One World Order

[Idolater]

Now that it's been abundantly made clear for people in the whole world that nuclear weapons cannot be trusted to anybody who is not under the control of moral men and women and intersex people.

We need a solution. Before nukes the idea that the whole world could be divided up between dozens or hundreds of independent, sovereign states living in peace was not an unreasonable or irresponsible one. But this has gone too far, with Russia inexplicably invading Ukraine. And us, not being able to do anything about it, while Ukrainians are murdered.

Because Russia's got nukes.

If we annex Russia then we've got nukes, and we've already got nukes, and so the Russian nukes will be under the control of the United States Constitution like our other nukes are.

This is the One World Order: The United States Constitution.

 

[Idolater]

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

SCOTUS Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson: 'America Is Greatest Beacon Of Hope'

"The United States of America is the greatest beacon of hope in democracy the world has ever known."

Biden nominates Ketanji Brown Jackson to be first Black woman to sit on Supreme Court

President Joe Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court on Friday, setting in motion a historic confirmation process for the first Black woman to sit on the highest court in the nation.

www.cnn.com

"The United States of America is the greatest beacon of hope and democracy the world has ever known."

 

[Yorzhik]

with Russia inexplicably invading Ukraine.

This is what establishment media says. But when you listen to the Russians things make more sense.

 

[Idolater]

This is what establishment media says. But when you listen to the Russians things make more sense.

Then it makes even more sense for the greatest Constitution in the world to start invading countries and annexing them together into One World Order.

 

[Idolater]

This is what establishment media says. But when you listen to the Russians things make more sense.

Here's what makes sense. There is in Ukraine a minority of people who want to be Russians. But the majority of them do not. So picture the political situation in Ukraine before this invasion, you had political parties like we do in all democracies, and there was, let's say, one party who supported becoming Russian instead of staying independent.

This party never won elections, and they never will, because they are not growing in great numbers and never will. So the democratic situation in that this party is not going to win elections.

But now here come the Russians! It's as if this minor party had 'an ace up their sleeve' which was that the Russian army was going to overthrow Ukraine's regime! It didn't matter that they weren't going to win elections, since they were going to take power by force.

This is much closer to what a real insurrection looks like, as compared with "January 6" of last year. That was a high school prank. Ukraine is for real.

 

[Gary K]

This is what establishment media says. But when you listen to the Russians things make more sense.

You might be interested in Bill Holter's take on this.

Bill’s Latest Interview With Dave Janda

www.jsmineset.com

 

[Yorzhik]

Here's what makes sense. There is in Ukraine a minority of people who want to be Russians. But the majority of them do not. So picture the political situation in Ukraine before this invasion, you had political parties like we do in all democracies, and there was, let's say, one party who supported becoming Russian instead of staying independent.

This party never won elections, and they never will, because they are not growing in great numbers and never will. So the democratic situation in that this party is not going to win elections.

But now here come the Russians! It's as if this minor party had 'an ace up their sleeve' which was that the Russian army was going to overthrow Ukraine's regime! It didn't matter that they weren't going to win elections, since they were going to take power by force.

This is much closer to what a real insurrection looks like, as compared with "January 6" of last year. That was a high school prank. Ukraine is for real.

The problem with what you say here is that you have missed the changes that came in 2014. The Russian minority has been living in those areas for a very very long time. Generations have gone by and they have lived together without a lot of strife, intermarrying, and in general peace because you can't tell the difference between each them unless they speak. But in 2014 the Ukrainian majority decided to start murdering the Russian minority. And that is exactly the difference. Now that there has been a reaction in those areas by the Russians to bring back peace not just to Crimea but also the other breakaway Republics.

Instead of seeing that peace could be achieved - by the leadership of Ukraine - it has decided to make things worse by joining NATO at the behest of the same leaders that control NATO. NATO should not exist . It is only there to antagonize nations in the region. It is identical to a Cuban Missile Crisis.

That's the nutshell explanation. I'm not saying I think Russia has pure good intentions. In fact I think Putin is a bad guy. But Zelensky is no better. I'm saying the situation follows the biblical wisdom that a story seems right until a neighbor is allowed to give their side of the story.

So, who to back? De facto it would be Russia. Because the best response is to just let them work it out. One should note also though that Russia is not interested in supporting the breakaway republics (it seems clear they don't want to make them a part of Russia but let them be their own countries). And so they would much less be interested in taking over the Ukraine. Although they certainly want a Russian friendly regime in place. That would still be the best outcome for the Ukrainians.

