Your decree - but try to prove it - on the appropriate thread. 
Could you be a bit more specific? Leadership to what? Of course I am âleadingâ in the sense of having created the platform. Whether anyone thinks what I am leading is worth following is another question. I would have to mentor or guide those who came looking for it, otherwise I can put out signs as guides (as I have) and those who wish to look can and those who can gain something from it will.
My intent with the unified society is to find compatible people, because it exists on the side of or as a compliment to my other projects. But that depends on compatibility already being present, or at least formed by its nature.
I wasnât commenting on Your leadership talent. For all I know you are exactly where you intend to be.
In reference to Gesamtkunstwerk (âthe combination of all artsâ) - a missing art is the art of social management/leadership especially pertaining to the pillars of social momentum (the essentials required to inspire the army to devotedly march on against overwhelming resistance) toward any chosen goal (a âunified actionâ). I was asking if you could find the time to write a paper on that subject (missing from your current library).
Do you see now why I have to struggle to get my language and thoughts to coincide with yours? 
The thing is this, from my position. You are talking about a certain state that in some ways already exists and perhaps in some ways doesnât exist. The question is whether it is worthwhile to write that particular manual. Perhaps it would have rather the opposite effect of the intention to deter global war.
Even answering this question could lead to the opposite of my intentions. 
I wasnât thinking about deterring global war either - but never mind - it was just something I thought you would write a good paper on.
I donât think that kind of paper could ever be a good paper, by its very nature. I do not see what good could come to myself or anyone else through writing a tract on the techniques to harness the potential of people across the globe for the purpose of war.
Had nothing to do with war - of that kind anyway.
No worries mate.
I appologise if I contributed to the mix-up. I think the thing is this. You have to be with those you are compatible with, be with your friends, family, make allies, and with these people make your connection to the concrete acts of your life, not merely ideals. Because it is on this level that you will know who stands with you. Then be strong within and without, and help those around you who you care about be strong as well.
I donât think that the world can errupt into spontaneous unison, not to any well thought out end, as far as I can see. That has to built with our daily efforts to form bonds of community and trust among one another.
Creating another separate group of people in this world is not making the world a better place itâs making it worse. The problem with the world is divisions. We donât get along as a unified people because we are divided into separate groups, separate nations, separate religions, separate races, separate languages, and on and on. We are divided in every aspect. Thatâs just the nature of the beast.
If you want to make the world a better place you need to make the world 1 language, with 1 money, with 1 set of rules, with 1 country, with 1 government, etc etc.
1 culture for 1 world. The people of Earth would live as 1 society, unlike the infinite divisions of the world today. Dividing the world makes it worse. To make the world a better place we need to be 1 people of Earth!
When we connect with those around us, and they connect with those around them, we will come to see the interconnectedness of all people. That is why I am hosting this site as a way for people to come together.
What you want to do is break a piece of chocolate off a bar of chocolate, and then claim that if we reconnect it all will be good?
How about not breaking it into pieces to begin with?
The thing is that this âbreaking offâ metaphor only really exists in your mind. Wäderby already exists. The society already has a few members. There is no breaking off. People talking to their family, friends, making allies. Breaking off? Thatâs just words youâre interjecting.
For anyone reading these messages. Everyone is alloted a time in life. Many people and things will arise to distract you. Arguing for arguments sake will not get you anywhere. If you want to join the forum and find cooperative people, itâs open to you.
If we start another 1,000 places like yours, and some people go to those places too, wonât the people of Earth be divided into 1,000 more places than already exist now?
So if someone starts a business and franchises - they are breaking off from the global community? 
Sounds like that might be a good thing.
With more franchises you are dividing up the customers.
1 business has 100% of the customers.
2 businesses each have 50% of the customers.
100 businesses each have 1% of the customers.
Keep making more and more businesses and they have so few customers that nobody makes ANY money!
In an ideal world, there would be 1 business. The problem is the human condition. Greed! If they know they are the only game in town with no competition, they take advantage and jack up their prices. Because after all, supply and demand and all that! (rolls eyes) Since everybody needs an item, and there is only 1 place to buy it, they rip off the customer and there isnât a damn thing the customer can do about it, because there is no other place to buy the item. If the human condition GREED didnât exist, the prices would be the lowest with 1 store, because they would be doing 100% of the volume, and volume means lower prices! Inject the greedy store owner and monopoly means RIP OFF!
Take Amazon, for instance. They are almost at the point of being 1 business for all the people. (not quite, but they are getting there very fast)
Amazon has low prices because they do huge volume. If they were to have all the customers, all the Mom and Pop places would dry up. Amazon would (will) be the only game in town. Once they are the only game in town they could jack those prices up, and people would be forced to pay it if they want that item, there would be no other place to get the item. Sucker 'em in with low prices at the beginning, get all the business, everybody else is forced to close, then jack those prices up sky high! Yeah, thatâs the ticket!
Zookers - your a communist! You believe in monopolies? No wonder the US tanked. 
So you believe in shared poverty - 
Or is it that the âownerâ gets the lions share in your utopia (socialism)?
The Chinese communist part, CCP, would love you. I hope the world knows better.
You left out the problem with monopolies, which is the human condition: GREED!
No I DONâT believe in monopolies. They have to be run by a HUMAN, and that is a big FAIL! That tiny little detail is the problem with monopolies. GREED!
So are you going to genetically alter homosapian into a unification drone or work with what you have?
Socialism is the ultimate monopoly (entirely blood sucking) - very shortly followed by Communism - a mindless drone society until it dies out.
Iâm not gonna genetically alter anything. Obviously we need to work with what we have. That means no monopolies due to greed. That means not dividing up the customers so much that no business can survive.
That means a line somewhere in the middle that businesses make a fair profit (not a CEO that banks Billions), and enough businesses that ensure fair competition to keep greed in check.
So how are you going to arrange for that? - just tell everyone to stop it? - maybe burn them at a stake if convicted by the council of elders? What would you propose?
That never happens - because any time it starts to happen - the weak die out. And that means that the market drives the size of businesses.
The mere fact that CEOs make a lot of money is insufficient reason to try to take it away under the assumption of greed (that is communist propaganda taking advantage of inexperienced peasants).
Market drives prices - and that includes the price for a good CEO. Should a CEO refuse a high salary - giving it to someone else - perhaps less qualified? Should they be allowed to compete for who is best qualified - and get paid accordingly by the competitive market?
If you control the salary of CEOs - you control the quality performance of businesses - downgrading it - just for sake of communist propaganda issues. Governments do exactly that when creating a bureaucracy - yielding extremely low service and quality of life (socialism). Having everyone under one incorporated government simply means that no one is going to get anything of quality and everything slides down into universal inept poverty - corruption takes over - and you are back where you started - just more of it.