DISCLAIMER: This is NOT a religious debate. Do not turn this into a religious debate or you will be slapped with not just one, but two, count 'em, two moist trout! You have been warned.
I've only recently discovered the "OMG BIRAQ HUSSEIN OSAMA BIN LADEN IS THE ANTICHRIST WTF" craze, but it does make me think. I'd really rather this not transform into a religious debate despite its obvious religious theme. The reason I'm starting the thread however is something that I feel non-religious, and even anti-religious, types can relate to.
Barack Obama has risen to fame and power quite quickly, and even the news media has pointed out his "cult-like following". Despite the wishes of many who are convinced that Obama is in fact the foretold Antichrist, it seems Obama will likely win the 2008 presidential campaign. Should Obama gain the presidency it is the fears of these people that he will not stop there, he will continue rising in power until he is the ruler of the entire world.
Regardless of whether this is Obama's agenda it does present an interesting point. If past history tells us anything we can see that when someone with "evil intent" is placed in power, simple civil rebellion is not generally enough to regain power. More often than not we find it takes allies in a position of power to overthrow the "evil force". So what then if the world was united under one single world government? What if this "unified government" was in fact eeeeeevvvvviiillll?
I don't know enough of the facts to honestly have an opinion specifically regarding Obama. I doubt I would vote for him as president, but that's strictly because of my devotion to Stephen Colbert...:=
I definitely have an opinion about a single world government however, and my opinion is that it is not just a bad idea, but a terrible one. If the entire world were "unified" under a single government, a single "world order" I doubt it would bring "peace, justice, and freedom" to everyone. The major problem is the fact that in this imperfect world a Utopian society simply cannot exist. There will always be problems. There will always be conflict. And if past history serves us we really must recognize that power is and always will be the major point of conflict.
A good example I think can be seen in George Orwell's "Animal Farm". A single world government wouldn't inherently mean a socialistic one, though I think it does provide a basis for understanding how quickly and easily power can be corrupted when placed in the wrong hands.
So...discuss?
DISCLAIMER: This is NOT a religious debate. Do not turn this into a religious debate or you will be slapped with not just one, but two, count 'em, two moist trout! You have been warned.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. ;)
Personally, I don't think a singular world government will come to be in my lifetime or at any point in the next few centuries. However, I agree with you that it would probably be a terrible idea, though a well-intentioned one. I have absolutely no faith in humanity to create something like the Federation from Star Trek without it turning into the evil empire from Star Wars.
Still, to be one the safe side, I go to sleep every night with my head wrapped in tinfoil. And, of course, a towel under my pillow... just in case the apocalypse sneaks up on my while I'm asleep.
- Ponch
Some European people have the impression that the USA presidents are just the face and the front of some powerful groups. The general idea is that there is no difference between candidate A or B.
So, as a European guy I answer with a question, how powerful is a American president and what is the senate's part in the big decisions?
Please consider this a mere statement of opinion.
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Thu 08/05/2008 20:49:22
Should Obama gain the presidency it is the fears of these people that he will not stop there, he will continue rising in power until he is the ruler of the entire world.
Is popularity truly a sign of demonic possession? Of anti christ status? I suppose that's why the Backstreet Boys, Brittney Spears, The Pope, Michael Jordan, and Lance Armstrong are all so eviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil. Especially Lance - He feels no pain! Must be Satan!
Seriously.
Coming out of the administration known as George W. Bush you honestly pose this question regarding Obama? Are you serious? The only reason I'm not really really really pissed off at you is because this is typical of almost every presidential frontrunner. People's imaginations run wild.
As someone who has paid attention to every waking second of the primaries, I'm really insulted by conspiracy theory hoax malarchy. This just shows blatant ignorance and I wish you sit up and get involved in politics BEFORE the point where its conspiracy theory.
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Thu 08/05/2008 20:49:22
I don't know enough of the facts to honestly have an opinion specifically regarding Obama. I doubt I would vote for him as president, but that's strictly because of my devotion to Stephen Colbert...:=
I hope this is the key to your post. That the whole thread is satire. Because I don't think most impressionable minds will get it. Stephen Colbert is an Obama supporter as far I can tell.
