Fuck the one world Government and borderless societies. We need more fragmenting.

[Zalatix]

I have learned the horrors of a unified world first hand.

It's bad enough living in the United States and having to share a single nation with the Tea Party and the various Plutocrat minions who want to turn the whole country into a social Darwinistic jungle. It's politically incorrect to want to see these animals wiped out, but I do have a right to wish that I didn't live in the same country as them. I do have a right to wish America would split up so they can take their poisonous beliefs across the border and fuck up their own nation and leave my side of the border alone.

I have a God given right not to want my wife and daughter's reproductive rights endangered by misogynist voters across the border or across the ocean. I don't want to share my sovereignty with entire NATIONS of people who feel that women cannot drive.

I want more fragmenting. Because I am already forced to compromise with people who want to wipe out large swaths of the working class in a huge purge, and I don't want to be around them or live in a nation influenced by them - that's bad enough. I will not tolerate being forced to further compromise with people who want to control even more of my freedoms.

If you feel like you need the Government to control how many kids you have (I'm talking to you, China), go ahead; I'm not interested in wasting lives to "democratize" you like George W Bush did to Iraq. But keep your shit within your borders. If you want to starve your poor by eliminating welfare, again, I can't afford to waste the lives to put your country down. But don't expect me to prefer unity with such animals over further fragmentation. If you don't like women having the right to drive then that's on you - but keep your world separate from mine. If you like censoring information by firewalling the Internet and arresting democracy protesters, then great - but keep that to your side of the fence.

Global unity means accepting more and more compromises with Plutocrats, misogynists, fascists and tyrants. Global unity will never, ever result in the growth of freedom. Ever.

[Louisiana1976]

1. Well said. K&R

[BlueJazz]

2. "If you feel like you need the Government to control how many kids you have"

On that issue you are wrong. This planet can only support a certain amount of Human flesh. (with the current technology)

If left to the average person, we would kill off each other by destroying the world around us.

[Zalatix]

3. So you agree with China's policy?

[Egalitarian Thug]

28. There are many other options available that have been used.

It's not an either/or proposition.

[Zalatix]

34. I was addressing Bluejazz's argument

S/he said, specifically, that I was wrong for opposing Government controls on reproduction.

Is opposing such a thing right or wrong?

[Daniel537]

4. Forced abortions, mass murder and starvation it is then.

[Zalatix]

5. And away with those those pesky evil reproductive rights, too!

[Fumesucker]

7. There are better ways of controlling the birth rate..

The carrot is so often mightier than the stick.

Education and empowerment of women combined with access to birth control lowers the population growth rate, in the US it is below replacement rate right now and even lower in some other nations.

[Zalatix]

11. +1 million for applying common sense! Thanks!

[gtar100]

43. That is exactly the answer and exactly why these misogynistic assholes need to be put in their place

Education and empowerment of women is exactly what this world needs. How is it this world is so backwards with humanity exerting all the tendencies towards self-destruction all the while the answers to our problems clearly right before us and not at all hard to do.

[Swede]

6. You're quite the humanitarian.

nt

[Fumesucker]

8. To be fair..

Vegetarians eat vegetables..

Humanitarians eat..

[Zalatix]

9. What's more humanitarian

Keeping Republicans isolated with their war on women, or letting them make your wife, mother and sisters miserable?

[TBF]

10. State's rights maybe? You're making me awfully nervous with this OP.

Closed borders for bananas, open borders for people is a much better policy in my mind.

[Uncle Joe]

12. I disagree with your conclusion, global unity is the only way to freedom,

but there will be some major growing pains until the end result is reached.

Fragmentation is the primary cause, and/or excuse for war, even in peace time precious resources are wasted for the preparation of potential war.

Demonizing the other plays directly into the hands of those Plutocrats you so despise as dividing and conquering is their preeminent method of control.

Thanks for the thread, Zalatix.

[pampango]

17. Ain't "us vs them" (a variant of "divide and conquer") politics just grand?

Got to give the GOP some credit. They promote fear/hate politics for a reason - and it has worked.

