Big Earth Council

[neo_shiffer]

I think we SHOULD have a world government. Globalization is not going to go away. It's here to stay. The world is too big for one centralized government to rule all (nor is that desirable at this point) but it's too small for everyone to sit in their little corner of the planet! What we need is between five and ten regions in the world that each take care of their region (without taking all sovereignty away from nation states) and at the same time meet in a big world council to coordinate global issues. Each of the regions should have ONE equal vote, representing a certain world group. Why one vote per group? Because no region is more important than another of course. We could debate about what those regions could or should be. Perhaps like this: Europe and Russia combined; the muslim belt that goes from Morocco right to India and China; the black nations of Africa; the Asian nations like China and Japan; a Pacific region that could possibly include India, North America with Canada and the USA, possibly Mexico; South America. That makes seven Big Earth Council members with equal votes.
Let's debate? :D

[starschildren]

Doesn't the world already have a council, and a leader, and the poster boys (or girls) for certain countries, and then the pawns under them, and finally the people? The only change, IMO, would be the world knowing about said council and said leader...basically removing the middle man.

[phildee3]

We need self-government - where every individual is responsible for their own, ordered behavior.

Take responsibility!!

[dollanaqua]

We need self-government - where every individual is responsible for their own, ordered behavior.

Take responsibility!!

Precisely, their own behaviour and also parents should be held responsible for any Sociopathic behaviour of any children they have aged 5+

[phildee3]

Precisely, their own behaviour and also parents should be held responsible for any Sociopathic behaviour of any children they have aged 5+

imo parents should be held fully responsible for the behaviour of their children up to when they enter puberty. The community should be responsible for them while they go through their rites of passage.

I did anthropology in grad. school and this is the best formula, based on the most successful world cultures through time.

[relentless]

I think we SHOULD have a world government.

Someones already thought of it...:rolleyes:

[neo_shiffer]

Doesn't the world already have a council, and a leader, and the poster boys (or girls) for certain countries, and then the pawns under them, and finally the people? The only change, IMO, would be the world knowing about said council and said leader...basically removing the middle man.

If you mean the United Nations, I strongly disagree. It is led by a very small group of people, not everyone has equal say, and many people are not even represented. My point is there IS a different way to run the world and I think it could be achieved. The representatives could be directly chosen and a system could be worked out to take into account the votes of minorities as well. You may think me naive, but I think it must be possible.

Bjorn:)

[neo_shiffer]

We need self-government - where every individual is responsible for their own, ordered behavior.

Take responsibility!!

OK, HOW are you going to organize self-government? :cool:

[neo_shiffer]

imo parents should be held fully responsible for the behaviour of their children up to when they enter puberty. The community should be responsible for them while they go through their rites of passage.

I did anthropology in grad. school and this is the best formula, based on the most successful world cultures through time.

Not that I disagree with you, but you're talking about education, not about organizing the planet. How will you make this planet work better than it does today? ;)

[phildee3]

OK, HOW are you going to organize self-government? :cool:

I already have. ;)

[phildee3]

Not that I disagree with you, but you're talking about education, not about organizing the planet. How will you make this planet work better than it does today? ;)

When I said "self-government" I meant each person governs themselves.
Nobody "makes" anyone do anything. We each make ourselves.

[ladybird]

I think we SHOULD have a world government. Globalization is not going to go away. It's here to stay. The world is too big for one centralized government to rule all (nor is that desirable at this point) but it's too small for everyone to sit in their little corner of the planet! What we need is between five and ten regions in the world that each take care of their region (without taking all sovereignty away from nation states) and at the same time meet in a big world council to coordinate global issues. Each of the regions should have ONE equal vote, representing a certain world group. Why one vote per group? Because no region is more important than another of course. We could debate about what those regions could or should be. Perhaps like this: Europe and Russia combined; the muslim belt that goes from Morocco right to India and China; the black nations of Africa; the Asian nations like China and Japan; a Pacific region that could possibly include India, North America with Canada and the USA, possibly Mexico; South America. That makes seven Big Earth Council members with equal votes.
Let's debate? :D

You support a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
Mission almost accomplished.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JVHfOKaeUiY/SyMA7DkfMAI/AAAAAAAAAJ8/y7PqKwMcRFo/s400/nwo.jpg

You suport a ONE WORLD COURT, too?
Mission almost accomplished.

http://www.thewe.cc/thewe_/images_5/____/international_global_elite_strategy/israel_supreme_court_paid_by_rothschild.jpe

What is this thread good for?
Except distraction?



When I said "self-government" I meant each person governs themselves.
Nobody "makes" anyone do anything. We each make ourselves.

So you want anarchy?
Order out of Chaos?

http://derhonigmannsagt.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/ordo-ab-chaos-doppelt.jpg

Lovely!