Congratulations. This thread brought my mind to a complete hault.
Can an American answer my question?
I became very interested on this subject since I saw on TV a Rocky/Wrestling mock up of the American Elections. I thought, this guys don't give a d... about it!
I don't think Saddam viewed himself as being evil. Same goes for Hitler. I'm theoretically pro-globalisation but there's loads of things that can go wrong. Not that it will be an evil planetery government, just that it will be severely crippled like the EU.
Quote from: miguel on Thu 08/05/2008 21:10:08
Some European people have the impression that the USA presidents are just the face and the front of some powerful groups. The general idea is that there is no difference between candidate A or B.
Well, that's what I said the last time. But I think the agenda for the american government would have been very different had Gore been
elected president. (For the record, I'm European.)
The point of it all evenwolf is that Obama has gained the strongest backing in the shortest amount of time of any presidential candidate to date (statistically speaking). I'm not saying Obama is the devil here. Simply pointing out the hysteria involving him (on both fronts) and one of the millions of possible conclusions.
BTW Ponch, I've been told I'm a good writer (sometimes) but most of my work is quite reportedly crap! ;D
Quote from: evenwolf on Thu 08/05/2008 21:33:42Is popularity truly a sign of demonic possession? Of anti christ status? I suppose that's why the Backstreet Boys, Brittney Spears, The Pope, Michael Jordan, and Lance Armstrong are all so eviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil. Especially Lance - He feels no pain! Must be Satan!
Seriously.
This is precisely the point of this thread.
Quote from: evenwolf on Thu 08/05/2008 21:33:42I hope this is the key to your post. That the whole thread is satire. Because I don't think most impressionable minds will get it. Stephen Colbert is an Obama supporter as far I can tell.
As far as I can tell Colbert is the right-wing counterpart to Jon Stewart and has always been very outspoken in his anti-Democratic, pro-Republican views.
The point of the post was that Obama's "following" brings up the question of globalization. Should we have one supreme government? What measures could be taken to prevent corruption within the government? Etc. I didn't intend my post as an attack against Obama. In fact, if you had read the first sentence in that quote I think you'd have gotten at least that much.
PLEASE READ!If the title I chose really throws you off that much I can change it, but the point was that these extremists are the ones who put this line of thinking (about globalization) in my mind.
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Thu 08/05/2008 22:20:42
As far as I can tell Colbert is the right-wing counterpart to Jon Stewart and has always been very outspoken in his anti-Democratic, pro-Republican views.
Monkey I understand your intentions. Obama's rise to power = globalization? He is the only candidate to openly refuse PAC money. This does not scream globalization to me. Clinton or McCain would be more likely NWO material. I find your reasoning flawed. Take Colbert for instance. He is not right wing. He is one of the most liberal minds in the US media. His portrayal of a news pundit is a parody of Bill O'Reilly. The point of his show is to make fun of right wing nuts.
Liberal liberal liberal. I cannot stress this enough. How long have you been watching the show?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert_%28character%29
Quote from: miguel on Thu 08/05/2008 21:10:08
So, as a European guy I answer with a question, how powerful is a American president and what is the senate's part in the big decisions?
The U.S. government was designed to be kept in place by a series of "checks and balances". This means that the president can't do a whole lot without soliciting the help of the Legislative and/or Judicial branch. No one branch of the U.S. government has the power to do much of anything without one or both of the other two. So, the president is more than a figurehead, but less than a dictator (though not much less, it sometimes seems).
Thank you Skuttleman, even if it doesn't work right, I believe every democracy should have a senate.
The wise should prevail.
I guess in Europe everything is more serious. Colbert would be a one week joke here, not more.
Clinton (Bill) was known for his concern on fair policies on immigrants and social affairs, and that was told, first-hand by people I know who live in the USA.
If Hillary will do the same, I don't know, but I would vote for her because of that.
I know that close friends of my family have suffered from Bush take on immigration and minorities.
But I have this hint that McCain will be the next president.
Pfft, America's on the way out, anyway.
