Allied nations often disagree about how best to accomplish mutually beneficial goals goals that, once reached, can improve the quality of life for people everywhere while preserving and rehabilitating the environment.
We lack that cohesion. (One of the most recent examples of just how thoughtlessly allies can treat each other is found in BREXIT, the rhetoric surrounding it, and the chaos of its aftermath.)
We the collective “we” - also play games with the very nations we rely on to stabilise whatever region concerns us at the time.
There is an unmistakable disparity in how different nations are treated not only by their neighbours but by allegedly impartial international bodies as well. Many people - average people on the street - do not know the way of it: Developing countries - the have-nots’ - actually pay out more per year in interest (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/10/sovereign-debt-default.asp) on the "international relief aid" than developed countries would pay for the same amount of money. Credit ratings don't just apply to people or to corporations; they apply to nations, and those nations that need to borrow money just to remain alive are left perhaps worse than they were before they became victims of usury: http://tinyurl.com/northsouthrelations (Odd, isn’t it, that the US is slack in its repayments and yet has not been hit with the same punishing interest being levelled at developing countries?)
There is so much more to say on this, but it's getting tl;dr anyway: The reason for thisword safari is to demonstrate that world government is a pipe dream: For good or ill, it can’t happen so long as two people in a room can generate three opinions.
For those who support a global government for the benefits it could allegedly bring, there is a far better option then rebuilding the wheel
Use what is already there: A truly global entity
would take the form of an organisation such as the UN, except with the teeth it needs to enforce international laws against the unauthorised possession and use of non-conventional weapons, against illegal actions of aggression (no matter by whom), against genocide, against rape as a weapon of terror, against abuse of refugees, against outlandish acts of government-sanctioned cruelty.
There should be an organisation, in addition to INTERPOL, NATO, and a few others - none of which likely share much information - willing to enforce international law through mediation, arbitration, censure, embargo, and even armed conflict when necessary. (And when people are hacking each other apart with machetes or shooting each other down in a 100-day rampage of violence that leaves between 500 000-to-1 000 000 people dead THAT is the time for a global force to act.)
There will never been a one-world government, chucklehead; even the most powerful people on Earth disagree with each other and among the various intelligence, police, and political organisations there is a criminal lack of information-sharing.
Information ends up in a bottleneck where it’s of no use to anyone. That's how this happened: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-warned-of-suicide-hijackings/
Satan? LOL! If indeed there is a Satan that separate and living evil in which some Christians believe and he really wanted to destroy the world, he wouldn’t attempt to do it by way of common currency or slightly looser border control.
There is a FAR simpler way to deal with the super-abundance of meat-popsicles on our world: Sow discord and distrust. Look for ways to keep people isolated where they grow increasingly xenophobic until they eventually ossify and die off - or perhaps until they kill each other.
