Who created nations and for what purpose?

[pvsi]

I am so confused that I don't even know whose side I am on any more: the war mongers who profit from divisions of nations (as well as division of political parties, families, etc.) or if I am on the side of the people who ignore reality. Maybe someone can educate me, because I really do not understand the purpose of nations - just so the government would not be completely corrupt? what government in the world is there left that is not completely corrupt? I would think one world government would be easier to be held accountable for it's actions as opposed to different governments and different parties - you can for example now blame the deteriorating situation in Iraq on either Saddam or America, Bush or Obama, you can blame conflict in Ukraine on either Russians or USA or Euranians, on Obamba or on IMF, Conflict in Syria you can blame either on Assad or on Russia or on USA or who ever you chose, and then you have something to argue about and play an expert while the people are dying.

With one leader, one government if this nonsense persists, if the leader does not want to give up power after his term expires, if you hang the leader and choose another leader, problem solved. Seems to me that the idea of nations is to create jobs for the likes of John Kerry, Putin and other dingbats who can play the peace makers at the expense of people formerly like me who unlike most of the cockroaches in politics, have actually suffered under this political circus, so yes I admit it, that as a leader I would wipe out all the political scum better than or at least as good as anyone else on this planet can, ANY person who has actually had to live under oppression of politics would.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

There will always be wars and rumors of wars. A one world govt will never solve that problem.

 

[pvsi]

There will always be wars and rumors of wars. A one world govt will never solve that problem.

And neither will the multi government puppet circus who profits from wars at the expense of humanity.

 

[KNB]

Will the one-world government do anything to crush the greed of the global super-rich who will create the one-world government? No? Then a one-world government is a stupid ******* idea.

Legalize Cannabis Sativa again, decentralize global production of raw materials, make every nation and community more independent, and raise the standard of living for every single human being on Earth.

The global economy is based on energy. That energy which is currently acquired from monopolized fossil fuels can be supplied by the global mass production of industrial hemp, both for transportation fuel and electricity. This shift in the source of our global energy will redistribute the inconceivable amounts of wealth on this planet back to the global community. When fossil fuels are no longer the basis for everything that we do (drive cars, run boats, fly planes, international production and shipping, generating electricity, making plastic, etc.), the wealth generated from the energy industry will flow back to the common farmer and rural communities worldwide. This is why Cannabis hemp remains illegal as the dangerous drug menace, "Marihuana", forty years after the Shafer Commission told Nixon to legalize it and 70 years after America legalized it to defeat the Axis and keep America free.

We the People are being lied to, and we have been lied to for at least the past three generations.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngc0_mQ5tjE]Hemp For Victory (1942) U.S. Department of Agriculture - YouTube[/ame]

 

[asaratis]

I am so confused that I don't even know whose side I am on any more: the war mongers who profit from divisions of nations (as well as division of political parties, families, etc.) or if I am on the side of the people who ignore reality. Maybe someone can educate me, because I really do not understand the purpose of nations - just so the government would not be completely corrupt? what government in the world is there left that is not completely corrupt? I would think one world government would be easier to be held accountable for it's actions as opposed to different governments and different parties - you can for example now blame the deteriorating situation in Iraq on either Saddam or America, Bush or Obama, you can blame conflict in Ukraine on either Russians or USA or Euranians, on Obamba or on IMF, Conflict in Syria you can blame either on Assad or on Russia or on USA or who ever you chose, and then you have something to argue about and play an expert while the people are dying.

With one leader, one government if this nonsense persists, if the leader does not want to give up power after his term expires, if you hang the leader and choose another leader, problem solved. Seems to me that the idea of nations is to create jobs for the likes of John Kerry, Putin and other dingbats who can play the peace makers at the expense of people formerly like me who unlike most of the cockroaches in politics, have actually suffered under this political circus, so yes I admit it, that as a leader I would wipe out all the political scum better than or at least as good as anyone else on this planet can, ANY person who has actually had to live under oppression of politics would.