I don't understand why people seem to think America will still be king of the world a thousand years from now. Empires fall down. Inevitably. It's happened hundreds of times throughout history, and there's never really been a case of it not happening.
There was a time when Britain ruled half the world, a time when France ruled half of Europe, a time when the Middle East were the most technologically and scientifically advanced civilisation on the planet, and a time when 'America' was just some Spanish dude.
Times change. And the concept of a 'unified government' has been tried and failed several times -- "No taxation without representation".
Quote from: Emerald on Fri 09/05/2008 01:00:04
Empires fall down. Inevitably. It's happened hundreds of times throughout history, and there's never really been a case of it not happening.
You could be right. Just might be. One factor we should all think about. Every instance of empires falling down in history excluded the presence of world media outlets. We are a fast paced world now with public relations and corporations becoming the new "western expansion". There's no real land grabbing going on. And human rights seems to be a common theme around the world. But the US economy could just be its downfall.
Quote from: evenwolf on Fri 09/05/2008 01:11:11
You could be right. Just might be. One factor we should all think about.
Yeah, and I bet a thousand years ago they thought they were
so advanced when they discovered how to vaccinate against smallpox.
It's just simple logic: nothing of this earthly realm - be it organic, machine or philosophy - functions so efficiently that it would last forever. Everything that lives, dies.
That's not to say that America will be wiped off the face of the Earth, but it seems very unrealistic to assume that it'll be all-powerful from now on.
Um, slight sarcasm there but my point was more on the issue of US's "impending doom" as in any time 1 - 50 years from now.
I think a world media is much different than general advances in technology..... since when does vaccination effect public opinion.
Quote from: Emerald on Fri 09/05/2008 01:00:04'America' was just some Spanish dude.
Amerigo Vespucci was Italian. Columbus was Italian. Leif Ericson was Norwegian. So...not really sure where you get "some Spanish dude".
While we're all being technical and things here. :=
Oh, and just because we have no record of any government having existed since the beginning of time till the present doesn't mean that it is impossible that any single government could exist "UNTIL THE END OF TIME"...or indeed longer than any to date. It is still possible for modern governments to outlive those of yesteryear.
I'm not saying that America will be the one to do it, or indeed that we will absolutely see such a government in our own lifetimes, but saying that America will have completely fallen within the next thousand years is a bit prophetic...
Wikipedia didn't tell me anything about Colbert being a liberal, only that the "character" is fictional.
Really this topic wasn't intended as a debate over Colbert's true political views. I'm not saying you're wrong, only what I have seen myself, and I haven't seen the show for at least two months. Evenwolf if you want to continue the Colbert debate, or if you have some other problem with me, it would probably be best to do so in PMs.
Subtext. Colbert defends Obama almost on a nightly basis through satire.
Examples of satire: http://youtube.com/watch?v=BSE_saVX_2A
Billy O'Reilly appearance: http://youtube.com/watch?v=VPfZBtxrT5s&feature=related
Monkey all this "Evenwolf youre going off topic" nonsense cannot exist in this thread.
You brought conspiracy theories. I didn't. Everyone in the known universe understands satire. I just find it fascinating someone is watching Colbert and taking it literally. You have Blown My Mind. There's nothing I want to express via PMs. If you don't get the joke from watching the show how could I possibly convince you?
I don't take everything I see on Colbert Report literally, but I like to imagine that he's not 100% scripted. And I also imagine that if he was really as horribly liberal as you say he is he wouldn't be able to pull off a conservative quite the way he does.
The only "conspiracy theor[y]" (singular) that I "brought" was the idea that Obama is the Antichrist which despite the title (which I intended as a joke) isn't the actual topic. The idea that Obama will assume world power and declare himself supreme ruler of the universe got me thinking along the lines of a singular world government and the effects it could have.
You're coming across as pretty hostile and I'm at a loss as to why. I presented a serious topic with a bit of humor and absurdity mixed in and you seem as if you're already planning how you are going to violently murder me. I haven't meant to offend you, but it seems as if I have. Sorry about that.
No, I don't plan on anything like that. ( You only brought up the harmless idea that Obama was the anti christ?) You're pretty careless with your assessments of US political figures.
