What needs to happen to move mankind forward, towards a global government...

Moral hazard.
Fuck you and fuck off.

A leader.
If you build a birdhouse, birds will come
Build a nation for people, then they will come.

Attached: GEoMK.jpg (400x518, 77K)

The holocaust never happened.

>More unaccountable government will solve the problems of other governments.

Attached: 1565221140139.png (640x640, 708K)

sand people aren’t human.

If your current situation presents a hundred problems, and a new situation presents only ninety nine, it is an improvement, not a failure for not having solved them all.

Imagine if Europe, the United States, and Russia could cooperate at the level and with the ease with which Texas and California cooperate, even with massive disparities in demographics and political leanings. Increasingly, the world is facing problems that exist outside the scope of simple nations, and they can't be solved at a national level.

Just stop. No one is going to turn their lives over to a counsel of elders type scheme. Fuck off.

desu i can get with you on that but the general concept that government is inherently bad i stand by, fuck anyone or any state that trys to use the force of taxation or anything else is wrong. we dont have the right to force people to live under these systems, i cant hold you at gun point and force you to give me money, and then kidnap you and put you in a dungeon if you dont, why should the government be enabled with those rights, as long as the people feel they need these systems, they will never be free

youtube.com/watch?v=Kehrxmt0j4s

TLDR numbers or demographics arnt my point, my point is government bad

Kill all fags like you that want gloabal government and genocide all non whites

Attempt speaking in complete sentences, and forming a logically coherent argument.

If you can't do that, please respect that full-humans are attempting to discuss something, and go "meme" elsewhere. Thanks.

Posting in NWO antichrist thread. Fuck usury. Fuck oligarchy. AND FUCK THE KABBALAH ELITES.

Attached: 1562194525810.jpg (555x574, 112K)

You don't need to "turn your life" over to an organizational structure, anymore than you've turned your life over to the United States, or Alaska.

we all have alot in common with eachother, race aside

our oligarchs have alot in common with each other, race aside

our oligarchs and us have very little in common

>Unwanted kids, and kids raised by incapable people, are at the root cause of nearly every problem in the West.
yes, this is the truth and it has nothing at all to do with niggers and jews

>What needs to happen to move mankind forward, towards a global government?
It's never going to fucking happen.

>cultures that believe in witchcraft in 2019
So you want to genocide the Democrats? Tell me more.

Oh WOW look how clever you are. First you're like, globalism good, and then you totally threw us off by suggesting that nationalism is bureaucratic and consolidates too much power into government. WTF!???? I love globalism now!!!!!

Fucking neck yourself 65 IQ commie.

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.comdddddddddddddd.png (644x800, 15K)

fake and gay, we all know allah akbar blowing up the streets will be a daily occurance in wherever that infestation of the mind takes hold.

For a serious answer allow me to explain to you why it doesn't work. Now the thing is you aren't the first person to ever have this idea and in the aftermath of WW1 it had a lot of traction. Now remember also that this was back during a time when most people trusted their governments implicitly, people in general were more moral and honest, the public was better informed and more intelligent, and most societies were relatively stable compared to what they are today. So why didn't the world come together and join hands into one big happy family?

It comes down to one simple answer. People and cultures are different. They have different opinions on how things should be done and who should do them. You yourself seem to think that some cultures are backwards or not worth preserving but to those people that's their whole world and they'd fight you to the death to keep it that way. So already your call for a one world government seems little different from the imperialism of old, in which case why mince words about it?

Secondly, you mention inherent waste and duplication of bureaucracy. This is false. Humans have always operated best in small units the bigger an organization becomes the more impersonal and unaccountable it becomes. Ask anyone who has ever worked for a large organization say for example the military or post office, just how efficient and manageable the operation was. Large organizations dehumanize and reduce the value of human life, not elevate it. In this regard I can only speculate that a one world government would be the sort of nightmarish creation that is reflected in the Judge Dredd comics. A rather childish analogy I grant you but none the less accurate.