You have a long way to go...education-wise. Governments at all levels are consequences of the failure of anarchy to provide a peaceful way of life. No matter the group...a family, a community, a village, a township, a county, a state...some form of government has to make and enforce some rules. This has been true ever since mankind discovered safety in numbers.

 

[pvsi]

Will the one-world government do anything to crush the greed of the global super-rich who will create the one-world government? No? Then a one-world government is

Do not attempt to answer the questions that are to be answered by ME, the spokesman of the new world government. The answer to your question is YES. Global super rich try to PRETEND that they want a one world government, when in fact they profit from division, pedophile PRETENDS he wants to help the child whom he intends to rape, liberals and conservatives PRETEND to care about the interests of American middle class when all they really care about is their own political career. Things are not as they seem: No one will create a one world government but people who care about defeating the welfare class of billionaires - this welfare class already DOES control the world, they controlled USSR, they control Putin, they control puppets in North Korea, they control democrat and the republican party, they funded Lenin/Stalin's revolution, they PRETEND that Stalin was a bank robber because it sounds better with the people "a brave McMaverick" rather than a sissy who was funded by bankers.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I am so confused that I don't even know whose side I am on any more: the war mongers who profit from divisions of nations (as well as division of political parties, families, etc.) or if I am on the side of the people who ignore reality. Maybe someone can educate me, because I really do not understand the purpose of nations - just so the government would not be completely corrupt? what government in the world is there left that is not completely corrupt? I would think one world government would be easier to be held accountable for it's actions as opposed to different governments and different parties - you can for example now blame the deteriorating situation in Iraq on either Saddam or America, Bush or Obama, you can blame conflict in Ukraine on either Russians or USA or Euranians, on Obamba or on IMF, Conflict in Syria you can blame either on Assad or on Russia or on USA or who ever you chose, and then you have something to argue about and play an expert while the people are dying.

With one leader, one government if this nonsense persists, if the leader does not want to give up power after his term expires, if you hang the leader and choose another leader, problem solved. Seems to me that the idea of nations is to create jobs for the likes of John Kerry, Putin and other dingbats who can play the peace makers at the expense of people formerly like me who unlike most of the cockroaches in politics, have actually suffered under this political circus, so yes I admit it, that as a leader I would wipe out all the political scum better than or at least as good as anyone else on this planet can, ANY person who has actually had to live under oppression of politics would.

You have a long way to go...education-wise. Governments at all levels are consequences of the failure of anarchy to provide a peaceful way of life. No matter the group...a family, a community, a village, a township, a county, a state...some form of government has to make and enforce some rules. This has been true ever since mankind discovered safety in numbers.

Exactly. Nations started out as tiny communities and grew because united we stand, divided we fall.

This is also why all the "states rights" nonsense only serves to weaken us.

 

[pvsi]

I am so confused that I don't even know whose side I am on any more: the war mongers who profit from divisions of nations (as well as division of political parties, families, etc.) or if I am on the side of the people who ignore reality. Maybe someone can educate me, because I really do not understand the purpose of nations - just so the government would not be completely corrupt? what government in the world is there left that is not completely corrupt? I would think one world government would be easier to be held accountable for it's actions as opposed to different governments and different parties - you can for example now blame the deteriorating situation in Iraq on either Saddam or America, Bush or Obama, you can blame conflict in Ukraine on either Russians or USA or Euranians, on Obamba or on IMF, Conflict in Syria you can blame either on Assad or on Russia or on USA or who ever you chose, and then you have something to argue about and play an expert while the people are dying.

With one leader, one government if this nonsense persists, if the leader does not want to give up power after his term expires, if you hang the leader and choose another leader, problem solved. Seems to me that the idea of nations is to create jobs for the likes of John Kerry, Putin and other dingbats who can play the peace makers at the expense of people formerly like me who unlike most of the cockroaches in politics, have actually suffered under this political circus, so yes I admit it, that as a leader I would wipe out all the political scum better than or at least as good as anyone else on this planet can, ANY person who has actually had to live under oppression of politics would.

