UKC

A discussion for people with intelligence and insight, please.

The current Olympic coverage brings into focus all that is lovely, charming and quaint about nation states. The global economic 'crisis' (aka shattering of the capitalist myth), resource paradigms, African debt, failure of Rio +20, climate change, deforestation, poverty, inequality etc all that is bad.

To my mind, some form of effective, non-corporation-driven global governance, protected from short-termism and vested interests, is essential if we are to save us from ourselves. Carl Sagan's speech on the 'pale blue dot' comes to mind.

So, how do we go about relegating national governments into some kind of local council type role and installing a global governance for humanity? Thoughts?

In reply to McBendy: I'm afraid its going to take an armageddon like event to get rid of the blight of the humans to save the blue dot or what s left of the blue dot, we are not a very nice species you see!

In reply to McBendy:
slowly and carefully!

Its a great idea - a world of 'parish councils' sorting out the minutae of day to day life whilst a small world state keeps an eye on any wild actions.

To get there we would need to have a much more even development/economic picture across the world, and a damn site more tolerance/less 'negative' nationalism then appears to be present currently. A long way off I fear.

In reply to McBendy: Nice sentiments. Too much vested corporate and political self interests to allow that to happen peacefully. Will require Armageddon or equivalent....

In reply to McBendy: I wish the world could be like that. Imagine the stuff that as a planet we could accomplish. Unfortunately there is too much greed and hate in the world for that to happen any time soon.

In reply to McBendy:

I was chatting to a guy with some fairly 'out there' ideas but I thought a few had a ring of truth.

He believed that there were ancient civilizations more advanced than us. Now not technologically obviously. But his point was why is that the sole barometer of progress? Ancient Egypt built the pyramids with copper tools, some of the blocks weigh 70 tons and are cut to perfect right-angles. We pat ourselves on the back so heartily for owning Ipads and cars, while at the same time frittering vital resources, and using technology powered by conflict minerals.

But I shudder to think of what catastrophic event would be required to 'invert the paradigm'. I can't see people waking up and realising 'oh we need to be nicer to one another'. It would be beautiful to see what humanity could achieve if everyone worked positively together.

right i'm off to buy a chai-latte and a copy of the observer :P

In reply to McBendy:

http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/

Circular economies could be a big part of the answer?

In reply to McBendy:

Not so much to do with governance but the environment perhaps?

In reply to Timmd: Thank you for the link. Hope the powers that be see and understand but still pessimistic about greed and hate.... Off to stick head in sand now.

In reply to McBendy:

Surprisingly perhaps the world economy seems definitely to be converging, which seems to be one of the critical requirements for global governance.

Although there no doubt are still some examples to the contrary, countries from all continents such as Indonesia, Namibia and Venezuela now seem to have economies and associated prices comparable to those in the west. It is no longer so easy to find places in the world where you can go and live for virtually nothing due to a helpful exchange rate.

I genuinely think the opportunity for world economic and potentially even political convergence is getting stronger rather than weaker, and that can only be a good thing.

In reply to Kemics:
Thats nonsense. Its very easy to think of people from the past as better than us when you forget about all the horrible stuff they did. The noble savage myth is crap.

In reply to john arran: Not so sure about that, Indonesia was incredibly cheap, prices were nothing compared to the West. We spent £25 a day as a couple, and that was with blowing money here and there and seeing loads. Living there would be even cheaper.

In reply to Scrump:I don't think he said they were noble, rather that they were cleverer than we think they were, and that we're not as advanced as we think we are?

In reply to Timmd:
Your right they were very clever indeed. I think were are no smarter we just build on the progress of years. But to say that they were in some way more advanced you need to define advanced. They build pyramids but weve been to the moon. Every problem with the world now was there then and more besides.

In reply to McBendy:

when we run out of the means to grow cheap food, i.e converting oil into food as we currently do, and lots of the 3rd world die off and we are left with just 2 billion people and no oil, no easy uranium, and with depleted coal, to drive over production and mass consumption then we have a chance as things revert back to production on the local level.

However there will still be the super wealthy and even then there will still be posession of almost everything by corporations and the rich and law to protect them so we wont be entirely free of the drivers behind the apparrent lack of consideration in he distruction of the plannet, i nas much as we ( people) wont reverse the corporate hold on resources.

so even that local level will be controled by corporations

i dont think we are ever shaking it off, i think we are heading to a poitn where the facade of wealth and high standard of living falls away and people do sign themselves on as corporate slaves for food and an existance , just at a lower geared level than today

extinction by our own hand is our destiny, the last 6 generations have ensured all sucessive ones of that

In reply to andyb211:

I think we're as nice as any other species. Overall, we're pretty neutral - we just do stuff to serve our interests (or more correctly, the interests of our genes). On the one hand, we commit genocides and bully the weakest kid in the playground while on the other we donate millions to charity and help old ladies across the road.

Sadly I don't think that the economic crisis is quite enough to bring about a change in global governance, which may well be the best way to go about running a globalised world. It needs to be a lot more globalised I think: a real convergence of ideas across the continents. It's pretty obvious that the worldwide acceptance of the scientific world view will have to happen before we begin to operate as a single community. So long as you have people who think they're 'right' in the eyes of god while everyone else is wrong, you're going to struggle to get any kind meaningful cooperation taking place.

