One People, One State, One Purpose

[Sovereigntist]

To Rue, I have to completely disagree with you because neither of those concepts have anything to do with the government or economy. 

To Infidel Dog, it can be "meaningless drivel" if one does not have anything to back up what they are saying. However, unlike most people who criticize the work of others without ever being productive themselves, we have done our research and can provide more than enough facts to back up what we claim.

Edited May 18, 2020 by Sovereigntist

[Infidel Dog]

25 minutes ago, Sovereigntist said:

To Infidel Dog, it can be "meaningless drivel" if one does not have anything to back up what they are saying. However, unlike most people who criticize the work of others without ever being productive themselves, we have done our research and can provide more than enough facts to back up what we claim.

Feel free to prove it anytime you're ready.

116 pages of drivel is still drivel.

Edited May 18, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

Start with explaining how you're going to take over from sovereign countries and put them under the global government "sovereigntist" thumb then keep them under control without an army or police force. Don't give me gobbledygook about the light of your one pure truth or honest politicians. Give me 10 steps to how you're going to do it. Hell, I'll even settle for a page number to your book. But be real sure it offers what I'm requesting. If it's something else you'll see some for real 'light of pure truth' in my reply.

Then tell us why there won't be conflicts if it's all popular vote. I can see why China, India or say the Muslim alliance might not necessarily be opposed to that but why would  America jump on board with that? 

[Sovereigntist]

To Zeitgeist, the greatest opposition to global governance is and always has been national leaders. The reason why is because these so-called leaders know that a global government would put an end to their lies and nationalist propaganda.

Also, I do agree with you that it would be a great thing if everyone adhered to a code of ethics, but the problem is that not everyone will and no government actually does. If a government can do something criminal and get away with it--they will. Just look at how many elected officials claimed to be working in the interests of the people only to be caught doing something dishonest or fraudulent.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Sovereigntist

[Sovereigntist]

To Infidel Dog, we are not trying to take over anything and absolutely reject all forms of violence. And if we could give you 10 steps on how to fix the government then we would not have had to write an entire book. And it is simply impossible to limit the answer you want to a single page because each chapter addresses a different issue and how to approach it.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Sovereigntist said:

To Zeitgeist, the greatest opposition to global governance is and always has been national leaders. The reason why is because these so-called leaders know that a global government would put an end to their lies and nationalist propaganda.

Also, I do agree with you that it would be a great thing if everyone adhered to a code of ethics, but the problem is that not everyone will and no government actually does. If a government can do something criminal and get away with it--they will. Just look at how many elected officials claimed to be working in the interests of the people only to be caught doing something dishonest or fraudulent.

What makes you think international leaders would be any better behaved than national ones?  National politicians, if freely and democratically elected, are about as accountable to the people as any political leader.

Make existing national and international institutions run better, except where they are total broken and must be replaced.  Form coalitions with like-minded countries based around shared values.  Eventually the team with the best formula attracts followers.  

[Rue]

8 hours ago, Sovereigntist said:

To Rue, I have to completely disagree with you because neither of those concepts have anything to do with the government or economy. 

To Infidel Dog, it can be "meaningless drivel" if one does not have anything to back up what they are saying. However, unlike most people who criticize the work of others without ever being productive themselves, we have done our research and can provide more than enough facts to back up what we claim.

Oh they apply Sov.  I will tell you why. Both are self autonomous nations like the Vatican and many other religious or cult  or "benevolent social" groups and govern their followers and have their own laws and  economies and preach their own forms of centralized one size fits all power control  as providing  security for all.  Oh you know like the ...Masons...yah yah I did notice the Mason symbol in your symbol...if you are a mason just say so. If you are telling me its just coincidental with the symbols well then if you say so.

 

       

 

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Rue

[Rue]

 

People do take note of the comparison to masonic symbols and masonic cypher which is the last one.

 

 

[Rue]

            

above is the Assassin,s Creed Masonic symbol                                          another Masonic symbol                   more Masonic cypher (code)

 

[Rue]

See the masonic pyramid and label look familiar?...it should compare it to the symbol next to it and the one next to it to the right

 

 

 

[Rue]

 

Now interestingly compare the sovereign symbol to the left with the painting to the right...a painting by William Blake in 1794 entitled "Ancient of Days".

The picture is said to illustrate Proverbs 8:27, which referred to God when he was said to  have..... "set a compass upon the face of the earth."

Now for the Masons the compass has many meanings as does the pyramid you can read up on but it can be used as a symbol to refer to Mason's in one sense being ther own architects building their utopias or structures of beauty, harmony and knowledge.

I am not here to call anyone a mason, satanist, illuminati, judge anyone.

Its just sometimes the symbols are there and the notion of one world government as one poster said has many meanings ranging from political and sinister to economic free markets and other things.

