phreedom
09-01-2008, 01:31 PM
I ask this question for a number of reasons.
The first is as follows:
The division of people through the use of concepts (nationalism, different religions, etc) has always been a prime method employed to pit one group of humans against another. The establishment of one "Supreme" state would dilute at least one form of human division.
In essence, Americans don't typically fight Americans, or Germans against fellow countrymen. Disputes often arise from other identifiers. Blacks versus whites, jews versus muslim, but none of these "groups" quarrel saying that one is truly American and the other, not. However, to this day, we see governmental disputes such as North Korea vs. South Korea or India against Pakistan.
If all countries united under one flag, then we would have acheived the dilution of one form of dispute that can easily influence HUGE masses of humans against one another.
A Second Reason I ask this question is as follows:
The only valid (from my point of view) arguments that have arisen "against" a "one world government" deal with how it will be acheived. Many say that the 9-11 "conspiracy" was a ploy to allow the one world government to come into fruition. If this is indeed the case, our arguments against a one world state should be directed at the MEANS for the end but not against the end itself.
The Third Reason I ask this question is as follows:
Under a government that knows no borders the world will finally be free to develop spiritually. Family, Faith and Country are the conepts that rung in the ears of men for so long prior to this, the communication age. No longer worrying about "country" will relinquish one more worry that dominates social consciousness. It won't be the British economy or the American economy anymore. It will be the world economy, everywhere. The military will no longer employ millions. Sure, there will be police, but only for the purposes of social management. Humans will be able to freely focus on what they want to focus on; Their family (fellow humans) and their Faith (their inner spiritual development).
My final thoughts:
The deletion of nationalistic pride will pave the way for further developments of the consciousness of humanity. Huge amounts of social expenses will no longer go towards homeland defense (offense) and security and instead will be funnelled into social programs that will only benefit the "people." One of the roadblocks to true human awareness and mental freedom will be broken down. What the next roadblock will be is still a question, but I don't think we will be able to tackle it until we get rid of this, the first of many, the concept that my country is better than yours because we have a better government and more money. When these conceptually driven borders are destroyed and the world is united under one "state" and we realize that we are of and on this Earth, we will be allowed to move onto the next conceptual roadblock to our spiritual and social ascension...
The first is as follows:
The division of people through the use of concepts (nationalism, different religions, etc) has always been a prime method employed to pit one group of humans against another. The establishment of one "Supreme" state would dilute at least one form of human division.
In essence, Americans don't typically fight Americans, or Germans against fellow countrymen. Disputes often arise from other identifiers. Blacks versus whites, jews versus muslim, but none of these "groups" quarrel saying that one is truly American and the other, not. However, to this day, we see governmental disputes such as North Korea vs. South Korea or India against Pakistan.
If all countries united under one flag, then we would have acheived the dilution of one form of dispute that can easily influence HUGE masses of humans against one another.
A Second Reason I ask this question is as follows:
The only valid (from my point of view) arguments that have arisen "against" a "one world government" deal with how it will be acheived. Many say that the 9-11 "conspiracy" was a ploy to allow the one world government to come into fruition. If this is indeed the case, our arguments against a one world state should be directed at the MEANS for the end but not against the end itself.
The Third Reason I ask this question is as follows:
Under a government that knows no borders the world will finally be free to develop spiritually. Family, Faith and Country are the conepts that rung in the ears of men for so long prior to this, the communication age. No longer worrying about "country" will relinquish one more worry that dominates social consciousness. It won't be the British economy or the American economy anymore. It will be the world economy, everywhere. The military will no longer employ millions. Sure, there will be police, but only for the purposes of social management. Humans will be able to freely focus on what they want to focus on; Their family (fellow humans) and their Faith (their inner spiritual development).
My final thoughts:
The deletion of nationalistic pride will pave the way for further developments of the consciousness of humanity. Huge amounts of social expenses will no longer go towards homeland defense (offense) and security and instead will be funnelled into social programs that will only benefit the "people." One of the roadblocks to true human awareness and mental freedom will be broken down. What the next roadblock will be is still a question, but I don't think we will be able to tackle it until we get rid of this, the first of many, the concept that my country is better than yours because we have a better government and more money. When these conceptually driven borders are destroyed and the world is united under one "state" and we realize that we are of and on this Earth, we will be allowed to move onto the next conceptual roadblock to our spiritual and social ascension...