 

[Idolater]

I'm sorry to hear that @Yorzhik

'Big picture', 'taking a big step back', 'zooming out' conceptually, looking at it 'panoramically', as far as I'm concerned there are at least three reasons for why one world order or one world government is really what we all should ideologically be promoting.

One is nuclear weapons. That's the one that prompted this OP.

The other two are in the following thread; climate change, and potential meteor or comet (bolide, mountain) impact from outer space.

In all three cases, one united global government is really what would work. We're seeing the chaos in slow motion with regard to climate change, and we're seeing the chaos chaotically with Russia and Ukraine, and we're not seeing the chaos at all for the other one.

If that one happens, there's going to be one part of the earth that none of us want anybody to be anywhere near when the fateful day arrives, and this would be fairly simple (for an extraordinarily complex and complicated thing) to 'take care of' with one world order. Climate change also would be far more easily and simply handled, starting right away. And the threat of MAD would of course be extinguished entirely.

What if climate change is real and human caused--what should Christians do about it?

If the bible gives wisdom for all occasions, then it should be able to handle this: Let's say, for argument's sake, that Global Climate change is a fact, and that it is caused by humans. What then should we as Christians do about it? I'll suggest up front that while some of the secular...

theologyonline.com

 

[Arthur Brain]

The problem with what you say here is that you have missed the changes that came in 2014. The Russian minority has been living in those areas for a very very long time. Generations have gone by and they have lived together without a lot of strife, intermarrying, and in general peace because you can't tell the difference between each them unless they speak. But in 2014 the Ukrainian majority decided to start murdering the Russian minority. And that is exactly the difference. Now that there has been a reaction in those areas by the Russians to bring back peace not just to Crimea but also the other breakaway Republics.

Instead of seeing that peace could be achieved - by the leadership of Ukraine - it has decided to make things worse by joining NATO at the behest of the same leaders that control NATO. NATO should not exist . It is only there to antagonize nations in the region. It is identical to a Cuban Missile Crisis.

That's the nutshell explanation. I'm not saying I think Russia has pure good intentions. In fact I think Putin is a bad guy. But Zelensky is no better. I'm saying the situation follows the biblical wisdom that a story seems right until a neighbor is allowed to give their side of the story.

So, who to back? De facto it would be Russia. Because the best response is to just let them work it out. One should note also though that Russia is not interested in supporting the breakaway republics (it seems clear they don't want to make them a part of Russia but let them be their own countries). And so they would much less be interested in taking over the Ukraine. Although they certainly want a Russian friendly regime in place. That would still be the best outcome for the Ukrainians.

Hmm, if you think that Russia has invaded the Ukraine to "bring back peace" then to call you clueless would still be way too much of a compliment. Putin is a tyrannical despot, not just "a bad guy" and his excuses for his so called "special military operation" are beyond risible. To denazify a country that has a Jewish president? One, btw, when afforded free passage away from it all chose to stay and face it?

Furthermore, the Ukraine has not joined NATO and recently stated that it won't, your opinions regarding said alliance notwithstanding. How about you ask the neighbours of Russia, ya know, all the ones who have have been forced to flee the continual shelling and become refugees in neighboring countries, being torn away from their families, seen their loved ones die amid this atrocious invasion what they think?

The best outcome for the Ukrainians would have been for this monstrous invasion not to have happened at all and to be left to live in peace as they were doing. You expect them to think that there's such a thing as a "friendly Russian regime" after all of this? After their cities have been bombed to bits?

You are beyond even the kool aid deluded...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Now that it's been abundantly made clear for people in the whole world that nuclear weapons cannot be trusted to anybody who is not under the control of moral men and women and intersex people.

We need a solution. Before nukes the idea that the whole world could be divided up between dozens or hundreds of independent, sovereign states living in peace was not an unreasonable or irresponsible one. But this has gone too far, with Russia inexplicably invading Ukraine. And us, not being able to do anything about it, while Ukrainians are murdered.

Because Russia's got nukes.

If we annex Russia then we've got nukes, and we've already got nukes, and so the Russian nukes will be under the control of the United States Constitution like our other nukes are.

This is the One World Order: The United States Constitution.