[Uncle Joe]

18. That strategy has worked successfully throughout human history.

If you don't have the numbers of people on your side which obviously the 1% or plutocrats don't you just divide and subdivide, thereby eliminating the 99% converting it into two, three, four or more fractious subdivisions turning against themselves and more easily controlled for the greater good of serving the 1%.

The leadership of the GOP aren't truly stupid, they just play stupid on T.V.

[Sea-Dog]

19. global unity not global government

[Uncle Joe]

21. Ultimately, you can't have one without the other.

That's why we already have an embryonic global government, that being the United Nations.

[Zalatix]

26. Global cooperation, not global governance.

The United Nations is teetering on failure.

Also, look at how the World Trade Organization keeps opposing America on environmental issues. Imagine that... worldwide, with no hope of escape.

[Uncle Joe]

31. Global cooperation, without global governance

has little more promise than the Articles of Confederation, if the United Nation fails it will be because of this.

[Sea-Dog]

54. of course you can

nation work together all the time

[Uncle Joe]

55. The world's resources are rapidly becoming depleted, individual nations

at some point, will buckle under the political and cultural demand strains of their citizens.

Today there is a little noticed naval standoff brewing over fishing grounds between China and the Philippines.

While there have been civil wars throughout history, the list of wars between separate tribes and/or nations dwarf that in number.

I would challenge anyone to find 25 years out of the last 3000 when war wasn't being fought somewhere on the planet.

It's much easier to demonize and fight a war against "the other" someone outside of the family, thus the family must be made bigger.

With today's technology the global consequences of major war have become far too great to ignore anymore.

A viable world government would not be ironclad, guaranteed protection against corruption or abuse but I believe the risk of those chronic maladies and war would be reduced vs the weaker individual states and nations model.

[Sea-Dog]

56. Above is dogma and personal opinion

That half of it largely undermines your own argument.

[Uncle Joe]

57. Yes that is my opinion but dogma is believing that the world is static and the existing system

to be the optimum answer into infinity.

[Zalatix]

25. Global unity is not the same as... well... global "unity".

You can have various nations working together... maybe. That's going to be extremely difficult to achieve, ever.

But when you have global unity in the form of a one-world Government? There is no escape for you from whatever goes wrong in that Government - and in that situation, the Plutocrats will rule.

Do you want to live in a country that is run like Iran? Put aside the "us vs them is evil" rhetoric, just answer the question... do you want to live in a country that is run like Iran?

What makes you think that in a one-world government, things will be like America and not Iran?

[Uncle Joe]

30. That's why I bolded my first qualifying sentence.

I disagree with your conclusion, global unity is the only way to freedom,

but there will be some major growing pains until the end result is reached.

Having no escape should something "go wrong" insures that the people will hold that type of government accountable, furthermore states are easier to dominate than the federal government and by logical extension the same would hold true for a global nation.

I do not want live in country like Iran but having a world government doesn't mean we have to nor that they must live in a country like the U.S. even our states have their own cultural image, they're not identical.

Having a world government should eliminate the need for passports, visas and border checkpoints, people can migrate to whatever nation, they're most comfortable with.

[Zalatix]

33. That's not a world Government. That's a network of treaties.

A world government is a very specific thing, it means one governing body overseeing every region of the planet.

And a world where there's no need for passports means that any country can be quickly taken over by an influx of people who want to deny women the right to drive or vote. What do you have in place to prevent that from happening?

[Uncle Joe]

36. Like I said there will be growing pains, I don't expect this to happen all at once.

Each nation has its' own Constitution just as each state has now, but a viable World Government will need to enshrine fundamental, inalienable rights to any nation that joins protecting ie: womens' right to vote or drive etc. etc.

There would need to be a global Bill of Rights.

If a nation doesn't want to join, it doesn't have to but I believe over time more nations would join to avoid isolation from the world government.

If a nation did want to join, there would need to be a national referendum approving of such.

I don't have all the answers of how this will work, I just know what won't work on an ever shrinking planet as resources can only become more scarce and precious eventually leading to WWIII as the system is now.

[Zalatix]

38. Growing pains? Fat lot of consolation for all the women who lose their rights.

If you don't have the answers for how this will work, then why do you expect people to trust their freedoms in a one-world system?