Basically the one world government scheme doesn't work because it is a perfect system that demands that the humans within it be likewise perfect. But this isn't a perfect world and people are deeply flawed and self interested.

Attached: imageServlet.jpg (498x648, 156K)

Utterly based.

Attached: 1563656469282.jpg (548x587, 47K)

>waste

Waste of what ? What would we do better otherwise ? Produce more trash for cultureless low-IQ mutts to consume ? Fuck off. "Wasting" is the wisest thing we could do

this thread sucks and OP is a faggot just let it die

you fucked up shlomo.
ovens soon.

Attached: 1565225089112.jpg (912x1024, 152K)

Why?

If nothing else, ignoring all the various benefits that a global cooperation can bring, I think history shows that the tendency is for power to consolidate, not Balkanize. Even if the process doesn't complete in our lifetime, it will continue to concentrate.

Don't get me wrong it's a nice fanciful idea. But the problem is that the supposed people that would be needed to make such a system work would be so perfect and so flawless that they probably wouldn't even need a government at all.

It is a solution on par with why can't everyone share? Or why can't everyone be a pacifist? It falls flat because it is not made to be compatible with real life flesh and blood human beings.

Attached: 1441743314169.jpg (500x468, 64K)

>ignoring all the various benefits that a global cooperation can bring
>Elite pedo's ruling over a global dictatorship.
Not going to happen faggot. We don't get bluepilled here, it's not a thing.

All things come in cycles; you are lucky enough to exist during a time when things appear to be coalescing. But things fall apart, the center does not hold. This is true on every scale imaginable, from the atomic, to the subatomic and to the galactic scale of things.

There's no reason to believe that a reorganization of man at the global level can't come packaged with the removal of that kind of thing. I'd actually argue that it's the red tape involved in having so many independent nations that largely gives it cover.

Most Arabs, if given exposure and time, will choose McDonalds, Pornhub, and the lavish Western lifestyle. And those who don't, can be dealt with appropriately, particularly by a new nation not burdened with the unique hang-ups of the United States regarding that sort of activity.

>be you - a jew
>already control all countries but you have to waste a lot of resources to deal with different cultures and different governments
>would it just not be better to have all the goy's governments merged so that once you say something to be done you do not have to repeat it to each government?
>people naturally do not trust big monolithic goverments and tell you that you should be killed
>you still continue to be a kike and post idiotic threads on a mongolian basket weaving forum
KYS.

>But things fall apart
When taking a short term view, sure. But the long term trend for power is consolidation. You can see this even outside the national context, with the tendency for industries to become dominated by an ever decreasing number of companies who absorb each other, or the flow of power from local to state to federal over time.

>bluepilled
Try to form and express a rational, coherent thought, without the use of low IQ memes.

Incorrect. Ever heard of entropy?
Also please address my main points at
Otherwise it comes off as cherry picking the low hanging fruit and being unwilling to engage with someone who is putting in effort to give you serious responses.

LOL, you are a sheltered stupid spoiled kike. You don't even work for real, moron, why do you think you know something about this?

Centralism is only good in a few scenarios. First we would need to erradicate islamic fundamentalism and those other crappy religions. Then the irrational left. When this is completed, maybe there could be a world confederation.

>please address my main points
Have some patience. I can't respond to everything at once, and longer posts take longer.

There are a couple of flaws in this. People did attempt smaller scales of global government via the League of Nations, which failed, and then again with the United Nations, persisting to this day. It isn't really meaningful that a true global government didn't spring forth immediately following war, because such a government is a huge sea change, the sort that you don't expect to occur over night. It is a gradual process of consolidation and power. Take a minute and read about the earliest attempts at a government in the United States, for example, which ran into a lot of the same issues, i.e. being too weak to effectively govern. These things resolve in time.

As to your cultural arguments, I'd argue that line disappears more and more each day. We all watch the same movies, wear the same jeans, listen to the same music, etc. The United States has been so successful in exporting its culture, that it has largely become a global culture.

