The United Nations And Oneness On Earth.

Posted November 4, 2013

by Jerry Alatalo


“This is the problem: Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war?… As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of dealing with the superficial (i.e. administrative) aspect of the problem: the setting up by international consent of a legislative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations… Thus I am led to my first axiom (accepted truth): the quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action, its sovereignty that is to say, and it is clear beyond all doubt that no other road can lead to such security”.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) In a letter to Dr. Freud, 1932

The United Nations. The organization began in 1945 with fifty-one nations, after World War II, when there was widespread agreement that a third world war would be catastrophic for humanity.

One can only guess if the words of Albert Einstein quoted above had anything to do with the beginning of the United Nations. Seeing that in 1944 Mr. Einstein would have been age 65, and a person whose name was known around the world, it could be seen that at the time his words were highly respected and any suggestion he may have made regarding world peace and security would have been considered seriously.

As Albert Einstein was a scientist, for him to utter the words, “clear beyond all doubt” leads one to believe that he spent a considerable amount of mental effort to come to such a conclusion. In 1932 Einstein was in effect predicting the establishment of the United Nations. Here in 2013 his description of an international legislative and judicial body is close to completion in today’s United Nations (UN).

All that is left to accomplish before Einstein’s vision of such an international governing body is for every member state of the UN to agree on such an Earthly governmental arrangement. As mentioned the UN is the body on Earth that is as close to Einstein’s vision as any. One could say that 97% of the structure is in place and there is relatively little needed to reach that vision – but political will.

Some would consider a truly worldwide governing entity embodied in the UN as some type of “New World Order” or “One World Government” which immediately brings about suspicions and reservations, thanks to ridiculous conspiracy theories surrounding such a planetary agreement. Because of these ridiculous, uninformed, unreal ways of thinking many have come to the point where any talk of a world governing body (remember Einstein’s words) is quickly discounted and given no further analysis.

Most nations on Earth already have a form of world government, it is their national government. Most nations elect representatives and have the equivalent of a Supreme Court. Why completion of Einstein’s vision, a supra-national governing body in the form of the UN, is important and beneficial we shall try to point out.

Why the UN should become the world’s governing body.

Benefits of UN becoming the world’s governing body:

Eradication of national criminal behavior. The example here would be the Iraq War begun in 2003, where the United States and the United Kingdom went against public opinions of the majority of the world, and over one million Iraqis were killed, the environment of Iraq was destroyed, and the infrastructure of that country was obliterated. If the United Nations was the world’s governing body in 2003 the Iraq War would have perhaps been prevented.

Other examples of criminal behavior include corruption by corporations, including debt-trap loans, bribery, covert wars, and political assassinations. A world judicial/legal body, a World Supreme Court, would, because all UN member states have signed on to honor the decisions of the World Supreme Court, would effectively deter any criminal actions that have major consequences for the people of the world.

As an example, George Bush and Tony Blair, if such a World Supreme Court had been in place with agreed upon laws and punishments from 2003, these two men would be behind bars. Please don’t misunderstand what I am saying here: I do not have a personal goal of seeing George Bush, Tony Blair, and others behind bars or receiving the death sentence. What I am saying is that the killing of over one million Iraqis, over four thousand coalition forces, and the expenditure of over one trillion US dollars (which could have gone a long way toward eliminating disease and poverty, while improving living conditions for millions around the world) could have been prevented.

Men, women, and children around the world would begin to see the rest of the world’s people as part of the human family, the spiritual concept of oneness, unity, and compassion would develop in great measure, starting a chain-reaction which begins the diminishing of separation concepts such as “nationalism”, “us versus them”, etc., until these separation “theologies” become a thing of the past – replaced with the true reality of life on Earth: oneness.

Because of this world evolutionary thinking a great deal more time will become devoted to solutions-based thinking and creativity, as opposed to thoughts which have a certain element of separation thinking factored into the thinking process. Once again, in the area of human study, critical thinking, and solutions-centered creativity, a great increase of positive, mutually beneficial ideas will be entered into the collective consciousness, while those actions and thought processes which bring about deleterious/harmful consequences for the human family will begin to diminish and, eventually, disappear from the face of the Earth.

Co-operation will become the working rule of the day, as opposed to historical competition, which has led to the severe levels of wealth inequality experienced today. It has become plain and obvious that when some very small segment of humanity has come to control an inequitable percentage of the world’s financial and natural resource wealth, while most of the human race struggles for its very physical survival, that certainly a change is truly in order.