In reply to McBendy:
I think we are moving towards global governance, but that will be a corporate governance over which we'll have very little say. It's also impossible to have a national 'parish council' governance with a controlling global government. World global govt decides the UK would be an ideal global rubbish tip, parish council objects, parish council overruled for the great benefit to the rest of the planet. The idea of some supra-national authoritarian state dictating how the world is run fills me with dread.

In reply to Ridge: Agreed, the idea one one world goverment seems like the worst possible solution. To be honest the idea some one thinks its the solution the problems we have seems insane to me. Benevolent dictatorships that are doing everything for your own good, stuff of nightmares.

In reply to Scrump:
Would these be short-term self-interested nightmares or long-term altruistic nightmares?

In reply to McBendy: How would we make sure this goverment was altruistic and only thought about the long term? The same way we do with our current set up?

In reply to andyb211:
give it time I'm sure we will get there eventually...the Armageddon bit I mean

In reply to Scrump:

hereditary peerage?

In reply to Dr.S at work:
Why not just go the whole hog and have a dynasty in charge. That way they dont have to worry about pesky stuff like votes and public opinion getting in the way of their long term thinking.
Being serous, the problem is that basically people are short sites and can be greedy and selfish. Having a power structure more removed from the people it governs doesnt improve the situation at all. They only way to change the world is to change the people in the world.
How to do this? No idea.

In reply to Scrump:
try
"watching trees grow"
and
"the trouble with lichen"??

In reply to Dr.S at work:
Be right back, going to watch trees grow till people stop being short sighted.
*80 years later* "Unknown man found dead in forest"

In reply to Scrump:

have them all very afraid of imminent death and pain, not inflicted upon them by another person but by nature.

In reply to Daithi O Murchu:
That would probably work. But climate change is a long drawn out process of stuff getting worse. One of the many messed up thing about it is that the poorest people who have done least to cause it will suffer first and worst.
I think even after the worst happens and if billions die then well still just end up as business as usual but with a much lower population and much worse situation.

In reply to Scrump:

"watching trees grow" and " the trouble with lichen" both describe some of the changes that boosting longevity might have on society.

In reply to Scrump:

yes i agree (14:29)

In reply to Daithi O Murchu: Not being religious I had to google that to see what you meant.
"Whoever is patient has great understanding, but one who is quick-tempered displays folly."
I totally agree. I probably sound really negative about the chance of change and I am. I just hope im wrong.

In reply to Scrump:

no 14:29 in this thread, earlier thisafternoon i basicaly said just the same as you a few mins ago

however that quote from 14:29 in the bible is a great coincicence

In reply to Daithi O Murchu:
Ah ok, dunno why I thought bible quote. But yer it does fit. To be fair that are about a million 14:29 quotes in there and I just picked the one that sounded like you meant that.

In reply to Kemics:


I truly hate it when people bring up the pyramids as you have.

So......... what, the Egyptians were 'better' because they took 20 years to build a building with soft blunt tools??

A building which, I might add, after said 20 years and millions of tons of stone had all the functionality of a large shed. Literally three or four usable rooms......... the rest of the millions of tons of mass used just to support itself!

The techniques used to make it fit together are VERY basic and time consuming techniques.

And please don't talk to me about how accurately they were set out. I could do the same myself with three sticks, some string and a rock.

The stones were fitted by scribing. Carpenters still do this on sites.

Pyramids represent a social achievement, in engineering terms......... they're crap.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Well said. And of course from a social standpoint they were a huge pointless project that took year of work that could have been spent on something useful. All just to pay tribute to an unelected leader. Hardly advanced.

In reply to andyb211:

"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." - Jack Handy.

In reply to McBendy: It'll never happen until it is too late with resources. Oil is the biggy and it is already starting to bite. Look at the UK attitude (perhaps more Tory) to the E.U. as a regulator of all things good. Doesn't work cause even EU politicians are about self preservation and corruption.

In reply to Scrump:

Choice 1: We have freedom - horray. We have science - horray. Science recommends a course of action which is good for all humanity and for the planet itself - horray for science. That course of action means individual sacrifice - booooooooo. We have the freedom to ignore science and to act with self-interest, minimising personal sacrifice and externalising harm - horray!
OUTCOME: We are all 'happy' in the short-term and f#cked in the long-term.

Choice 2: Someone/something listens to the science and regulates our behaviour through rules, regulations etc, but we have less freedom - booooooooo.
OUTCOME: We are all outraged at the loss of personal freedoms in the short-term but are much better off in the long-term.

There are obvious analogies with the recent banking crisis. AFTER the crisis, everyone turned and looked at the government and said "why didn't you regulate more closely?". BEFORE the crisis, everyone said "Trust the market, trust capitalism, deregulate, remove red tape etc etc". And with insufficient boundaries to greed and self-interest, look what happened. Greed and self-interest are human traits. If we wait for 'the people to change' and self-regulate, we will be waiting until the sun expands and envelops the earth.

Humans cannot be trusted to self-regulate. This is why we have laws, rules, regulations, the police etc etc - to regulate the behaviour of the 'individual'. With globalisation and increasing numbers of global problems, we need a global governance to 'police' the behaviour of individual STATES.