What in the world makes you think the rest of the world will define freedom as we define it? That right there is downright imperialistic.

[Uncle Joe]

40. Women would not lose their rights, I thought that part was clear.

Each nation has its' own Constitution just as each state has now, but a viable World Government will need to enshrine fundamental, inalienable rights to any nation that joins protecting ie: womens' right to vote or drive etc. etc.

There would need to be a global Bill of Rights.

If a nation doesn't want to join, it doesn't have to but I believe over time more nations would join to avoid isolation from the world government.

If a nation did want to join, there would need to be a national referendum approving of such.

I don't have all the answers of how this will work, I just know what won't work on an ever shrinking planet as resources can only become more scarce and precious eventually leading to WWIII as the system is now.

Women already have the right to vote in most of the world, if a nation wishes to join, they must grant them the right.

Imperialism is invading a nation, debating the definition of and then living by freedom is democracy.

It's our job to convince the rest of the world via debate that our definition of freedom is the best model, however you and many others may be surprised to find our freedom and rights as a result of a global debate become enhanced, ie: healthcare, war on drugs etc. etc.

[Zalatix]

41. "but a viable World Government will need to"... Need to happen != will happen. Sorry.

What guarantee do you have that such a thing will happen?

[Uncle Joe]

42. There is no guarantee that a viable world government will happen, we may continue

down the same tribal, nationalistic, religious, and self centered autocratic models as has been the case throughout human history, but the world isn't getting any bigger and if we don't change our models to be all inclusive or at least as all inclusive as humanly possible, we will be headed toward another World War.

Having said that, I'm convinced any attempt at a viable world government must include those basic human rights, that a very large number of the world's nations already claim to respect.

Each nation has its' own Constitution just as each state has now, but a viable World Government will need to enshrine fundamental, inalienable rights to any nation that joins protecting ie: womens' right to vote or drive etc. etc.

There would need to be a global Bill of Rights.

If a nation doesn't want to join, it doesn't have to but I believe over time more nations would join to avoid isolation from the world government.

If a nation did want to join, there would need to be a national referendum approving of such.

I don't have all the answers of how this will work, I just know what won't work on an ever shrinking planet as resources can only become more scarce and precious eventually leading to WWIII as the system is now.

I'm not suggesting this will be easy but nonetheless critical for humanity's long term chance of survival.

[pampango]

13. Kick for the morning crowd. n/t

[madokie]

14. You got it right

[bemildred]

15. Indeed, nature hates monocultures, we should take the hint. nt

[ProSense]

16. Interesting

It's bad enough living in the United States and having to share a single nation with the Tea Party and the various Plutocrat minions who want to turn the whole country into a social Darwinistic jungle.

I get the overall point, but would you support breaking up the U.S., having states like Texas and Alaska secede?

[Sea-Dog]

20. hawaii? But could alaska have a right to secede?

[Romulox]

22. Multinational corporations are the only actors who benefit from the current form of "borderless

society".

Basic economic theory tells us that wages have to bottom out before they can improve under the "one worlders" race-to-the-bottom/average our incomes with India plan.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. First problem where is ths world government you speak off?

[Zalatix]

24. It's a never-ending pipe dream that keeps getting pushed by

the free trader block and the "We are the world" gang.

And there are people right here on the DU who believe this stuff. See this post and the OP of that thread as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=571165

[pampango]

29. Mostly in the minds of "right-wing populist advocacy groups ..., such as the John Birch Society."

In conspiracy theory, the term New World Order or NWO refers to the emergence of a totalitarian one-world government.

The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government—which replaces sovereign nation-states—and an all-encompassing propaganda that ideologizes its establishment as the culmination of history's progress. Significant occurrences in politics and finance are speculated to be orchestrated by an unduly influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Numerous historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to achieve world domination through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes.

