What, you think we read them?????
Even I'm not that crazy.
Love the Beatles.
can't stand Imagine....
United Nations of Earth
- Thread starter NewGlobalOrder
- Start date
What, you think we read them?????
Even I'm not that crazy.
Love the Beatles.
can't stand Imagine....
With this idea comes world gov. and the arguing about who and whi would be world Leader. Can't you just imagine that debate??
then of course all the laws would have to be adapted to cover each nation fairly. ( and the likelhood of that happening is somewhere in the sub zero zone.
How about language?? Can you imagine the "debate" about which language would be the primary one......and how many more everyone would have to learn.
How about culture religion , and holidays. We can't agree now .....;-)
Now comes the sticky issue of DEFENSE and DEFENSE budget. What would be the definable threats to the UNofE?? How would this be handled ??
What about the UNofE budget and spending?? Who will bail us out when we over extend our spending and max out the credit cards...again.
Just entertaining the idea can give one a migrane
then of course all the laws would have to be adapted to cover each nation fairly. ( and the likelhood of that happening is somewhere in the sub zero zone.
How about language?? Can you imagine the "debate" about which language would be the primary one......and how many more everyone would have to learn.
How about culture religion , and holidays. We can't agree now .....;-)
Now comes the sticky issue of DEFENSE and DEFENSE budget. What would be the definable threats to the UNofE?? How would this be handled ??
What about the UNofE budget and spending?? Who will bail us out when we over extend our spending and max out the credit cards...again.
Just entertaining the idea can give one a migrane
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
If having a fence between my place and my neighbours is considered separatist then yes.
That would depend entirely on what the NWO looks like. The current model has some major deficiencies.
"Ocean Breeze;With this idea comes world gov. and the arguing about who and whi would be world Leader. Can't you just imagine that debate??"
Every person of voting age, would have 1 vote. The total number of votes, would elect the President of Earth. I like to call it democracy.
"then of course all the laws would have to be adapted to cover each nation fairly. ( and the likelhood of that happening is somewhere in the sub zero zone."
The General Assembly, made up of each Head of State, will vote to decide international laws only. Meaning, laws required to protect the planet. Member States will continue to decide their own national laws.
"How about language?? Can you imagine the "debate" about which language would be the primary one......and how many more everyone would have to learn."
Each country, will continue to have their own national language. But yes, there will be an official language for the planet, which will be English. Nobody will be required to learn it.
"How about culture religion , and holidays. We can't agree now .....;-)"
That is a Member State issue. It is not a planetary issue.
"Now comes the sticky issue of DEFENSE and DEFENSE budget. What would be the definable threats to the UNofE?? How would this be handled ??"
If all countries around the world, were to join up, then a military really isn't needed. So say if I was the President, after the world's armies have been merged together, all military personnel will take IQ, physical and psychological tests. Those who pass the tests, and are not up to military standards, will have to go to a military academy for training.
As there is now peace around the world, (assuming all nations have joined) there will not be any need for a massive standing armed forces anymore. Therefore the majority of army personnel will be part of the Army Reserve, which will be turned into a multipurpose force.
The Army Reserve will become part of IERA, (International Emergency Response Agency) and reserve personnel will take paramedic, firefighting, policing, riot and other forms of training related to dealing with a State of Emergency.
The Navy will be policing the world's oceans and enforcing international laws; assisting IERA when requested, and take training on search and rescue missions.
The Air Force will be on standby; no new fighter-jets will be purchased. Instead, the Air Force will be focusing on space training.
And nuclear weapons will no longer to produced, and all nuclear weapons will be decommissioned by the oversight of the IAEA.
"What about the UNofE budget and spending?? Who will bail us out when we over extend our spending and max out the credit cards...again."
Why do we have money? Because we need a medium of exchange. My fish for your pair of boots, only works on the local level, and takes too long.
Where does money come from? Nowhere. Governments print it, whenever they need more of it. Once we have a single currency, a country like Greece, which can stink the EU, cannot affect any other nation.
