Like or Dislike: 0  0

Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.

“It’s merely an administrative organization that services its member countries (currently 188 in number) by facilitating and coordinating the sharing of law enforcement organization.”

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/interpol.asp

Like or Dislike: 0  0

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/31interpol.html?_r=2

Here are some useful quotes :

“We don’t send officers into the field to arrest people; we don’t have agents that go investigate crimes,” said Rachel Billington, an Interpol spokeswoman. “This is always done by the national police in the member country under their national laws.”

and

Mr. Reagan’s order did not include other standard privileges — like immunity from certain tax requirements and from having its property or records subject to search and seizure — because at the time, Interpol had no permanent office or employees on United States soil.

That changed in 2004, when Interpol opened a liaison office at the United Nations in New York City. The office consists of five staff members, Ms. Billington said, and they have access to law enforcement information submitted by other countries with restrictions on who may receive it.

and

LaTonya Miller, the spokeswoman for the Justice Department’s Interpol bureau, said the order would have no effect on the bureau. It routinely receives and responds to Freedom of Information Act requests, she said, and will continue to do so.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Global Government is, on the contrary, the nanny state handing out benefits to those who present themselves as the most needy – in theory.”

Well, global government could mean pretty much anything from minarchism to a full blown 1984-esque police state, if we don’t draw a definitional sketch first. But as I don’t think that anything like that will happen in the foreseeable future, I don’t think that it’s worth spending time on.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

On the other hand, I do see value in global co-operation simply because interdependency lowers the risk of war and conflict.

Right, but isn’t co-operation the absolute opposite of Global Government?

Real co-operation includes the right to turn your back on anyone else if you do not want to co-operate, thus it is a vital part of the pressure of negotiations. So basicly the ultimate treath of war ensures the best forms of co-operation.

Global Government is, on the contrary, the nanny state handing out benefits to those who present themselves as the most needy – in theory.
Basicly Global Government only serves the ‘administrators’ and delegate everyone else to the state of slavery.

It is possible to write lengthy essays on this subject . . .

So it is much easier to simply say;

“Burn Feminists (of any gender) on the stake!” [ . . . or something to the same effect.]

This will scare some women and might result in some women getting burned*, as you cannot be sure it will not happen. It also burn mental calories among liberals and exhausting the enemy is a good thing – for the moment.

This is mainly a psychological war and we need to be better fighting it!

*) I’m not advocating this, just saying it to scare women.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

At least he’s honest about his childishly naive beliefs.

Thanks for many good posts.
Global Government is the ultimate evil as it is the idea of total control over human nature. A supporter of this may be childishly naive, but I question if we can afford to regard them as that.
That is too dangerous for Mankind.
We got to regard them as evil – as enemy!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

According to this helpful but crude categorization, there are four basic worldviews:

– Paranoia, “Take the best recent example: one can understand Russian traditional xenophobia and dread of enemies lurking on the horizon, given their history of repeated invasion at least once per generation, for a thousand years.”
– Machismo, “Wherever you see women oppressed and the environment ignored, wherever professionalism and skill are downgraded in favor of strutting and male-bonded loyalty groups, it’s a good bet that Machismo sets a culture’s major chord.”
– The East, “Everyone should subsume their sense of self to the larger group, to the nation, to the tribe, whatever. It’s more complicated than that, of course. For example, while the Eastern Meme hews to the ancient human pattern of pyramidal social hierarchies and a highly privileged leadership class — just like Paranoia, Feudalism, and Machismo — it also moderates many of the worst effects of hierarchy. The crux: individualism is dangerous. Deviation and eccentricity are worse. The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.”
– Dogma of Otherness, “The Dogma of Otherness is a worldview that actually encourages an appetite for newness. A hunger for diversity. An eagerness for change. Tolerance, naturally, plays a major role in the legends spread by this culture. (Look at the underlying message contained in most episodes of situation comedies!) A second pervasive thread, seen in the vast majority of our films and novels, is suspicion of authority.”

You could use that classification to better understand some of the perspectives found on the “manosphere” as well. Machismo could perhaps be connected to the practioners of game (in addition to DoO) and the upholders of traditional masculine virtues and values. Some parts seem very traditional and religious in their outlook (the East). Jay Hammers’s views in this discussion seem to resemble “dogma of otherness” mixed in with “the East”. I’m personally in the same “Dogma of Otherness” boat, though I try to look at all the evidence and to refrain from idealistic or implausible political thinking.

This post itself about Obama and goverment powers maybe could be classified as partly “paranoia” and partly “suspicion of authority” (SOA). Global government is perhaps more about “The East”, or at least would be if put to practice under the current global situation. Yes, it could easily mean totalitarianism; after all, China represents 20 % of the world population. In my opinion, it’s still good to have alternatives and healthy competition between national states.

On the other hand, I do see value in global co-operation simply because interdependency lowers the risk of war and conflict. Standardization is also useful to have to a certain extent. But currently I fail to see the advantages of One World Government or such, even if it would be somehow possible to create one. The question seems more theoretical than anything else for the foreseeable future.

@Jabherwochie: why, thank you. I aim to please. Mostly myself, tho, I’m no angel.
@Firepower: “Jay Hammers is a mindless fascist”. I think you actually mean “mindless communist.” HTH.

Like or Dislike: 0  0