Take the distribution of debt as an example. Corporations and developed states have bled Africa dry of all of its resource assets. These are resource 'rich' countries, which no longer own their resources and are crippled with debt owed to Western banks. 'The world' (taken in its totality) is suffering from this. A solution is not possible while nation states are competing with one another. You talk about freedoms - in what way should we embrace and celebrate the freedom to subject other humans to a lifetime of poverty and hunger? So that WE have the freedom to accrue wealth through decent bank interest rates?

Take a world view and you will see that "[a form of accountable global governance] that is doing everything for your own good" might actually be a good thing...

B

In reply to McBendy:

The World of Football has Sep Blatter. Is that the sort of self interested world leadership you are advocating ? because thats the sort of person you would get.

In reply to yer maw:
Fracking destroys this theory on the oil issue. The USA will be totally self reliant in a few years time. So that completely destroys the " peak oil" theorists.

In reply to McBendy:
You say "Humans cannot be trusted to self-regulate.". Whos going to regulate the global goverment when we have no freedoms? More Humans? How do you keep them accountable? If you have elections then the the same problems of short term thinking comes back. If you have no elections then you have a dictatorship.
Im not saying the way things are is good, far from it. But less freedom and a global goverment is not the answer.

In reply to McBendy:

Yes,it's a really really bad idea. It's hard enough to make national governments representative, accountable, meet the needs of varied constituents, and stop them becoming dictatorships. Power corrupts.

In reply to McBendy: Stand back from this a little.

Look at what drives us to be who we are. It's all about pressure. We are animals. We have animal instincts and realise it or not, they drive the good AND the bad.

The first thing to accept is that there is no 'manifest destiny' for humans. Nature doesn't care about us because nature isn't conscious. We will never be able to 'kill off' the planet, we simply don't have the means. IF we unleashed everything in our arsenals the best we could hope to achieve is a 10 million year blip in the ecology of the planet. Sure, we'd take out a lot of species of plants and animals, some would survive to re populate a changed world and mutate into new and wonderful things. It's happened before at LEAST 5 times in the last 500 million years, the last the K-Pg boundary event some 65 million years ago.

So having established that the only beings who actually give a toss is us.... the nest question is 'What is it we want, and how will we achieve it?'

If we carry on the current route we are certain that there will be human pain and suffering along the way. Possibly we will exterminate ourselves..... at some point. Assuming we don't kill ourselves off, the famines, pressures over resources such as water and energy will drive conflicts which in turn will make us ever more inventive technologically.

I don't think we'll wipe ourselves out. The cold war produced some of the maddest military strategies ever thought up, including a Soviet idea of a bloody massive bomb which, if it became obvious the Soviet union were losing in a full nuclear exchange, would obliterate all life as we know it by kicking up enough dust that you just won't need that Ikea black out blind any more. The lack of sales of said blinds would drive a global downturn in the economy and no one would be able to afford to shop for food. Even at Lidl. We'd starve (Who wouldn't if the choice were Lidl?)

They didn't build it.

The other choice is a 'World government'

Ok...... it could work. But without the competition for resources, where would the impetus for change come from?
After all, the entire point would be central control of resources.
You can't have growth in the economy because that would need to be the first thing gone. You'd get out of bed tomorrow knowing not just what thatt day brings, but every other day of your somewhat colourless life. Where would the challenge come from?
I'm being a bit frivolous.....but serious too. This IS how we're built. How we're wired.

Perhaps we could engineer ourselves to be happy with our situation.

"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able …"

Nah. Not for me.
I'll take the wars, the suffering, the LIFE.

In reply to McBendy: So replace democratically elected governments with a group who we don't vote in who know what is good for us..

Sounds great..

Agree with the others, for that to happen, you need money, therefore conflicts of interests, you just end up with a more powerful body and more corrutpion.. look at FIFA..

In reply to Tony Naylor:
Brillant! So true.

In reply to Wonko The Sane:

I was really agreeing with you, right up until "Ok...... it could work.
But without the competition for resources, where would the impetus for change come from?"

"After all, the entire point would be central control of resources."

"You can't have growth in the economy because that would need to be the first thing gone."

"You'd get out of bed tomorrow knowing not just what thatt day brings, but every other day of your somewhat colourless life. Where would the challenge come from?"

I accept that there are some fairly basic biological/psychological drives at work (think bacteria in petri dish etc), but humans are unique (on Earth) in being able to think beyond that. Are you really saying that, as an inhabitant of Easter Island, fully aware of the course of action that you were following, you would say: "Nah. Not for me. I'll take the wars, the suffering, the LIFE."? Really?!

In reply to McBendy:
Do you have any practical ideas of how this would all work or are you just saying "it would be nice if things were different". Its not like we dont all agree with that. But how do we magically make things different? How do we stop power from corrupting people? How do we make this global dictator different from every other dictator?

In reply to neilh:

Nonsense. So, we've found a short term way of squeezing a bit more oil out. In some ways this is a shame, because there were signs that we (and by we I mean the Americans) were just starting to take the need to develop a sustainable energy strategy seriously. However, it's just a blip. Obviously fossil fuels are limited and the sooner we start figuring out what to use instead, the better.

In reply to Tony Naylor:

Probably the only way to unite us would be to perceieved existential threat from outside. What we need is a faked alien invasion (although a real one would be much better).

In reply to IainRUK:

But look at the benefits, the trains would run on time and the application of sound scientific principles would rid humanity of the untermensch.

In reply to Scrump:

I am not in favour of any form of dictatorship!

