One People, One State, One Purpose

[Infidel Dog]

I think most reasoning individuals can read a couple paragraphs of the kid's "book" and figure out why he doesn't want to talk specifics though.

I'm starting to wonder if this is a scam of some sort. Does anybody remember The Big Hack? It was a file-sharing program these supposed computer super geniuses were creating that would make content providers obsolete. That was about a decade ago and there are still content providers so something went wrong. I remember there was this blind programmer who was always getting into arguments with the other hackers and threatening to quit. You needed a lot of popcorn. They put a lot of work into their hoax.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Rue]

10 hours ago, Sovereigntist said:

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?

Thank you. You are polite and respectful. I very much thank you for that. The comments I make are to your words and concepts. So whoever is behind the words your right to your views is respected as is your politeness.

However and again with due respect your book provides no specifics and neither do you. Either way there seems to be no understanding of organizational behaviour, public administration management, curriculum design, or acknowledgement of differences in culture, language, religion, regional economic and geographical differences and  you have no working models to deal with them. Same comments as to corruption.

With due respect your book you quote does not have the answers neither do you. Coming up with a utopian idea is a quaint starting point. Now you have to complete your thoughts by showing not just what they are but how you intend to put them into practice. You have not given much thought to the latter and your book has not either.

So with respect I now defer back to the comments of Infidel Dog.

I mean no insult but I do mean to be right to the point and say, your ideals are privileged elitist concepts created in a bubble where you take many things as a given and therefore have never had to understood how they were k obtained and put into practice. Because of that you have given them no consideration in your theories, specifically how they would have to be changed and what the consequences of changing them might trigger .

Its great to say all people shall have water. The problem is you have not given any thought to the pipelines you might need and other practical challenges.

Again you live in a world where you take water for granted.

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Rue

[Sovereigntist]

To Infidel Dog, by skipping over half the book I am not surprised you are confused. Voting is an essential part of democracy and we defend the election process throughout the entire book. We are not saying that voting should be done away with, but that political candidates should meet certain qualifications before they can run for office. In fact, if you continued reading from where you pulled that quote the very next chapter (“Process of Election”) addresses the election process.

[Rue]

1 hour ago, Sovereigntist said:

To Infidel Dog, by skipping over half the book I am not surprised you are confused. Voting is an essential part of democracy and we defend the election process throughout the entire book. We are not saying that voting should be done away with, but that political candidates should meet certain qualifications before they can run for office. In fact, if you continued reading from where you pulled that quote the very next chapter (“Process of Election”) addresses the election process.

Actually it does not if you continue reading. You and your book  present no administrative structure to implement your election process  or any explanation of how you will gather the votes and the method to allot them to seats and  what chamber of  seats those elected will be for and what the role of those elected will be and what will be the structure and level of the civil service they work with.

You and your book do not explain how all countries agree to subordinate their existing laws to new superior supersceding sovereign laws and explain howyou will resolve the constitutional legal conflicts that will be triggered to prevent being able to impose those sovereign laws domestically in thousands of legal jurisdictions.

You and your book do not explain your judiciary system and how it will enforce these laws through police, military and courts and your prison system.

You and your book do not address how you will use the same laws across the entire world anr address how civil , judiciary and legislative branches will all be consistent and equal in approach and what tax system you will implement to finance all this.

Again you engage in platitudes and refer to platitudes in the book with no working examples.

Your blind parroting or reference to the book every time you are asked a question you can not answer is there for all to see, and so is the complete absence in the book of how these platitudes you present will be implemented.

You and your book have not even one working model of any idea you propose or your book proposes.

On that note I am done on this thread. When it comes to fiction I prefer Star Trek, my own hormonal flashbacks brought on by the aging process or chemicals I took as a teenager or fantasies involving Aubrey Plaza, Jane Fonda in her Barbella outfit, Mrs. Emma Peel from the Avengers, Wonder Woman, Foxy Brown Cleopatra Jones, Jaqueline Bisset,  Morticia from the Adam's family and Trish Stratus former WWE champion.

With due respect your lack of substance has turned your dialogue into a conversation with  Kelly Ripa (you) and Ryan Seacrest ( your book).

I think you need to spend time in this material world. You clearly think gravity won't apply to you in this dimension.