As touched on previously, that's not a solution, that's a recipe for disaster. You can't go in and just annex a country like Russia, can't be done. To underline the point, this couldn't be done if it were only Russia itself. It has a massive nuclear arsenal and would hardly just stand by and let Western forces occupy its territory and take over without fearful retalitory response. Wouldn't happen. You'd have mushroom clouds all over Europe and else.

And just say, by the remotest chance it was. (It isn't but for the sake of argument). What, the likes of China, North Korea and other regimes with things other than the American constitution in mind would just sit idly by and be happy for the world to become practically the same thing? Not a chance.

 

[Idolater]

As touched on previously, that's not a solution, that's a recipe for disaster. You can't go in and just annex a country like Russia, can't be done. To underline the point, this couldn't be done if it were only Russia itself. It has a massive nuclear arsenal and would hardly just stand by and let Western forces occupy its territory and take over without fearful retalitory response. Wouldn't happen. You'd have mushroom clouds all over Europe and else.

And just say, by the remotest chance it was. (It isn't but for the sake of argument). What, the likes of China, North Korea and other regimes with things other than the American constitution in mind would just sit idly by and be happy for the world to become practically the same thing? Not a chance.

How do you contain all that optimism?

The short answer is to repeat what I've told you before. It would have to 'start small' and slow and only with polities (nations) who are actually interested in uniting, not through force. I never said through force. I never implied it. You have perceived that I mean to force people to unite but it's not my idea. Mine is voluntary.

 

[Arthur Brain]

How do you contain all that optimism?

The short answer is to repeat what I've told you before. It would have to 'start small' and slow and only with polities (nations) who are actually interested in uniting, not through force. I never said through force. I never implied it. You have perceived that I mean to force people to unite but it's not my idea. Mine is voluntary.

It's realism. There's no point in serving naive ideals where fruition could never come about and on one side note it couldn't be called the "United States Constitution" for obvious reasons. You talk about 'starting slow' yet recognize the obvious threat of nuclear war - as we have done for decades and we already have a treaty of countries that are united in avoiding it as it is. That in itself isn't going to neutralize the likes of countries like Russia who have massive nuclear arsenals at their disposal and wouldn't hesitate to use them if any military threat were enacted to try and annex them. It can't be done. Else, you reasonably set out how it's possible to try and do so by all means. I mean, realistically.

 

[Idolater]

It's realism. There's no point in serving naive ideals

Agreed in principle and disagreed that this idea is naive. What's naive is to think we can keep whistling past the graveyard when it comes to nuclear weapons, climate change, and a potential looming bolide impact. Climate change is already happening, we're way closer all of a sudden to nuclear conflict in the past three weeks, and nobody knows if we'll ever be hit by a comet or asteroid. A global United States (or some other constitution) can deal with or prevent altogether these things.

where fruition could never come about

Disagreed. I see no reason why it couldn't.

and on one side note it couldn't be called the "United States Constitution" for obvious reasons.

It absolutely could [continue to] be called that, if the United States Constitution is the one world order's written constitution. It doesn't have to be. Nobody's given another suggestion is all. Idea is either expand an already existing constitution or make a new one, either way one constitution, one (federal) regime, for the one world order, that we need in order to address nuclear weapons, climate change, and any potential devastating bolide impacts.

(Those things can hit anywhere, with one world government we'd have jurisdiction over wherever any "big one" hits and be able to hopefully move everyone to safety ahead of time or much more sadly deal with the disaster after the fact.)

You talk about 'starting slow' yet recognize the obvious threat of nuclear war - as we have done for decades and we already have a treaty of countries that are united in avoiding it as it is.

Correct, except it's just half the world. And it's not the half with ALL the nukes (we would have to have by now already included Russia and China and Pakistan and India in NATO in order to have 'prima facie' preemptively diffused the nuclear threat with this 'loose confederation' proposed solution). So what are we going to do about getting these nuclear powers into NATO with the rest of us? We need a plan for this as much as I need a plan for making one world Union, so we're both 'at square one'.

That in itself isn't going to neutralize the likes of countries like Russia who have massive nuclear arsenals at their disposal and wouldn't hesitate to use them if any military threat were enacted to try and annex them.

Russia joining NATO would definitely be a more promising situation than we're at right now. There certainly wouldn't be the urgency if Russia was 'playing nice' by now. If Russia were in NATO I wouldn't have posted this OP.