I just find the current thread sounding like an attempt to recruit...to a group.

Whether its "Sovereigntists".  "Masons",  "Satanists",   Hari Krishna, Scientology, etc., I leave to you to decide.

Me I agree with Groucho Marx. Any group that would want me is suspect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Rue

[Infidel Dog]

6 hours ago, Sovereigntist said:

To Infidel Dog, we are not trying to take over anything and absolutely reject all forms of violence. And if we could give you 10 steps on how to fix the government then we would not have had to write an entire book. And it is simply impossible to limit the answer you want to a single page because each chapter addresses a different issue and how to approach it.

OK. Start here then. You can answer this one yes or no to both questions if you like.

Do you have a plan that will create this one world global government you want, or are you just daydreaming about what a great job and your buddies could do running the world and hoping somebody cares?

 

Edited May 19, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Sovereigntist]

To Zeitgeist, today's institutions are completely broken which is why most public officials are corrupt. And it has nothing to do with electing officials who will behave but making sure they must behave or else they will be removed from office. It is a fallacy to think that the electoral system secures leaders who will be accountable to the people because it does not and never will.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Sovereigntist

[Sovereigntist]

To Rue, Sovereignty believes in the separation of church and state. It does not control people or demand anything of them--they are free to decide for themselves. No, we are not Freemasons because we absolutely oppose any kind of secrecy.

[Sovereigntist]

To Infidel Dog, the creation of a single State with a global government rests exclusively in the hands of the people. Sovereignty just outlines the best path forward to making it a reality.

[Rue]

3 hours ago, Sovereigntist said:

To Rue, Sovereignty believes in the separation of church and state. It does not control people or demand anything of them--they are free to decide for themselves. No, we are not Freemasons because we absolutely oppose any kind of secrecy.

You deflected and did not explain what the symbol means...please explain what it means.

Let us be clear. I read a lot of negative stories about  Masons butbif as anything  that  makes me careful  not to judge them. I use the same approach to all organized  institutions... respectful skepticism over the structure of their hierarchies.

Your symbol and recruiting messages bar a strong resemblance  to the Madon symbols and values.  If you are not a Mason  with due respect, you border line on appearing to plagiarise their beliefs.

As for stating the Masons are secretive and you are not,  and again said respectfully, it is that kind of pat response that do not exactly inspire confidence in your statement because it is easy to throw out a pat comment about an organization without backing it up. You may as well have said all Masons are fat. You threw out an alleged characteristic with no reference to base it.  That seems to be that you are doing...making pat remarks with no basis to show how you arrive at them. 

You are like someone who claims to channel an alien's beliefs. You offer unbiased statements.

Now back to my question you deflected from.. what does your symbol stand for and what is the structure of your government and how would it not have layers of authority that are open and transparent?

Please answer...what does your symbol stand for and explain the levels of government and administration you will use to administer your government including your tax, civil and criminal legal systems, your military, your elected assemblies, your civil service departments, your budgets your methods of controlling health and economic transactions  and your method of assuring uniform  approaches to laws across the planet.

Thank you.

p.s. I was a cub scout once  

 

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Rue

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Sovereigntist said:

To Infidel Dog, the creation of a single State with a global government rests exclusively in the hands of the people. Sovereignty just outlines the best path forward to making it a reality.

The problem with any idea about global government is that in order for it to work, citizens of powerful, wealthy countries must agree to dissolve their borders and be overwhelmed by a flood of people from poor countries, thus massively degrading their standard of living and quality of life. Any world wide democracy would demand it, for the great majority of people are very poor compared to the West. They would either demand the government allow them to move there or demand the government tax the ever loving hell out of those countries and give that money to them to help raise their quality of life.

[Sovereigntist]

To Rue, we are happy to answer any questions you may have, but the real irony is that all of your questions are answered in the book. Anyway, ask and you shall receive. This quote was taken directly from the book, "We Sovereigntists regard our flag as being the symbol of human solidarity. The flag represents the Alpha and Omega, in other words, the beginning of Sovereigntism and the end of nationalism. The colors of the flag are also symbolic to us; in the red we see the will of the people, in the black the responsibility the State has to the people, and in the white the moral obligation we all share for the betterment of society."

Your next question, however, is very broad and includes many complex issues (all of which are addressed in great detail in the book), but if I understand you correctly you are asking how we are going to make the government accountable to the public. To quote the book again, "This new system of governance intends to secure responsibility in the public service by (1) replacing the electoral system with a responsible system and by (2) creating a program that will prepare individuals, to the best extent possible, for the public service. The first measure would ensure that those who are currently in the public service will be properly supervised and held accountable for their actions, while the second measure would establish educational requirements for those who wish to become public officials."

