Tranzi: The new monster under the bed?

[ScratchMonkey]

"Tranzi", short for Transnational Progressive, seems to be the subject of a lot of blogs lately as the successor to communism and terrorism as the new thing to be scared of. Has anyone heard of it?

I'd read it in the afterward to John Ringo's latest military science fiction novel "Yellow Eyes":

http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2...afterward.html

[aeroripper]

To summarize, their goal is world government with the elimination of all national sovereignty? I never liked the idea of the ICC, those people should be tried by their own people, not some international court.

Personally I see the march towards some form of world government inevitable, and it probably won't be very democratic in nature (judging from modern international institutions like the WTO).

[Ferris Bueller]

My personal feeling on the matter is that a world government, although inevitable, is impossible until some greater purpose galvanizes the human race into unanimous cooperation. Now, whether this cause is war, aliens, space travel, disease, the apocalypse or whatever, is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely too much division between the various people of the world and no cause to rally behind. We just need that cause to step up and take a swing.

[BigGaayAl]

Hehe off course I was expecting a picture of your new trans-sexual cat under the bed here Scratchmonkey .

I do have a remark on topic, or rather a matter to investigate: what's with the paranoia about world government? From Alex Jones, to Bill O'Reilly it is the same "UN is out to get you" rhetoric. I find this baffling. What is so wrong with that idea? That the US won't be the boss anymore? That 1 power will control the world? It is like that now. Big corporations own the world, and most politicians in it. I'd prefer the elected kind of government.

Why don't all people who fear this idea, read a conversation by two of the greatest minds of our century on the subject. In the wake of WW1, Sigmund Freud, had a discussion through mail, with Albert Einstein.

The stakes were high, as the subject (also the title) was complex: "Why war?"

In the conversation, from unimaginably different backgrounds, the two minds come to the conclusion that the only way to stop the propagation of war, is through the installation of a world government.

A system of laws that supersedes the nations and unifies the world, is the only conceivable alternative to the "current survival of the fittest" organisation of the worlds nations (special thanks to John Bolton et al.). Law is the only alternative to the wild west.

Perhaps America as a nation will have to endure a real war before before it will understand the need for a global system of laws. I know, I've intentionally shocked some American hearts here, but let me explain myself. By a real war I mean a war on your own territory. Fighting an invading force that is stronger then you. Suffering the oppression afterwards. Losing not only sons and daughters, but losing babies, pets, grandfathers, your country,....only to have it start all over again 22 years later as if nothing was learned, as if there had not been suffered enough. Perhaps then America will see the need for the weak to be protected from the strong, through law and order.

By the way don't read this as unappreciative of the American support in getting the Krauts out of here. I am merely investigating a possible origin of the anti-UN rhetoric, and world government paranoia that seems to have claimed many US minds.

All calm comments are welcome.
Your gay tranny,

Al.

Ps: The text in the first post is actually an exact transcript of what Bolton said to the barman after a bottle of whiskey on the night he got sacked from the UN .

Pps: I agree with you Ferris. What we really need is a close encounter of the third kind!

[ScratchMonkey]

The Chinese have a larger population than the US. Democratically, one could claim that Chinese law should have more weight than US law. Which would you rather live under in this brave new world of globalist law?

I see two kinds of law: The kind meant to resolve differences between freely interacting individuals (eg. two people trading on eBay from different countries) and the kind used to impose one's social rules on others (eg. US drug laws forced on foreign farmers). I don't have a problem with a globalist form of the first one, but such law tends to develop organically, as part of the common law. The latter kind is shoved down our throats from above "democratically", by the loudest whiners from distant places.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

I do have a remark on topic, or rather a matter to investigate: what's with the paranoia about world government? From Alex Jones, to Bill O'Reilly it is the same "UN is out to get you" rhetoric. I find this baffling. What is so wrong with that idea?

Are you kidding? The UN isn't set up to govern anything, for one thing. And more importantly, what has the UN had success in doing on the political front? The corruption and incompetence is now a culture within that organization, and I'm not sure that it could be removed even if anyone seriously tried to do so...

[Steeler]

The UN is a forum, and like any forum it is only as good as its participants. If enough of the forum members only see it as a way to further their own goals and fail to recognize its potential to seek useful compromises for a common good, then the forum collapses into irrelevance.

If the UN has failed, the US is complicit in that failure. That is inescapable.

Tranzis must be bad because they sound like trannys. And anything that isn't male and heterosexual must be evil.

[Switchcraft]

Steeler I don't think you stereotyped yourself enough in that last post...maybe if you had worked in "phallacracy" somewhere.

[Steeler]

Ooo, that's a good word. I'll have to use that.

What about "paranoid crypto-sexoconomists in service to the global fasciphallosogynist Amerimperial regime?"

[Switchcraft]

Nice!

Reminds me of the day I went to type "hehe" into a text message and my phone predicted I was typing "hegemony."

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by Steeler

What about "paranoid crypto-sexoconomists in service to the global fasciphallosogynist Amerimperial regime?"

I don't what that is but I want in! Where do I sign up?

[aeroripper]

The Chinese have a larger population than the US. Democratically, one could claim that Chinese law should have more weight than US law. Which would you rather live under in this brave new world of globalist law?

Exactly. If there were super-national laws that all countries involved had to follow, all sides would have to compromise. For example, if the Chinese wanted more censorship on the Internet, globally, would this fly with the rest of the world if U.S. (and western) power diminished on the global stage? Would we have any say if we weren't a major power anymore? Powerful nations could still use world government to enforce their will on the whole.

I agree that there would have to be something far greater to unite the world than something like modern terrorism (and the double standards of the west regarding it). My guess is the issue of extraterrestrials (or fear of) will probably be the unifying purpose needed for effective world government. Even then, all nations would still need to have their national sovereignty respected, outside of a minimum that would be agreed upon by all nations.

If it does become a reality, I hope it will be like a representative democracy in nature, and have representation from all world bodies. I get the idea of the U.N. is to prevent the outbreak of wars by providing a forum for all nations to talk peacefully, although, you have to question what the organization stands for as a whole when you create 'human rights' organs where brutal dictators sit at the same table as countries that have a good record.

[Hambergler]

Apophis for new world leader!