Although this is clearly some way from happening, I can imagine a future with some form of democracy where 'nations' cease to exist in the conventional sense and instead we have a global 'government' (or alternative form of governance).

I am all for a democratically elected global government but offer the suggestion that this would not be voted for by individual citizens. Rather that citizens would elect people in their region that they trusted to represent their interests, who in turn would elect global overseers.

In many senses this might be thought of as a much expanded UN type organisation. The key difference is that there would be ultimate power at the top, rather than the status quo where nation states get together under the banner of the UN, bicker a lot, act in self-interest, and then water down to the point of total pointlessness anything that is put in front of them.

National armed forces would cease to exist. A global armed police force would quell uprisings.

Resources and financial comings and goings would be managed at a global level, with a form of regional taxation which better distributed wealth, development funds and so on. Much like our own social security, the poorest states would be propped up and supported, rather than milked (the status quo).

Oh, and this global government would be elected to e.g. 20 year terms, so that it could bring about real and meaningful change.

So, with a few important differences, the global government would be just like an elected national government as we know it today, but for the whole planet.

So many of the problems that 'we' face are unsolvable at present because nation states (understandably) act in the interests of their own citizens. Yet we are one race - one species - on one planet. It just makes no sense to do anything OTHER than manage civilization as a whole.

In rep1y to McBendy:

MONKEY GOVERNMENT!

In reply to McBendy:

What on earth makes you think a world government is going to be any better at managing a piss up in a brewery than national governments are?

All you have really described is (what for some reason you believe will be) benign dictatorship on a global scale.

In reply to McBendy:


I wrote a thesis saying pretty much this.

You would have a supranational organisation that would be 'elected' for a significant period of time and be bound to follow technocratic principles and various other enshrined goals in 'dictating' how countries (as someone said earlier, acting a bit like parishes or local gvt) would have to run themselves.

The problem with anything like this is enforcement if one country doesn't like what they are told. International law is pretty much a limp dick.

In reply to Tony Naylor:

Thanks tony for that, its new to me

it reminds me of a sci-fi story i read a long time ago as a kid

basic plot was a space ship sitting high in orbit above earth looking at us. We are the results of an experiment , we had been put here on this planet by them to see how we develop

The conversation by the aliens goes on about destroying the plant from space if the experiment fails, if we fail to achieve some perceived potential.

At the end there is a committee of alien scientists on the space ship deliberating the results of how we have developed and the problem issue of our small propensity for warring on each other and our place in the universe

Its a bit like 12 wise men in these parts.

In the end they decide to destroy the earth, and do so, much to the disappointment of the Chief alien scientist who had set up the experiment, as we cant possibly survive long term in a violent universe.

The plot ends which him lamenting our small propensity for war, as we had been put here, by those aliens, to develop our warring skills to a much higher level

wish i could recall the name of that story, think it was in a 1000 Sci-fi stories for kids from the 60s or something, story itself i think is is called Our art of war, but a google for it only trrows up Sun TZu

In reply to McBendy: I suppose you mean, a thread for idealists only please. Honestly, reading the start of this has been like some kind of Hippy's wet dream. I urge you not to be so arrogant as to so patently describe your own views as intelligent and insightful, while in the same swoop disregarding others views as rubbish. Let's be honest, you don't want discussion, you want everyone to agree with you so we can all give ourselves hippy-hard-ons, so don't tell porkies!

In reply to WillRawlinson:

Thank you for that valuable contribution to the debate.

In reply to Postmanpat:

If he said it was through democratic elections it wouldn't actually be a dictatorship would it?

In reply to ClimberEd:

That problem could be rectified through time by cultural hegemony as expoused by Gramsci in that we would all be working with and not against each other.

In reply to neilh:

From what I have read about fracking, there is massive uncertainty over the actual recoverable/proven reserves of shale gas.

The '100 years supply of shale gas' and ‘USA to be self reliant’ is being bandied about by what is essentially a vested interest group of shale gas producers and oil men. More measured analysis of the data available indicates that the USA might have anything from 10 – 100 year supply, and might/might not eventually be a net producer of gas. TBH the data appear to be so thin on the ground that it’s impossible to say which is true.

And the data is only relevant to the USA at the moment; fracking is so new there is lttle data on proven supplies elsewhere.

So if you think that fracking is the magic bullet and we don’t need to worry about peak oil or the looming energy crisis, well good for you! Personally I’m not holding my breath.

In reply to ClimberEd:


I think you are missing my point. This would not be international law (which yes, is generally weak) because there would no longer be nations.

We would be one global society with a single global governance system, implemented regionally by various lesser tiers of governance (like local councils, parish councils etc - but more of a (global) regional council).

At present, individual nations control their own budgets and taxes. I am suggesting an entirely different system of economics, taxation and wealth redistribution.

Are you familiar with this?: youtube.com/watch?v=2pfwY2TNehw&

In reply to Daithi O Murchu: Google occasionally demands some creativity in your search strings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Small_Talent_for_War

In reply to McBendy:

(1) You are supressing innovation by controlling resources. It is the aquisition of resources which drives business. What is the motivation for someone to lead others to improve anything if not for some gain? Or are you going to switch on some altruism gene I'm unaware of?
It's bad enough getting some people out of bed with the welfare state we do have. Imagine if there was no return for your labour other than the alotted amount of food and housing?


(2) Oh I can't be bothered. See? There's just nothing in it for me to continue this discussion.

