What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy casts another employee in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Jarice Brodie has done some cool things in his life. Next: Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
645 Comments
- sandman979, on 10/10/2008, -23/+241Dude you're giving all the power to nasty bankers. Right now if there's something you don't like about your country you can always leave. But, where are you going to go if the whole planet has the same corrupt system? Alpha Centauri? Zeta Reticuli? This whole planet is going to become a prison controlled by an elite! Don't you see the problem there?
- samoan27, on 10/10/2008, -17/+220There already is a global currency it's called gold.
- inactive, on 10/10/2008, -34/+187Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053 ... - booksnmore4you, on 10/10/2008, -73/+222Glenn Beck is a hack.
- deadmoo, on 10/10/2008, -26/+135Did Ron Paul cast some kind of spell on Glenn Beck?
- odigity, on 10/10/2008, -9/+107Power corrupts.
That's why our Constitutional Republic was originally based on maximum decentralization of power. The Federal government had very limited powers, and was supposed to only do what was necessary at a Federal level - defense, and interstate courts. Then the states, then local government. The theory was that decisions should always be made as close to home as possible. (Incidentally, this is why I am against Roe vs Wade, despite being pro-choice.)
With a one world government, you have maximum centralization of power. A few men ruling the whole world. Absolute tyranny, with almost no chance of restoring liberty.
As for one world currency, that would be a truly great evil, but it takes more than a short digg post to explain that, so I refer you to other sources:
The Creature from Jekyll Island - A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G Edward Griffin
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-848491157 ... - jackwk, on 10/10/2008, -18/+103I for one would like to welcome our new global government overlords... wait it doesn't sound funny in this context.
- c0mputar, on 10/10/2008, -114/+192Not to sound like I'm pro-end game or something, but what exactly is the downside to a global government & one currency? I find the idea somewhat inevitable as we progress closer and closer to colonising outer space.
- ironhide, on 10/10/2008, -77/+126Buried for being a load of alarmist crap, also for being a load of Glenn Beck crap.
- hugolp, on 10/10/2008, -22/+70Glenn Beck talked bad about the FED and now it talks about a world currency and a new world order? I know one guy whos going to loose his job soon if he keeps on doing this.
- UnrealMiniMe, on 10/10/2008, -18/+62There are several major reasons why one world government is the most dangerous idea on Earth:
1.) *It would inevitably become perverted, corrupt, and totalitarian, no matter how it started out, and here's why*:
Government is more accountable to the people when power stays as local as possible. The farther away it gets, the more disconnected politicians are from the people. Even if they have the best of intentions, this will make their policies skewed and out of touch. Furthermore, the farther politicians are from the people, the less likely it is that they'd have good intentions at all.
Part of the reason government is more accountable to the people at local levels is that it is *less powerful*. The more powerful any government or government post is, the more attractive it is to ill-intentioned people who seek power for power's sake. One world government has a supreme monopoly on legitimate force throughout the entire world, making it extremely powerful and naturally attractive to the worst of all sorts. Furthermore, power corrupts, so even many well-intentioned people would be sucked in eventually. Even if it was initially set up as a perfect republic that ONLY protected the rights of citizens, it would eventually and inevitably become perverted. A nation-state among other nation states might be able to stick to an absolutely perfect and bulletproof Constitution forever, unlike the United States - after all, the US Constitution had some flaws that were exploited, the greatest of all being the fact that it did not strictly enforce itself with harsh penalties against any official who overstepped it. However, with an absolute monopoly on the legitimate use of force throughout the whole world, and especially by being as remote from the people as possible, one world government would unavoidably become perverted. As we've seen, increasing consolidation of government power (especially executive power) happens in a gradual downward spiral, and once it's reached a certain level, nothing but a major shift can stop it from continuing on its natural course to totalitarianism.
