With regards to the poll, I was tempted to vote yes, but in the end voted undecided since it would depend of the details. But in principle, I am for a decentralized world federation, as it would extend our freedoms far beyond what we have today.
As Winston Churchill once said:
"This gift of a common tongue is a priceless inheritance, and it may well some day become the foundation of a common citizenship. I like to think of British and Americans moving about freely over each other's wide estates with hardly a sense of being foreigners to one another. But I do not see why we should not try to spread our common language even more widely throughout the globe and, without seeking selfish advantage over any, possess ourselves of this invaluable amenity and birthright."
Though I don't agree with everything in that quote, it's clear that he was a world federalist.
We can also turn to Tennyson:
"For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;
Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales;
Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a ghastly dew
From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue;
Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm,
With the standards of the peoples plunging thro' the thunder-storm;
Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.
There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,
And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law."
Churchill considered these words "the most wonderful of modern prophecies", and Truman carried the words in his wallet.
Heck, even the Bible states:
[FONT=arial,helvetica]And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord. ... righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard ... with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. ... They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. ... And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. -- Isa. xi, 1-12.[/FONT]
And just read passages from Isaiah, Zephaniah, and the Sermon on the Mount, not to many other Gospel passages, and the Qur'an:
"O men! verily, we have created you of a male and a female; and we have divided you into peoples and tribes that ye
might have knowledge one of another."
Anyone who's read the various world sacred texts and the works of the great poets knows that they all strive for peace, justice and brotherhood among all peoples. It's the ignorant that fight against it.
What we will end up with will be a New World Order and does anybody really want that?
From the Kitáb-i-Aqdas (1890-1891):
"The world's equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind's ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System – the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed."
As you can see, the term "New World Order" itself is an old phrase going back well over a century, and was originally used in a religious and apolitical context. It's only more recently that it has taken on a more secular and political sense, just yesterday so to speak in comparative terms.
So when one says he supports or supports a "New World Order", he should explain his understanding og the term first, otherwise people will just be talking past one another.