[phildee3]

So you want anarchy?
Order out of Chaos?



Yes.
But without the "lovely" organisation.
As soon as it becomes organised it is corrupted.

[ladybird]

Yes.
But without the "lovely" organisation.
As soon as it becomes organised it is corrupted.

And if it is not organised it is ANARCHY

I don't want anarchy.
In fact we already have Anarchy of the Lunatics right now!

:cool:

[phildee3]

And if it is not organised it is ANARCHY



Exactly.
No elitist control over those who want freedom.



I don't want anarchy.



Okay. You can remain a slave if you wish.
The elites, too, can remain as your puppet-masters.
Not to allow this wouldn't be true anarchy.

[ladybird]

Exactly.
No elites.

Okay. You can remain a slave if you wish.

Anarchy of the Lunatics is what we already have right now.

They do what they want.

Now they are a few.

What you support is Anarchy of MANY Lunatics.

Why?

.

[phildee3]

Anarchy of the Lunatics is what we already have right now.

They do what they want.

Now they are a few.

What you support is Anarchy of MANY Lunatics.

Why?

.

What is this "Anarchy of the Lunatics"?

[ladybird]

What is this "Anarchy of the Lunatics"?

C'mon ...!

:rolleyes:

[phildee3]

C'mon ...!

:rolleyes:

Never heard of it.
Neither has Google.

[starschildren]

If you mean the United Nations, I strongly disagree. It is led by a very small group of people, not everyone has equal say, and many people are not even represented. My point is there IS a different way to run the world and I think it could be achieved. The representatives could be directly chosen and a system could be worked out to take into account the votes of minorities as well. You may think me naive, but I think it must be possible.

Bjorn:)

On the contrary, I don't think your naive. I think it could happen with the right circumstances.

And no I wasn't referring to the United Nations, I would consider that the minions of the council and leader I was referring to. I was referring to a group higher up than the United Nations.

[ladybird]

I was referring to a group higher up than the United Nations.

Which is?


-

[starschildren]

Which is?


-
The ones that are higher up, the pure bloodlines, not the cross-breeds they use as fronters for the humans. The council that decides what war will be where, how many lives will be lost, how much of the money will be spent... and the guy who basically signs off on it so they can have some entertainment, and at the same time cut down on the population a little.

Think when Queen Elizabeth was beating inside her own chambers, who has access to her chambers, who could have gotten in there and gotten away with it... The people who are higher up than your Queens/Kings/Presidents, who have undenied access to them for whatever reason at any time, day or night. Those people/beings.

[ladybird]

The ones that are higher up, the pure bloodlines, not the cross-breeds they use as fronters for the humans. The council that decides what war will be where, how many lives will be lost, how much of the money will be spent... and the guy who basically signs off on it so they can have some entertainment, and at the same time cut down on the population a little.

Think when Queen Elizabeth was beating inside her own chambers, who has access to her chambers, who could have gotten in there and gotten away with it... The people who are higher up than your Queens/Kings/Presidents, who have undenied access to them for whatever reason at any time, day or night. Those people/beings.

Good comment!

And perfect peroration.

.

[neo_shiffer]

What is this thread good for?
Except distraction?
Nobody's forcing you to read it. :)

On the contrary, I don't think your naive. I think it could happen with the right circumstances.

And no I wasn't referring to the United Nations, I would consider that the minions of the council and leader I was referring to. I was referring to a group higher up than the United Nations.

So the question remains, what are the right circumstances? From what I know indigenous tribes in America used big councils to make the big agreements and it worked for them. I don't see why it couldn't be made to work on a global scale. If we could divide the world into regions with common backgrounds and interests. For example Europe, I'd say they mostly have similar interests and backgrounds. So do the muslim states...

In my personal opinion it's necessary to govern this planet together, cause some issues like pollution are simply too global. And what if aliens land and make first contact... Do they have to go to 150 different nations? Who do they contact first? No, they contact the global council. I think the question is not IF we want world government, but HOW! And for the moment I stick to the idea of a council, based on native Americans. Once again, I'm not saying I agree with the way things are done in the world today, I'm saying there must be another way to accomplish the same thing.

Well, let's just call that shadow group the Illuminati, to make things easy. I think such a small group can only control the masses for a small amount of time. It's never been different. I know, it's said they've been doing it for thousands of years. But the enslavement they talk about for the near future can not last. There will be rebellion. But let's get back to the possibility of a different world government please. :D

[ladybird]

Nobody's forcing you to read it. :)


You did not like to quote the context, did you?

