Skeptic Project

The whole "One World Government" is really, really devoid of any basic understanding of governance and state existence. A state cannot exist without a diametric opposition, real or imagined. How could one be created in a "One world Government" situation, and how would one expect the government to even function? Look at countries like Sudan where to completely different populations exist under one government. They have different religions, languages, and perceived identifying histories and the country barely functions at all. Now expand that out to the globe and it should be blatantly obvious how stupid the theory is. But of course, all proof to be used against these theories is planted by "them" and so it's all irrelevant. It must be nice to have a belief system that totally disregards reality.

New World Order isn't synonymous with "one world government." Only conspiracy theorists think it is, and they've never proven that when someone says "new world order" they're talking about global government. The best they can do it show you a bunch of people saying "new world order" then tell you it means "one world government."

Personally, I use NWO to refer to the conspiracy that creates one world government (OWG), but one world government itself is completely separate.

Other than proving NWO and OWG are one in the same, they've never explained exactly why OWG is bad, it just "is." People like Alex Jones will talk about how the NWO is in control of the US government and so forth, then turn around and say that they're trying to take control, they can't make up their mind about which delusional scenario is best -- so it seems they use whichever is best for what book, movie, etc they're trying to sell for the day.

"I do think human nature is driving us into a direction where we could easily give up much of our freedom to a government body"

Here is where I am going to have to vehemently disagree with you. For one, it is very very tricky to prove what human nature is, much less that it really exists in any platonic way. What we perceive as "human nature" is dependent upon our specific cultural experiences. For example, there are indigenous groups who operate off the understanding that the human is not the individual, but rather the collective. So, "human nature" in these instances is in no way the same as a "Western" understanding of the human. So to make a claim that human nature is driving us in a certain direction necessarily excludes the diversity of human experiences and relies too heavily on a narrow view to explain the global trend. Remember, we aren't the world.

Secondly, you make the implicit claim that "freedom" is something that stands in direct opposition to governance. Looking back on the 20th century (and even further back) we find that questions of what freedom is and how it relates to the government vary greatly. Athenian concepts of freedom actually relied on being a part of the government. One could not have freedom unless one had a voice in governance. And even J.J Rousseau contended that freedom actually involved submitting to "the general will." While we can of course have a discussion on who is right (if anyone at all) my point is that you have to, again, be careful of who you speak for. Your implied definition of "freedom" is one only born out of the Liberalist movement in the 19th and 20th centuries, and is further characteristic of the Anglo-American tradition.

Now you also assert "Reality would say that it's not happening because it hasn't happened yet" but I maintain a different position, and one you are more than welcome to challenge. Firstly, "reality" doesn't speak, rather we speak on behalf of our realities. This is not true of sciences in the strictest sense, but as I showed above, our more complex societal existence is dependent upon our interpretations. Now, you claim that there is a tension between the "reality" and the "imaginative perspective." I would argue that even in your dichotomy there is a reliance upon reality. The "Imaginative perspective" implicitly depends upon a manipulatable reality to be interacted with. Now there are limits to this relationship. I, of course, cannot imagine that the world is going to be taken over by reptilians and make it so. Imaginative perspectives are limited to those who share the image.

And that is exactly where I make the proof against a OWG. Even if some "Elitists" imagined a One World Government, the diversity of human experience and interpretation negates its possibility for existence. Even on the state level, it is impossible to achieve total autonomy over people. Reality thus offers us with evidence against a possible OWG. Consistent failures of power on the micro level strongly show that a singular power would fail on the macro level.

Again, I think your position relies to heavily upon a specific experience. Even if you could prove that American tradition (or "nature") is taking us to a place where we would "give up our freedoms to the government" you would be hardpressed to show that that is universally true.

@Falkner

Regarding human nature, maybe we're on opposite extremes. Perhaps I'm looking too much at the forest, while you're focused too much on the trees. Can you sincerely deny that the world is moving toward having a one world government? Are we not moving in a direction that requires more government intervention than less?

The same can be said about my use of the word "freedom." The point I was making is that more decisions are being made by the government today than in the past. It seems that humans are relinquishing more responsibility to an automaton today than before. For example, Americans will soon have to pay a fine for not having health insurance. You can debate whether this gives us more freedom or not - my point is that, for better or worse, this is another government intrusion into our lives.

Maybe I should have stated it as "I think humans are moving toward depending on more government than less."

As for reality not speaking, come on. Maybe my creative writing skills have superseded my ability to speak literally, but I would hope people understand the language I used. If I must explain, I meant that humans who think "realistically" perceive the world and make judgments and decisions based on it. Others who think "imaginatively" take the reality perceive and then distort it using processes involving assessment of the past and future in however fashion they want. A realist may say we are not at a one world government, so NWOers are wack. The other extreme (and yes I'm aware this is not a black and white spectrum) would say "well, we're not at a one world government, but we may get there because of trends, "logic," and whatever other reason we see fit."

I've never visited a place outside of the USA, so I cannot speak for their cultures and political dynamics. I have read that Europe, China, and Russia are more or less socialist in nature. I would have to think that my viewpoint is dependent on more than my view on the American way.

Interesting reply. It's clear that you have a more knowledge of the world than I.

To clarify, I didn't mean that the imagineers are actually more logical than the realists. I put logic into quotes to show that the people who imagine use their brand of logic to project reality into the future. They think they know how things are going to go.

In that regard, I can agree on creating classifications for the imagineers. Some are more realistic than others.

Perry, you're a shill for Obama. :P

Thanks for the well-traveled point of view.

Somewhat off point, but do you enjoy Japan more than the US?

I dont know if this has been mentioned by in the UK they are scrapping the ID scheme, which means they are wasting a lot of money already spent on it....

I guess the truthers will say its because they realised people didn't want to be slaves!!! :D

Sneaky bastards those Illuminites!

>> The best trick of them all would be to get the CTs to accuse eachother of being shills.

lol, Jeff Rense vs Alex Jones.