Co-operation will also start the beginning of the end for war and killing for economic and power reasons. As a result of new thinking by the people of the world, those issues, concerns, and situations which lead people to desperate actions, such as those of so-called terrorists, who are many times younger people who have run out of options, shall be dealt with in the best ways humanly possible.

While there are many more beneficial consequences of United Nations member states‘ agreement to operate under the laws and rules of a UN World Government, perhaps a few reform ideas would result in an even more democratic UN and world.

Reforms for a more democratic UN and world.

As the UN Security Council is the most powerful organ of the UN, my suggestion is its discontinuance. At present five nations – China, Russia, USA, United Kingdom, and France – are permanent members of the Security Council and have veto power. With the discontinuance of the Security Council there will be no one single nation able to stop initiatives – the entire General Assembly – all 193 member states would vote on important resolutions, with each nation’s vote given equal weight to their country’s percentage of the total population of the planet.

For example, if such a truly democratic framework were in effect at the UN during recent debate on possible actions regarding the war in Syria, all 193 member states would vote on any, and all, resolution(s). For the USA this would have meant that their vote would hold the weight of approximately 4.3% of the total vote. If we divide the total population of humanity, 7 billion, by the population of the USA, 300 million, we find the USA’s percentage at .042857, or 4.3%. Or 4.2857%.

On the same vote India would find their percentage at 14.3% (One billion divided by seven billion = .142857 or 14.3%). Or 14.2857%. So, every one of the 193 member states/nations would be democratically represented according to the population of their nation as a percentage of the population of the entire human race.

Each UN member state will choose a people’s representative to the UN, at the same time that nation elects a president or prime minster, etc.

The elected-by-the-people UN representative will serve along with the representative appointed by the president or prime minister, who is most of the time approved by the congress or house of representatives of each nation. So, each member state will have two representatives to the UN, one appointed with the approval of the nation’s governing body, and one elected directly by the people.

This additional reform, election by the people of each member state of a “UN people’s representative”, will require a further breakdown of resolution votes. Each member state will receive two votes on resolutions, one by the appointed representative, and one by the elected representative. The combined vote of the 193 member-states appointed representatives will entail 50% of the vote on individual UN resolutions. The combined vote of the members’ elected representatives will entail 50% of the vote.

Why add an “elected UN representative”?

The reason is simple. If we use the example of 2003 and the Bush and Blair regimes in the run-up to the Iraq War, we find that the appointed UN representatives in the USA and United Kingdom went along with Bush and Blair. If the USA and UK both had elected UN representatives in 2003, there would have been an additional, conflict-of-interest-free voice in each nation who was elected by the people. An elected UN representative adds another democracy-enhancing layer to government, helping to correct conflict of interest issues as well as providing an independent representative for the people of the world.

UN vote chalkboards.

Another possibility of increasing democracy on Earth, in addition to the reforms presented on the UN, is direct popular voting on UN resolutions. Imagine a permanent chalkboard capable of recording 50,000 or less votes, cast with chalk in front of everybody, in every voting area on Earth inside the member states of the UN. Firstly, popular vote on UN resolutions would be totally transparent – not secret. When a UN resolution vote is upcoming average men and women in each member state will come to their polling place, vote yes or no on the current resolution (in front of everyone) in one of the 50,000 (or less) squares on the permanent UN vote chalkboard.

Only those who have the courage to let their views become known to everyone will show up to vote. Everyone will know what the vote of that district is, and the results shall be published to make sure there is no voting fraud. This type of voting will be 100% clean and correct. From those results both the appointed and elected representative of the nation will know how their people feel. This is an idea that could become implemented to further democracy and at the same time encourage citizen involvement in the issues which affect the entire human race.

The previous paragraphs have been shared in an effort to communicate what I believe are ideas which will, when agreed upon by the people of the world and implemented at the United Nations, be beneficial for humanity and future generations. I cannot even think about myself in the same intellectual league as Albert Einstein. Al I can say is that, with regard to Mr. Einstein’s letter to Sigmund Freud at the top of this post, I agree 100% with his sentiments. Albert Einstein spoke words that many of you are familiar with: “Imagination is more important than knowledge”.

What I have written here is a product of imagination – what I believe is possible. The ideas are now in the public sphere on the internet, available to men and women in every nation on Earth.


The following video contains an address by 30-year United Nations veteran Mr. Shashi Tharoor. Perhaps his discussion will add texture and context to the idea of the United Nations’ evolving into the world’s first supra-national governing body.

Finally, these are the last written words of Albert Einstein – April 1955:

“Not one statesman in a position of responsibility has dared to pursue the only course that holds out any promise of peace, the courage of supra-national security, since for a statesman to follow such a course would be tantamount  to political suicide”. 


Related articles