Jews are right

So as we all know, jews most likely plan on dominating the whole world by creating one government for all of humanity. But that isn't so bad now is it? Humanity should strive to unite itself so we can finally reach deeper into space and start actualy colonising.

“As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable.” - Albert Einstein

Jews are literaly doing what WE (whites, westerners, Europeans and it's descendants) should've already done, but no we are fighting amongst ourselves, threatening whole humankind.
We should become like the jews and take the world into our hands because let's face it, we are just going to destroy ourselves. Earth won't last long if we continue like this.
So everytime you see an European (or it's descendants) nationality you don't like, stop yourself from starting any unnecessary arguments. (Like Brits against Germans, EU vs NA,...) We are just dividing ourselves and getting jewed.

>by creating one government for all of humanity
thats the globalists, they have no religion as far as i can tell

The nonsense b8 aside, I never really got the point of all the enthusiasm for space colonization. Space is an incredibly hostile, uninhabitable shithole. There's plenty of free space on earth, humans only use a tiny fraction of it. Some people say that we need to colonize in case we blow up the earth or something, but does a shitty little Mars colony have any hope of long term survival without support from the Earth?

You're right, and a serb should be in charge of the balkan provinces. Good luck.

>but does a shitty little Mars colony have any hope of long term survival
depends on the technology.

All races except for Europeans and East Asians should be sterilized, and all non-whites should be rounded up and deported from Western Countries. Women should be banned from voting. Trannies should be sent to mental hospitals. Gays should be excluded from adoption, and the welfare state should be gradually abolished.

If all of these things were to happen, society would begin to sort itself out. There would still be wars, but war is a necessary evil. Without the occasional war, society becomes weak and coddled. We need to be at our best, constantly testing ourselves.

Just yesterday I was walking by a lake, and along the path were domesticated geese and ducks. One of them walked right in front of me. Not an ounce of fear. No survival instinct whatsoever. I could have reached down and snapped it's neck if I wanted to. Then it dawned on me, remove the predators from the wild, and the prey become helpless. This is why we need war, why we need conflict. A utopian society could never truly exist.

The best we can hope for is to model society after previous successful empires at the height of their success.

Yea I know, but a white lead globalism movement is something I believe to be the best option for us.
I'm not baiting anything just trying to open new viewpoints for Sup Forums , nationalism doesn't work anymore because normies are losing the feeling of belonging to a country. And for space: I get your point, but with the current way of life humanity has, Earth won't be able to completly support us.
Nice b8 m8

I know that the war is needed and unavoidable, but is what is the lesser evil for us: waging war against our own race or waging a war against other races (not saying there are aliens or anything but you get what I mean). Humanity had always tended to gather in larger and larger groups.

Just in case you're actually serious, how the hell do you expect a world government to not devolve into a tyrannical dystopia on day 2? Literally what is the actual mechanism that could possibly prevent this from immediately happening? No armies to make war against them. Nowhere to run. With current and future technology, nowhere to hide either. I just have a hard time believing that someone could seriously contemplate this idea for more than 10 seconds and not immediately decide that it's the single worst pissible outcome for humanity short of outright global nuclear war?

> white lead globalism movement -best option for us.
I think not, because chances are high that somebody would take power who shouldnt have it, as always in history.

Decentralization would be the best option.
And no corrupt governements who are controlled by foreign or non-state enteties, so no threat of war.

How do you expect any current nation's government to not devolve into a tyrannical dystopia on day 2? yea..

Two reasons - you can freely emigrate if you choose (notice how countries where you CAN'T freely emigrate, like North Korea, are in fact tyrannical dystopias), and that many western countries will militarily invade you if you become a tyrannical dystopia. Some countries like the USSR that were too big to invade managed to be tyrannical dystopias anyway.

So basically, the exact things I pointed out when I explained why a world government us an awful idea.

Jesus, you seriously thought you had me with that rebuttal, didn't you. Grow a brain cell or two, user.

True that, but as you can see it's impossible to have the perfect government, or ruling structure. But with the current competetivity amongst nations we risk getting into actual nuclear warfare. All nations have very bad farmland managment, our farmlands are getting exhausted. The population on Earth is on a huge rise to a level where Earth won't be able to support it.
This theory for one planet, one government still need a lot of theoretical planning and how it should be set up, but I still think it is the best for us. Humanity is globalised and we can't revert it. We have to work with what we have, have to adapt.