Especially considering most people in the world and even in America seem to *want* some form of authoritarian collectivist fascism, this transformation would come very, very quickly. The more centralized and potentially powerful a government is, the more incentive some parties will have to send it down that path. As soon as one world government becomes a hub for legalized plunder (welfare, corporate welfare, protectionism, etc.), it will become more corrupt than any lesser government ever could. After all, what money-grubbing thief of a conglomerate wouldn't try lobbying the one-stop-shop for worldwide economic favors and monopolistic supremacy? The more centralized the power is, the easier it is to buy influence over a large geographic area, and one world government is as centralized as you can get. It's a hell of a lot harder bribing countless local governments than a state governments, it's a hell of a lot harder bribing 50 state governments than one national government, and it's a hell of a lot harder bribing 190 national governments than one supreme government. In other words, government corruption, money in government, and government in money would be at a height that could only be surpassed by one government ruling several planets. ;)
Another strong force would also cause government to become increasingly socialistic and destructive: Misplaced philanthropy. Both selfishness and philanthropy would run their course until eventually, the government had an increasingly centrally planned economy. Even if the central planner meant well (which would eventually cease to be the case), nobody in the world is intelligent enough to properly make decisions to manage an economy of global proportions. Misallocation of capital would be rampant, and increasingly so the more mechanisms the planner tried to control. Shortages and poverty would occur if only the money supply was manipulated (like today), and eventually, famine. If the planner was a complete Communist, imagine China's Great Leap Forward...times ten.
The gradual downward spiral would constantly worsen. With government so remote and its purpose finally utterly perverted, a police state would become inevitable for the ruling class to protect its power - and with the might of a completely unopposed one world government, humanity would see the worst tyranny in its entire history. Economic tyranny will rule, with fiat money manipulated for the benefit of the protected classes. The whole world would be sucked into the same economic system with no legal escape...and you can be sure that the vast police state would make sure nobody's using alternative currencies. Everyone would be educated by the same system, propagandized by the same media, etc. It would be extremely difficult for anyone to really raise awareness, and even more difficult to fight any kind of revolution: The more powerful and concentrated government power is, the more nigh-invincible it is. Such a government would ultimately be overthrown, perhaps after screwing up its economy so much that the starving masses just won't take it anymore, no matter how brainwashed they are. Still, it would be one hell of a painful and bloody lesson for the world (and quite frankly, it's one we're about to face).
The bottom line is that you can't have one world government without something like the NWO. NWO-style totalitarian plans are not some strange anomaly; rather, they're the natural consequence of ever-more-concentrated power.
2.) Besides being smaller and closer to the people, there's another important reason why more governments works much better:
*Governments compete for citizens!* This means that the more governments there are, the more options you have if yours turns sour. If your country goes to hell, slip out in the dead of night and move somewhere free. However, if there's just a one-world government, *there's nowhere to run and nowhere to hide*. In addition, *no other country will exist to wage war with the one world government and end the tyranny*. The whole world will share the same fate of totalitarian rule, and also, the whole world will suffer for any of the idiot central planner's economic failures/experiments/games. That brings me to:
*It's much better to have a variety of government policies than one single set that everyone shares.* Besides having another place to make a refugee home, this is another advantage of competing governments. First of all, different people from different parts of the world with different cultures will *want* to run their societies differently. If you force the same homogenized law on everyone, almost everyone will be unhappy. Here in the US, you can see a very clear example of that: Abortion, once a state issue, is so divisive on the national level that a significant percentage of voters vote SOLELY based on that issue, completely ignoring all others and letting politicians get away with piss-poor policies on the others. Just about half of the country is unhappy about the current abortion law, and if it switched, the other half would be. However, more local government with more varied laws would allow people to live in communities that shared their values (and had law to reflect it).
Futhermore, another strength of competition is that, assuming well-intentioned programs are put in place or experimented with, a lot more things can be experimented with at once and progress can occur much quicker. The larger government is, the more likely any hackneyed policy or program it has will be an inefficient mess and a failure, but aside from that, competing governments allow for them to learn from each others' failures and successes, and people can choose to live in the best place for them.
3.) *Even if I was wrong about the #1, which I'm not, tyranny is at least a possibility, and with just a one world government, the risk, however "small," is simply unacceptable*. Even if you don't accept the rationale that tyranny is inevitable, instead just think: What if tyranny were *possible*? Sure, the one world government could be governed by the best people in the world for centuries (yeah, right...but let's say it was), but *what if* someone like Hitler came into power? Even ignoring the complete inevitability (and the fact that it would happen quicker than with smaller and more numerous governments), just this very possibility should be prohibitive-enough a danger to turn anyone rational away from the idea of one world government forever. Even if it were a small risk, which it's not, the risk would be far too great!