I'm not thinking invade or annex Russia by force. I'm thinking if it comes to it that we pressure them with sanctions, but this is way down the line, after we've already replaced NATO with a strong federation instead of the weak confederation that it (and that the EU also) is.

It can't be done. Else, you reasonably set out how it's possible to try and do so by all means. I mean, realistically.

'Starting slow.' We're never going to hit a target we don't aim at. And that's assuming we have any accuracy at all, which we don't know because we've never tried.

Since the atomic age and accelerated by H-bomb tech, we have as a species worked to prevent nuclear warfare. In 2022 we have nuclear powers in NATO, and nuclear powers outside NATO. Between these two groups we could make craters out of every major city in the world, and in 2022 there is no existing democratic or any other sort of political ideological way to control all the nukes. A suicidal mass murderer can get his hands on one, or more. We don't have a single solution to this existing problem. NATO being a partial solution is no solution, and these types of partial solutions pose a risk of a 'false sense of security', when the situation is actually very serious and urgent but we all feel like let's take our time.

Time's up. We need to fix this. Nukes are desperate Ukraine is desperate times and we know that calls for desperate measures. At least a little more urgency is what I want to see. Loose confederations are never going to work anyway, but especially when the loose confederation isn't even inclusive right now of all the nuclear powers in the world.

 

[Hoping]

We need a solution. Before nukes the idea that the whole world could be divided up between dozens or hundreds of independent, sovereign states living in peace was not an unreasonable or irresponsible one.

Is that a joke?
Ever seen Boston Red Sox fans at a Yankees game? (Or vice-versa)?

But this has gone too far, with Russia inexplicably invading Ukraine. And us, not being able to do anything about it, while Ukrainians are murdered.
Because Russia's got nukes.

If we annex Russia then we've got nukes, and we've already got nukes, and so the Russian nukes will be under the control of the United States Constitution like our other nukes are.

Should we tell them we have annexed them, or not?

 

[Idolater]

Here's three medical doctors' idea to solve the threat of nuclear MAD:

The only way to guarantee nuclear weapons are never used | CNN

The world is shocked by the violence in Ukrainian cities besieged by Russian forces, as they suffer under indiscriminate mortar, bomb and missile attacks. But these horrors could lead to something far worse -- escalation to nuclear war.

edition.cnn.com

Basically, "ban" nukes. Gun control writ large.

Typical MD thinking. smh.

 

[Hoping]

As touched on previously, that's not a solution, that's a recipe for disaster. You can't go in and just annex a country like Russia, can't be done. To underline the point, this couldn't be done if it were only Russia itself. It has a massive nuclear arsenal and would hardly just stand by and let Western forces occupy its territory and take over without fearful retalitory response. Wouldn't happen. You'd have mushroom clouds all over Europe and else.

And just say, by the remotest chance it was. (It isn't but for the sake of argument). What, the likes of China, North Korea and other regimes with things other than the American constitution in mind would just sit idly by and be happy for the world to become practically the same thing? Not a chance.

Annex them too !!!
But we better do it before they annex us !!!

 

[Idolater]

Is that a joke?

No. I'm talking peace as in the absence of MAD.

Ever seen Boston Red Sox fans at a Yankees game? (Or vice-versa)?

I've seen Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees physically fighting on a baseball field over a game of baseball. But there weren't even knives or bows-and-arrows involved in that conflict, let alone 50 MT H-bombs.

Should we tell them we have annexed them, or not?

Smirk.

 

[Idolater]

Annex them too !!!
But we better do it before they annex us !!!

You do recall that the United States began as 13 states and now it's 50 right?

Had to have happened somehow.

I'm just suggesting 'dust off' the process. I think Hawaii was the last one to join the Union, before that Alaska. They're both integrated into our Union even though they're not contiguous.

 

[Hoping]

No. I'm talking peace as in the absence of MAD.

I've seen Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees physically fighting on a baseball field over a game of baseball. But there weren't even knives or bows-and-arrows involved in that conflict, let alone 50 MT H-bombs.

Smirk.

How many wars were fought in Europe alone before there were nukes?
How many among Africans?
Asians?

 

[Hoping]

You do recall that the United States began as 13 states and now it's 50 right?

Had to have happened somehow.

I'm just suggesting 'dust off' the process. I think Hawaii was the last one to join the Union, before that Alaska. They're both integrated into our Union even though they're not contiguous.

We bought Alaska.
Maybe we can buy N Korea too?