(3) Meh.

In reply to Wonko The Sane: Relax everyone. Nuclear power, thorium reactors. topped up with a bit of wind and solar and tidal. A bit of fracking plus more oil discoveries. Then someone will figure out the cold fusion dilemma and we can all carry on throwing spears at each other.

One world government for 20 years? what happens when they ban climbing because its insulting to the Dutch?

In reply to Phil79:
Well I am.

There was an impending Energy crises "foreseen" by the doom and gloom merchants in the 70's which never materialised.

Pedaaling of the same rubbish.

In reply to Shona M:

OK, so we have a democratic election for our 'parish council', which, (for example), would be our current government . Still happy?

Our parish councils then get together to decide who runs the planet for the next 20 years. If they're going to save mankind it'll be men of cold intellect and harsh reason. Or it could be a nice little Qango with brown envelopes bulging with cash. This Cabal can then enforce their decisions with the entire firepower of the worlds armies. Or they could just contract it out to Blackwater or Haliburton.

What could possibly go wrong?

In reply to McBendy:
If were still voting then why would we not vote for the same type of people as we do now? Plus of course if we vote for idiots then were stuck with them for 20 years.
How do you propose this world goverment decides whats the best and fairest way of running the world? Its not like we agree right now. I think liberal democracy with increased use of nuclear power to sort out the oil problem.
We cant even solve our problems now. What if the "not countries" disagreed.
How are you going to force countries to give up their sovereignty?
Arent a huge amount of wars due to peoples natural desire for self goverment?
What if a majority of people in a country dont want to join? Do you go to war to force them?
If you throw away human rights to ensure order then your going to end up in a very bad place.

In reply to Ridge:

See my second point about cultural hegemony through as long a period of time as it takes before any of the above could be brought to fruition.
All of the issues in the OP would have to placed above all the others for instance current US or any other nations primacy over all others.A worldwide understanding and recognition of such would need to be realized and fully acknowledged in so much that it becomes the common consensus everywhere.
But as usual the rich will get richer at the expences of everyone else until the masses of the world waken up to this and look toward'la commune'.

In reply to Shona M:
You havent actually answered any of the questions. What youve just said is to solve all the problems people would have to just not have these problems. I want to hear actual plans no hand waving.
What if A country does not want to be part of this?
How do we decide the best system?
How do you make every one give up their rights?

In reply to Scrump: Kill all the ones who won't comply, a benign dictatorship.

In reply to Scrump:

Do you know what i mean when i said 'la commune'?
That is where i'm coming from but i need to stop hijacking peoples threads so i won't hijack this one.

In reply to Sir Chasm:
I think thats what they are trying not to say isnt it? Basically global soviet style communism seems to be what the people in favour of this are talking about but not saying.

In reply to Scrump:


What religion will they believe in, in this new utopia....?

In reply to off-duty:
Bokononism

In reply to McBendy:

Something like the USSNS?

In reply to Shona M:

Numerous dictators have been elected.

dubya bush for one

In reply to Postmanpat:
He wasnt (probably) elected at least the first time and he wasnt actually a dictator he was just shit. But Caesar was voted in as a dictator for 10 years before declaring himself dictator for life (then he was killed).

In reply to Shona M:

Please feel free to hijack this thread and tell us about la commune.

In reply to Scrump:


Seems you weren't paying attention. The agenda rolled on rather smoothly under Bush from what I saw. Afghanistan, Iraq etc etc... and the home front suffered with draconian measures such as the [most obvious] Patriot Act. That whole edumacation failure thing that had him pronouncing nuclear as "nucular" was just part of the magician's trick. You were rather well misled it appears.


That is a non sequitur. I presume that you mean Julius Caesar and if so then you should read about the politics behind the assassination. He was certainly not killed merely for labeling himself a dictator. Nothing is ever so simple. A good book on the background for the assassination is Michael Parenti's "The Assassination of Julius Caesar" http://www.michaelparenti.org/Caesar.html

If you would like to hear Parenti speaking about the subject then go here: http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/53488 and here: http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/53669 for a two part talk by Parenti on TUC radio. (Click the red circle with the white arrow to download the talks)

In reply to EZ: Is your blueprint for running the world ready yet? I can't speak for anyone else but I'm on tenterhooks waiting to see your vision of the brave new world order.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Are you some kind of sock puppet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)

In reply to EZ: Plans for ezworld not ready yet?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I'll take that as a yes you clever cat you Do you even climb?

In reply to EZ: I'll take that as a no, you have no idea how to replace the current system.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

So here's a nice job of thread obfuscation that you've established. Why not spin it off with the big guns talking about tin foil hats and reptiles and other boring heard it all before you're not that clever rubbish???

For those interested in skipping Sir Chasm's clever interlude here's a repost in reply to Scrump:


Seems you weren't paying attention. The agenda rolled on rather smoothly under Bush from what I saw. Afghanistan, Iraq etc etc... and the home front suffered with draconian measures such as the [most obvious] Patriot Act. That whole edumacation failure thing that had him pronouncing nuclear as "nucular" was just part of the magician's trick. You were rather well misled it appears.