"I heard someone say Obama was the anti-christ". (pretty harmless statement!)
The fact that impressionable minds will simply repeat what they see is evidenced in this very thread. Don't spread unfounded filth. Someone else will just go home and say "I heard Obama is..." and its frustrating to a guy like me who actually does his own research. That has been my point all along.
GET INVOLVED IN OTHER THINGS BESIDES CONSPIRACIES. The primaries have been pretty exciting with the facts alone! Don't make up or pass along the garbage and clutter it all up. That's just careless.
Well, if you want to get into detail, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in the CFR, whose ultimate aim is a globalized (or one-world) government, its next step on that road being the NAU and the international highway from Mexico to Canada. If you want to read up on it, the NAU plan's been on the books since '88 and most Americans have become too apathetic and disinterested in their own government to pay attention to these things until they're blindsided with things like the declining dollar, which is how they'll justify unifying currencies and the Amero.
Alright, alright I know you've already stated 'conspiracies=bad' but I couldn't help but post.
At work a few weeks ago an employee was telling me how he "believes" (yes, believes. this is all his outlook on things) that with the downfall of the US dollar, he feels USA will somehow convince us Canadians to merge the USA and Canadian dollar. Then once that is done and the new unified north american dollar becomes powerful, they'll try to merge mexico. Then later south america. AND the REST OF THE WORLD!!! Dun Dun Da! Eventually with plans to unify all governments.
Now I have no idea about any of this. I do not follow politics, and I honestly have no idea how powerful a merged Canadian and USA dollar would be, or what affects it may have.
He also mentioned as for the presidential election; he thinks Bush is going to declare a state of emergency/war so he can stay in the game for as long as it takes for him to fulfill this grand conspiracy.
As I said, this is all ideas from my fellow employee. They might sound stupid, but they did get me to think about it.
EDIT: Wow. While I was typing, ProgZ pretty much just backed up my fellow employee's conspiracy? Perhaps my coworker read it somewhere and just told me it was his feelings on the matter.
Merging the Canadian dollar is likely a strategy indeed. The other things mentioned are a bit shady but I'm open for conspiracies with any sort of evidence backing them. I just thought that choosing one guy of the lot and juxtaposing him with evil (instead of say G.W. or Hillary or McCain) is just well.... wtf.
Obama has been the one guy distancing himself from special interests (excluding sorts of memberships mentioned by ProgZ, who by the way needs a few more tid bits to back up his claims as their FAQ didn't include "world domination" or the like. http://www.cfr.org/about/faqs.html Worst tidbit on the FAQ is that some of their meetings' minutes are withheld from the public.)
But Obama is the one guy whose hands are fairly clean as far as his campaign goes. The whole message has been overall positive, honest, and a grass roots effort. I've kept my eyes on it since Feb. of last year. Not once have I seen his eyes flare with fire or lick his lips with a forked tongue.
And another thing is this. How do you start an argument about the anti christ and ask people not to talk about religion? "Well I happen to be an atheist and think the anti christ myth is rubbish. But yes Obama IS that mythological figure as told in many fables."
Its downright angering. These claims are worse than the Jeremiah Wright bullshit, and have no evidence backing them. All fact based conspiracies are welcome in my mind.
evenwolf, you seem to be really missing the point of this thread.
It was not meant to be a debate about the US candidates.
The whole Obama spiel was just an introduction to the intended topic, which is "Global government: good or bad?"
Also, you're having a go at monkey for not "getting" satire, but you're also calling him up on every word he writes despite a lot of it being obviously satirical.
Meanwhile, back on topic...
Where the idea of a global senate is concerned, the UN is already half-way there.
As far as I see it, it's only two steps away from being there.
1 - Get everybody involved to agree to go with the concensus no matter what (as it is, they can choose to ignore it).
2 - Choose the members on merit rather than based on where they're from. If this means you get 5x as many Germans, 3x as many Indians and no Brits, then so be it.
These are admittedly rather large steps, and I personally can't see them happening any time soon.
As for whether it'd be a good or bad thing, it all depends on who's involved.
