Compare capitalist/socialist vs. New World Government System - We All Know First Two

[pvsi]

Having lived under both systems for an extensive periods of time, (USSR and USA) I have noticed that 1. Both systems were controlled by the same hidden dictatorship and 2. both systems were not actually what the name states they were, in other words a FRAUD. This may explain socialism in America and people going to prisons for merely criticizing the government in Soviet Union. Based on that I now also believe that other nations under secret control of the same hidden dictatorship include places like North Korea, China, Russia and many more. The reason for different nations, different systems, different political parties is to distract us from creating a system that is right for humanity.

A new world government system, something that 99.9% of you are fiercely against at the moment for the lack of understanding, will combine best of both systems. And the distractors will say "best of both for whom, it varies what is best for whom, what's best for you may not be best for others" etc. we must be able to identify and ignore the distractors, for humanity there is a very clear defining line what is right and what is wrong:

1) Liberate the entire world from international bankers charging interest on peoples’ money creating a welfare class of billionaires at the expense of degrading the rest of humanity. The world now is under their plague, and there is documented evidence that secret organizations within nations under their control have repeatedly sabotaged other nations so as not to allow them to rise to prosperity as an example.
2) Households on public assistance/welfare must not be allowed to have TV service; no sodas, potato chips etc. for food stamps. Modest retirement to every citizen of the world over the age of 50 – this money will not come from federal reserve press or from American tax payers as it is the case now, but from those nations themselves.
3) Property taxes must never rise – this hurts retired people the most. Currency will stabilize when it will no longer be manipulated by a welfare class of international bankers.
4) A - Rehabilitation island for addicts willing to quit their addictions – a self sustained island by volunteers who want to quit their addictions. addicts who enter the island are not allowed to leave for one year. Anyone caught smuggling any addictive types of food, alcohol or tobacco to the island is also not allowed to leave for one year. Parents of kids under the age of 21 shall have the authority to send their kids to this island. B – Lawless island for nuisance such as addicts who are beyond help, aggressive people and other enemies of civilized society. C – Special island for super smart people.
5) Democratic elections today are a Fraud - Establish a standard digital internet voting system where any candidates name can be typed in, with absolutely no names written on the ballot box – people who are incapable to type in their candidates name, have absolutely no business voting. To ensure that the establishment can not manipulate elections by selecting a few of their own friends, publicizing them and calling them opposition, a negative vote option must be implemented in all elections – each voter gets one for as well as one against vote, so that we can also vote against the candidate that the establishment media claims is popular and we believe is not.
6) Eliminate all private prisons – no one shall profit from inmates: all prisoners must sustain themselves either by their own labor, be funded by their families, find a charity or be put out of their misery – today in America, prisoners are a business, and that is why we have so many.


I BELIEVE WE CAN LIBERATE OURSELVES AND IT DOES NOT TAKE MONEY TO DO SO. different political parties and the use of money in my view have been set up as a DISTRACTION: you don't have a lot of money? - "forget politics, just watch the political circus on TV" But that is precisely how we will also differentiate ourselves from all the fraud, because the fraud originates on the establishment that is manipulated by money.

 

[DriftingSand]

Any government has to operate on a set premise with a set goal. A world government would end up being a large version of any number of current systems. It would either be Socialist, Capitalist, or Fascist (among any number of variations). Even if a Global Government set off on the right foot it would soon fall into the hands of greedy, power-hungry, controlling individuals. Here's where the real problems would begin. A handful of power-mad individuals in control of the entire world is a very dangerous prospect.

When it comes to mankind it's ALWAYS best to have a division in power. Too much power in the hands of too few will never work. History proves this time and again.

The only way to starve the International Bank to death is to stop borrowing from it. Unfortunately, every nation on earth and millions and millions of people owe money to the bank. I'd guess that the majority of folks on this board alone owe a bank for their house loan, car, college education, etc. Everybody feeds the monster and even folks who hate the banks apply for a credit card or buy a car on credit on a routine basis. Try getting everyone to stop paying their loan payments with the risk of losing their car or home.