> How do you expect any current nation's government to not devolve into a tyrannical dystopia
You didn't answer my question you only answered what a person can't do to escape from it. As you can see there are "tyrannical dystopias atm that is nothing to done about, there were in history and there will be.
> Grow a brain cell or two, user.
You're the one to say it LOL

A country doesn't devolve into tyranny because if it did, people would leave or it would get invaded. That's what prevents it. Do you seriously think that if, for example, the USA conquered the entire world, its own government wouldn't immediately collapse, visibly or invisibly, and be replaced by total despotic authority by whoever controls the guns and nukes?

Are you just this bad at reading comprehension or is it your common sense that's the problem?

> it's impossible to have the perfect government
perfetionism is always impossible.
a self-regulating system with moral laws which are based on reason and resource managment, would work very good.
>current competetivity-nuclear warfare
yeah, it seems we are too advanced for our own good.
>our farmlands are getting exhausted
i know, food is less and less nutritious.
though Russia houldnt have that problem, we have a lot of unused land.
>The population on Earth
with the technology we have, we could support it, theoretically.
>This theory for one planet, one government-is the best for us
I completly disagree. too much concentration of power in one place.
Would always be perceived as tyrannical.
>Humanity is globalised and we can't revert it
Its in the process of being globalised.
Idk if it will fail in Europe, but it will fail in Asian countries for sure.
>have to adapt.
there cant be any adaptation to destruction, there only can be measures to revert part of the demage already done and preventing it in the future.

Competitivity and MAD exactly prevents the use of wmd's.
Governments have to be pitted against each other to keep them running efficiently.

That depends on the people not the government. The only reason big countries don't invade each other anymore is nuclear warfare. Countries always seek to expand their influence, it's basic human principle of survival -> ensuring your survival and of your offspring is at max by expanding your living area.
The people are the ones who shape the nation's beliefs.
Current people in all nations are under heavy globalist influence. They barely care about nationalism and their smaller communities.

Also what you define as tyranny seems bad. You say an example of tyranny is a government that attacks everyone? That's wrong.

As for united humanity, do you seriously think there would be no protection against "tyranny" government? The same principle applies as now.

>Current people in all nations are under heavy globalist influence. They barely care about nationalism and their smaller communities.
[citation needed]
>You say an example of tyranny is a government that attacks everyone?
That isn't even remotely what I said. I said what PREVENTS tyranny is the threat of another nation attacking you in order to prevent human rights abuses. Think world war 2 here.
>As for united humanity, do you seriously think there would be no protection against "tyranny" government? The same principle applies as now.
What protection? Who would do the protecting? How would they stand up against a world government that controls all their armies? There is no possible protection or resistance.

I just don't think you understand how governments work, at all. Do you seriously think that people are "protected" by a bunch of leaders sitting down in a room and talking to each other? No. You're protected by the implied threat of violence against people who would do you harm. In a world government situation, there IS NO such threat. That's why there is no "same principle" that applies in that case.

Since I've already explained the same thing to you three times, I'm not going to explain it again. If you still don't get it, I don't know how to explain it any more clearly.

humans can't rely solely on technology for a long time. if shit stops working you need to be able to breath air, drink in the lake and hunt deers

Because what you are saying is your view point based on maybe few facts and some relevant information, mine is the same. I made this thread to discuss globalisation. I get what you're saying but the population behaviour is changing and globalised. There is very little will for war

My view is based on the reality that countries frequently turn into actual tyrannies that no sane human would want to live in. This is objective fact.

Your view is based on fantastical speculation about a fairytale world government that for some totally unspecified reason refrains from abusing its total, uncontested global power, while much less powerful governments have already been abusing significantly smaller, restricted amounts of power.

I'd accuse you of shilling for the jews like you were pretending to do in the OP, but I'm pretty sure you're just embarrassed to admit that tou didn't think your idea through and were unable to understand my point at first.

It's always going to end up like yugoslavia. Either the ruling elite will turn on the ruled classes or one faction in the governement will find a way to pit people against each other for political gain.
> muh global party people
That's not how it works at all and you know it.

I'd rather be ruled by Jews than Muslims, just sayin. We need to get shitlam out of our politics.