4.) Why the heck does anyone need one world government? War can be solved without it. Environmental issues can be solved without it. ALL issues we have can be solved without it. We're propagandized to think that there are issues unsolvable by sovereign nations and/or their people alone, not because it's true, but because it's a convenient excuse for tyrants to seize absolute power. - satterfield, on 10/10/2008, -36/+80I typically don't care for Glenn Beck, but I have to agree with him here.
- XanderDee, on 10/10/2008, -1/+42As an elite Banker I would vote no for gold because I can't create it out of nothing to loan to people, thus making them my slave and owning the collateral with when they don't pay it back. I think we should have 100% digital money so we can see where everything is going and make sure it is not used incorrectly. Also I can ensure that I own everything by stop lending and watching everyone go bankrupt and have the government bail me out if I make a mistake. HaHa! :)
(BTW I am not a elite banker but that's what they would say.) - spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2008, -2/+36Nation states are roadblocks to total global tyranny, if one nation goes bad it can be stopped, and or people can move somewhere else. If the one world government goes bad you're out of luck until we colonize another planet.
- Asvetic, on 10/10/2008, -13/+47He has 1 job requirement: Monger Fear - Check.
- inactive, on 10/10/2008, -5/+35There would be no democracy. The banks are privately owned corporations.
- k3rfuffl3, on 10/10/2008, -26/+55Oh noes! People acknowledging that we live on the same planet and thus inevitably have to partition a limited resource better by breaking down irrational,non-existent barriers!
It is inevitable. As technology improves more and more barriers will be broken. - inactive, on 10/10/2008, -4/+32its scary how posting Alex Jones's Endgame would be dugg down a few months ago but now that everyones realizing him and ron paul were right about at least the economy its getting diggs
- odigity, on 10/10/2008, -13/+40The Suckit. And we will. Because we're stupid, and let this ***** happen to us.
- sockfire, on 10/10/2008, -3/+27Credits
- hugolp, on 10/10/2008, -7/+31You need to understand the scam of the fractional rereseve system and you will understand what we are up to if the bankers get to have just one currency controlled by a world central bank.
- Paulorific, on 10/10/2008, -16/+39Global government and currency would be pretty sweet. If people weren't corrupt.
- zenatek, on 10/10/2008, -25/+49This is creepy because I just submitted a forum post I found on some forum from March where a man predicts exactly that and even names september as the month that it will all begin. He was told all of this by his uncle who is high up in the military. Check it out, very eerie.
http://digg.com/business_finance/Early_Prediction_ ... - peaceninja, on 10/10/2008, -11/+33***** you, i lost two friends to a globalized economic government
- inactive, on 10/10/2008, -3/+25Government is just like any other "business", there are different choices in the market. If you don't like what government A is doing, you can go live in government B. With a global government, you are bound by ONE rule of law, ONE authority, ONE way of life. Do you not see a problem with that? Sorry, but it's pretty basic as far as the government part goes.
- inactive, on 10/10/2008, -6/+28I've often asked myself the same question. What exactly would be wrong with a "New World Order"? I think it has something to do with the idea that such a thing would require all Americans to give up everything they hold dear and be launched entirely against their will, headlong into the most oppressive form of communism where they'd have to shut the ***** up and eat their plain rice and like it.
But really, it seems to me that we Americans would probably just glide right along as we always do, entirely ignoring the existence of the rest of the world and its influence on us. I doubt anyone here would notice a "New World Order" unless there was a story about it in the national enquirer or a halftime superbowl commercial about it. - BXRWXR, on 10/10/2008, -8/+29Even Art Bell said WTF.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2008, -33/+54glenn beck is a bigoted moron:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbg604XqPY - Leviathan433, on 10/10/2008, -34/+55Seriously? This is Glenn Beck. Who really thinks Glenn Beck has ever made a relevant point about anything?
- BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2008, -3/+23Research the trend of concentrated power and the trend away from Civil Liberties.
Wake the ***** up. - SemiSarcastic, on 10/10/2008, -9/+29So, um... who wants ice cream!?
- BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2008, -1/+20Communism would work if not for People.
Democracy would work if not for People.
Socialism would work if not for People. - Daedalus81, on 10/10/2008, -6/+25Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
- hurtz, on 10/10/2008, -66/+84***** glen beck
- slappy83, on 10/10/2008, -1/+19I think I remember reading that Nixon took the US off of the Gold standard.
