Is the idea of a world government inherently bad?

[JohnB]

I know that a world government run by the Illuminati/New World Order would definitely be bad. But is the idea of a world government NECESSARILY bad? As far as I know, David Icke doesn't address this. Sometimes I feel torn about this subject. I can see that globalism as it is now is about exploitation and control, but does it have to be so? Sometimes I feel that there's something inevitable about a progression from clans to tribes to nations to superstates and eventually to a global state (and who knows, maybe even to an interstellar federation a la Star Trek). The idea of a good global state as opposed to a bad one is sometimes known as "alt globalism", i.e global humanitarianism rather than global dictatorship. I would be interested to know people's thoughts on this.

[iamawaveofthesea]

the workers have had to pool together into trade unions so that they can build a platform from which they can then negotiate a better deal from the capitalist bosses

The bargainning chip that they had was their labour. So by clubbing together they could then threaten to withdraw their collective labour if the bosses did not cut them a better deal

Britain had various land tenure systems for example in the shetlands they had the norse Udal system which provided a much better deal for the person working the land

On the mainland the fuedal system was imposed after the invasion of the normans and this was a much worse deal for the land working serfs

After the plague at the beginning of the 1300's wiped out many of the peasants this left less people able to carry out the work which then increased the value of the surviving workers. So they clubbed together in what is now called 'the peasants revolt' and they marched to london to ask a better deal from the king than the brutal regional barons were offering them

The king however lured them under a banner of truce and had their leader murdered and the rest all turned away at crossbow point

The problem the workers have now is that technology has advanced to such a degree that automation is threatening to strip everyones jobs away; for example the british government has invested large sums of money into autonomous vehicles so the implications of that would be that anyone who makes their living behind a wheel would become unemployed. So we are talking about bus drivers, taxi drivers, coach drivers, train drivers, long distance haulage drivers, delivery van drivers etc etc would all lose their jobs. But this will occur across all sectors for example even in well paid high skill areas like surgery they are now using robots to replace the surgeons. No ones jobs will be safe given a long enough time frame

So when workers pool together in trade unions and go on strike the bosses often try to bring in workers from outside who are willing to work for whatever reason and this is called 'scab labour'. Mass immigration is currently being used as a form of scab labour where the big corporations are bringing in poor workers from other countries to then work for peanuts under poor conditions for example in amazon. These people are not organised into trade unions and can undercut the british workers which is why wages have been going down

Another threat to british labour is automation which will then act as a further form of scab labour that will undercut both the british workers and the foreign scab labour. What machines then do is remove the one bargaining chip that the british people have had since being invaded and occupied by the normans which is their labour. Without our labour the elites view us as obsolete

So what happens next is they will offer us 'universal basic income' so that all the unemployed people can afford to eat. However the big banks are working on closed blockchain technologies so that they can create their own centralised digital currencies and the rockefellers and rothschilds are both heavily invested in that tech.

So the UBI will be offered to the workers in the form of digital currency but in order to get their digital currency they will have to agree to having a microchip implanted in their hand which will then be used to swipe scanners to purchase food or goods and services

5G will be rolled out to handle the extra traffic that will be caused by the 'internet of things' where all the tools and equipment used by the workers will have microchips put into them so that the tech will send back data to the technocrats (central controllers)

Obviously the microchips in the workers hands will also be constantly trackable within the wifi field of the 5G which will envelop everyone and everything 24/7

Each citizen will be given a social credit score and if they ever do anything to displease the central controllers their social credit score will be lowered which may then affect their access to UBI or goods and services

As no physical cash will exist the workers will not be able to transact outside of the system which will monitor all transactions

What this system then does is hand all power to the oligarchic class who control the system. This represents an end game to the struggle of labour for autonomy and dignity that has been raging in this country for hundreds of years

in effect it represents a loss for the workers and a final win for the oligarchic class.

The irony is that the 'left' says it represents the interests of the workers but what is called 'the left' these days in the corporate media is in fact supporting this technocratic gulag system that will ultimately enslave the workers

Once the workers are enslaved then they can be removed through various means for example the destruction of fertility and IQ so that they simply die off over several generations

The world government concept of the oligarchs is a programme of global technocratic control

You ask if there is a global alternative and i would say that you will never hear such things posited in the corporate media nor their New Left propaganda

The problem with any form of government is that it always seeks to expand its influence to justify its own existence and by doing so will always impinge on individual rights

Is the answer to corporate socialism big government? I would answer 'no'. I would say that big government and corporate socialism are two sides of the same coin

The answer i would say is more nuanced, more subtle and more of a delicate balance. This ephemeral nature then also makes it more hard to define whereas tyranny on the other hand is far more clear cut and appeals therefore to crude minds

[iamawaveofthesea]

One major problem is that poor people don't worry about civil liberties

poor people worry about what they are going to eat

so if the NWO can make enough people poor for example through 'austerity' then those people will willingly accept a microchip in order to get food

civil liberties are higher up maslows hierarchy of needs!