Yes, some aspects of national identity and ethnic culture remain, that also won't disappear over night. But it erodes each day, and one day the difference between this nation and that may not be apparent at all.

Your idea about bureaucracy misses the point entirely. Yes, small groups are more efficient, but two men and a really lean process can't tackle issues like climate change, or over population, or even nuclear arms. Many issues ultimately require an apparatus of power which is in charge, and able to make final decision, ending what would otherwise be tireless debate. The "waste" comes in the form of endless meandering and arguing about the same issues for half a century.

Global jewish genocide

Now for example here is something to consider. What is the current oldest government around? As in hasn't undergone a revolution or radically altered its governmental structure since it's inception. So not Germany or Russia who both went authoritarian then republican for example. Now consider this, whatever modern government you came up with has had a relatively short life compared to ancient Rome and Greece who lasted hundreds of years at times when life was much simpler, but now they are gone. What makes you think that any of our modern governments saddled with modern problems will still be around a few hundred years from now?

I live in Appalachia. I can't honestly say for sure if I've ever even met a Jewish man.

How do you prevent corruption in a global government? You cant, and thats why its a bad idea.
>but no more wars goy
Yes better to be a slave to jewish psychos than ever fight again Im sure.

fine you are jew by soul. You just see no problem with giving one big international goverment that you do not even elect power over the world. I am not saying that right now there is not a huge international group of bankers that basically control the world, but they have to speak with their slaves about how to do stuff and stiill have to wotk to put their decisisions in place. You want the EU,, but for the whole world - 1. - the EU is hated by a lto fo people and 2. the EU is only good at destroying the countries that it governs.
A EU for the whole world is the dream of every dictator ever.

I agree, but I think this sort of bettering of mankind as a whole would be a consequence of global leadership, and not a prerequisite - though DESIRE for that betterment would certainly be a driving factor towards such a government.

Ultimately the United States has a lot of cultural and national baggage associated with these things, and it prevents rational discourse and action. A new nation wouldn't necessarily inherit that, the way the United States as a whole doesn't inherit the particular hang-ups of Wisconsin, and would better be able to act.

Imagine a government composed of representatives born in Hong Kong, Adelaide, Paris, Nairobi, etc. How sympathetic is such a government to the LA Riots, opposed to the United States government?

There's a degree of freedom of action that comes with not having an electorate solely composed of people that were beat over the head with "all whites are racist, slave reparations now!" since birth.

>that you do not even elect
There is no reason to believe that a global government can't operate on principles of election, no less than a man living in Hawaii is able to elect government in Washington D.C., half a world away.

You mention the EU disparagingly, which clues me in that you're a sub-human ape man with an IQ of 85 or lower, so this may go over your head, but take a look at the United Kingdom both pre and post Brexit, and maybe you'll begin to understand the benefits of cooperation in larger power structures.

While the EU has made bad decisions - a phenomena that national governments are vulnerable to as well, by the way - it has still been a net positive for the people living within it, as their own opinion polling will tell you.

Ask yourself, are backwater states like Alabama or Mississippi truly WORSE for having been part of the United States? Do you truly believe that "smaller, more local power" would improve things for the 49th and 50th ranked national education systems?

Everything you say could also have been said at one point about the Mongolians the Romans and so on. The United Nations might exist but it more proves my point than refutes it. The United Nations is largely a front for the Big world powers and even in that forum they are constantly at odds with each other making power plays and trying to undermine each other despite being in a supposed context of civilized cooperation.

>As to your cultural arguments, I'd argue that line disappears more and more each day
>We all watch the same movies, wear the same jeans, listen to the same music, etc.
There is much more to culture than trinkets and frivolous distraction. Even within the united states there are distinct cultures that fundamentally disagree with each other. On that note both the USA and other successful multicultural empires tend only to be fleetingly stable by allowing their respective citizenry to retain distinct autonomy as bounded by their cultures in specific regions. In the USA specifically this is seen in the topic of states rights versus federal rights. This again draws back to your own notion that certain cultures that you deem unworthy are not worth preserving. Again, how to you force the multitudes of distinct persons to arbitrarily fit themselves into your template of what you believe the one culture should be? Such a system would require a level of surveillance and constant behavior modification that the system itself would have little time or resources for anything else.