Regards, 

Captain America, Captain Pike,  Captain Kirk, Captain Picard, Captain Janeway, the Beatles, Cream, Fleetwood Mac, BB King, Ry Cooder, The Batman, The Spectre, The Phantom Stranger, Elastic Man, The Hulk, The Swamp Thing, The Thing, Godzilla, Fats Domino, Divine, and Johny Depp

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Rue

[Infidel Dog]

2 hours ago, Sovereigntist said:

To Infidel Dog, by skipping over half the book I am not surprised you are confused. Voting is an essential part of democracy and we defend the election process throughout the entire book. We are not saying that voting should be done away with, but that political candidates should meet certain qualifications before they can run for office. In fact, if you continued reading from where you pulled that quote the very next chapter (“Process of Election”) addresses the election process.

Well actually you recommended a previous poster start to read from page 68 of your tome. I was only interested in how you planned to run your brave new world so I started where that seemed to be getting discussed. 

But I did continue reading even after the section I was chuckling at. If you'll remember I offered to discuss further reading if anybody cared to. So let's do that then.

In the following chapter titled Process of election you don't actually discuss details of how things would be done (as seems to be the case throughout the bafflegab you're calling a book) but one does get some impressions. Apparently there would be elections for these public officials who have received your 4 years of indoctrination, but there will be no term limits. You do consider that even after your 4 years of re-education your "public officials" might not be honest or transparent, but not to worry. Somebody - you never tell us who, but I assume they are these mysterious behind the scenes overlords were forced to assume exist, will sweep in and take both the jobs and possessions of the POs. Then their would be an election to sign up another graduate of your new 4 year program that would be replacing current politics courses at universities. This is all done somehow, at some time, through a process which, of course is never explained.

Oh yeah, kid, sign me up. What could possibly go wrong. 

 

[Infidel Dog]

And if I seem a little hard on you, Kid, there's a reason.

These new youthful infatuations with global domination popping up to replace the failed old ones are always dangerous ideas. When you've been around a while you'll figure that out. For now such proposals must be relentlessly mocked at every level.

[Sovereigntist]

To Rue, you do realize that Star Trek has a global government? Anyway, I will clear up a few of your misconceptions, but be prepared for lengthy responses. First, there will be no political parties but instead politically independent individuals who have completed the four years' course of political education and therefore are qualified to be in office. Since there will be no political parties, there will be no seats divided among them. This new government will not be divided into corrupt parties all fighting with each other for a majority, but instead positions of office will be filled whenever vacant by way of vote and these newly elected politicians will do what the Declaration of Independence states: serve the people. How can we guarantee that they will do this? Because we are going to make it impossible for them to work in secrecy. We are going to make sure that every major political act is carried out openly and every small political act is thoroughly assessed by an independent court. To put it simply, if someone wishes to become a public official they will basically have to forfeit their privacy.

Now I know what you are going to ask, has this ever been done before? Yes, it was tried in Greece and achieved modest success. It was known as Athenian democracy and it called for every Greek candidate to be carefully examined before they were allowed to become an official. What made Athenian democracy unique was that these Greek officials could be immediately removed from their positions at any time if the people were unsatisfied with their performance. There was even a death penalty for any Greek official who performed poorly or betrayed the trust of the people while in office. This is also touched upon by John Acton when he said “You would hang a man of no position, like Ravaillac; but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greater names coupled with the greater crimes. You would spare these criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them, higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice; still more, still higher, for the sake of historical science.” Even Acton seen that people had a double standard when it came to punishing common criminals vs corrupt politicians. 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Sovereigntist

[Rue]

First off  Star Trek is fiction and your assumption I advocate its vision as practical truth to others as you do your movement  is ridiculous. You mistake your thought processes and agenda and project them on to me. No I do not promote Star Trek modelled federations on anyone. Next the federation in Star Trek is in fact anti-thetical to what you propose. In fact Star Trek's  vision suggests  there is no actual  unified global government butthere will continue to be fractured alliances at war with one another. In fact the closest thing in Star Trek to what you propose is the Borg meant to satirize the Chinese government and totalitarian but its fiction man, it's not reality. Get a grip on your channel changer.

Next you now state your  proposal is one based on ancient Greek model of democracy but you do not explain the actual democratic model you refer to let alone  any working model of how you will implement it.

So please stop with the prattle. Enough with your deflections, avoidance, references to unexplained definitions and lack of working examples.The fluff and puff does not substitute for substance.  You remain unable to provide specifics on the most basic of principles you propose.

Thanks but please move on to others. I now think you are in a cult group trying to recruit and use the name soverrigntist   as a cover to  your other group name and agenda. Like any preacher its just a matter of time until you ask for a donation. 