I appreciate anyone who has a dream for a better world but your plan (as described above) will already turn people away from it and for a plan of that magnitude to work you would need popular support from the masses. There has to be a smooth transition from what we have to what you want. You would have to convince every culture in every corner of the world to "get on board."

 

[pvsi]

Any government has to operate on a set premise with a set goal. A world government would end up being a large version of any number of current systems. It would either be Socialist, Capitalist, or Fascist (among any number of variations). Even if a Global Government set off on the right foot it would soon fall into the hands of greedy, power-hungry, controlling individuals. Here's where the real problems would begin. A handful of power-mad individuals in control of the entire world is a very dangerous prospect.

That is what we have now, and not what I advocate.

When it comes to mankind it's ALWAYS best to have a division in power. Too much power in the hands of too few will never work. History proves this time and again.

Division of power is never good, because it is like conjoined twins, a snake with two heads, what is best for mankind is that there would be no dictatorship, no leader that can not be unseated - see point 5 of OP.

Most of the dictatorships as I explained in OP are a part of the same non democratic criminal industry run by international bankers, with intent, as I explained to create an illusion of diversity and evil that people in power can do, but what people get to be in power is controlled by those who place them there in the first place: I direct your attention to the latest new government in Kiev - it was NOT democratically elected, it was SELECTED by the hidden dictatorship of international bankers who simply "toppled" one of their own.

The only way to starve the International Bank to death is to stop borrowing from it. Unfortunately, every nation on earth and millions and millions of people owe money to the bank. I'd guess that the majority of folks on this board alone owe a bank for their house loan, car, college education, etc. Everybody feeds the monster and even folks who hate the banks apply for a credit card or buy a car on credit on a routine basis. Try getting everyone to stop paying their loan payments with the risk of losing their car or home.

Unfortunately there is no other way than to take over the world as I seek to do. And fortunately I have no intention to live this life or to have children under the slavery of international bankers - as American saying goes "live free or die".

I appreciate anyone who has a dream for a better world but your plan (as described above) will already turn people away from it and for a plan of that magnitude to work you would need popular support from the masses.

Correct. only with support of the masses, to which I have not yet managed to get through, and so far my ideas are like an egg in the shell which may either rot or one day hatch. I understand that very well.

There has to be a smooth transition from what we have to what you want. You would have to convince every culture in every corner of the world to "get on board."

Right, and I am confident about it, but I only have to convince those who talk to me, like you, not those who ignore me and hide. And if I did not have the best intentions for humanity in mind, being as unpopular as I am, I would have given up or changed my song a long time ago. But if there needs to be a world war to get people to pay attention, then I believe even that is possible if god is behind me, and I do not believe god can not be behind me, because my whole vision developed from questioning god, about what is right for humanity, and never what is right for me.

 

[emilynghiem]

For small groups, single projects or goals, yes, you can have a single director working with a board.

For anything bigger, you need "checks and balances" and delegation of authority to competent people.

Decisions should be made by proper process and consensus, so there is no politics.

There should be conflict resolution and an agreed "due process" for making and CHANGING decisions.

If people cannot agree, or there is too much pressure or power concentrated,
the group should be re-organized where the members DO have transparency,
DIRECT communications, and accountability TO EACH OTHER.

where people and groups go wrong is they get out of balance, or lose touch in communications and decision making in the hierarchy.

If you let people form their own groups and structures and don't "try to dictate for them"
then people can adapt to use whatever model works for their group, and if not, go form their OWN GROUP that DOES represent them.

We need to do this anyway -- all people need to have a structure that represents their interests or else we have people and groups "competing" to dominate or exclude each other.

All people should have their OWN groups, where we can prevent or reduce conflict.

In general the mode or culture of "competing as adversaries" is changing where people have more freedom and access to "collaborating" as separate groups respected equally.