>can't tackle issues like climate change, or over population, or even nuclear arms.
Tragedy of the commons and general inability of humans to trust each other. Again, a one world government would, without exaggeration, need to be run by perfect people.

You must be 18 to post here.

Show China flag

Now with all of what I just said taken into consideration. I will concede to you this ONE exceptionally unlikely scenario in which a one world government MIGHT be possible even with imperfect humans. If there were an outside threat that was so overwhelming and so undeniably observable and verifiable that even the most die hard skeptic would see it as a self evident threat to the continued existence of humanity as a whole; Then and only then might humanity unite itself.

But now consider that even with threats like climate change, overpopulation, peak oil, nukes, Alvin and the chipmunks 5, etc. humanity still hasn't come together.

Attached: VCgRqRO.jpg.png (812x427, 318K)

Genocide of all lesser races.

If every administrative region was racially homogenous it’d work.

1. The uk is fucked with or without the eu - their own government is bad
2. The eu made the migrant crysis and voted article 13 - there is a very good reason why people in eastern europe want to only abuse the eu and want mmoney from it and do not want to participate in it - we do not like and if germans want to be our slaves and work to give us money - "work faster you german slave, we need more money for agriculture!!!"
3. if you think that Alabama or Mississippi could not do their own shit, you are delussional. Maybe they would have done it bad, but they could try to get workers from biggers states that have better knowledge and pay it with local taxes

Listen, I get that you think that people are going to be very good and your utopian ideas are going to work, but if you think that I personally would not abuse your ideas - you are wrong - for the past 10 years germans are our slaves and germans make some of us very rich, we abuse the system and prove that the eu is a bad idea and could not work with eastern europe involved. A global government is going to be the dream of africans that are going to vote to remove borders of all countries and basically invade your country. China is going to also use this to secure huge power in asia. Basically your ideas only work if people like me do not exist - egoists. But most people and especially people in power are egoistic. They will rape your ideas and make sure that a global government is good for them. Not to mention that international bankers are going to masturbate on your ideas too.

you may think you are smart, but you ddo not know human nature. maybe you are young, maybe you are naive, maybe you play dumb, maybe you have interior motives, I do not know, but I should just thread you like a troll because deep down we both know that your ideas are going to be a disaster for more developed countries and basically limit the freedom of the people of the western world to do a lot of stuff, while making them literal slaves to the people of eastern europe, africa, middle east, asia and south america.

I should actually support your ideas, now that I think about it....

>they are constantly at odds with each other
California and Kentucky frequently oppose one another, too. None the less, they are both part of a functional nation, cooperating on a national scale.

A global government doesn't require constant cooperation on all matters from all divisions, any more than any other form of government.

>There is much more to culture than trinkets and frivolous distraction
For the average person? I'd disagree. For the average man, it's consumerism, all the way down. You can find exceptions, but those whittle away with time. Each generation of Italian American is a little less Italian and a little more American, and when the forces that drive that kind of cultural integration are now broadcast to the entire world, the same effect occurs at global scale.

Everyone in the world knows American stories and characters, our music. It is a global culture, so overpowering that many nations have enacted (failing) laws to combat it, but the tide is inevitable.

>a one world government would, without exaggeration, need to be run by perfect people
I see no reason why. Perfect men weren't required to build interstates and canals and atom smashers and moon landings, and there's nothing fundamentally different about doing it one level of scale up, and cleaning up the pacific garbage patch, or reducing overpopulation and top soil destruction.

We're both 30. The difference is that while you're a virgin NEET living on mother's couch, I'm a gainfully employed man who pays for sex regularly.

Why? I'm not Chinese. I'd see China cease to exist.