The mythical "they" do say that power corrupts, but I think that if given the power to do so then the majority would probably expel the bad apples before they get a chance to ruin the bushel. If not, then we're all screwed.
I understand the title of the thread as satire and Monkey's attempt to distance himself from the nutters. But the way this convo was introduced is giving those nutters credibility and wrongly so. Have you ever heard someone say something like "I'm not homophobic but don't you think gay people are...?"
Yeah yeah yeah great attempt to distance yourself from those assholes. Not much of a disclaimer really. You said what you wanted to say and no harm done.... even though harm is done in retelling such generalizations.
Talk about globalization all you want. I found your comments on a global senate wonderful. I'm out.
QuoteYeah, and I bet a thousand years ago they thought they were so advanced when they discovered how to vaccinate against smallpox.
That was only in 1796, only 212 years ago.
Also, this thread is hilarious, as if a unified world government would ever exist, hahaha.
Well, the Soviets...sorry the Russians, have already reacted to Obama's World Domination plan.
It looks like Putin has shuffled the cards and handed them back the same way.
There is a big parade on the red square today, like the ones happening back when USSR was still on.
I believe it is a clear message, the World Powers need to be clarified.
I believe the USA democracy will suffer from it, a shame IMO, because it's still pretty much a "dream that can come true" to the eyes of the world.
The only way to achieve world government is if we discover alien life that we can be belligerent to. Nothing unites like a common enemy. A few thousand years later we'll discover that we wiped out a planet of pacifists, but hey...
SSH, I propose making a new thread combining both Aliens and Globalization. That would be the mack daddy of "evenwolf plays devil's advocate" thread.
Quote from: Ultra Magnus on Fri 09/05/2008 06:48:44
Meanwhile, back on topic...
Where the idea of a global senate is concerned, the UN is already half-way there.
(http://www.miez.nl/tmp/senate.jpg)
Global senate?
;D
evenwolf, I hope that the new title pleases your senses. 8) (I hope you don't actually take more offense at the new title. If you do I apologize ahead of time, I'm not trying to infuriate you here. And again, sorry if my own stupidity has angered you.)
Star Wars is definitely a good example of the fear of a globalized government. Certainly a single unified government would not automatically imply Bush or Obama or Clinton or McCain or even Gore or Bill Gates going around zapping everyone with magic lighting out of their fingers. But the fear of placing too much power in the hands of the few is a rational one.
The problem is in fact that once the power has been assigned it could be very hard to overthrow or regain control in the event of corruption within. One example of the difficulties that instantly leaps to my mind is the issue of "gun control". I'm all for keeping firearms out of the hands of deranged maniacs (such as myself), but imagine with me if you will a world where all weaponry is removed from the hand of the citizen. The government has total control.
The fear of death is a very real and very rational fear to be sure, and in this world, the citizens would be left defenseless. What use is a man's fist against a shot fired from a thousand miles away?
I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion of the gun control issue, but it is one of the first things that comes to my mind in the hypothetical situation. Again "global government" != "eeeeeevvvvviiiiillll government" by default, but in the event of globalization of the government, it is a realistic possibility.
Quote from: Becky on Fri 09/05/2008 08:29:47
QuoteYeah, and I bet a thousand years ago they thought they were so advanced when they discovered how to vaccinate against smallpox.
That was only in 1796, only 212 years ago.
Also, this thread is hilarious, as if a unified world government would ever exist, hahaha.
I hyperbolise. Deal with it :P
Anyway, a 'unified government' doesn't necessarily have any implications beyond the fact that a different face is on your money.
No group of people has the knowledge, resources or time to govern an entire planet. It's very simple -- the more you control, the more you have to keep track of. Either the global government would collapse under its own weight, or it would just be a meaningless umbrella which leaves all the countries pretty much to their own devices. Like the UN...
Well there are other implications of one select group of people telling everyone what to do, particularly with the constant lobbying in congress (it's been defeated once but will be coming back for another vote in the next year or so) for identity chips. Once all of your information is recorded on a chip, it's not a massive leap for a government of select individuals to, in effect, shut you off if you speak out too much against them. Of course there are a lot of reports out there that cannot be substantiated at this time, but it comes down to who you believe. Me, I choose to believe a former CFR hopeful who became disillusioned over public records about the CFR, just as I would be more interested in hearing a former Scientologist's information than I would what they're willing to publicly release.