Edited May 20, 2020 by Sovereigntist

[Rue]

Why thanks. The referring to yourself as we is a tactic many use  on the forum. It's supposed to make you sound more credible since more than 1 person is supposed to agree with you. It's called pack puffery. You try make your positions appear widespread, the reference to we and book.

Its as variation of the tactic some of our trolls vfc use with multiple names.

The point is on a forum you hide behind anonymity. You could be anyone. You clearly are recruiting but if you are legit you would use your real name now wouldn't you? 

My questions were not broad and not very difficult and all you did yet again is say read the book and provided meaningless answers, deliberately obtusive because you can not answer simple specific basic questions. 

You provided no explanation of how you will replace the electoral system let one what you mean by responsible person. You state you will replace existing government and civil service that will prepare people go the best extent possible for civil service but do not explain this process.ou then throw in two measures so broad in possible meaning they can not be understood and then you do not explain them or the process to teach them and to guarantee they will be followed.

In short you avoid answering my questions other than to parrot back a passage as to the symbol then deliberately engage in deliberately vague platitudes that provide no specifics and while hidingbehind your vague general sophistry claim my questions were too general. How hard is it to explain your structure of civil service? How hard is to explain what you are replacing elected officials with? 

You engage in platitudes, vague theoretical references that have no contextual references and so no meaning.

If that is your recruiting plan sorry but it's void in substance. 

You are blowing bubbles. 

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Rue

[New World Disorder]

On 5/16/2020 at 8:42 PM, Sovereigntist said:

To Infidel Dog, this new government would simply use the existing infrastructure (state buildings) that are already established throughout the world and would build new ones wherever they are necessary or nonexistent.

The person "at the top" would be whoever is fairly voted into office, but they must be at least 18 years of age, graduated from a 4 years' course of political education, and cannot have any criminal convictions.

The rule of law would be enforced just as it is now. However, the justice system would impose lesser sentences on first-time offenders and non-violent crimes, while repeat offenders and violent crimes would receive harsher sentences. More importantly, in order to determine that those in office are actually acting in the interests of the people an independent court system will be created to supervise everything they say and do.

We understand your skepticism, but hope that you will be willing to give Sovereignty a chance by reading it.

Nah that's not how we do things.  We require un-elected officials to run global governments that will screw us all over in the end and up the end.

[New World Disorder]

7 hours ago, Sovereigntist said:

To Infidel Dog, the creation of a single State with a global government rests exclusively in the hands of the people. Sovereignty just outlines the best path forward to making it a reality.

Global sovereignty means that none of this is the hands of the people.

 

 

[Sovereigntist]

To Argus, you are correct which is why borders will remain until undeveloped nations (provinces) reach a stage in which they can sustain themselves. For example, the border between Canada and the US should be dissolved because it is unnecessary and both of them would actually benefit more by sharing their resources with each other. Afterwards, this new State would assist any bordering provinces (in this case Mexico) with reaching their own stage of economic sustainability.

This new State would start by sending basic resources (food, water, clothes, etc.) to meet the needs of the people before sending them more essential resources (building materials, equipment, engineering teams, etc.) to help build their up their existing infrastructure. Once the province has reached economic sustainability and can begin producing these things themselves it should be allowed to amalgamate into the new State. This process would then continue to the next bordering province and so on.

All of this can be done without any additional taxation to the people within developed provinces or by allowing people from underdeveloped provinces to just flood in. Keep in mind, I have simplified a very complex process into a few sentences in order to make it easier to understand, but the book goes into greater detail on this matter. And just to be clear, underdeveloped provinces will not reach economic sustainability right away—it can decades for them to accomplish this. But for anyone doubting the possibility of this just look at how much Dubai has developed in 20 years.

[Rue]

5 hours ago, Sovereigntist said:

To Argus, you are correct which is why borders will remain until undeveloped nations (provinces) reach a stage in which they can sustain themselves. For example, the border between Canada and the US should be dissolved because it is unnecessary and both of them would actually benefit more by sharing their resources with each other. Afterwards, this new State would assist any bordering provinces (in this case Mexico) with reaching their own stage of economic sustainability.

This new State would start by sending basic resources (food, water, clothes, etc.) to meet the needs of the people before sending them more essential resources (building materials, equipment, engineering teams, etc.) to help build their up their existing infrastructure. Once the province has reached economic sustainability and can begin producing these things themselves it should be allowed to amalgamate into the new State. This process would then continue to the next bordering province and so on.

All of this can be done without any additional taxation to the people within developed provinces or by allowing people from underdeveloped provinces to just flood in. Keep in mind, I have simplified a very complex process into a few sentences in order to make it easier to understand, but the book goes into greater detail on this matter. And just to be clear, underdeveloped provinces will not reach economic sustainability right away—it can decades for them to accomplish this. But for anyone doubting the possibility of this just look at how much Dubai has developed in 20 years.