That is a non sequitur. I presume that you mean Julius Caesar and if so then you should read about the politics behind the assassination. He was certainly not killed merely for labeling himself a dictator. Nothing is ever so simple. A good book on the background for the assassination is Michael Parenti's "The Assassination of Julius Caesar" http://www.michaelparenti.org/Caesar.html

If you would like to hear Parenti speaking about the subject then go here: http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/53488 and here: http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/53669 for a two part talk by Parenti on TUC radio. (Click the red circle with the white arrow to download the talks)

In reply to EZ: Obfuscation? I've asked a simple, thread-related question. With what would you replace the current system and how would you make it work? I may, of course, have missed your reply, in which case I humbly apologise.

In reply to EZ:
I didnt mean that Bush didnt get what he wanted done. I just mean I think he was shit. I strongly disagree with what he did.
Your right about Caesar, I didnt mean to imply thats why he was killed but I thought it was worth mentioning. I could have made that clearer and again your totally right nothing was ever simple in Rome. I was just using him as an example of a dictator being voted in. Of course dictator was a different deal in the Roman Empire but I do think it was the beginning of the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire. But yes the whole Roman thing isnt really relevant.
I still want to know how all this stuff would be made to happen in reality and how people who dont agree (most people) would be dealt with.

In reply to Scrump:

The way you've expanded on your point regarding Rome and its fall as a republic is pretty much the way Parenti paints it. He is very worth a look in, however if you stray, with him, from Caesar then be prepared for some fairly leftist views.

In reply to EZ:
Ill have to check it out. Rome is so interesting. Still such a huge influence on the world. I can deal with left wing views and pretty lefty my self.

In reply to McBendy:

I thought we were all ruled by the Illuminati or the Bilderbecker thingumy group anyway?

So once we've overthrown them, the countries of the world would unite and elect a benign set of rulers who would implement an economic policy that not one single country in the world currently follows, not even remotely, but happens to coincide with your idea of the way the world should be run?

Hmmm.

My feeling is that we'll bumble along for the next few decades probably strengthening alliances between nations. It's the way the EU is heading and I thsat sort of thing will become more common between geographically connected nations. Eventually global warming will probably bring about a catastrophy that no nation will be untouched by. At that point one of two things will happen. There will be an almighty war as powerful countries compete for diminishing resources and it will most likely go nuclear. Alternatively countries will work together to save their collective arses. At that point we'll probably have to have some sort of global ruling council, a bit like the UN but taken more seriously.

In reply to McBendy:

Dont say i didn't warn you.

The ideological battle must be won first before any real changes take place and this is why i mentioned Gramsci's expansion of cultural hegemony,take the uSA in the 30s&40s for example.
A huge rise in Trade Union and Leftist movements threatened the massive profits of the rich elites so they embarked on a huge propaganda offensive to indoctrinate the rule of business and capital to the masses.
Newspaper editorials,TV and radio news,programmes and analysis,film studios,Sports,Churches and even education in schools as well as the workplace were used.
Trade Unionism was demonized as was the government,to instill anti-government resentment as this like the unions is a potensially democratising institution.This ideological battle was instigated by the rich owners of all the institutions to influence the masses and turn them into spectators not participants.If you show ONLY this propaganda people will soon accept it and then believe it,support it un-questioningly,ridicule anything other than this and ultimately fight for it.In order that the rich and priveledged would maintain their positions of power and increase their wealth.
They would say they are the elites who are more important than everyone else and therefor must be protected by the people but in actual fact.... it was from the people.
They won this war,how could they lose? Having every means of mass communication availiable to indoctrinate the great masses in the capitalist system's worship of money,greed,wastefullness,imperialism and war.
Because we have plundered,robbed,exploited and wrecked third and second world countries for centuaries,we are far more advanced than they are since we have the best weapons and technology.African debt like you alluded to in your post is one example of exploitation and stealth imperialism by Western Institutions and their are many many more.
Capitalist law of the jungle? its fine for us in our protected countries,no ones gona bomb us.We bomb them in their far away lands.So as long as we are not experiencing war ..who cares!
Oop! went off on one a bit there at the end but unless we can counter this, now never ending propaganda then we can never change anything.
Must switch my computer off nowas its overheating

In reply to Shona M: OK that it, every out evacuate the thread. We've hit a massive iceberg of boring repetitive communist waffle that the discussion wont survive.

In reply to Shona M:

Have you come across this?:

http://sacred-economics.com/

What do you make of it?

B

It surprises me that nobody has mentioned Norman Dodd. He was charged by the Reece Committee to investigate the activities of certain philanthropic institutions. Among them was the Carnegie Endowment. He was given unfettered access for two weeks to their minutes from their meetings and was very surprised to discover apparently peculiarly nefarious intentions.

He was interviewed, on film, by G Edward Griffin in the 80s. His testimony is enlightening to say the least.

Transcript here: http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/dodd/interview.htm

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM%26sns=em

In reply to EZ: Really good post there EZ, here's another good one youtube.com/watch?v=29QV_GNMt3Q& Charlotte Iserbyt breaks down the history of this secret order and reveals just how big this elite club at Yale really is and how much political power they have wield over the past 180 years!

Iserbyt unveils the connection of her father and grandfather to the elite Skull & Bones secret society, including an exclusive look at the official members list the public was never meant to see. Iserbyt also explores the research of Anthony Sutton and others who've made the connection between Skull & Bones, the Illuminati and experimental psychology from Germany that has been injected into the American education system since the late 1800s. Also in play is the elite's control of the Left-Right political paradigm, infiltration of key policy groups and backing from globalist foundations that have threatened to undermine the American way for the better part of a century.

