What really struck me was the idea of ONE. It sounds so plausible so clinically clean that any sane mind would accept without question the concept of unity. What is it about the United Nations sterilised buzzwords such as One, Oneness, Unity? Can this Oneness really be defined as a set of rules which must be obeyed or should we conform to their sanctioned ideal of ONE. Is that the definition of ONE? Billions of conditioned peoples joining to form ONENESS when as individuals they feel lost, abandoned, victimised or worse. Is that Unity? Or does the power of ONE come from the wholeness of each component formed as ONE to become ONE.
When they suggest you join their campaign too join the peoples of the world, always keep in mind that the ONENESS they plan to circumnavigate the planet is governed by rules, terms and conditions that must be adhered otherwise you will no longer be apart of the gang. Does that mean in the future countries must sign up to some engineered document pertaining to them helping push the ONENESS agenda?
Here's what some other folks say about ONENESS...
The Oneness exists already as the Whole that exists now. Any proposal to create another Oneness is deception.
There is no such thing as consciousness reverting back to a state of oneness, as this would go against the natural order of the flow of Creation. It is nonetheless possible that we achieve higher orders of oneness (unity consciousness) through greater awareness of the Whole (i.e., the self-existent totality of Creation). Unity consciousness is, therefore, true wholeness. First number 10, then 100, then 1000, etc -- more zeros are added as our consciousness expands. And why number 10? Because in numerology the idea of wholeness corresponds to number 10. Therefore, it is for more wholeness that people should be striving, because wholeness is a higher order of oneness.
The problem is that for a model of wholeness to work, all individuals have to raise their consciousness to a certain optimal state. For example, recognition of a planetary wholeness on an individual level requires that individuals achieve a planetary consciousness, which is roughly the "we are all on the same boat" feeling. In other words, individuals have to expand their awareness beyond differences, which in turn are not going to simply disappear; they just become irrelevant when compared to the big picture. Only then is that individuals are able to connect on a deeper, spiritual level, though they may still be aware of their superficial differences. In short, only when everyone can see each other as equal and as Creator is that we can say that there is oneness.
Many religious, political and elitist groups push for their own version of "one world." That is, they wish for everyone to conform to their model of oneness. Well, this is only because they have great difficulty accepting the world as it is with plenty of diversity. Freedom of choice is also ignored, since any oneness scheme can only work if everyone is following the same principles and standards. Also, since it may be nearly impossible to raise the lowest of the people to conform to a one world standard, then this standard has to be lowered as much as possible. Therefore, every one-world scheme is by necessity a least-common-denominator scheme.
Interestingly enough, every group pushing for oneness has a different idea of how the world should be, and this is something which totally contradicts the nature of what they are trying to achieve. Can you smell the bullshit yet? Because this can only mean more wars and conflicts in our future: the oneness mentality is forceful because everyone has a different idea of what oneness is. Again, the Oneness exists already to the extent that we are able to acknowledge the many aspects of One. Therefore, we should seek atonement instead of oneness; we should accept All That Is right now, not later.
There is nothing wrong with us accepting Oneness. The problem begins when Oneness is turned into a doctrine that is advertised so that we accept the doctrine instead. There is Oneness and we are all One, so what? There is no need to worship the obvious. More important is that we look forward to see what we will create within this Oneness.
Ultimately, the ideal of unity is antithetical to democracy itself, which relies on constant competition and division between parties. When democracy works well, it is precisely because of our divisions, which check the power of incumbents and ensure their replacement by their opponents if the voters decide they have screwed up badly enough. If we really value unity for its own sake, perhaps dictatorship or one party oligarchy would be a better form of government.
Despite its vacuousness, unity rhetoric seems to be popular. Popular enough that both conservative and liberal politicians routinely resort to it. Popular enough that a brilliant candidate like Obama has made it a centerpiece of his campaign. Popular enough that nationalists, socialists, fascists, and communists have all made effective use of it. Remember "One People, One Fuehrer, One Reich"? No, I am not saying that Obama (or Bush) is like the Nazis and Communists. Far from it. However, the Nazi and communist examples do dramatically illustrate how unity doesn't have any intrinsic value. The achievement of national unity made these regimes even worse than they would have been otherwise, not better.