Open Up here comes the truth-plane


Yummy eh?

Who here wants a North American Union?

Who here has even heard of the North American Union?

Who here can rest assured in that this is a CNNBC clip, and so can feel it to be truth incarnate – as opposed to a low budget film produced at someone’s house of residence in their free time?

Stay tuned for your next meal.


Interesting stuff. The effects of this can be devastating to the stable economies of Canada and even worse for America. Yet it will be a huge benefit for Mexico. One more step towards a global economy is one step closer towards a world government. I really hope this does not happen.

Why is a global economy a bad thing? It seems inevitable. Countries are not closed systems. If US domestic policy affects the lives of Chinese farmers, why shouldn’t their interested be represented in the creation of US ‘domestic’ policy?
Besides that, a global government would be the most practical system. It would eliminate the redundant positions, and it would allow for rational allocations of resources. And with only one government, war would be eliminated, saving lives, energy, time, and just about every other imaginable resource.
And even if you aren’t swayed by that, it doesn’t matter, because progress will march on whether you like it or not. It is the logical next step in human development.

You’ll have to run that “rational allocation of resources” argument by me again. Also, this is a purely economic argument, which is the most feeble one to unite people under a common roof.

In any “empire”, or for that matter any country which unites various people or faiths, there is always a dominant player (people), so the statellite region (people) wouldn’t have much of a say (their bargaining power would be most as an independant country). Any multicultural/multifaith country needs to be governed in an autoritarian fashion. Like Tito (Croatian) in Yougaslavia or Hussein (Sunni) in Irak (that’s why he was left in place after GW1). When the authoritarian rule loses its grips, like after Tito died or Hussein went, mayhem can and does ensue. Also, arguably, to run a strong military, policeforce, prison system, is an expensive proposition. Hence, I very much doubt “lives, energy, and time” would be saved.

Typical, “problem, reaction, solution”. The other reason one should be against a world government is that those who have been pushing for it (Frankist international bankers et al) for decades on end, are a luciferian bunch, up to no good. :evilfun: One would be hard pressed to find a conflict in the past centuries that these people have not fomented and financed. To add insult to injury, they then pose a regional or world government (like the EU) as a solution to ending conflicts between countries.

Remember the expression “war to end all wars” in WWI, which was a leitmotiv of sorts for some of Wilson’s advisors (and also heard in Europe)? I had long wondered what its origin was. I have heard (recently) no better explanation, than that it is a “prophetic and apocalyptic concept to be found in Isaiah 2:1-4:”

In the last analysis, there is no real logic to this, other than it is the will of the powers that be, and which explains why this objective has been so oft heard in the mouths of western leaders in the past decades.

Really very little to do with progress.

So the US is governed in an authoritarian way? The US is wildly multifaith, and is not quite a police state (not yet, anyway). Yet it is a conglomeration of many previously independent states. Resources have been shared and all the states have prospered.

As for the expense of infrastructure vs. the expense of war, running a war doesn’t eliminate the need for infrastructure. Police and prisons operate in the US while we bomb the infrastructure of other countries to pieces. That is the extra expense of war.

And your “other reason” is fallacious. Evil banker eat and breath, too.

Although its prosperity now hinges on a 9 trillion $ public debt and 45 trillion $ total debt.

There are certainly degrees in authoritarianism. The US is not Irak, yet demonstrations are forcifully reprimanded, the police is without pity, there are many prisons, the death penalty is enforced. Not to mention fluoride in drinking water and other substances destined to render people listless.

And to think you can harmoniously integrate India, China, the US, Africa is not only naive but dangerously utopist.

That is a fallacy from the start.


The objective of “the globalists” is to bring world population down to 500 million people. Will you be part of the happy few? Will I?

Sure, our national debt is through the roof now (by the way, where did you get your numbers? I find much lower, though still through the roof). But it hasn’t always been. And our national debt was decreasing during our most prosperous times, so prosperity doesn’t require high national debt.
And, oddly enough, our national debt was enormous after WWII, and is increasing now due in part to war…

If you’re going to define the US as authoritarian, the word loses its meaning. The freedoms we enjoy here are ridiculous compared to most other countries. As we are in a society with laws, absolute freedom does not exist. But I went to a protest at the capital building a few weeks ago, and I wasn’t forcibly reprimanded. The police were actually very civil, and everyone got along fine.