In reply to EZ: So the foundations are trying to achieve merged countries and world government through education? Isn't that what you want?

In reply to NWO resistance: Do you need an eye patch and a parrot to join this secret society?

In reply to Game of Conkers:

How about you check out the information

In reply to NWO resistance:

I think you need to see a doctor NWO resistance. Seriously, you are delusional.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Don't bark at me mate. Norman Dodd headed up a congressional investigation in America. That places his opinion in such matters certainly above mine and probably above yours.

Wikipedia says: The Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives between 1952 and 1954. The committee was originally created by House Resolution 561 during the 82nd Congress. The committee investigated the use of funds by tax-exempt organizations (non-profit organizations) to see if they were being used to support communism. The committee was alternatively known as the Cox Committee and the Reece Committee after its two chairmen, Edward E. Cox and B. Carroll Reece.

Norman Dodd said, and if you had read the transcript or watched the video that I linked to then you would be aware of this, that his secretary in the investigation who was instructed to read and report back regarding the Carnegie Foundation's minutes, reported on one of her dictaphone recordings:

"We are now at the year nineteen hundred and eight [of the minutes], which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion. And the question is this: Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?"

So let's recap here:

Norman Dodd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Dodd was instructed by a US congressional committee, to investigate tax exempt and non-profit foundations and in the course of his investigation he discovered that The Carnegie Foundation, which would two years after the starting date of their minuted meetings create the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Endowment_for_International_Peace had meetings in which those present at the meetings raised the question "Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?" and came to the conclusion that "no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war" and in a subsequent meeting decided that they needed to know "how do [they] involve the United States in a war?"

That has nothing to do with education or whatever you are flouncing around in your response to my original post on the subject. That has to do with a senior figure in US politics claiming that the attendees of meetings in the earliest years of the inception of the Carnegie Foundation were trying to alter the life of an entire people and concluded that war was the best means known to humanity.

Considering the stature of the Carnegie Foundation, who a year after the claimed minuted statement created the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace with a gift to initiate the Endowment of $10 million, that is a pretty damning statement on the part of Norman Dodd.

Giving away $10 million is suggestive of a lot of power and influence. If Norman Dodd is to be believed then The Carnegie Endowment For International Peace is a rather pretentious name.

These details are on the record and not on 'just another internet forum' and a one line denunciation of the purveyor of such information is weak in light of the severity of Norman Dodd's accusations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

So once again: Norman Dodd's testimony to G. Edward Griffin in 1982:

Transcript here: http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/dodd/interview.htm

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM%26sns=em

Reader's of this post who are intrigued by the details presented should please be aware that whilst G. Edward Griffin is considered a leftist/radical individual his interview with Norman Dodd is not a capitalism bashing, nor is it wildly denouncing education or banking or any of the other common labels that are bandied around with regard to "conspiracy theorists". This is honestly offered information that is at the very least interesting and if you choose to believe Norman Dodd's testimony on the subject, enlightening. Whether you are a leftist, rightist or a non-political, you really should watch this video or read the transcript.

In reply to JayPee630:

Obviously the information is too hardcore for you to handle

In reply to NWO resistance:


Hahaha, of course, that's the reason why me and most of the population don't believe your lunacy.

Did you look up the definition of delusional then? Look up denial while you're at it.

Seriously mate, sorry to take the piss out of you and this, but really, I think you should have a long hard think and read about the stuff you're spouting.

It's not too hardcore, we're not in the pay of the Government, we're not scared of the 'truth' and we're not 'sheeple'.

It's just that when you actually look at all your claims about a right mix of things it becomes very obivious to anyone with a critical mind that there's nothing of substance to them and all the 'evidence' you provide is widely discredited, from untrustworthy sources and/or outright lies.

In reply to JayPee630: I wouldn't even know where to start with someone like you JayPee, too far gone

In reply to NWO resistance:

Of course not, that's the opt out that you always give when this comes up rather than you be a little self critical and reflective.

OF COURSE the reasons we don't believe you because we're too brain washed/deluded/weak willed...

Oh the irony...

In reply to NWO resistance:

Just an opinion mate. You are likely to encounter UKC resistance if you continue to take a combative attitude to your interactions on these forums. My approach now is to just offer the information and back it up with documentation then to just let folk make their own mind up. By joining in with the slanging match the greatest risk is that you force the pertinent information farther up thread and so more out of view that it might otherwise be. If stand in genuine resistance to what you feel to be a NWO (not my words or my opinion) then you would best serve your ideals by sticking to facts, not becoming embroiled in unnecessary arguments and looking out for organised response against which it is not worth trying to fight.

I don't know the original source of this (and I have tried to find it) which makes me skeptical of suggestions within the text of specific institutional involvement but certainly there are tricks described that are apparent even on these gentile forums: http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
Sock-puppets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet) abound and folk who for reasons unclear try to obfuscate the discourse when it gets into 'difficult' areas are also present in large numbers. Here, they use, frequently, ad hominem attacks on the individual, obfuscation and straw man discussion tactics and flaming to sink posts into the ether. You would serve your cause better by not endorsing these actions by not joining their arguments.

If nothing else, not being one of the flamers prevents your credibility from being questioned by people who may have looked at your information without prejudice.

