other words, you cannot have a real democracy when we can still be lied to. Politics and human consciousness is somewhat like the woman that says 'tell me lies', like in the song. As they say, you must know how to talk to a woman if you are to seduce her. People within so-called democracies want to be told the lies that they want to believe.
Populations want to feel secured, but in the end it is a sense of security, a false security. This makes populations totally prone to manipulation and in that sense, populations want to be lied to and therefore do not seek to find what is hidden under the cover. The cover offered to them becomes sufficient to appease their need for security that fills their total lack of authority over their own lives and is replaced with common sense and commons say.
We are a culture of the form, a culture of impressions, not a culture of transparency. A culture of transparency can only come when the ego has been made transparent by the transmutation of his reflective thought process into pure vibratory communication that burns through all pulsions to dominate and manipulate. In other words, that burns through all psychological mechanisms that are seated on the need to lie.
Then only can we have people creating a World Government that can dominate the unconscious nature of the descending ego and totally reverse the down spiraling movement of fallen consciousness.
1 May 2004
1 year 14 weeks
I guess that if we saw that it is not our eventual primary objective to change others but that we, as individuals, must do something about our own psychological state, we can at least hope to eventually escape the tyranny of the masses' psychology.
We can escape the illusion of truth that is always conditioned by the consensus of our collective ignorance that otherwise we venerate and support via philosophies.
Could we not say that, in the eventuality that an individual, then another one, then yet another one and so on, escape from collective unconsciousness things will eventually happen, their vision being cleansed from their collective conditioning that is based on the vampiristic attributes of the ego who acts like a toddler in constant need of breast feeding that calls for everybody's attention to survive?
If there is no drastic and fundamental change in human consciousness, that consciousness can only perpetuate its mistakes since they are integral to human consciousness. We can't change and remain the same. We must let go of the first step if we want to climb the ladder. Society will not climb the ladder for us; it will only give us a false sense of security that takes away any real need to move on.
Right now, those that want to have a one-world government seek to dominate and establish a failsafe system for the power of a few. If those responsible are not taken, stopped and judged by their populations, the only thing that can stop them is the destruction that they will have brought upon themselves by means of their own arrogance.
You cannot dominate someone else. Either they will become your dog and perish or they will turn against you. If some believe that resolve is enough in itself, they have yet to realize that the curves in the road won't straighten in front of their illusions of being able to curb them.
So, what we can do I think is simply put: opening our own eyes and not being afraid to look without turning our heads, especially when we are personally threatened by what we see.
14 July 2005
6 years 28 weeks
The idea of a one world government is both hateful and repulsive to the average man.Here in the States the regular joe is slowly coming to understand that those in power will only abuse it.The U.S. government does NOT represent the will of the American people.The Great Experiment ( called DEMOCRACY ) will be supplanted by the rule of a few GREEDY and CALLOUS tyrants.
You are correct that IDEA of a one world government is neither good nor evil;but to entertain the idea that it would work is NAIVE in the extreme.ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTLEY!!!!
1 May 2004
5 weeks 3 days
Hi,
Would one world government be beneficial for humankind, sure if you let me divide the spoils. In any other case it would be gradations of detrimental to me.
One world government is allready here kennc's, it's still deciding whether to enforce itself through intimidating lies or terror.
That said the asians are unlikely to play ball, expect big disasters to strike there soon. Islam ? Hardly fundamental differences, as long as they give up the oil. Africa, South America say what ? Europe, yes well still some intellectual resistance there, but the (super)state has plenty of control tools in place, silencing the non compliants without having to resort to direct violence. US hmmm, it holds the keys allright, unfortunately its citizens seem to have been easily pursueded to give up their bill of rights for safe state terror. Something which certainly knocked on to britain , however Tony B. gets more opposition, then again today 7/7 , how convenient.
One world Goverment is a total bollocks concept, its the megalomaniac dream of multinationals trying to save money on their bribes budget.