I don’t think that China, India, the US, and Africa will become one over night, but I don’t see anything topping them from gradually relinquishing control to a global governing body. There’s nothing stopping that. Countries are becomming more and more integrated all the time, and isolationism is less and less a viable option. What’s to limit the trend?

What’s the “fallacy from the start”?

The objective of some “globalists” may be sinister, but that doesn’t mean that the outcome is necessarily sinister or that the idea should not be considered.


I hang my head in disgust with myself.

About time.

Carleas, a globalist? Say it isn’t so…

How very transparent.

My view on globalism depends on this.

If I am not in charge of the globe, then globalism is evil.
But if I am in charge of the globe, then globalism is good.

I am against globalism right now, because I am not in charge and I think our current rulers are stupid.

Hey, thanks for dredging this up; it’s always a little painful to read what old-Mike had to say.

Also interesting that I think I was still a socialist when I wrote the above. I would no longer suggest that government is the body that should “allocate resources”, though I still think larger regional and ultimately global government would be a good thing; the situation in Europe makes this a timely bit of necromancy.

And if you’re behind Rawls’ veil of ignorance?

Don’t know who Rawl is, and I’ve always wanted a veil, but not a veil of ignorance, never got around to buying one though.

Rawls’ veil of ignorance.

First of all, I didn’t google it because I thought Rawl might be a hot porn star wearing a veil, and it might show me unrelated pics and I’d get all hot and bothered.
I don’t get it, because such a thing is not possible in reality, so it doesn’t make any sense.

Rawls Veil of Ignorance isn’t applicable to anyone capable for forcing a choice, only to those without. Yes… I’m very well acquainted with the theory, but some personalities are more manipulative than others.

Lets say we were using the viel of ignorance, but some of us are thinking we can risk it and overcome any situation. Voting for absolute enforced equality is a pointless task.

I’m a strong anti-racist on this forum, but let’s say we were debating applying racial barriers, but nobody knew in advance what race they would belong to… I know even if I land as that race, I can stack the odds still in my favor by the paranoia and cunning inherent in my reasoning. The veil of ignorance tries to limit choices, dictating identity uniformity, but can’t suppress personality… thought processes.

I can take risks in my life, in simply not knowing the outcomes of what may occur, because I have that cynic background… I have hit absolute rock bottom, learned I can not only survive and thrive. Even if you could deduct the knowledge, the requirement of being able to reason to agree to Rawls terms would still imply I’m going to still be able to think… as me, even without my persona. Our persona effects the way our frontal lobes grow, even with amnesia you should be able to tell if your a hands on person or a intellectual, survivalist or someone who seeks comfort and medial safety.

Rawls theory doesn’t work. If Hitler can be a Jew,if Nietzsche can be a tard, if Rawls can be a Harvard Professor, despite the entire system they invented, joined or and enforced being anthetical to them… then it shows humans can exceptionally (some at least) operate in stark contrast to biases, even lethal biases that fundamentally contradict some apparent quality inherent to them.

It ultimately is why one has to reject racism, counter intuitively… precisely because Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance doesn’t work as far as internal awareness and motivations are concern, and that our most twisted biased racists inevitably always include exceptions… syllogistic necessities force this.

I by no means support racism, but I do note this peculiarity about it.

And the stupid Veil fits into your even dumber DNA Machine idea Trixie. Its so stupid I’m surprised Harvard hasn’t given you a honorary PhD for it, especially when the two are combined.

By cursing the DnA machine, you curse your own salvation.

Let me see, your sisters in jail, your siblings a tranny, your other siblings a crackhead…

All could be avoided with the DnA machine. your tranny sister could be DnA converted to a genetic girl, or hermaphrodite, then no more angst for you when you inevitably cave in to your incestual desires that have clearly been giving you confusion, anger, and bigotry, so you can say to yourself that you are no longer a “queer” attracted to xy.