Dragnet: "Just the facts Ma'am"

In reply to EZ: Have you even read what you're citing? Norman Dodd states that he was told the foundations aimed to merge the US and Russia and create a world government. Do you think that would accord with ezworld?

In reply to NWO resistance:

Why would you believe, seemingly unquestioningly, the barely corroborated evidence of one man of whom we know little except that he was apparently bitter about being fired from a major establishment bank rather than all the other evidence available?

In reply to JayPee630:

So where do you get your information from about what's going on in the world? Just curious here

In reply to NWO resistance:

Not a 'natural news' website run by a delusional lunatic that's for sure.

I can just see where this is going (and that's one of the things about this, is that you're all so predictable). I'm supposed to say the BBC and other independant media, and then you shout, "but they're all controlled by the NWO, if you believe them you're so gullible, no wonder you're brain washed and don't believe me".

Yawn...

Looks like the usual suspects are all present forcing pertinent information up thread to be lost in the ether. Well done See you on the next thread.

In reply to EZ:

And the usual suspects are presenting controversial theories based on dubious evidence and refusing to justify or substantiate any of it in true "it's my ball and you can't play with it" fashion.

God knows why you bother.

In reply to Postmanpat: It makes me very sad, the world's in a terrible state and I want to know more about ezworld, how it will be brought about and how it will be run. I think he's being very mean by not telling us.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Not me mate. I presented documentation that people are welcome to review and come to their own conclusions regarding.


I bother because if I find it interesting then it is very possible that others will also.

In reply to NWO resistance: were you formerly known as Ruckman on here?

In reply to EZ:
Yes, that comes under "dubious evidence"

But apparently not that interesting that you are prepared to discuss it's validity.

On, on...

In reply to McBendy:

To be honest I use books more than the internet so no i hadn't seen this before but i'm glad i did.The substance of the piece was quite interesting going from the removed self to the alienation of monetarism and of community and nature,which resonate acutely these days.It very much harks back to Thatcher's" no such thing as society only the individual",philosophy expoused by neo-cons and neo-liberalists.Do we spend so much time for instance interacting socially in a virtual and faceless way on internet forums,to help fill the void that our never ending pursuit of money creates,when we place this above conventional social interaction and participation? i think so,but it's a changing world.

The internet of course also has the power(if people apply it)to let us block out the conventional and traditional mainstream media outlets and sources of propaganda,which are always baised toward a certain ruling elite.People are turning away from such sources in more modern forward looking countries like S.Korea,which is one of the most on line countries in the world.Their 2002 general election was played out on an internet news service called 'OHmynews',who took a comparitively unknown presidential candidate and made him into president by on line visits.Ohmynews was created by a guy who said-

My goal was to say farewell to 20th-century journalism,with the concept that every citizen is a reporter...The professional news culture has eroded our journalism,and i have always wanted to revitalize it.Since i had no money,i descided to use the internet,which has made this guerrilla strategy possible.

The new president gave Ohmynews his first interview as president and declared the 'Netizens won'.I'll look forward to a time when such alternative means can be used in the UK to counter the current state-corporate control over society.
There's a book called the 'Compassionate revolution',by David Edwards.From the late nineties but still very relevent,he is Buddhist and tackles political dissent and the 'so called', liberal media.Oh yea he is also the founder of MEDIALENS an important site that challenges the lies of corporate media.

In reply to Shona M:

That should have read "State-corporate MEDIA control over society".

In reply to Shona M: Regardless of conventional media vs "underground" media...how do you get a decent turn out to vote? Apathy amongst the populace is rampant.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

Find the root of this apathy and you have your answer i suppose,i would imagine there must be some study out there documenting all the turn out data from successive elections and pinpointing the start of the decline.As well as the usual polls asking people why they didn't vote, hmm could be quite interesting.
As i said in a reply yesterday there was an organized and concerted campaign by US industrialists and corporations to effectively turn the masses away from Trade unions and breed distrust in the federal government.I don't know if it succeeded in reducing voter turn out but over time for obvious reasons it could be a contributing factor.Although when i think about it it could be that the parties of business are pretty much the same,so nothing too much changes no matter which are voted in so people just think...why bother voting.

In reply to McBendy:

A conversation with Sir David Attenborough
Since Sir David Attenborough began making natural history programmes, the world's population has tripled. In this film, he explains why he thinks this growth is the source of the environmental problems facing us today.

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/index.htm

In reply to Scrump: I told you that killing people would be the answer.

In reply to Sir Chasm: I think you're right.

The real question is who to have a war with?

India are a relatively easy target, lots of people and farm land, but the real pot of gold is having a good old ding dong with the Chinese. LOTS of resources there. Keep us going for another century at least. They'll probably put up a bit of a fight though but that's all to the good. Anyway, I'm past call up age.

My vote is for China.

In reply to EZ:

I had a glance through the transcript.
It appears that the comments attributed to the illuminati come from one (or selected) comment extracted from spot reading of a vast number of years of minutes of the foundation, identified by a researcher who then transcribed her dictaphone notes and recollected 30 years later by the person that instructed the dictaphone recordings.

I hate to say it but placing unwarranted emphasis on isolated pieces of information without regard to context, or other evidence is a little bit indicative of a conspiracy theory.

In reply to Sir Chasm: ' I told you that killing people would be the answer.'

Sorry I've onlu just joined this thread. What was the question again?