North American Union--NWO Phase 1?

[JimHawkins]

Thought by some to be only phase one of a unification of all world unions into a single world government..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U

No congressional oversight.. No vote.. Who's really pulling the strings?

A good thing--a bad thing--a scary thing?

The Amero? Makes me a little nauseous..

What say you?

[Valkenar]

What say you?

Amusing conspiracy theory.

[jorvik]

A guy at work got me interested in this "Conspiracy theory" .the "New world Order" and all that.......and frankly a lot of the stuff that I've started to see has made me reconsider.
You only have to look at Europe where the Union is being railroaded through against everybody's wishes , except it seems the politicians...phony B.liar has done very well out of it from being bush's lap dog he has made himself a small fortune .and is now tipped to be a contender for the new post of "European president"......you only have to look at recent events in my country...........they are really trying to stirr up the Muslim's hatred, firstly they give a no mark author salmon rushdie a knighthood.....then they make bliar a "peace envoy to the middle east" , next he is making speeches about Iran being an evil regime .that is really taking the p*ss..and the madness goes on..............I see folks have started to read about the Amero now.
Look at my country bliar and new labour has been saying for years that he was fighting illegal immigration.that he only wanted genuine assylum seekers.now it emerges that it was actively being encouraged.look at the states with all your "Mexican Help"...see the similarities yet

[cxt]

Jim

Might a littel far out---for now.

But one of the largest problems in the EU is that UN-elected bureaucrats are making decsions that should be made by elected representaives that are directly answerable to the people of the nations they govern.

Some French bureacrat should probably not be making descions that effect the welfare of say Danish citizens.

I say that people should be taking a long hard look at how the EU really functions before advocating it elsewhere.

[JimHawkins]

Amusing conspiracy theory.

What is?

The North American Union?

The Amero?

A one world economy is something that many have asserted for years would be a good thing..

If multiple "Unions" are thought to be a step forward then certainly a final unification of all unions--a one world union would be a next logical step..

I was asking what folks thought of the notion of this kind of centralized power structure. As is seen in these seemingly self empowered Unions and then potentially as a one world economy/union, etc.. And what could that mean for the US Constitution and US sovereignty?

[jorvik]

Some of this does seem whacky.but then you start to read of things like this all the time.
The failed European constitution.....( failed because the French and Dutch voters voted against it) .has been resurrected and imposed upon the people of Europe.........I read of the Amero a long time ago when I was looking into this kind of stuff, some of it does seem goofball....but a lot of it is scary.look at all the lies told about Iraq to get us to go to war.it's horrible to think that tony bliar has theopportunity to go for the presidency of Europe.......it reminds me of the star wars films

[JimHawkins]

but a lot of it is scary.look at all the lies told about Iraq to get us to go to war.it's horrible to think that tony bliar has theopportunity to go for the presidency of Europe.......it reminds me of the star wars films

Coming up next on "The war on Terror"--Iran..?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely..

If we accept that then we must ask if there are those with this kind of power.. If there is then....what?

It all seems distant until someone you know dies as a side effect of these 'plans'.. Or we notice a loss of liberty..

Was Eisenhower just being paranoid?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdrGKwkmxAU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCkgFr7CACY

Anyone ever read the government report/study that concluded the invalidity of peace as a genuine goal for the US?

Do folks think the MIC wants peace?

Since WWI has there ever not been a war on something going on?

On the other hand is a unified World Government the way of the future and what kind of a future would that be?

Who would the war be with then?

[IJ]

How on earth are we at risk of a single world government when you have strained relations everywhere you look--mexico wants to annex the southwest in piecemeal, everyone is po'd at the west, iran is nuts and the "good" countries in the middle east still have absurd standards of personal liberties, Russia is flexing its muscle and getting more nationalistic, every little tribe periodically tries to kill of every other little tribe, etc.

People are always predicting the end of the world, the return of JC, last big war, whatever... I'm not holding my breath.

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

[JimHawkins]

Using the Kardashev scale, which sees all civilizations as type 0, type 1, type 2 and type 3, we see movement in certain directions. Science predicts that--assuming we survive--we are destined to form a one world--world or a Type 1 world. A Type 1 world is a unified world among other things..

Some would argue that this is the intent (and has been) of those pushing for a one world whatever--not intended as the end of the world just the end of what some might see as a discombobulated world..

Will We Become a Type 1 Civilization?

I think this is THE question of our age. A Type 1 civilization presupposes many things. Right now, we can barely predict the weather more than 4 or 5 days in advance, much less keep it stable. We have barely left the confines of our home planet, with human forays only to the moon and immediate Earth orbit. We spend incredible amounts of energy and resources bickering over inconsequential political boundaries and ideological differences. Environmental problems such as global warming and dimming are beginning to wreck havoc with our climate and infrastructure. Global resource depletion is another cause for concern, with tropical rain forests being cut down at record rates. Bucky Fuller said as far back as 1965, that we had all the necessary technical knowledge then to create a globally sustainable civilization for everyone on the planet to live like billionaires. So why haven't we? I think the problem is psychological, not technical… a lack of sufficient emotional, rational, social-somatic, and natural intelligence.