Now, One world awareness that's something we all need to internalise more, the internet is a tool for that. Once we really care what happens on the other side, humans would be more inclined to participate in deciding what happens next. If however we first have to crush the control mechanisms allready coming down on us , the future looks bleak-even for those haves & keepers. Computers (programmers) will control all.
" do unto others as you would have them do unto you "
1 May 2004
1 year 14 weeks
I feel there will indeed be a one world government that will be there for the benefit of consciousness.
Of course, any attempt prior to that will have for goal the enslavement of humanity, and that is exactly what is happening right now. This can only trigger a next war based on religious ideology. At least based on religion to arouse the populations against each other, like race values were used to arouse Germany in the previous century.
A 'real' world government will have the authority and ability to beam down in every tyran's office and tell them:
'Either you put up or you will be vaporized.'
That's another story though and when we talk about world government today, we rather are referring to concepts of domination for the benefit of the dominant culture and all its pretentions to truth.
2 March 2005
5 years 17 weeks
In a sense, one world government is already here; but, it can't enforce itself. There is too much infighting within the mechanisms of one world government over who will run things and how they will be run. Religion, which is the cause of much of this infighting, may very well destroy everything.
24 April 2005
1 year 35 weeks
...with small penised rednecks like Prez B. in power. The kids getting killed in Iraq today is enough. They were getting candy and american propaganda from our troops when it happened (I'm sure you've seen the news). As far as closing the communicaion gap? We'll just understand our cultural differences alot faster and our battles will expedite.
This past 4th of July, I had NO SENSE OF PRIDE whatsoever being an American. Where are the Lee Harvey Oswalds when ya really need em?
~Inkslinger
22 February 2005
4 years 10 weeks
don't give up hope....religion is to blame for 99% of the worlds woe's.Religious leaders would like to think that they would be the heads of a one world goverment. When science soon discovers the human soul then the world will start changeing for the better. But there will be a period of defiance from religious leaders.
What you are seeing around the world now is a big power play.
With the internet allowing communication like we are doing here, the powers that be know it is only a matter of time before the people will rise up when they know the truth. It's comming soon.
Be proud of who you are as a person. Your not responsible for your goverment and nor am I.
But be warned...your goverment is moving towards internet censorship.
Make sure you fight that one!
DISCLAIMER:the opinions and veiws in this post are mine only and do not nesessarily reflect those of others.
1 May 2004
1 year 14 weeks
Religion is a tool that is used to induce behaviors. Patriotism can be such a tool as well, racism and all kinds of group values people adhere to by association.
2 March 2005
5 years 17 weeks
Religion deceives the people, especially Christianity, by offering false hopes in order manipulate them. Religion plays mind control
games with people in order to turn them into blind followers who let their religious leaders do their thinking for them. But, in terms of one world government, this will serve to prevent it in the short run; because, there are too many religious leaders playing the king of the hill game. In the long run, religion must be curtailed.
The Nation State, in my opinion, is in the slow process on going the same way as the City State. Most nations do not have the resources to be self supporting. So, the necessity to cooperate will slowly cause them to amalgamate. The United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth provide possible models for One World Government. Within them you have both Union and Autonomy.
Finally, I'm sorry that I haven't commented for a little while; but, I got snowed under with my business.
22 November 2004
1 week 2 days
Religion and state have been opponents in the struggle for control for a long, long time. Read Gilgamesh.
The relative strength of governments and commerce has been fluctuating, it's not a linear progression. Look at the Dutch revolution, the economic interests of the city Burgers were an important factor. Canada is the creation of the Hudson's Bay Company, more so than of the English government.
I suggest that the relatively high levels of autonomy in the British (really English) empire were more due to lack of capability of control from the center, rather than lack of desire for control. Either way, in those days there were other empires, and independent areas.
And I still maintain that there is no real benefit to a global government, for the governed.