You support a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
Mission almost accomplished.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JVHfOKaeUiY/SyMA7DkfMAI/AAAAAAAAAJ8/y7PqKwMcRFo/s400/nwo.jpg

You suport a ONE WORLD COURT, too?
Mission almost accomplished.

http://www.thewe.cc/thewe_/images_5/____/international_global_elite_strategy/israel_supreme_court_paid_by_rothschild.jpe

What is this thread good for?
Except distraction?

[phildee3]

Can anybody tell me what the "Anarchy of the Lunatics" is, please?

[ladybird]

Can anybody tell me what the "Anarchy of the Lunatics" is, please?


I said it before:


Those who rule do what they want and they are LUNATICS.


.

[phildee3]

Those who rule do what they want and they are LUNATICS.



So the solution is to have nobody ruling.

[ladybird]

So the solution is to have nobody ruling.


Strange conclusion ...

:cool:


I said it before: I detest anarchy.

Anarchy means: It's either the mob or the lunatics who rule.



.

[phildee3]

Anarchy means: It's either the mob or the lunatics who rule.



No it doesn't.
It means nobody rules!

An = without.
Archon = ruler.

Mob rule is ochlarchy.

[ladybird]

No it doesn't.
It means nobody rules!

An = without.
Archon = ruler.

Do you also still believe that DEMO CRACY means rule of the people?

:cool:

[phildee3]

Do you also still believe that DEMO CRACY means rule of the people?



Yes.
δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (Kratos) "power."

In practice, it is rulership by the majority of the people.

[ladybird]

Yes.
δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (Kratos) "power."
In practice it is rulership by the majority of the people.


Alright then, get yourself informed at least about the basics of reality
and stop believing in mainstream media.

If/when you got the basics of reality I will gladly go on discussing political systems with you.


.

[phildee3]

Alright then, get yourself informed at least about the basics of reality and stop believing in mainstream media.

If/when you got the basics of reality I will gladly go on discussing political systems with you.


.

I absolutely do not believe mainstream media. It is fabricated by the archons -
which is why we need anarchy.

The mainstream media moguls are masters of doublespeak - changing the dictionary definitions of words.

Where can I get "the basics of reality"?

[phildee3]

Where can I get "the basics of reality"?



Ah, I think I've found them.
I could only find one link:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/goth/vc/vc29.htm

Looks cool. I will study them (they seem a bit anarchistic, though).

[phildee3]

Ah, I think I've found them.
I could only find one link:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/goth/vc/vc29.htm

Looks cool. I will study them (they seem a bit anarchistic, though).

Okay, I've done that.
It may not be what you're talking about though - these are (supposedly) the basics of subtle reality. If you mean gross reality, there seem to be quite a few of them! Which one?? DI says it's all illusion.

[starschildren]

So the question remains, what are the right circumstances? From what I know indigenous tribes in America used big councils to make the big agreements and it worked for them. I don't see why it couldn't be made to work on a global scale. If we could divide the world into regions with common backgrounds and interests. For example Europe, I'd say they mostly have similar interests and backgrounds. So do the muslim states...

In my personal opinion it's necessary to govern this planet together, cause some issues like pollution are simply too global. And what if aliens land and make first contact... Do they have to go to 150 different nations? Who do they contact first? No, they contact the global council. I think the question is not IF we want world government, but HOW! And for the moment I stick to the idea of a council, based on native Americans. Once again, I'm not saying I agree with the way things are done in the world today, I'm saying there must be another way to accomplish the same thing.



Well... IMO, I would say you have to first unite the world, overcome the division that has been created, get everybody on the same page. Can't just throw up a united world council without their playing along. That would be the hardest part, you may need the "Aliens landing" to bring everyone together, in a sense, knock some sense into the world.

Uniting the world would be a major circumstance that had to be met. It couldn't work otherwise. Second circumstance, would be getting everyone to agree on representatives. It could take years to get everyone use to it, and start making changes, if the above 2 circumstances were met.

Sections, as you put it, is a very good idea. But they need not be politicians, they should be representatives of the people, by the people. (I'm gonna use my knowledge of how the US is made up here, it probably isn't the same everywhere but its what I am most familiar with) Maybe... in each state there is a representative from each county/region, they meet once a month, discuss what they would like to see happen. All of it is recorded somehow. Than you have one representative from each state meet with the representatives of the other states, say every 3-6 months. They discuss the different things their people wanted, and the same things they wanted. They go back to the people and put what they discussed out there, people settle on an agreement. Now, the representative for this country, meets with representatives from other countries (who have something similar set up). Its talked about on international television, broadcast and recorded. They come to an agreement on every matter brought up (say they do this once a year). You have the council on a global scale, split up in their own regions/countries so they can hear the voice of the entire population.

I've seen the above work with other places/people, there is no reason that it can't work with this worlds big societies (and right alongside the small ones too). I have no idea if it makes sense to anyone else, but I tried to write it so it would, hopefully.