You have a long way to go...education-wise. Governments at all levels are consequences of the failure of anarchy to provide a peaceful way of life. No matter the group...a family, a community, a village, a township, a county, a state...some form of government has to make and enforce some rules. This has been true ever since mankind discovered safety in numbers.

The purpose of the new world government is not to dictate to the local governments, but to merely protect them from the schemes of international bankers. Maybe I should put that on the top of the web site so people realize?

 

[KNB]

Put this on top of your website: International bankers finance the one-world government.

 

[pvsi]

Put this on top of your website: International bankers finance the one-world government.

This is FALSE, because their so called one world government is NOT elected by the people, for example they denounced elections in Syria where they did not run the circus, they denounced elections in Crimea and in Donetsk where despite all the violence orchestrated by these international bankers over 90% of population turned to vote against the international banker run Kiev junta - they financed Lenin's revolution who came to power not through elections but through a bloody coup as usual, same with Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations recently.

International bankers finance their own oligarchy that has nothing at all to do with government of the people. And I do not consider international bankers to even be humans, much less people. in my view they are animals. And if you believe they represent the people, or that people elect them, you are ignorant: my chickens elected me to be the leader of the new world government. You have an option to follow me or them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am so confused that I don't even know whose side I am on any more: the war mongers who profit from divisions of nations (as well as division of political parties, families, etc.) or if I am on the side of the people who ignore reality. Maybe someone can educate me, because I really do not understand the purpose of nations - just so the government would not be completely corrupt? what government in the world is there left that is not completely corrupt? I would think one world government would be easier to be held accountable for it's actions as opposed to different governments and different parties - you can for example now blame the deteriorating situation in Iraq on either Saddam or America, Bush or Obama, you can blame conflict in Ukraine on either Russians or USA or Euranians, on Obamba or on IMF, Conflict in Syria you can blame either on Assad or on Russia or on USA or who ever you chose, and then you have something to argue about and play an expert while the people are dying.

With one leader, one government if this nonsense persists, if the leader does not want to give up power after his term expires, if you hang the leader and choose another leader, problem solved. Seems to me that the idea of nations is to create jobs for the likes of John Kerry, Putin and other dingbats who can play the peace makers at the expense of people formerly like me who unlike most of the cockroaches in politics, have actually suffered under this political circus, so yes I admit it, that as a leader I would wipe out all the political scum better than or at least as good as anyone else on this planet can, ANY person who has actually had to live under oppression of politics would.

You have a long way to go...education-wise. Governments at all levels are consequences of the failure of anarchy to provide a peaceful way of life. No matter the group...a family, a community, a village, a township, a county, a state...some form of government has to make and enforce some rules. This has been true ever since mankind discovered safety in numbers.

Exactly. Nations started out as tiny communities and grew because united we stand, divided we fall.

This is also why all the "states rights" nonsense only serves to weaken us.

The central planner speaks.
Hey genius, the 10th Amendment was written to prevent the central government from having more power than the States.
The US Constitution is a LIMITING document.
And it will STAY that way.
And don't go reaching for the 'supremacy clause'...That is irrespective of States Rights.

 

[pvsi]

Nations started out as tiny communities and grew because united we stand, divided we fall.

And that is exactly why humanity will fall if divided and will stand if united, and it explains the power of the cancer to humanity which is the so called new world order, which can only be replaced by the new world government, where the people actually ELECT their representatives for their government.