The only thing that will matter, is keeping inflation down, so people have a high purchasing power. The 1950's dollar value will never return, but something higher than today, for third world countries.
So then, does that mean, countries are now free to print as much currency as needed? No. That is why, the IMF needs to regulate the world currency.
The monetary system shall be based on population growth and government expenditures; with funding to be issued by the Central Banks, which every Member State shall have.
So say the IMF decides a country will get 10,000 currency for each person, and say the US has 300 million people, that would = 3 trillion. The US budget for 2010, I think was 3.55 trillion.
So if a nation was to get enough currency from the IMF, a country could lower, or even get rid of their taxation system. There will be no international taxes of any kind. All that matters, is having low, to zero inflation.
If everybody had $25 million in the bank, prices would have to go up, to get people to work. On the other hand, it also does not mean, people should be treated like a slave.
Every person of voting age, would have 1 vote. The total number of votes, would elect the President of Earth. I like to call it democracy.
"then of course all the laws would have to be adapted to cover each nation fairly. ( and the likelhood of that happening is somewhere in the sub zero zone."
The General Assembly, made up of each Head of State, will vote to decide international laws only. Meaning, laws required to protect the planet. Member States will continue to decide their own national laws.
"How about language?? Can you imagine the "debate" about which language would be the primary one......and how many more everyone would have to learn."
Each country, will continue to have their own national language. But yes, there will be an official language for the planet, which will be English. Nobody will be required to learn it.
"How about culture religion , and holidays. We can't agree now .....;-)"
That is a Member State issue. It is not a planetary issue.
"Now comes the sticky issue of DEFENSE and DEFENSE budget. What would be the definable threats to the UNofE?? How would this be handled ??"
If all countries around the world, were to join up, then a military really isn't needed. So say if I was the President, after the world's armies have been merged together, all military personnel will take IQ, physical and psychological tests. Those who pass the tests, and are not up to military standards, will have to go to a military academy for training.
As there is now peace around the world, (assuming all nations have joined) there will not be any need for a massive standing armed forces anymore. Therefore the majority of army personnel will be part of the Army Reserve, which will be turned into a multipurpose force.
The Army Reserve will become part of IERA, (International Emergency Response Agency) and reserve personnel will take paramedic, firefighting, policing, riot and other forms of training related to dealing with a State of Emergency.
The Navy will be policing the world's oceans and enforcing international laws; assisting IERA when requested, and take training on search and rescue missions.
The Air Force will be on standby; no new fighter-jets will be purchased. Instead, the Air Force will be focusing on space training.
And nuclear weapons will no longer to produced, and all nuclear weapons will be decommissioned by the oversight of the IAEA.
"What about the UNofE budget and spending?? Who will bail us out when we over extend our spending and max out the credit cards...again."
Why do we have money? Because we need a medium of exchange. My fish for your pair of boots, only works on the local level, and takes too long.
Where does money come from? Nowhere. Governments print it, whenever they need more of it. Once we have a single currency, a country like Greece, which can stink the EU, cannot affect any other nation.
The only thing that will matter, is keeping inflation down, so people have a high purchasing power. The 1950's dollar value will never return, but something higher than today, for third world countries.
So then, does that mean, countries are now free to print as much currency as needed? No. That is why, the IMF needs to regulate the world currency.
The monetary system shall be based on population growth and government expenditures; with funding to be issued by the Central Banks, which every Member State shall have.
So say the IMF decides a country will get 10,000 currency for each person, and say the US has 300 million people, that would = 3 trillion. The US budget for 2010, I think was 3.55 trillion.
So if a nation was to get enough currency from the IMF, a country could lower, or even get rid of their taxation system. There will be no international taxes of any kind. All that matters, is having low, to zero inflation.
If everybody had $25 million in the bank, prices would have to go up, to get people to work. On the other hand, it also does not mean, people should be treated like a slave.