Your comment you simplified your answer to make it easier to understand is condescending . No one asked you too. On the contrary they need you to do more than spit out non explained assumptions of value.

What  It is clear you can't explain any thing asked of you and that is why you keep referring people to your good book. You deflect from your inability to explain anything asked.

Here let me illustrate in specific terms what I mean

You: Hello I am hear to teach you about sex.

Us:  Have you actually engaged in sex.

You:  Not yet. I plan to though.

Us:  So on what do you base your knowledge?

You:  A book.

Us:  What does this book say?

You: People have sex.

US: How?

You: By having sex.

Us:  How do you have sex?

You:  Well to make it easy for you to understand  it's when you have sex.

Us:  What happens to have sex happen?

You:  Sex. 

Me:  Let me be specific you need to get  phacked.

I didn't need a book to make that clear did I?

Have a great day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Rue

[Sovereigntist]

11 hours ago, Rue said:

You deflected and did not explain what the symbol means...please explain what it means.

Let us be clear. I read a lot of negative stories about  Masons butbif as anything  that  makes me careful  not to judge them. I use the same approach to all organized  institutions... respectful skepticism over the structure of their hierarchies.

Your symbol and recruiting messages bar a strong resemblance  to the Madon symbols and values.  If you are not a Mason  with due respect, you border line on appearing to plagiarise their beliefs.

As for stating the Masons are secretive and you are not,  and again said respectfully, it is that kind of pat response that do not exactly inspire confidence in your statement because it is easy to throw out a pat comment about an organization without backing it up. You may as well have said all Masons are fat. You threw out an alleged characteristic with no reference to base it.  That seems to be that you are doing...making pat remarks with no basis to show how you arrive at them. 

You are like someone who claims to channel an alien's beliefs. You offer unbiased statements.

Now back to my question you deflected from.. what does your symbol stand for and what is the structure of your government and how would it not have layers of authority that are open and transparent?

Please answer...what does your symbol stand for and explain the levels of government and administration you will use to administer your government including your tax, civil and criminal legal systems, your military, your elected assemblies, your civil service departments, your budgets your methods of controlling health and economic transactions  and your method of assuring uniform  approaches to laws across the planet.

Thank you.

p.s. I was a cub scout once  

 

 

To Rue, I am trying to answer your questions as best I can, but the truth is that they are very broad and difficult to answer. For example, your first question regarding the symbol is short and right to the point. And the answer I gave you would have been the same regardless of whether I quoted it from the book or not. But look at your second question. It is is very long and somewhat confusing, but I understand what you are asking. The problem is that the answer would be (once again) taken directly from the book because there is no other way to explain it. Not to mention it would be a very, very long answer which is unnecessary when you can just read the book.

I apologize if you think I am being condescending, but I try my best to simplify what I am saying because even I found these things very difficult to understand the first time I learned about them (which may be the case for those reading this as well). It would be wrong of me to assume that others know exactly what I am talking about. All I can say is that it is impossible to condense an entire book into just a few sentences. But even if it was possible you have already said that I am not allowed to reference from it. How else can I answer your questions then?

Edited May 21, 2020 by Sovereigntist

[Infidel Dog]

I get a kick out of nutty theories and scams so I actually read some of this book. If anybody's interested I  can tell you now what he doesn't want to. I can tell you how this kid proposes to control the world.

I say Kid because when you start to read from about page 60 the writing is like something you'd expect from a nerdy freshman. It's a lot of unsupported suppositions, assumptions and non-reasoned declarations that I'm sure seem terribly impressive to the kid writing it. It doesn't occur to him that there could be any kind of counter to his proposals. It's a college kid imagining what he sees as a political utopia. He's incapable of imagining how any flaw could exist or anybody might suspect there might be one. God help us when he gets a little experience and learns to deal with the counters though. If he could talk anybody into taking any of this nonsense seriously God help the world.

Actually, I'll just start you off for now so this doesn't get too long.

So it starts with him wanting to imagine how superior it would be if rather than voting in just anybody to public office, you have public officials graduating a political course the curriculum of which is not described but I'm going to assume some sort of behind the scenes, overlords will provide one. There seems to be some strange belief that political science and degrees in such don't already exist so new heroes must create this political course to fill the void.

In sovereign kid's brave new world these political courses for new "public officials" are four years long. Not to worry if this four year re-education indoctrination doesn't deliver the perfect political official though. Apparently these BTS overlords are ready to sweep in from the unknown places they reside and replace the malfunctioning cog in the machine.

Quote

Should an official fail to fulfill their responsibilities or be caught abusing their positions they would be immediately removed from office in order to allow another person to take their place.

That's good for now. If anybody's still curious I can give you more.