"The spirit of nationality is a sour ferment of the old wine of tribalism in the new bottles of democracy."
Within which neither works out too well. "Nations" are an anachronism, and have been for quite a long time, leading to a very large proportion of the problems, destruction, corruption, and indeed lack of democracy in the world today. Is there even really such a thing as a "nation"? What do people relate to? By the time you start rallying to a flag, you've been well and truly spun. What you feel for, on the other hand, is your town, your neighbourhood, your valley, not those weird people in the next town. We have to outgrow this rather recent, cobbled-together, misbegotten concept of "nations". And sod the Skunk Hollow weirdos in the next valley - but you'd probably be thrilled to pair off as sister-cities with those nice foreign folks in Outer Otjiwarongo, well-known as you are for your kindness and hospitality to strangers. So, Curtis, before Whitey arrived, what sort of place was this delusion you call "America"? The Native Americans would have looked at the "nation" you now hang a flag of pride over in much the same way as you're looking at what Hakan proposes, no? Would they have been wrong? Maybe not... considering what many people, including many Americans, are saying about the behaviour of the American government of today - a New World Order global government by default, and not one to be trusted. To put it more strongly, one that isn't at all trusted, not even by Americans - perhaps especially not by Americans. And there's not a thing anyone can do about it. Out of control, a rogue at large. From The Washington Times a couple of days ago - not exactly a left-wing propaganda sheet: "If Americans do not increasingly come to understand that this nation is at risk because of the international animosity and disdain building against us, then, ultimately, those reactions and conditions are likely to reach back and do further damage to the domestic issues that so dominate politics." http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20021106-16015406.htm Policy issues not found on ballots One World, yes - the only way forward. It's only in America that you find this terror of the "global government", a peculiarly American paranoia that makes no real sense. A Cold War hangover maybe. Anyway, I don't think it's a global government as such that's being proposed. It's not just Hakan who proposes what he proposed, not at all, it goes back a long way, as he intimated, and in many ways it's THE great debate of the age. We ought to start finding some solutions, and right sharpish, while we still have the chance. The UN was emasculated from the start - by the very nations who then conveniently claim it doesn't work, never mind that that's the way they wanted it, and still do, so they can tilt the playing field their way and call it "level". How many UN resolutions on the Middle East has the US vetoed? And if it hadn't? Would the crisis have grown and grown the way it has to the lethal and intractable problem it's now become? Almost certainly not. Hakan's dead right, no matter how much many Americans might struggle with the idea. Yes, give me a world where Bush and Putin et al are only "governors" any time. Make it soon! Keith >"... somewhat represent a world democracy is UN"?? "Democracy must be >shown at a global level to survive"?? > >Pardon if I offend anyone on this list ... but the concept of a "world >democracy" makes me very nervous. It, by the way it is sometimes talked >about, implies in an unsaid way .... the existence of a so-called >"global-level government". ... to which "all" so-called "governments" must >implicitly be subserveant to its "global-level rules". > >This would to me imply that, in the same way we in America have a >City-n-County level .... State Government level ... and Federal Government >level, there would be a new level ... a "Global" Government level..... to >which our "President" (Clinton/Bush/Etc) would relate as a "Governor" does >to a "President". Only in this case it would be ... what .. a "Global >President".?? > >And then what?? Would President Vladamir Putin also be a "Governor"?? Of >the Russian Region?? Would Arafat be a "Governor"?? Of the Palestinian >"region"?? > >Then countries wouldn't be countries anymore ... but only "States" (with >"Governors") .... in a what?? A "Global Country"?? The "one-world >country"?? > >What would happen to our illustrious document .... the Constitution?? > >I ....... dunno .... Hakan. I see where you're coming from ... and I >understand what you mean. But I'm not sure if "that's" the way to handle >it. It sets a very eerie precedence. And makes me very nervous. > >Curtis > > >Get your free newsletter at >http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Now we have democracies based on countries and different organizations of >appointment of governments. The only body that somewhat represent a world >democracy is UN. I really hope that we can show respect this time and not >repeat history. Democracy will not work, if we do not introduce it on a >world wide basis and condemn any kind of occupation. > >Democracy must be shown at a global level to survive. The way that US and >some others behave is by no definition to describe as international >democracy. We must nurture and respect UN as a body at any cost, otherwise >we will repeat history and democracy becomes a theatric farce. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
