The plan for the international government has been opened to debate, and people all over the world support the idea, but how to bring it about is the real question. It takes a paradigm change in what people think. The old structure is based on power games and climbing the ladder of success. The new international structure is a flat hierarchy.
There has been a schism, where some people see the potential of the old structure to rise in power, and think a flat hierarchy is absurd, and some see the new flat structure as the only solution to prevent a global conflict.
For example, those who think globally see that the United States lost power by preemptively striking Iraq, and see the international government as the way the United States can regain our power. The other side thinks the preemptive strike was a logical move, one that the U.S. government has used for regime change, and this is how we got our power, and supporting the creation of the international government makes no sense to them. Why let go of the United Nations when we are on the Security Council? Why let go of our power?
People won't come into the framework of win-win agreements until forced to do so. They have to let go of what no longer works. They must let go of what is dragging them into the abyss. This establishes a continuum of frequency that ranges from those who function globally--even Universally--to the individual level.
One of the analogies Seth uses is that mankind is like jigsaw puzzle pieces all jumbled up in a box, and people are climbing over the backs of others to rise to the top. When squeezed to let go of what is dragging them into the abyss, it is as if a giant hand comes and picks the piece out of the box and lifts it onto the table top. As other pieces are squeezed, lifted and placed on the table, they can be fit together.
An example of this is between the first two nations who are being offered proposals--Iraq and the United States. The first issue is to end the global genocide that devolved as a result of the preemptive strike on Iraq. It went against the intent of the UN Charter to prevent unprovoked attacks, and one of the premises of the US legal system, that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, which is important because you cannot defend yourself from prejudice and ulterior motives. Our Constitution guarantees the inalienable rights of the individual to be able to live the life we want without interference, to be treated fairly and equally, and to have a voice in our government. By preemptively striking Iraq, the U.S. government under President George W. Bush perpetrated an unlawful act against international law, and broke an unlawful U.S. federal law premise, and he also broke Universal Law, and is now facing the backlashes from that grab for power.
The sanctions against Saddam Hussein included the Oil for Food program. Iraq's oil production was limited, and under these sanctions, an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children died from inadequate food and medical care. That is example of thinking inside the box. A far better Oil for Food program between Iraq and the United States is being proposed by our organization, and that is to enable Iraq to join the international government as equal to the United States, and the international government's commerce departments will make win-win agreements between Iraq and the United States. Iraq has oil, and the United States needs it. The United States has food, and the Iraqi people need it. Everyone functions on a higher level when there are fair and equitable trade agreements between nations.
The bigger picture that is slowly coming out from the pieces coming together is yet to be seen. Mankind can create anything we want. We can let go of what is dragging us into the abyss, and think of new ways for how things function.
If you look at the alternatives, of one individual making it to the position of "emperor of the planet," how can that person solve the problems? The logical outcome of that is a global conflict as people fight to maintain their freedoms and sovereignty.
Our first focus, then, it that disputes between nations will be settled in court rather than the battlefield, and the monies now wasted on war will support the people, instead. Let's see what burst of creativity comes from the first win-win agreement.
Karen Holmes