2 March 2005
5 years 17 weeks
First, as I have stated, I am not in favor of global government. But realistically, I think that it is slowly evolving. Furthermore, I think that lack of capability of control in the center will allow a great deal of autonomy. Your examples are excellent. I simply don't think that in the long run global government can be avoided. I do, however, think that we can write the history to some extent. So realistically, how could it be beneficial. Furthermore, central control in global government is one thing that I don't think that we have to worry about; because, no one group will ever become that powerful.
22 February 2005
4 years 10 weeks
if the idea of a world goverment is to govern, control and effect everbodies lives on the planet, then we have that...OPEC...
DISCLAIMER:the opinions and veiws in this post are mine only and do not nesessarily reflect those of others.
24 June 2004
4 years 34 weeks
How right you are!
This is the way the world ends.....not with a bang but a whimper.
shadows
2 March 2005
5 years 17 weeks
You may very well be right? But, on the other hand, the oil supply is running out! So, let's wait and see. I think that there is a higher probability that the will end with a big neuclear bag within the next 200 years!
22 November 2004
1 week 2 days
There is OPEC, and some other organizations with at least some global control, and nobody elected them. OPEC, Microsoft, diamonds. FIFA.
The running out of oil part is overstated - we are heading for peak oil production in maybe 5 or 10 years. But when that happens, there will still be oil for quite a few decades. There really should be time enough to adjust out economies.
Kennc, I know you are not advocating world government, I was just fishing for someone to give the argument of the proponents. There used to be a point of view that it would avoid global nuclear war, and nothing else would. But that was in the early cold war days.
2 March 2005
5 years 17 weeks
I really don't think that there is a good argument for one world government! That's what I've been fishing for too. It's the reason that I started this thread. Thank-you for responding and trying to help me!
24 June 2004
4 years 34 weeks
Hi earthling,
The price of oil has always been used as a means of control and I believe it will continue to do so.What better way to get massive control than to have everyone struggling to pay for oil.
Keep the price high and you justify the oil wars.
It only needs to rise by about half again and there will be severe hardship for people who have trouble now affording it.
As to One World Government what a miserable place the world would be.
The greatest thing about us as humans is the difference we have from one another.
Other cultures and other races, other colours and other ideals, should all be celebrated as contributing to the multi-coloured whole.
With a One World Government the whole world would soon be coloured khaki.
shadows
2 March 2005
5 years 17 weeks
On the one hand, the world seems to be moving toward one world government slowly but surely. On the other hand, one world government is a very bad idea.
Without government law and order breaks down. With government corruption prevails.
What are we to do?
1 May 2004
1 year 14 weeks
Possibly stop and consider that the real reason behind this state of things is the quality of human consciousness at the individual level and not as a whole.
Then, perhaps, once such consideration has been looked at without blinking, examine within ourselves what lies behind the quality of our own consciousness and not that of others.
I do not believe anything can be done to stop the mountain of unconsciousness that is supported by the masses.
Only individuals realizing the anti-human consciousness within can have an impact on that piece of humanity which is their person.
Then, the more individuals strip themselves of their anti-humanity, the less anti-humanity remains.
Btw, in case someone wonders what I mean by anti-humanity, I define it as being any state of mind, emotionally induced or not, that generates consequences that are destructive either for others or for oneself.
2 March 2005
5 years 17 weeks
Richard,
I agree and hope that enough people will strip themselves of anit-humanity. But, in order to do so, they will have to think and analyze the world around them themselves. They will then have to take a hard and painful look at themselves. And unfortunately, far too many people don't want to do that. They want others to do their thinking for them. So, I think that the first step is to shock people in to thinking. Force them to think! The question is, "How should we go about shocking people into thinking?"
What do you think?
kennc
1 May 2004
1 year 14 weeks
People think already. Unfortunately, one does not think what one wants to think but what one can think.
what can be thought is limited by the capacity to support what one knows.
There is also a huge amount of karma that still needs to be paid by the nations of this humanity and by extension by the people that 'belong' to it and therefore do not belong to themselves.