The fact your organization uses the same colours as the Nazis and blatantly copies  a Masonic symbol  speaks for itself.

 I respect your right to have your beliefs but respond to someone else.

Buh bye now. Have a good day.

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Rue

[Sovereigntist]

29 minutes ago, Rue said:

First off you clearly did not get Star Trek. In its vision there is no actual global government.  It's a federation which is a huge difference from what you claim to propose. Next it's a phacking tv show full of mistakes that Trekies laugh at.

Next that is your working example, some half assed attempt to claim you are proposing Greek democracy? Oy gevalt..have your bar mitzvah will you. What you propose is not Greek democracy fro  the days of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, its bastardized Marxist Leninism or National Socialism or totalitarianism.

You are the one that brought up Star Trek--and for someone that does not watch the show even I know that Earth has a global government and that it is part of the "United Federation of Planets." You demand that we answer your questions, but when we do you get even more upset for no reason. The best part is that we are not even referencing the book, as you requested, when answering your questions. It is clear that you do not want to have a civil conversation and are only out to criticize things you have no understanding of.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Sovereigntist

[Infidel Dog]

57 minutes ago, Sovereigntist said:

How can we guarantee that they will do this? Because we are going to make it impossible for them to work in secrecy. We are going to make sure that every major political act is carried out openly and every small political act is thoroughly assessed by an independent court. To put it simply, if someone wishes to become a public official they will basically have to forfeit their privacy.

Well yeah, because nobody has ever heard political promises of complete transparency before. 

Nobody's ever heard promises of "Sure we'll take this privacy rights away but never yours." 

[Rue]

On 5/21/2020 at 4:09 PM, Sovereigntist said:

You are the one that brought up Star Trek--and for someone that does not watch the show even I know that Earth has a global government and that it is part of the "United Federation of Planets." You demand that we answer your questions, but when we do you get even more upset for no reason. The best part is that we are not even referencing the book, as you requested, when answering your questions. It is clear that you do not want to have a civil conversation and are only out to criticize things you have no understanding of.

It's a federation not a sovereign government.  Go find out the difference.  Next, I am not upset. I just find you annoying so the fact I do not want a conversation with you does not make make me uncivil or upset. Bottom line is for me you are a virgin posing as an expert on sexology. Get real. You need to get laid not read a book and I aint giving you a donation for the escort. 

Have a nice day.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Rue

[Iceni warrior]

Are you aware how similar to a previous political movement's slogan your title is?

'One People, One Nation, One Leader'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/nazi_propaganda_gallery_03.shtml

 

 

[Rue]

2 hours ago, Iceni warrior said:

Are you aware how similar to a previous political movement's slogan your title is?

'One People, One Nation, One Leader'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/nazi_propaganda_gallery_03.shtml

 

 

The black and red symbol is a coincidence.lol.

[Michael Hardner]

14 hours ago, Sovereigntist said:

 To put it simply, if someone wishes to become a public official they will basically have to forfeit their privacy.

 

@eyeball - your suggestion from years past right ?

[Sovereigntist]

To Iceni warrior, the inspiration for our motto actually comes from Ephesians 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" but without any religious context.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Sovereigntist

[Sovereigntist]

To Rue, you do realize that by going back and constantly editing your comments to favor your baseless opinions only shows your hypocrisy.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Sovereigntist

[Rue]

1 hour ago, Sovereigntist said:

To Rue, you do realize that by going back and constantly editing your comments to favor your baseless opinions only shows your hypocrisy.

There you go it was bound to come out. Hey now why are you so upset. I edit spelling and grammar never my positions including  the one that believes you came here to recruit. Who your organization is behind the one you prop is immaterial. The cultist fluff is annoying. 

This is where you say one for all and all for one it was inspired by Episcopalians. Now as for Three Muskateers  the Mickey Mouse Club, Church of Satan, Koolaid Kids or whoever else you belong to, I do not care.

I contend you spew cultist chants. Of course you snap. That veneer of civility is for recruiting purpose.  Oops you slipped. Now we see how you will really deal with political opposition. Lol. So you want to lock me up?  Will you lock people up for not following your gospel?  Oh go on tell me.

Tell me about your legal enforcement of laws. Lol you won't because your system to function  would need people with red kerchiefs or brown shirts and you don't dare discuss that now do you?

Lol.  I say, if it walks like a duck and poops like a duck, it's a sovereigntist.

Quack. 

