Captain... Posted 19 April 2016 Share Posted 19 April 2016 But what is your idea of Utopia because I doubt it's the same as mine. Utopia is perfect for everyone, that is why it is an impossible dream, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to get as close to it as possible. I'm sure we would all like to live in a world where nobody starved to death or died from a lack of clean drinking water, where terrorism was consigned to the history books, where the elderly and disabled and sick were looked after properly and not mistreated in order to save a bit of money, where education is effective and varied and free/affordable so that everyone has access to it and all products of the education system come out with key basic skills and specialist skills that are transferable to the real world. My perfect world may be different to yours, but I'm sure there is a lot of common ground we can all agree on, so why not strive towards that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 19 April 2016 Share Posted 19 April 2016 And why would you want to? Is our cultural diversity not something to be cherished? I think cultural diversity is wonderful. The problem is that not everyone agrees. There will always be those that say 'We are superior to you and my god is the one true god.' If there was a way to get all countries and people working together for the good of mankind and the future of the planet I would be all for it. I doubt Any of us will see it in our lifetime but I never thought that I would see City running away with the Premiership title so there is still hope for the Human Race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 19 April 2016 Share Posted 19 April 2016 Utopia is perfect for everyone, that is why it is an impossible dream, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to get as close to it as possible. I'm sure we would all like to live in a world where nobody starved to death or died from a lack of clean drinking water, where terrorism was consigned to the history books, where the elderly and disabled and sick were looked after properly and not mistreated in order to save a bit of money, where education is effective and varied and free/affordable so that everyone has access to it and all products of the education system come out with key basic skills and specialist skills that are transferable to the real world. My perfect world may be different to yours, but I'm sure there is a lot of common ground we can all agree on, so why not strive towards that? Leicester win the league in utopia right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 19 April 2016 Share Posted 19 April 2016 Afraid not - that would be Spurs with all their wonderful posession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merging Cultures Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Absolutely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalalba Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 This is what the Nazis wanted Some claim that's still the case, depending on your version of who are the nazis. Take this I just googled After WWI in 1919 the Internationalist League of Nations Treaty of Versailles enforced draconian reparation taxes on Germany so ridiculous that US President Woodrow Wilson said, "If I was a German I should think I would never sign it." British Prime Minister David Lloyd George said, "We have written a document that guarantees war in 20 years … When you place conditions on a people [Germany] that it cannot possibly keep, you force it to either breech the agreement or to war." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 21 April 2016 Author Share Posted 21 April 2016 Some claim that's still the case, depending on your version of who are the nazis. Take this I just googled After WWI in 1919 the Internationalist League of Nations Treaty of Versailles enforced draconian reparation taxes on Germany so ridiculous that US President Woodrow Wilson said, "If I was a German I should think I would never sign it." British Prime Minister David Lloyd George said, "We have written a document that guarantees war in 20 years … When you place conditions on a people [Germany] that it cannot possibly keep, you force it to either breech the agreement or to war." I don't think there's any doubt that the Nazis were the ruling party in germany during the second world war. Also I'm sure if you looked hard enough you'd quotes saying "reparation? Piece of piss". Quotes from 100 years ago prove nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Some claim that's still the case, depending on your version of who are the nazis. Take this I just googled After WWI in 1919 the Internationalist League of Nations Treaty of Versailles enforced draconian reparation taxes on Germany so ridiculous that US President Woodrow Wilson said, "[/size]If I was a German I should think I would never sign it." British Prime Minister David Lloyd George said, "[/size]We have written a document that guarantees war in 20 years … When you place conditions on a people [Germany] that it cannot possibly keep, you force it to either breech the agreement or to war." Hmmm... maybe we should keep a closer eye on Greece! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalalba Posted 22 April 2016 Share Posted 22 April 2016 If all people were nice and cared for not just their families but all peoples of the world and the environment they will be leaving behind etc then it could work but if they were like that you probably wouldn't need a World Government. It's part of human genetics that some of us are going to be different to others, good different, bad different. The biggest problem for a WG, is that very few people will have power over the majority and it is easier to create a world dictatorship. Where possible, it has to be the opposite, to give the masses the power over themselves - self governance - democracy, which is what our leaders currently don't want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalalba Posted 22 April 2016 Share Posted 22 April 2016 I don't think there's any doubt that the Nazis were the ruling party in germany during the second world war. Also I'm sure if you looked hard enough you'd quotes saying "reparation? Piece of piss". Quotes from 100 years ago prove nothing. Isn't it interesting and ironic that the German Nazi Party tried to stop the nazis of today, who have grown so big they have invaded foreign lands, turning countries like Iraq into despot places, forcing in the EU etc etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 22 April 2016 Share Posted 22 April 2016 It's part of human genetics that some of us are going to be different to others, good different, bad different. The biggest problem for a WG, is that very few people will have power over the majority and it is easier to create a world dictatorship. Where possible, it has to be the opposite, to give the masses the power over themselves - self governance - democracy, which is what our leaders currently don't want. True. It would also be interesting how the opposite would work. Very little government interference and a world of self sufficient communes trading what they make or grow with the neighbours they choose. No money no banks, everyone doing their bit to help and sharing what they have. Also utopia but it is MY utopia (stick a tongue out) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 22 April 2016 Author Share Posted 22 April 2016 Isn't it interesting and ironic that the German Nazi Party tried to stop the nazis of today, who have grown so big they have invaded foreign lands, turning countries like Iraq into despot places, forcing in the EU etc etc etc Yes the Nazis were well known for being against invading foreign lands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalalba Posted 22 April 2016 Share Posted 22 April 2016 Well okay, but that's where it stopped ish. What was the point in stopping the original nazis (which we had to do), if all we replace that scenario with, is a different version of nazism? Surely by now, we should be a world free of dictatorial oppression (EU), anti-free speech, increased and increasing terror levels. Home grown terror. Banking terrorists. The nazis have won! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 22 April 2016 Author Share Posted 22 April 2016 Well okay, but that's where it stopped ish. What was the point in stopping the original nazis (which we had to do), if all we replace that scenario with, is a different version of nazism? Surely by now, we should be a world free of dictatorial oppression (EU), anti-free speech, increased and increasing terror levels. Home grown terror. Banking terrorists. The nazis have won! I can't help feeling that if they had done you'd be celebrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalalba Posted 22 April 2016 Share Posted 22 April 2016 I can't help feeling that if they had done you'd be celebrating. Speak German? you nutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalalba Posted 23 April 2016 Share Posted 23 April 2016 Would you support a world govt? Do we need to? Is it happening within the spooky shadows of our daily lives? "We need governance that is adequate to the global world. We need a culture that will be uniform throughout the world. Unless nations change the rules we will not have global governance." Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the USSR, in his keynote speech at the State of the World Forum 2000 in New York "The division of the United States into federations of equal force [The North & The South] was decided long before the Civil War. These bankers were afraid that the United States would upset their financial domination over the world. The voice of the Rothschilds prevailed." German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck "The Depression [1929] was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence. The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here [united States] so that they might emerge as rulers of us all." Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives' Banking and Currency Committee, 1932 "The bankers control the world's major corporations, media, intelligence agencies, think tanks, foundations and universities." Henry Makow "We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." international banker James Warburg testifying before the United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 "There is a vast network of private financial interests, controlled by the leading aristocratic and royal families of Europe. ... A secret cross-linked vast holding of private financial interests is tied to the old aristocratic oligarchy of Western Europe." William Engdahl , Executive Intelligence Review, April 1997 "I am delighted to be here in these new (Council on Foreign Relations) headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it's good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won't have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's opening remarks during her speech to the Council on Foreign Relations , July 15, 2009 I found more quotes, but I thought it fitting to end with that last one, "I won't have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future." ...to be told what we should be doing. Yeah, you can see her now, sitting on her behind legs with her hands raised and her tongue sticking out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 23 April 2016 Share Posted 23 April 2016 Us English would say 'advised'. Sounds better but means the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 28 April 2016 Share Posted 28 April 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-36139904 People are increasingly identifying themselves as global rather than national citizens, according to a BBC World Service poll. The trend is particularly marked in emerging economies, where people see themselves as outward looking and internationally minded. However, in Germany fewer people say they feel like global citizens now, compared with 2001. Pollsters GlobeScan questioned more than 20,000 people in 18 countries. More than half of