The Internet is a one world information system.. The internet, government cooperation/agreements, the UN, The Trilateral Commission, military management and power projection, economic unions, multinational corporate influence, popular culture, international banking are all moving in this direction where the 'nation states' (and their sovereignty) become less important than the 'sum of states' and logically so, if this is indeed movement toward a type 1 civilization.

We are currently, according to the Kardashev Scale, a type 0 civilization working within about a hundred years toward a type 1, civilization... The fact that there is indeed much resistance (esp terrorism) to this movement is why we are still type 0. Most scientists accept that if we survive long enough this is our destiny to be a unified one world in all respects. What the pros and cons of such a thing might be in the short term are up for debate.

[Valkenar]

Science predicts that--assuming we survive--we are destined to form a one world

What science predicts this? The Kardashev scale? I'm not sure that qualifies as science. It seems like sociological speculation more than anything else.

[JimHawkins]

Science predicts that--assuming we survive--we are destined to form a one world

What science predicts this? The Kardashev scale? I'm not sure that qualifies as science. It seems like sociological speculation more than anything else.

Well some scientists/science..

So you don't see unification as a natural and logical step?

Do you see separate nation states leading the way to the future of humanity on this planet?

As a world civilization we are just waking up. We have just reached a point where there is substantial interaction with all people both through rapid travel, through the internet, through commerce, through trade agreements through unions, and on and on. . This is a direction in social evolution, something that is logical since the objectives of all mankind are essentially the same.. Indeed if man had been able to invest all the money over the years in life instead of death, warring, bickering, what could have been achieved already?

If you wish to assert that our world society will remain static that's fine with me. However, we all know the only constant is change and the direction we as a world culture, as a world society are moving in is fairly clear--we are moving together not apart, on paper, in culture, and in real life. Now that doesn't mean we have to get there, however many great minds agree that to reach the next level of social organization and human well being we must rise above our petty differences.. I'm sure you don't assert that as a world society, we, humanity will be better off remaining in a separate, bickering, warring and disconnected whole.. No doubt we could be much stronger and healthier investing all our efforts as one for one humanity, one human goal..

[Valkenar]

So you don't see unification as a natural and logical step?

Even if it is, that doesn't make it science.

Do you see separate nation states leading the way to the future of humanity on this planet?

Maybe? I do think globalization is here to stay, but I also think factionalization is here to stay. There are enormous cultural divides in the world's various nations, and while it's possible for a government to bridge those divides (such as the EU is doing on a smaller scale in Europe or how the US did before the S were as U as they are today) , I still think we're quite far from having Korea, Zambia, Yemen, France, Venezuela and Canada all contentedly governed by the same body. And that doesn't even begin to address troubled places like Sudan, Israel, Serbia, Myanmar, and so on.

Will there ever be a world government? Possibly, but I'm not seeing it happening any time soon. As for the posited North American Union, it's interesting as a political and economic thought experiment, but not a very likely reality in the short term. Give enough time, anything could happen.

[Glenn]

Single World Government and the Kardashev scale, and other aspects of this discussion, reminds me of Gene Roddenberry's vision for the future as he expressed it in Star Trek. But in Star Trek Earth took on a single government to have a single voice in interactions with other planets, i.e., it was a response to a need.

Has that ever happened on Earth, yes. European Union is a response to a perceived need to affirm a single Europe in a globalizing world.

200 years before that, there were 14 new states that had broken away from their colonial overlord. It is important to note that in political science and political geography, "state" = "country". The creation of 14 tiny new countries completely independent from each other was not out of the realm of possibility, and would actually have been in keeping with European tradition of that time. But they saw a need to be unified and set up a single "United States" of America under the Articles of Confederation to present a single voice to the rest of the world, and the rest is history.

So whatever unions do form will depend on the perceived need for them. A single world government? What forces are currently at play that would promote the need for that...barring the development of warp drive capability and interaction with other planets as a result, of course?

Something to consider: The Articles of Confederation established a federal government that was much like how the United Nations is set up. It was decided that this form of federal government was too weak and needed revision, and the result of the convention thus held was a radically different form of federal government as laid out in the Constitution. The delegates then went back to their respective states to promote the Constitution for ratification. It was a hard sale in many areas:

One of the promotional materials for the Constitution was the Federalist Papers. But it was ratified. Could the same thing happen to the United Nations? Again, what would be the driving forces for such a change?

There is something else to consider as well, and that is the current trend globally is actually for an increase in the number of countries, not a decrease. In 1900 there were only 57 countries, there are now 192 (193 if you now add Kosovo). That is an over 200% increase. During this same time there was only one case of two countries unifying completely, when East and West Germany merged in 1990. And the world is full of devolutionary pressures that could create more new countries in the future. Unions would have to find a way to reverse this trend to be truly effective.

[cxt]

And they would have to find a way of overcoming the "pigs are a ittle equalier" problems that currently bedevil the EU.

Its one thing to be part of a union when the members all see themselevs as part of cohesive whole----its quite something else when unelected buracrats with few checks on their power have real authority over people.