Prior to the early 1990s, New World Order conspiracism was limited to two American countercultures, primarily the militantly anti-government right, and secondarily fundamentalist Christians concerned with end-time emergence of the Antichrist. Skeptics, such as Michael Barkun and Chip Berlet, have observed that right-wing populist conspiracy theories about a New World Order have now not only been embraced by many seekers of stigmatized knowledge but have seeped into popular culture, thereby inaugurating an unrivaled period of people actively preparing for apocalyptic millenarian scenarios in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. These political scientists are concerned that this mass hysteria could have what they judge to be devastating effects on American political life, ranging from widespread political alienation to escalating lone-wolf terrorism.

They all saw these periods as opportunities to implement idealistic proposals for global governance in the sense of new collective efforts to address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve, while always respecting the right of nations to self-determination. These proposals led to the creation of international organizations, such as the United Nations and NATO, and international regimes, such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which were calculated both to maintain a balance of power in favor of the United States as well as regularize cooperation between nations, in order to achieve a peaceful phase of capitalism. These creations in particular and liberal internationalism in general, however, would always be criticized and opposed by American ultraconservative business nationalists from the 1930s on.

Progressives welcomed these new international organizations and regimes in the aftermath of the two World Wars, but argued they suffered from a democratic deficit and therefore were inadequate to not only prevent another global war but also foster global justice. The United Nations was designed in 1945 by U.S. bankers and State Department planners, and was always intended to remain a free association of sovereign nation-states, not a transition to democratic world government. Thus, activists around the globe formed a world federalist movement hoping in vain to create a "real" new world order.

Right-wing populist advocacy groups with a producerist worldview, such as the John Birch Society, disseminated a multitude of conspiracy theories in the 1960s claiming that the governments of both the United States and the Soviet Union were controlled by a cabal of corporate internationalists, greedy bankers and corrupt politicians intent on using the United Nations as the vehicle to create the "One World Government". This right-wing anti-globalist conspiracism would fuel the Bircher campaign for U.S. withdrawal from the U.N.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)

[Zalatix]

32. Your "one world Government" mentality fits right in with "Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer".

Obviously you will ignore the facts, but I'll put them out for everyone else to see.

Fact #1:
A "New World Order" is a John Birch Society conspiracy? Really? GEORGE H W BUSH coined the phrase!

You think only the John Birch Society despises a one world Government? Consider this.

The World Trade Organization is an excellent example of a one-world Government in action. They mediate trade disputes between nations, often to the detriment of the environment.

Fact #2:
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/january/us-appeal-wto-dolphin-safe-tuna-labeling-dispute-m

U.S. Appeal in WTO Dolphin-Safe Tuna Labeling Dispute with Mexico
Today the United States is filing an appeal in the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute with Mexico challenging the United States’ dolphin-safe labeling measures for tuna products sold in America. On September 15, 2011, a WTO Panel report in this dispute was released, which found that the objectives of the U.S. measures are legitimate; that the measures do not treat Mexico’s tuna products any less favorably than tuna products from the United States or other WTO Members; and that any adverse effects felt by Mexican tuna producers from the U.S. labeling requirements are the result of choices made by Mexico’s own fishing fleet and canners. However, the Panel also found the U.S. measures to be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the objectives of the measures. After careful review and consideration of the Panel report, the United States has decided to file an appeal today.

Do you think progressives welcomed this? Don't even bother, Pampango, you have no answer for this.

And, of course, I'm sure you won't directly address this, either.

Fact #3: Progressive groups also hate the World Trade Organization.
http://www.ecoglobe.ch/motivation/e/wto5412.htm

This is just a few examples of the fact that Progressives despise the One World Government.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. While senior used the phrase

In a speech, he did not coin it. The phrase is much older than bush. If you want to blame anybody for using it in the sense Senior did, oh thirty years before, read Heinlein's fiction.

As to the sense used by the Birchers, yup, going back to the 1950s and the UN.

Hell I met one talking of NATO as the military arm of the UN, as part of the word government. On the bright side they do have black helicopters.

Now back to the original question, since a dream is just that, to fight it you need something concrete.

Here is a reality. In some ways if the ecological crisis gets bad enough we may need one. Hardly what George, or Heinlein's or the Corporations speak off. On the down side it would have the potential of being quite authoritarian. But given human history and penchants for division it won't last. I mean tribalism is almost in the genes and going to war is what primates do.