To establish equal standing and protections, we would need to train and mentor ALL people to represent themselves as directly as possible in groups, and then indirectly when it gets on a larger scale. But the indirect representation cannot be abused to override people's consent on a direct level. The system of representation should help but not hurt.

That is where people go wrong, is they abuse the power of greater numbers, resources or influence to try to Compete and OVERRULE others, instead of using their "collective resources" to help their own group operate independently and to collaborate with others.

People can choose ANY system of govt or economic set up, as long as there are means for managing between groups to accommodate each other's methods and interests.

Thanks again for posting. I have friends ready for a Constitutional Convention,
and we do need to address and form an agreement on the role of govt and parties,
and how the financing through the federal reserve and govt/states can be managed
by party, states or local networks and quit fighting over concentrated centralized control.

 

[pvsi]

For small groups, single projects or goals, yes, you can have a single director working with a board.

For anything bigger, you need "checks and balances" and delegation of authority to competent people.

Decisions should be made by proper process and consensus, so there is no politics.

There should be conflict resolution and an agreed "due process" for making and CHANGING decisions.

If people cannot agree, or there is too much pressure or power concentrated,
the group should be re-organized where the members DO have transparency,
DIRECT communications, and accountability TO EACH OTHER.

where people and groups go wrong is they get out of balance, or lose touch in communications and decision making in the hierarchy.

If you let people form their own groups and structures and don't "try to dictate for them"
then people can adapt to use whatever model works for their group, and if not, go form their OWN GROUP that DOES represent them.

We need to do this anyway -- all people need to have a structure that represents their interests or else we have people and groups "competing" to dominate or exclude each other.

All people should have their OWN groups, where we can prevent or reduce conflict.

In general the mode or culture of "competing as adversaries" is changing where people have more freedom and access to "collaborating" as separate groups respected equally.

To establish equal standing and protections, we would need to train and mentor ALL people to represent themselves as directly as possible in groups, and then indirectly when it gets on a larger scale. But the indirect representation cannot be abused to override people's consent on a direct level. The system of representation should help but not hurt.

That is where people go wrong, is they abuse the power of greater numbers, resources or influence to try to Compete and OVERRULE others, instead of using their "collective resources" to help their own group operate independently and to collaborate with others.

People can choose ANY system of govt or economic set up, as long as there are means for managing between groups to accommodate each other's methods and interests.

Thanks again for posting. I have friends ready for a Constitutional Convention,
and we do need to address and form an agreement on the role of govt and parties,
and how the financing through the federal reserve and govt/states can be managed
by party, states or local networks and quit fighting over concentrated centralized control.

Ok Emily, I understand what you are saying, but what I need you or anyone else from the smart people I tagged for this post to explain to me is this: How will the dictatorship of international bankers be stopped? Driftingsand began proposing solution but it ended with the word "unfortunately" as you can see above. My main concern with politics is mostly war mongering that many in America glued to TV may not be aware of, but I see the world drifting into WW3, and while people like my friend driftingsand here takes comfort in the fact that it may be Jesus' way or way for Jesus to come back, because it's all in the bible anyway, I personally am not nearly as comfortable with what I see happening, what America, or the international criminals who are using America as a whore are doing around the world. it needs to stop before America itself will be completely destroyed, and I do not see any political party or as you say group of different interests changing anything - group of people seems to me are only good at arguing, and I have to admit that being a good person as you and drifting sand already acknowledged that I am, I could not deal with any of the US senators, and if I would wake up president of USA one day, I would either end up resigning within a week or so, or getting a machinegun and wiping out congress/senate in session. That is why I never even attempted to run for president - not interested in games, arguments etc. I get plenty of arguments with my father. Every day I watch liveleak and see the wars USA is pushing in Syria, Ukraine, before that as you know Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia - it is a diseased nation where different groups (mostly democrats and republicans) are blaming each other for their own crimes, each acting innocent. This will only lead to WW3 and Jesus may not even come back after it.