Go fuck yourself. We’ll take of ourselves and you keep your scheming kiketry to yourselves. That will reduce a lot of bullshit. Fuck kikes

Not yet, but I think that's largely owed to the denial of such threats, or the inability to discuss them openly.

Climate change denial is a religion to many, mentioning that overpopulation is a problem with a eugenicist solution makes redditor types clutch their pearls, etc. and so on. But their comes a time when these problems are so intrusive to every day life, that they become undeniable.

And then, so does the obvious solution.

The trending is generally heading in that direction. This being Jow Forums, I'm sure you really mean "white world", but regardless of how it comes to pass, the Earth will not have separate races forever.

Even now, you can see that race has become so muddled already that the race-obsessed denizens of Jow Forums can't even reach consensus on what "white" means.

You fucking commie statist fuck. Get your bait and go back to your kike clutch. Rights are not granted, they are inherent. You have to be a fucking egomaniacal retard to think anyone wants to be ruled by some kike council. Fuck you

the UN is run by islam

Nice larp, fag. Fuck you

Once again, I live in Appalachia. I don't know that I've ever so much as met a Jew, and I'm certainly not Jewish, or any other religion. My only affiliation with the Jewish faith is a sincere desire to see Ivanka naked, and even then, she's only a convert.

As to "rights", what does that have to do with it? There's no reason to believe you can't live in America and have rights under a global government, the same way you can currently live in Florida and still have rights under a national government. It's just one more layer on the org chart, with some duplicative positions and overlapping power structures removed.

Source?

Even so, as I've said before, I think the natural long term trend, particularly under a world nation, is abandonment of things like Islam. As culture homogenizes, the culture that allows for porn, alcohol, and the rest of the "lavish" Western lifestyle will always win out over sexual frustration and repression.

>California and Kentucky frequently oppose one another, too. None the less, they are both part of a functional nation, cooperating on a national scale.
Again states rights. What keeps the USA peaceful with itself currently is that it enjoys a bountiful amount of resources with which to placate it's citizens. This will not last forever and it wasn't too long ago that even the USA had a civil war over differences that could not be peacefully reconciled. If you scale that up to a one world government and wars over differences of opinion can still occur then how is that any different from the current status quo? If you cannot guarantee cooperation across the board do you even have a one world government or a farce like the UN?

>it's consumerism, all the way down
For now. But these things come and go with the tide of history. It will not last, not anymore than any other empire. Humans are not fundamentally different on an evolutionary or even cultural level than medieval peasants. Sure we have better toys and we stand atop the shoulders of giants (aka a handful of geniuses who revolutionized technology) but we are still mostly the same. Which is why we still have tribal mindsets, superstitions, and a general tendency to structure our governments in ways that always devolve into resembling feudalism. Point being, its been attempted before and it never lasts, because we haven't changed.

Are you just working your way down the thread? Why not condense your low functioning, inbred thoughts into a single post?

>states rights
And under a supranational government, nations can have rights, too. The United States is a layered government, county to state to nation, and this would simply move that model to the world, and with one extra layer.

>If you cannot guarantee cooperation across the board do you even have a one world government or a farce like the UN?
No, some degree of monopoly on force, and public legitimacy, is required. But this is a solved problem - the same methods allowing Washington D.C. to rule over Anchorage, Alaska, can be applied at global scale. The public legitimacy will come when the impacts of problems unsolvable WITHOUT global government, e.g. climate change, water depletion, loss of arable land, become intrusive to daily life.

>But these things come and go with the tide of history.
I don't recall any historical examples of this kind of consumerism receding in history, or even existing prior.

You're right about evolutionary pressure - man comes preprogrammed to seek out a dopamine hit, and the culture that delivers it most readily wins the day. Western/American culture has it, hands down. There's a reason why the first thing "developing" nations do, once developed, is "Westernize". The people of Shanghai watch American movies, consume American ideas, and live more and more like the Americans they see on their screen with each day.