[Zalatix]

49. If you're saying a one world Government would be authoritarian, you're quite right.

But I guess that if you oppose this you're a John Bircher, right? I mean, how bad can it be to sacrifice a few... or a lot of basic freedoms for Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer, right? Disclaimer: I'm not saying you support it, but I am saying that the whole concept of a one world Government can only lead to a fascist state.

I do not see how a global Government, especially an authoritarian one, would be broken up. The very divisiveness that we think it will put an end to, will be exploited by the Plutocrats to keep the Government in power forever.

It's all about the military. China is a good example: they'll never collapse because the military isn't scared to kill a LOT of people. Hell, even Putin's Russia showed their willingness to do that, re: Chechnya.

Whether Bush Sr. coined the phrase or not, you must understand why I laugh at Pampango's references to the John Birch Society when the very New World Order they are conspiracy theorizing about, was in fact announced globally by a sitting United States President. You can't just ignore that, and Pampango clearly did try to ignore it.

If the John Birch Society has a weather report that says it's hot as hell outside and the thermometer reads 135 F and you see people dying of heat stroke on the way from the car to the house, it might just be that the John Birchers were right. A stopped clock is right once a day. Twice if it's a 12 hour clock.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. That is one possibility.

And plenty of fiction on it. And I will leave it at that. If you think the only possible outcome is fascist nazi like state, well no not really.

[Zalatix]

52. It's not the only possible outcome... just the most likely. Plus, the other problem is

you can't emigrate out of a global government if things go badly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. And in reality we will only get it

In two cases:

Environmental Collapse. It will last for a short time...tribalism and break up and fight for resources will take over. Yes, even the US will break apart. A new middle ages on steroids to be quite frank. All fiction to the contrary we are ultimately primates.

Alien Invasion: in which case I don't care how ingenious we are...they have technology indistinguishable from magic, good night Gracie.

What you are seeing is not a world government. Not by any stretch. What you are seeing is more like the cyberpunk genre envisioned, chiefly Gibson. This is corporations more powerful than governments dividing the world into markets.

Remove the magic and trolls, if you role play shadow run is a good look at this. If you do not, Gibson's Neuromancer. What you are seeing is the end of Metternich's political order and the rise of a new political order. A world government? No, not really. Scary as hell? You betcha.

[Cleita]

27. I agree. I sometimes wonder if the USA shouldn't be divided into two or even

three sovereign nations. If each has their own central government and military, it would have the effect of keeping any one of the nations that goes rogue in check. For instance, if the Eastern United States passed the insurance friendly ACA, maybe the Western United States might pass single payer. If the Eastern United States wants to go to war. They may have to persuade the Western United States to join them, who might be reluctant and won't, thereby diluting their military power and making them think twice about unwarranted wars for profit.

[fascisthunter]

35. global unity is cool when it BENEFITS the majority

not cool when it mainly benefits a small, infinitesimal rich-pampered minority who seem to care only about themselves.

[white_wolf]

37. No we need more unity.

We need the global 99% to unite against the global 1%. This nationalist rhetoric only serves to strengthen the ruling class in this country and around the world. Capitalism is a global now and that isn't going to change by embracing nationalist ideas. We should oppose oppression everywhere, not just within our borders. I'm sorry, but nationalism only benefits the ruling class. Globalization is the future, the question we have to answer is this: will we use globalization to bring the 99% together and create a better world or will we used to to enrich the 1%.

To be very clear I don't mean nationalism in the more Fascist sense of the world, but in the less extreme nature that promotes isolationism.

[Zalatix]

39. A united world society will almost certainly benefit the 1%.

Worse yet, once it happens, you will have no avenue of escape.

Protests anywhere, around the world, will be met with a united military force. There won't be another Tunisia or Egyptian rebellion: it'll be crushed by a globally managed police force.

[ProSense]

48. Please

"A united world society will almost certainly benefit the 1%."