When that karma has been burned, individuals will be so sensitive to reality having hit them in the face that they will either feel a newfound absolute necessity to 'really' know, which equates to refusing lies, manipulations and domination, even from within, or they might not be even allowed to continue their evolution on this planet.
No-one can shock someone else into a way of seeing things or another. Each-one has an experience and every one's conditioning is part of the support and fabric of that experience; even the lies.
That has to be respected because the time of the evolution of an individual is the time of his own spirit. It is 'he' who will know when it is time to stop thinking and start communicating. He may actually have no choice like today we have no choice but to replace reality with beliefs.
22 February 2005
4 years 10 weeks
I watched sixty minutes last night in horror. An American muslim leader was addressing young Australian muslims and telling them that they cannot have friends outside their faith. They cannot marry nor mix with non muslims. Now to me that is the height of intolerance.
With leaders like that spreading this sort of thing we are only heading down a more seggregated road that will lead to more violence in the future. Humanity is way too imature for a one world goverment to work. There is just too many differences between culture and religion. Untill there is tolerance there will only be strife!
We have a long way to go.
DISCLAIMER:the opinions and veiws in this post are mine only and do not nesessarily reflect those of others.
2 March 2005
5 years 17 weeks
thefloppy2,
I agree! But, how do we shock people into the reality of this before we destroy ourselves. This is the problem! We need to be looking for answers which is what we are doing!
kennc
22 February 2005
4 years 10 weeks
while tracking down some info on pine gap i stumbled onto this.
the first few paragraphs are about pine gap but then the most part is about one world goverment.
http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/pi...
DISCLAIMER:the opinions and veiws in this post are mine only and do not nesessarily reflect those of others.
2 March 2005
5 years 17 weeks
thefloppy2,
Thank-you! It is a very informative link. It makes one think, doesn't it?
kennc
24 June 2004
4 years 34 weeks
Wow floppy, that's interesting.
Thanks,
shadows
14 July 2005
13 weeks 6 days
It will all happen naturally great soul Kennc.
Love will install, there will be freedom naturally, in mutual understanding, we don´t have to change that , it is already written
no one will rule no one, people will get together and in harmony naturally,,,for you all, See the Rising,and don´t worry
Hugs to you Great kennc , and all involved
2 March 2005
5 years 17 weeks
My Brother Legatarius,
When it happens, it will be the best of all possible worlds!
kennc
22 February 2005
4 years 10 weeks
'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy;
said the spider to the fly.
you seek truth, you seek answers. you seek to understand spirituality. You need to make sence of your existance.
You hope to find direction from others.
You will find all you wish to know within.
Don't fall into the worship or admiration trap. Be the best YOU that you can be.
DISCLAIMER:the opinions and veiws in this post are mine only and do not nesessarily reflect those of others.
2 March 2005
5 years 17 weeks
thefloppy2
Legatarius and I have discovered that we live in the same country. This is a great revelation! So, my brother and I are conversing. Check out Legatarius's web site. It's really good! You can access it from his blog.
kennc
24 June 2004
4 years 34 weeks
Hi Kennc,
That must have been a surprise for you running into a countryman this far from home.
Legatarius sounds like a nice bloke.
Good luck to you both.
shadows
btw isn't Floppy wise.
2 March 2005
5 years 17 weeks
Shadows,
It was very nice of you to comment. Legatarius is a nice bloke. Please, check out his web site. It's on his blog. You'll love it!
kennc
14 July 2005
13 weeks 6 days
be welcome to the ship of Harmony and love...although ,this is just for this Era,there needs to be balance always ...remember
14 July 2005
13 weeks 6 days
you will not be forgotten, Never, ever....
May my words, inspire all the ones o seek answers within them.
Wisdom and knowledge, leads to compreension...wich leads to love and will.......Once again Great be your Days kennc,and all involved.Secrets Great will be revealed soon.Lets not waste time with words, But step forward through actions ;)
For the World