 

[g4racer]

Nationalism is something relatively new. Before Nationalism we had Empires and before that we had tribes. Defined boarders was one of the first steps for the official formation of nations and nationalism which was a process that took time. Each time the scholars think they have things figured out they find more exceptions to the rules. Germany and France could be the first two present day nations to have defined boarders. Before that the areas for these loosely formed nations were flexible. Even today some in Germany feel that part of northern France should have been part of Germany. England or the UK may appear to be easy, being islands; but with the Scotts to the North and Wales being the western frontier it took longer than expected.
The mid-east didn't seem to be too interested in nationalism because of their Bedouin lifestyle. When you consider that people have existed for about 50,000 years with large centers of population appearing in several different areas it is remarkable that what we call civilization did not develop earlier. The first was that in Mesopotamia the second being Egypt. There doesn't appear to be a connect between the two. They both developed a means of written communications and a social structure as well as setting up a government.
Sorry, I get carried away with history and social structure.
Some time after the Crusades things started to change and areas began taking shape with major changes occurring around 1700. Some believe Nationalism came into being with the industrial revolution. All things which made a nation existed long before nations did. They all had to appear at the same place at the same time to make a nation.

 

[pvsi]

Nationalism is something relatively new. Before Nationalism we had Empires and before that we had tribes. Defined boarders was one of the first steps for the official formation of nations and nationalism which was a process that took time. Each time the scholars think they have things figured out they find more exceptions to the rules. Germany and France could be the first two present day nations to have defined boarders. Before that the areas for these loosely formed nations were flexible. Even today some in Germany feel that part of northern France should have been part of Germany. England or the UK may appear to be easy, being islands; but with the Scotts to the North and Wales being the western frontier it took longer than expected.
The mid-east didn't seem to be too interested in nationalism because of their Bedouin lifestyle. When you consider that people have existed for about 50,000 years with large centers of population appearing in several different areas it is remarkable that what we call civilization did not develop earlier. The first was that in Mesopotamia the second being Egypt. There doesn't appear to be a connect between the two. They both developed a means of written communications and a social structure as well as setting up a government.
Sorry, I get carried away with history and social structure.
Some time after the Crusades things started to change and areas began taking shape with major changes occurring around 1700. Some believe Nationalism came into being with the industrial revolution. All things which made a nation existed long before nations did. They all had to appear at the same place at the same time to make a nation.

Interesting post. It recently came, and now it is clearly time it has to go. The whole idea of "illegal" immigrants in America, by non other that Bush supporters who supported his illegal invasion of Iraq, is so pathetic, much more pathetic, than the most pathetic, oldest, ugliest whore with the most make up and bling blings trying to act sexy

 

[g4racer]

LordBrownTrout LordBrownTrout
I like your statement. I'm sure the NSA, CIA and every group like those in the world like it more than I do. it's that attitude that justifies their existence.

 

[g4racer]

pvsi

I am Dyslexic and have some problems communicating. I would like to know what you posted has to do with the formation of nations.
"Your opinions are like asses: you all have one and they all stink" Does your statement mean you don't have one?
'All of your arguments against me" What arguments against you?
"Meds" are for heart and digestive system
"what have you been smoking" Winston Lights
"your grammar sucks" I agree; but I think I should get an A for trying
"English is not your first language" not only the first; but the only one

 

[Katzndogz]

You aren't. Confused. Just woefully uneducated. A few classes in history would clear that confusion right up and put the city - states in their proper classification. Then you will understand how nations came to be.

 

[g4racer]

I have had them and not confused. I didn't refer to city-states as the a part of the evolutionary process which began with the creation of societies and ended with nationalism. Interesting as they may be they were only a part of the process.
I am presently working on a Masters in Architecture which due to my age will never complete. I don't care about the degree I enrolled in the program for the structured learning. When I studied Theology, many years ago, I had the best OT professor ever and took all the courses he taught. I had been told that if you took more than one course each term from him you would probably flunk out of school. My record was 3 courses with him.
The thing that bothers me most is my right hand being in a cast while I wait for surgery in about a month. When I get the use of my hand it will be used to reassemble my '65 G4 Ginetta so it will race again. I'd like to drive it; but medical conditions make that impossible. I have asked a friend to drive it, he jumped at the chance.