- inactive, on 10/10/2008, -1/+18Nice work. I've seen college term paper assignments where folks get two months to write less than this.
- MindTrigger, on 10/10/2008, -2/+19In a nutshell... say goodbye to that "piece of paper" that makes our country so wonderful and free. When this new government comes in to play, or even a North American Union, the United States Constitution will cease to be relevant. Why? Because you cannot apply our constitution to other countries.
A new "Constitution" filled with all the various viewpoints of countries around the world would have to be created. We have no idea what that would look like, but I can garauntee you it won't look like the current Constitution does.
As an example of how this works, just think about how the Federal Government can supersede the laws of states whenever they damned well feel like it. Even if we somehow managed to keep our Constitution in place, it would be superseded by whatever laws this new global government comes up with. Laws the American people would have little influence over.
Don't get me wrong here. I want our ideas of government to evolve, and some day I believe we may need some sort of global government where we are truly one world, poverty and disease are gone, and no one wants for anything. I call this the 'Star Trek government' because this was the vision of Earth government in that story and other sci-fi properties. However, this day is not today, and frankly, I don't know what it will be viable. Right now there is so much greed, that we are not ready for a global government where the general population of the planet will benefit. - BradOFarrell, on 10/10/2008, -9/+26Glenn Beck villainizing the French!? :monocle:
- qwertyxuiop, on 10/10/2008, -8/+24I understand fractional reserve banking what I do not see is this "agenda" you speak of
why EXACTLY is it bad?
what EXACTLY do THEY want?
who EXACTLY are THEY?
note any reference to it being "unconstitutional" will be disregarded as I am not an American and I am willing to bet you've never read the Canadian constitution - asnider, on 10/10/2008, -26/+42I'm sorry, the mere fact that Glenn Beck is the one saying it immediately discredits it. If you can find a source who isn't a fear mongering bigot, maybe I'll take it more seriously.
- DrMilkdad, on 10/10/2008, -7/+23France wants the NWO!? No, Hogan, Nash and Hall are not the answers we are looking for, they will only create chaos and spray paint your backs after legdrops.
- lex0nyc, on 10/10/2008, -8/+24They had global government in The Matrix. All the people were comfy in their pods.
- ChildeRoland420, on 10/10/2008, -6/+21@solistus:
I'll tell you what's bad about that.
1.) The larger governments become, the more corrupt they are. Plain and simple; absolute power corrupts absolutely. This world government would become so power hungry that no person would be free.
2.) It'd be so large that the cost of maintaining the bureaucracy would cripple its citizens through taxation.
3.) How do you propose that such a huge organization would even remotely represent any of the 6-7 billion people in the world. It wouldn't, it would represent the elite, and everyone else would be powerless to stop them.
"Sound monetary policy"?!?! You mean like the policy that lead us to where we are, only more powerful and far reaching? Globalized interest rates make no sense. Free market control of interest rates make sense, and that should be on a regional basis, not global. - peticsu, on 10/10/2008, -38/+53Glenn Beck = autobury
- kosser, on 10/10/2008, -8/+23the worse thing here is that despite all the ***** evidence of this " new world order" one world currency and government, people will still say "tinfoil hate, koolaid drinking" it's ridiculous how they willingly deny the facts that are right in front of everyone face... we have to fight this with all our might and not let them fulfill their world government.
- inactive, on 10/10/2008, -14/+29That guy is a bit of a loud mouth cretin.
One world government can never happen as long as there is more than one kind of religious fanatics that want to kill each other. - Zoomdor, on 10/10/2008, -31/+46Oh no the NWO and the reptilians are out the eat us alive!
- ConcernedCanuck, on 10/10/2008, -1/+15They aren't are NEW overlords, the have been our overlords for a few hundred years now (probably longer). Most people just aren't aware of it.
Please refer to:George Carlin,JFK, Bill Hicks, Jordan Maxwell, David Icke and many others for more information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTfcAyYGg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WSGwnz7XpY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs-nHQYY6Fg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx_KYUXJVpc
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-479944711 ...
No rick rolls I promise, just planting the seeds of change. - Archer007, on 10/10/2008, -4/+18For those who are crying tinfoil hattery, think about it from a different angle: what would prevent this from happening?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 664 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is