What needs to happen to move the ship design forward, towards open plan hulls? The waste inherent in having so many interior walls is an increasing problem.

Attached: bulkheads.jpg (587x358, 26K)

Now I didn't want to get into this topic because it is somewhat of a tangent BUT it is also so inseparably linked to the concept of globalization and a one world government that it bears mentioning.

The modern world as it currently stands is a house of cards held together by cheap and plentiful oil. (Spoiler yes I'm about to get into peak oil) Regardless of your opinion on how much oil is left the fact remains that it is a finite resource and eventually it will run out (aka get so expensive that it no longer results in a return on investment greater than 1:1). When this happens the world goes back to how it was before the discovery of oil. I know some of you think nuclear, solar, ethanol, whatever will save us but that's simply not the case. Because all of those things are costly and not scale-able in the way that petrol is. Oil is great because even if it's not the most energy dense it is still very energy dense and requires little investment or effort (comparatively) to pump out of the ground and use in small engine devices (good luck powering a airplane with a nuclear engine).

See where I'm going with this? Oil is the linchpin that keeps this whole game going. It's what makes the pipe-dream of an interconnected world seem possible. Take it away and you take away mass global transportation, mass agriculture yields, global trading, etc. The whole house of cards collapses. If you can get a haircut for $2 cheaper halfway across the world do you go there or pay $2 more to get it cut locally? That is what will happen when the gravy train stops. And since trade and people are so inseparably tied to government. The very notion of a one world government becomes physically impossible. How can you enforce your will when suddenly all your tools of war sit idle? When you can no longer afford to move troops and materials around at your leisure? Answer: you don't. Humanity splinters and we're right back where we started 200+ years ago.

How do you guys put up with such a small character limit on your posts? I don't remember it being this short before.

Attached: 149d9e8d773dafae9eeed1a8ac4cf03d64adf6e5dbaeffe168c0b95c5711ffbb.png (642x428, 148K)

Peak oil is certainly a big problem, though I'd disagree that alternative energies won't be able to maintain society in broad strokes, i.e. there may be changes in day to day life, but the fundamental way of life would remain.

But peak oil is fundamentally a problem of population control, and that's something a global government could tackle in a way that no national government ever could.

A government with the power, and political will, to depopulate certain areas, and institute enforced reproductive laws, would be humanity's greatest boon.

>I don't recall any historical examples of this kind of consumerism receding in history, or even existing prior.
Ask /his/ there are analogs I assure you.

I agree - now is the time to make the push - the individual countries are too wrecked and we need to move beyond the wrecking stage and into building - and fast. I suggest just start talking about global elections or global treaties. Just change up the news media and inundate people with co-operative trade agreements and policies and such. The eco movement is a great common ground everyone can agree on.

How about no and fuck no

Attached: 4AE34D1A-EECB-4279-9347-2EE4D877A1D9.jpg (750x408, 34K)

You can kick the can down the road but you only delay the inevitable.

>I'd disagree that alternative energies won't be able to maintain society in broad stroke
This is one of the few times when your opinion is simply going to be refuted by the hard facts of physics. We can power things with nuclear, with coal, with solar, with hamsters running on treadmills, etc. But those things all suffer from one problem or another that oil doesn't have. From expense, to energy invested vs energy returned, to energy density to the most glaring of all which is transportability. Ever see the mileage that purely electric+battery engines and devices get compared to devices running on petrol? That's the problem. Oil was great because it was just sitting there waiting for us to use it. We didn't have to grow it, we didn't have to change it's form and store it in a battery, it was just there ready to go.

>A government...depopulate...reproductive laws
1. People don't like dying, 2. People (well most people) like having babies, 3. Ever seen how much scorn and contempt people have for anti-natalists and incels? Good luck getting people to sign off on that.

I hate to be "that guy" who shits on your parade but the sad truth about the world is that even when things seem different they are still mostly the same.

On a related note. Are you familiar with the prisoners dilemma? That is a good example on the micro-scale of why humans aren't good at cooperating.