[JohnB]

Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea

the workers have had to pool together into trade unions so that they can build a platform from which they can then negotiate a better deal from the capitalist bosses

The bargainning chip that they had was their labour. So by clubbing together they could then threaten to withdraw their collective labour if the bosses did not cut them a better deal

Britain had various land tenure systems for example in the shetlands they had the norse Udal system which provided a much better deal for the person working the land

On the mainland the fuedal system was imposed after the invasion of the normans and this was a much worse deal for the land working serfs

After the plague at the beginning of the 1300's wiped out many of the peasants this left less people able to carry out the work which then increased the value of the surviving workers. So they clubbed together in what is now called 'the peasants revolt' and they marched to london to ask a better deal from the king than the brutal regional barons were offering them

The king however lured them under a banner of truce and had their leader murdered and the rest all turned away at crossbow point

The problem the workers have now is that technology has advanced to such a degree that automation is threatening to strip everyones jobs away; for example the british government has invested large sums of money into autonomous vehicles so the implications of that would be that anyone who makes their living behind a wheel would become unemployed. So we are talking about bus drivers, taxi drivers, coach drivers, train drivers, long distance haulage drivers, delivery van drivers etc etc would all lose their jobs. But this will occur across all sectors for example even in well paid high skill areas like surgery they are now using robots to replace the surgeons. No ones jobs will be safe given a long enough time frame

So when workers pool together in trade unions and go on strike the bosses often try to bring in workers from outside who are willing to work for whatever reason and this is called 'scab labour'. Mass immigration is currently being used as a form of scab labour where the big corporations are bringing in poor workers from other countries to then work for peanuts under poor conditions for example in amazon. These people are not organised into trade unions and can undercut the british workers which is why wages have been going down

Another threat to british labour is automation which will then act as a further form of scab labour that will undercut both the british workers and the foreign scab labour. What machines then do is remove the one bargaining chip that the british people have had since being invaded and occupied by the normans which is their labour. Without our labour the elites view us as obsolete

So what happens next is they will offer us 'universal basic income' so that all the unemployed people can afford to eat. However the big banks are working on closed blockchain technologies so that they can create their own centralised digital currencies and the rockefellers and rothschilds are both heavily invested in that tech.

So the UBI will be offered to the workers in the form of digital currency but in order to get their digital currency they will have to agree to having a microchip implanted in their hand which will then be used to swipe scanners to purchase food or goods and services

5G will be rolled out to handle the extra traffic that will be caused by the 'internet of things' where all the tools and equipment used by the workers will have microchips put into them so that the tech will send back data to the technocrats (central controllers)

Obviously the microchips in the workers hands will also be constantly trackable within the wifi field of the 5G which will envelop everyone and everything 24/7

Each citizen will be given a social credit score and if they ever do anything to displease the central controllers their social credit score will be lowered which may then affect their access to UBI or goods and services

As no physical cash will exist the workers will not be able to transact outside of the system which will monitor all transactions

What this system then does is hand all power to the oligarchic class who control the system. This represents an end game to the struggle of labour for autonomy and dignity that has been raging in this country for hundreds of years

in effect it represents a loss for the workers and a final win for the oligarchic class.

The irony is that the 'left' says it represents the interests of the workers but what is called 'the left' these days in the corporate media is in fact supporting this technocratic gulag system that will ultimately enslave the workers

Once the workers are enslaved then they can be removed through various means for example the destruction of fertility and IQ so that they simply die off over several generations

The world government concept of the oligarchs is a programme of global technocratic control

You ask if there is a global alternative and i would say that you will never hear such things posited in the corporate media nor their New Left propaganda

The problem with any form of government is that it always seeks to expand its influence to justify its own existence and by doing so will always impinge on individual rights

Is the answer to corporate socialism big government? I would answer 'no'. I would say that big government and corporate socialism are two sides of the same coin

The answer i would say is more nuanced, more subtle and more of a delicate balance. This ephemeral nature then also makes it more hard to define whereas tyranny on the other hand is far more clear cut and appeals therefore to crude minds

Does all this mean that a politically united planet Earth could never be a good thing?

[unlockthepower]

Yes. It's anti-nature and could never work in a positive way.

[fairyprincess]

It's brilliant idea..... As long as you can guarantee the intentions of those at the top.

[st jimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnB

I know that a world government run by the Illuminati/New World Order would definitely be bad. But is the idea of a world government NECESSARILY bad?

If theoretically speaking, humans are intrinsically "good", we wouldn't need a government to control us.
If theoretically speaking, humans are intrinsically "evil", every government would abuse its power to take advantage of us.

Theoretically speaking, a population could stop a "local" government that abuses its powers, by a "revolution" (I don't think that there has ever been a "real" revolution).
A "world" government couldn't be stopped by anybody. This means that it is - per definition - more evil than any "local" government.

Originally Posted by JohnB

Does all this mean that a politically united planet Earth could never be a good thing?

The same reasoning applies to politrics.
If theoretically speaking, some humans are intrinsically "good" while others are "evil", it would always be the "evil" people that would take control of politrics to abuse it.

There is no reason for a "united planet Earth". Why care about a "united Earth", when I don't even know my neighbours?

[iamawaveofthesea]

Originally Posted by JohnB

Does all this mean that a politically united planet Earth could never be a good thing?

it means that displacing your own personal responsiblity onto others is a very bad idea

[iamawaveofthesea]

Originally Posted by fairyprincess

It's brilliant idea..... As long as you can guarantee the intentions of those at the top.

how are you going to do that?

who will hold the magic wand at the top and how will you guarantee their intentions?

[JohnB]

Originally Posted by st jimmy

Theoretically speaking, a population could stop a "local" government that abuses its powers, by a "revolution" (I don't think that there has ever been a "real" revolution).
A "world" government couldn't be stopped by anybody. This means that it is - per definition - more evil than any "local" government.

Well I wouldn't say a world government could never be stopped, though I concede it would be more difficult than stopping a national government.

Originally Posted by st jimmy

Why care about a "united Earth", when I don't even know my neighbours?

Well you could use that argument against having nations.

[JohnB]

Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea

it means that displacing your own personal responsiblity onto others is a very bad idea

So would you use the same argument against having nations?

[iamawaveofthesea]

Originally Posted by JohnB

Well I wouldn't say a world government could never be stopped, though I concede it would be more difficult than stopping a national government.

the point of a technocracy is to be able to make it impossible to resist central control

Originally Posted by JohnB

So would you use the same argument against having nations?

the argument could be made against centralised control within nations