those asked (56%) in emerging economies saw themselves first and foremost as global citizens rather than national citizens. In Nigeria (73%), China (71%), Peru (70%) and India (67%) the data is particularly marked. By contrast, the trend in the industrialised nations seems to be heading in the opposite direction. In these richer nations, the concept of global citizenship appears to have taken a serious hit after the financial crash of 2008. In Germany, for example, only 30% of respondents see themselves as global citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy boxing Posted 28 April 2016 Share Posted 28 April 2016 you only have to look at the eu, a world government would be a 1000%worse for us,we would get voted down time after time and anyway countries just look after their own self interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgy Bob Posted 28 April 2016 Share Posted 28 April 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-36139904 People are increasingly identifying themselves as global rather than national citizens, according to a BBC World Service poll. The trend is particularly marked in emerging economies, where people see themselves as outward looking and internationally minded. However, in Germany fewer people say they feel like global citizens now, compared with 2001. Pollsters GlobeScan questioned more than 20,000 people in 18 countries. More than half of those asked (56%) in emerging economies saw themselves first and foremost as global citizens rather than national citizens. In Nigeria (73%), China (71%), Peru (70%) and India (67%) the data is particularly marked. By contrast, the trend in the industrialised nations seems to be heading in the opposite direction. In these richer nations, the concept of global citizenship appears to have taken a serious hit after the financial crash of 2008. In Germany, for example, only 30% of respondents see themselves as global citizens. Quote surprised by the response to the question about interracial marriage. How does 14% of the UK oppose that in this day and age? Even higher in Germany. Bizarre. The only explanation is plain racism, isn't it? Why else would you oppose interracial marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalalba Posted 28 April 2016 Share Posted 28 April 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-36139904 People are increasingly identifying themselves as global rather than national citizens, according to a BBC World Service poll. The trend is particularly marked in emerging economies, where people see themselves as outward looking and internationally minded. However, in Germany fewer people say they feel like global citizens now, compared with 2001. Pollsters GlobeScan questioned more than 20,000 people in 18 countries. More than half of those asked (56%) in emerging economies saw themselves first and foremost as global citizens rather than national citizens. In Nigeria (73%), China (71%), Peru (70%) and India (67%) the data is particularly marked. By contrast, the trend in the industrialised nations seems to be heading in the opposite direction. In these richer nations, the concept of global citizenship appears to have taken a serious hit after the financial crash of 2008. In Germany, for example, only 30% of respondents see themselves as global citizens. Ask the poor, and they will want more. It's the kind of marketing technique psychopaths have adapted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merging Cultures Posted 30 April 2016 Share Posted 30 April 2016 True. It would also be interesting how the opposite would work. Very little government interference and a world of self sufficient communes trading what they make or grow with the neighbours they choose. No money no banks, everyone doing their bit to help and sharing what they have. Also utopia but it is MY utopia (stick a tongue out) Person: Excuse me, can I have a car?Car maker: sure, what do you have in exchange? Person: I saved up a million radishes. Unfortunately, some have now rotted because it took me 20 years to get the equivalent value. Car maker: no problem comrade, here is your car... ----- Person 2: Excuse me, my leg has gone green, can you fix it? Doctor: sure, that will be 100kg of lentils and 20litres of honey. Person 2: OK, I'll be back in 2 years once I've got enough honey. Doctor: OK good luck. Oh and btw we don't have any more medicine. The smart people at the pharmaceutical companies got fed up of working 70hrs a week in exchange for beans. So they all became farmers. Oh and I'm not really a doctor. The last one left because they worked 100 hours a week and got paid in shells. He is now a spoken word artist. But it's OK, I have had a revelation and I have the gift of laying on of hands. I can heal you. See you in two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claridge Posted 30 April 2016 Share Posted 30 April 2016 True. It would also be interesting how the opposite would work. Very little government interference and a world of self sufficient communes trading what they make or grow with the neighbours they choose. No money no banks, everyone doing their bit to help and sharing what they have. Also utopia but it is MY utopia (stick a tongue out) Next thing you will be saying is that Leicester could win the premier league. Nice ideas,but get real. Shit where's the edit button Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 30 April 2016 Share Posted 30 April 2016 I never said it would work. It is the same now but you have currency instead of goods. The ones with the most money come out on top. Or rather the ones that find ways of making more. If money was shared there would still be some that would double their share at the expense of the not so enterprising. First person buys goods of second person for 5p then sells them to third person for 10p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Eatfood Posted 1 May 2016 Share Posted 1 May 2016 Absolutely not. It would be a major step in the direction of totalitarianism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.