Monkey: :)
I apologize as I was playing a bit of devil's advocate with you. The funny thing is that I have antagonized my friend Zach before AS Bill O'Reilly and it had nothing to do with Colbert. I had just watched too much O'Reilly and decided to "channel his spirit" for a few minutes. My friend actually got very very upset ... visibly... to the point I thought he was going to hit me. So I stopped and collected myself. He got the joke afterwards but I always regretted adopting the Bill O'Reilly persona for that 5 minutes or so.
Believe it or not I've actually met Alex Jones. I think he lived near me in Austin. Once he and his family sat at the booth across from mine at a breakfast joint. ( Alex Jones is one of the foremost "9/11 was an inside job" howlers. Charlie Sheen and Joe Rogan and I forget who else have since joined his cause. ) In fact I watched his community access program quite a bit before 9/11 ever happened. The Bohemian Grove program, his refusal to be thumb scanned,.... Ive seen quite a lot of his stuff. He definitely believes in the NWO.
Following Emerald writings (I agree totally) some posts above:
some things to take in consideration:
a) the more tight is the law, the bigger the crooks are
b) economic domination leads to huge black markets (or parallel markets)
c) humans are corrupt by nature
a) take the drug example, countries spend billions of money fighting it but drug production and profits sustain several parts of the world;
b) unless the internet is totally controlled, everything can be bought for the right price;
c) at least until they taste some of the devil's candies;
evenwolf-
I'm not saying I buy into 'conspiracies', because even the word somehow makes what you believe in seem like a fantasy concocted by an addled/paranoid mind rather than something that could somehow be legitimate. Also, there are a lot of things I have difficulty believing because of conflicting evidence: for instance, I do not believe 9/11 was an inside job. I do, however, believe (as Ron Paul has said) that the government did have knowledge that it was coming and did not take adequate measures against it and have since actively used the horrible event to fuel certain self-interests. I've watched some of Alex Jones' stuff and it's compelling, I agree, but it also has too much of an emotion-based propaganda vibe to it to try and lull you into believing it without sufficient information. I fully agree with him that the National ID is bullshit, though, and will continue to vote and support legislation against it as well as to refuse getting one.
I'm with you. Guys like Alex Jones are good to have around, even if he and his followers go to the extreme EXTREME.
There are certain issues he picks up on that nobody ever would (except maybe the Guardian) because of all the corporate interests. Thumb scanning, forewarnings of 9/11, even the Bohemian Grove "fraternity" stuff is all good information he has relayed to me.
But witnessing Bohemian Grove ceremonies, for instance, and concocting that they must be sacrificing human babies ...is well... just horse shit. We all know there are secret societies in this world. Skull and Bones, Freemasons, Illuminati, Bohemian Grove. I myself was in one called the Order of the Arrow. We had ceremonies in the woods and secret hand shakes. Pretty harmless Boy Scout stuff.
But yeah. Alex Jones finds some good facts (which more people should) and then expands on them with his own desires of a history of evil in this nation. To get too far into the Alex Jones mindset is to get depressed and to feel like cattle. Unless you go around with a megaphone like he does. And then you're a nutter. Like I said I watched ALOT of Alex Jones on local television, because it was so fascinating.
I wasn't aware of this Bohemian Grove nonsense but will do some research. Thanks for the heads-up!
As for secret societies, some of them (like Freemasons) sprang from a desire to avoid persecution for practicing things as 'controversial' as medical science because the Catholic Church considered it heresy. Sometimes we attribute these larger than life (or darkly sinister, depending on which side of the fence you're on) natures to these organizations. I mean hell, nearly all the founding fathers were Freemasons and they wrote one of the most beautiful documents in world history!
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sat 10/05/2008 16:09:49I mean hell, nearly all the founding fathers were Freemasons and they wrote one of the most beautiful documents in world history!
Watership Down?