Thank you for your courtesy and have a nice day.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Rue

[New World Disorder]

1 hour ago, Sovereigntist said:

To Rue, you do realize that by going back and constantly editing your comments to favor your baseless opinions only shows your hypocrisy.

Sometimes it's use to fix grammar and spelling errors.

[Sovereigntist]

1 hour ago, New World Disorder said:

Sometimes it's use to fix grammar and spelling errors.

 

He is not using it to fix grammar and spelling errors, but to add and remove sentences in order to deliberately cover up what he previously said. If someone wants to correct their spelling mistakes I welcome it, but when their intention is to distort what they previously said I am going to point it out. Just look at what he actually said when I quoted him and compare it to what is there now.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Sovereigntist

[Sovereigntist]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Lol. So you want to lock me up?  Will you lock people up for not following your gospel?  Oh go on tell me.

Tell me about your legal enforcement of laws.

Do you actually want me to tell you how we intend to enforce the rule of law or are you just joking? I can explain it if you want me to, but if you are just going to shut me down then I am not going to even bother.

[Infidel Dog]

Well if all you have is another vague teaching from the mouths of babes whose specifics must be taken as an article of faith then yeah, you're probably best not to bother.

Wanna try something specific though. Tell us how you're going to go into something like a culture that runs on something like Sharia law and insinuate your "sovereigntist" law on them without bloodshed.

See that's the problem with global domination schemes, ultimately if you want to enforce them you have to get totalitarian.

Bill Gates has an interesting approach. He likes the idea of globalism too but  he says first, we've gotta do something about this damn overpopulation. 98% of you have got to go. He's like you though. He's kind of vague about how he's going to talk that 98% into it.

[New World Disorder]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

Well if all you have is another vague teaching from the mouths of babes whose specifics must be taken as an article of faith then yeah, you're probably best not to bother.

Wanna try something specific though. Tell us how you're going to go into something like a culture that runs on something like Sharia law and insinuate your "sovereigntist" law on them without bloodshed.

See that's the problem with global domination schemes, ultimately if you want to enforce them you have to get totalitarian.

Bill Gates has an interesting approach. He likes the idea of globalism too but  he says first, we've gotta do something about this damn overpopulation. 98% of you have got to go. He's like you though. He's kind of vague about how he's going to talk that 98% into it.

Here it from his own mouth.   He really wants to help the poor  

 

Interesting when the lady asks about how technology will help the poor, his go to was vaccines and contact tracing via technology.

3:35 is that time stamp. 

 

[Argus]

On 5/21/2020 at 1:13 PM, Infidel Dog said:

And if I seem a little hard on you, Kid, there's a reason.

These new youthful infatuations with global domination popping up to replace the failed old ones are always dangerous ideas. When you've been around a while you'll figure that out. For now such proposals must be relentlessly mocked at every level.

There's nothing wrong with seeing the detritus of incompetence all around and wanting to improve things. I came up with a new government myself many years ago (many - lol). My government was based on pure merit. We'd select out the smartest kids and guide them into a specific educational stream. And yes, that included university courses in government. Then, upon graduating, the best got slotted into posts as school board trustees and councilors of small towns. The best of these got promoted, watched, promoted again, until by the time you find people appointed to running important stuff you've got some pretty bright, knowledgeable, capable people with integrity who have passed through successive  waves of screening.

Which would be... the opposite of most of those who are in charge now.

[Argus]

On 5/20/2020 at 5:18 PM, 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

Well, sure, but it can't be done without additional taxes on the uhm, state. So why should the voters in that state want to see vast amounts of their taxes spent on helping some other country or province when that money could be used to help them instead?

You're also ignoring human behaviour patterns. Any social psychologist would tell you that it's settled science (insofar as the social sciences can claim a scientific basis) that all over the world across all cultures most people want to live among people just like themselves. They don't trust people from outside their 'tribe' and feel no real sense of kinship with them. They certainly aren't going to trust their own well-being to those foreigners in a world government where they suddenly become a small minority. That would be a government where the people living in what is now China and India get to make the decisions for what happens in England or Australia or Canada. Or, for that matter, Saudi Arabia or Egypt. Muslims have a long history of refusing to be governed by non-Muslims. The fifty odd Muslim states are not going to subject themselves to the will of a bunch of infidels.

 

 

[Infidel Dog]

Speaking of tribalism...I want to see Global Sovereign Kid's plan for say, cleaning out the no-go zone, enclaves of Europe.