...reconcile:

Think of all the battles that are being fought between all these different groups. If they all win their crusades, they STILL LOSE, because the Plutocrats have succeeded in keeping them divided against each other. The worn out victors will find themselves without health care, livable wage jobs, social safety nets or even, finally once all the jobs have been automated or shipped out of America, access to the bare necessities for survival. You'll win your little factional conflict only to find yourself starving and when you finally decide to fight back they'll send in the drones and finish you off for good.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002521701

I mean, I know divisiveness is bad, but now unity is bad? I don't see anything near a world government materializing, that is except in the rants of RW lunatics and used a fear-mongering.

Also, on the premise that "we need more fragmenting," would you support breaking up the U.S., having states like Texas and Alaska secede?

From the OP:

It's bad enough living in the United States and having to share a single nation with the Tea Party and the various Plutocrat minions who want to turn the whole country into a social Darwinistic jungle.

[Zalatix]

50. United interests, not united borders.

[Selatius]

44. As it currently stands, I believe globalization as pushed by multinationals is destroying us.

There is nothing wrong with countries linking together in trade to cover for lack of resources from one nation to the next, but if the process is merely a ploy at global labor arbitrage, something is wrong. There is no real labor movement at the international or multi-national level. There is, however, multinational business interests, and some of these corporations are so large that regulating them effectively becomes an international issue.

[Egalitarian Thug]

45. Exactly. This is not about improving the world through trade,

it's about pillaging the world through force.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Alas labor is finally starting to organize

across borders. It's truly in diapers, but it is finally starting.

[LanternWaste]

58. I would hazard that those imaginary red and blue lines on a map have caused more war and cultural di

I would hazard that those imaginary red and blue lines on a map have caused more war and cultural disruption than any other imaginary construct.

But I realize how difficult it must be for you to live in society in which other people may have different opinions than you, and that projecting another imaginary "one-world" government fantasy onto people isn't really the most effective way to deal with different opinions...

[Zalatix]

59. You're claiming that there aren't people on the DU who want a 1 world Government?

I can show you names if you wish.

If you think that imaginary red and blue lines are the cause of conflict then why don't you move into Orange County in CA and see if you don't encounter serious cultural disruption to your way of life. You act as if SERIOUS cultural differences do not exist - which would be a delusionary view of life.

Edited to add: as for conflicting with people I don't agree with, I believe that the Muslims should have their own territory and we Christians shouldn't enforce our views on them in some kind of 1 world government.

[Uncle Joe]

60. The more you divide the people along cultural divisions, the more cultural divisions you create,

it becomes a self-fulfilling dynamic.

Muslims and Christians staying divided isn't the end, Christians will be subdivided as well in to their own little fiefdoms and secularists will be divided and then the would be "leaders" in pursuit of power for power's sake will find other means to divide and conquer, the color of skin, hair, eyes etc. etc.

Furthermore as I explained up thread numerous times a viable world government would have a global Bill of Right of enshrined rights which would include freedom of religion, etc. etc. or the whole endeavor wouldn't happen.

[Zalatix]

61. The solution is not a world government. The solution is a network of workers' parties.

[Uncle Joe]

62. One does not exclude the other, for that matter a viable world government empowers the workers.

It's much easier for the workers of the world to unite when their separate nation states can't be played against each other.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&q=rush+limbaugh+world+government&oq=rush+limbaugh+world+gover&aq=0v&aqi=g-v1&aql=&gs_l=hp.1.0.0i15.2218.13281.0.18765.27.14.0.1.1.0.2828.8498.2-3j1j0j2j0j1j0j2.9.0...0.0.Wqk6vlJiN3k&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=127b82d01e38c88&biw=1680&bih=740

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&q=glenn+beck+world+government&oq=glenn+beck+world+government&aq=0v&aqi=g-v3&aql=&gs_l=hp.1.0.0i15l3.45125.46828.1.49344.10.7.0.0.0.3.516.1719.0j3j3j5-1.7.0...0.0.G3Nra5XW24c&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=127b82d01e38c88&biw=1680&bih=740

Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck haven't made their careers out of arguing against a so called but non-existent "world government" for nothing.

It's all part of the corporate media, corporate supremacist brain washing program, prepare the Pavlov Dogs of the U.S./world to automatically and emotionally reject the proposition or debate out of hand and thus emotion trumps logic.