Americanism

[Gloominary]

@obsrvr524

In my book -

• Liberal = free of rules
• Libertarian = free from all rules EXCEPT the rules that free from the other rules
• Conservative = keep it as it is
• Centrist = let’s just all get along - let someone else manipulate
• Marxist = let’s all divide and disrupt until we rule society
• Fascism = let’s use fear and intimidation to control the peasants
• Terrorism = let’s use fear to control their government

Quantitative:
Libertarian: Minimum intervention, just to prevent and deter force and fraud.
Liberal: Low intervention
Moderate: Self-explanatory
Authoritarian: High intervention
Totalitarian: Maximum intervention

Qualitative:
Conservative: Keep things as is or restore them to the way they were.
Populist: The general will.
Progressive: Hope and Change.
Centrist: All of the above.

Fascist: Dictatorship, militarism, mixed economy, nationalism, traditional values.

Marxist: Authoritarian socialism, government seizing control of the economy, in theory largely for the benefit of workers and consumers, in practice largely for the benefit of bureaucrats.

Globalist: World government, corporatocracy-technocracy, population reduction, transhumanism.
Not just the absence of traditional values, but anti-traditional values.
Blurred distinction between the races, man and woman, anti-whiteness and maleness.
Arguably increasingly the ideology of the ruling class.
The worst form of government ever proposed, so bad it has to be unfurled slowly over many decades.
Needs multiple crises real, imagined and manufactured to get the masses to accept it.

[Urwrongx1000]

@Gloominary

@obsrvr524

In my book -

• Liberal = free of rules
• Libertarian = free from all rules EXCEPT the rules that free from the other rules
• Conservative = keep it as it is
• Centrist = let’s just all get along - let someone else manipulate
• Marxist = let’s all divide and disrupt until we rule society
• Fascism = let’s use fear and intimidation to control the peasants
• Terrorism = let’s use fear to control their government

Quantitative:
Libertarian: Minimum intervention, just to prevent and deter force and fraud.
Liberal: Low intervention
Moderate: Self-explanatory
Authoritarian: High intervention
Totalitarian: Maximum intervention

Qualitative:
Conservative: Keep things as is or restore them to the way they were.
Populist: The general will.
Progressive: Hope and Change.
Centrist: All of the above.

Fascist: Dictatorship, militarism, mixed economy, nationalism, traditional values.

Marxist: Authoritarian socialism, government seizing control of the economy, in theory largely for the benefit of workers and consumers, in practice largely for the benefit of bureaucrats.

Globalist: World government, corporatocracy-technocracy, population reduction, transhumanism.
Not just the absence of traditional values, but anti-traditional values.
Blurred distinction between the races, man and woman, anti-whiteness and maleness.
Arguably increasingly the ideology of the ruling class.
The worst form of government ever proposed, so bad it has to be unfurled slowly over many decades.
Needs multiple crises real, imagined and manufactured to get the masses to accept it.

Many of these identities conflict and cannot co-exist, especially the bolded.

[Gloominary]

What might the globalist economy look like?
Will it be capitalist?
Not exactly
Will it be communist?
Not exactly

Firstly, there’ll be little-no middleclass and few-no small businesses.
About 50% of the economy will be private, dominated by just a handful of multinationals in each sector of the economy, and about 50% of the economy will be public.
99% of the masses will be homeless and carless, but not jobless.
They may have some personal belongings, whatever they can carry with them.
If they don’t work, some accommodation, a pod, recyclable clothing, bugs, soy and transportation will be provided by government.
If they do work, a more luxurious pod, recyclable clothing, bugs, soy and transportation will be provided either by government or a multinational.
Basically they’ll live in glorified homeless shelters.

The homeless will either work for government or a multinational producing and providing low quality communalized goods and services the homeless can afford to consume or for a multinational producing and providing high quality individualized goods and services only the rich can afford to consume.
Only the rich will be able to afford their own home, car, business and invest.
The economy will be rigged to make starting your own business or investing (near) impossible unless you’re already rich.

What might the globalist government look like?
There’ll be little-no democracy, perhaps a little local or ceremonial democracy.
It’ll be a technocorporatocracy.
Only the rich, and highly educated/indoctrinated geniuses will be able to vote and run for office.
Nations will be abolished, instead the world will be carved up into sectors.
Access to certain sectors will be restricted based on your socioeconomic status.
Generally the homeless will be forbidden from accessing affluent sectors and national parks unless they have work to do.

In addition, you will be forcibly chipped, medicated, tracked, traced, cybernetically and genetically modified, possibly sterilized or euthanized if deemed unfit.

The homeless will be forcibly publicly educated.
They’ll be taught not to critically think or question what government, the media, psychiatry and science says.
Religion will either be abolished, or heavily sanitized by the state.
People will turn to drugs and virtual reality to escape, where they’ll have more freedom to express themselves (but not too much).
They’ll be told there are no races, man or woman, only ‘people-with-penises’ and ‘people-with-vaginas’, consequently there are no heterosexuals or homosexuals.
They’ll be told sex is about hedonism, not reproduction.
I’m not sure what they’ll do about parenthood, if ‘birthing persons’ will have parental rights at all.
Whatever tribal identity-loyalty you had, must be purged or buried deep within the recesses of your psyche.

The homeful will be privately educated.

[Lorikeet (Satyr)]

Capitalism was never and can never be completely practiced, some socialist elements must soften up its survival of the fittest methods…just as socialism can never be applied without capitalistic elements.

But the global model in your thought experiment means there would be no competing system.
Communism, for one, fails because there are competing systems it cannot outperform…just as anarchy fails when there are alternative organizing methods it cannot compete with.
Warfare is also a way of maintaining and enforcing internal discipline.

In a globalized world with no alternative and no war an authoritarian system would have to deal with rebellion and any kind of spontaneous resistance to it.
Some socialism would be necessary to keep the majority safe and comfortable enough to remain placid.
Capitalism would dominate to keep the system working.

Too much communism reduces participation and a desire to produce.

[Gloominary]

@Gloominary

What might the globalist economy look like?
Will it be capitalist?
Not exactly
Will it be communist?
Not exactly

Firstly, there’ll be little-no middleclass and few-no small businesses.
About 50% of the economy will be private, dominated by just a handful of multinationals in each sector of the economy, and about 50% of the economy will be public.
99% of the masses will be homeless and carless, but not jobless.
They may have some personal belongings, whatever they can carry with them.
If they don’t work, some accommodation, a pod, recyclable clothing, bugs, soy and transportation will be provided by government.
If they do work, a more luxurious pod, recyclable clothing, bugs, soy and transportation will be provided either by government or a multinational.
Basically they’ll live in glorified homeless shelters.

The homeless will either work for government or a multinational producing and providing low quality communalized goods and services the homeless can afford to consume or for a multinational producing and providing high quality individualized goods and services only the rich can afford to consume.
Only the rich will be able to afford their own home, car, business and invest.
The economy will be rigged to make starting your own business or investing (near) impossible unless you’re already rich.

What might the globalist government look like?
There’ll be little-no democracy, perhaps a little local or ceremonial democracy.
It’ll be a technocorporatocracy.
Only the rich, and highly educated/indoctrinated geniuses will be able to vote and run for office.
Nations will be abolished, instead the world will be carved up into sectors.
Access to certain sectors will be restricted based on your socioeconomic status.
Generally the homeless will be forbidden from accessing affluent sectors and national parks unless they have work to do.

In addition, you will be forcibly chipped, medicated, tracked, traced, cybernetically and genetically modified, possibly sterilized or euthanized if deemed unfit.

The homeless will be forcibly publicly educated.
They’ll be taught not to critically think or question what government, the media, psychiatry and science says.
Religion will either be abolished, or heavily sanitized by the state.
People will turn to drugs and virtual reality to escape, where they’ll have more freedom to express themselves (but not too much).
They’ll be told there are no races, man or woman, only ‘people-with-penises’ and ‘people-with-vaginas’, consequently there are no heterosexuals or homosexuals.
They’ll be told sex is about hedonism, not reproduction.
I’m not sure what they’ll do about parenthood, if ‘birthing persons’ will have parental rights at all.
Whatever tribal identity-loyalty you had, must be purged or buried deep within the recesses of your psyche.

The homeful will be privately educated.

On second thought, there may be many small, artisan businesses producing/providing high quality personalized goods/services (as opposed to the multinationals that produce/provide high quality impersonalized goods/services only the rich can afford and the multinationals that produce/provide low quality impersonalized goods/services the poor are able to afford), but only the rich will be able to afford to start, own and purchase from them.

[obsrvr524]

@Gloominary

@obsrvr524

In my book -

• Liberal = free of rules
• Libertarian = free from all rules EXCEPT the rules that free from the other rules
• Conservative = keep it as it is
• Centrist = let’s just all get along - let someone else manipulate
• Marxist = let’s all divide and disrupt until we rule society
• Fascism = let’s use fear and intimidation to control the peasants
• Terrorism = let’s use fear to control their government

Quantitative:
Libertarian: Minimum intervention, just to prevent and deter force and fraud.
Liberal: Low intervention
Moderate: Self-explanatory
Authoritarian: High intervention
Totalitarian: Maximum intervention

Qualitative:
Conservative: Keep things as is or restore them to the way they were.
Populist: The general will.
Progressive: Hope and Change.

All of those work for me - but I think they need to be emphasized while we post - else people lose the concepts.

@Gloominary

Centrist: All of the above.

Fascist: Dictatorship, militarism, mixed economy, nationalism, traditional values.

Marxist: Authoritarian socialism, government seizing control of the economy, in theory largely for the benefit of workers and consumers, in practice largely for the benefit of bureaucrats.

Globalist: World government, corporatocracy-technocracy, population reduction, transhumanism.
Not just the absence of traditional values, but anti-traditional values.
Blurred distinction between the races, man and woman, anti-whiteness and maleness.
Arguably increasingly the ideology of the ruling class.
The worst form of government ever proposed, so bad it has to be unfurled slowly over many decades.
Needs multiple crises real, imagined and manufactured to get the masses to accept it.

Those aren’t definitions - just current aspects - which in many cases can change.

@Lorikeet

Capitalism was never and can never be completely practiced, some socialist elements must soften up its survival of the fittest methods…just as socialism can never be applied without capitalistic elements.

But the global model in your thought experiment means there would be no competing system.
Communism, for one, fails because there are competing systems it cannot outperform…just as anarchy fails when there are alternative organizing methods it cannot compete with.
Warfare is also a way of maintaining and enforcing internal discipline.

In a globalized world with no alternative and no war an authoritarian system would have to deal with rebellion and any kind of spontaneous resistance to it.
Some socialism would be necessary to keep the majority safe and comfortable enough to remain placid.
Capitalism would dominate to keep the system working.

Too much communism reduces participation and a desire to produce.

All of that seems true - but with one concerning total paradigm changer - AI and robotics.

I am expecting almost all peasants to be medically annihilated - blame shifted to - all kinds of things - perhaps very soon - the purpose being to ensure that all remaining humans (perhaps only 20% of current) are totally controllable and compliant.

What that means is that the normally expected and historical staged false flag wars to keep the hierarchy strong might not be required any longer - people will be drones serving AI and not knowing anything else.

[Gloominary]

So how will world government come about?
In a sense we’ve already had world government.

At the height of Roman power in the mid 2nd century AD, conservative opinion is that the Empire was comprised of some 65 million people. Assuming that the world population was still roughly about 300 million people, this would mean that the Roman population was approximately 21% of the world’s total.

By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23% of the world population at the time.

However, what we’re talking about is somewhat different and unprecedented.
We’re not talking about a city or nation state conquering other city or nation states, or national globalism if you will, we’re talking about global, globalism, something more akin to the United Nations or European Union, but far more covetous.

World government could be achieved through the UN, or a new entity, perhaps emerging after a crisis or crises, real, imagined or exaggerated (like you know what), let’s call it the WU (World Union).
The ultimate objective of the WU would be to abolish nationhood altogether, but barring a manmade or natural catastrophe of epic proportions, such a lofty objective couldn’t be achieved overnight, it would take many decades if not centuries, and they may not get the whole world, only a large portion of it, say 20-25%.

The WU could begin innocuously enough, like the European Union began as the European Economic Community, as a free trade agreement between several nations, from there more nations may join.
Later, member states could relinquish their national currencies for the world, digital currency.
The world currency would be tied in with social credit.
People with a low score would have their finances restricted, like in China.
If you’re bad, they can just restrict or turn off your purchasing power.

From there, it could get more covetous, demanding member states surrender more and more of their sovereignty till there’s none left.
In addition to currency, the WU would have a world army, bureaucracy, court, education, healthcare, just about everything nations have.
Incrementally member states would adopt its systems.
As the WU grows, becoming wealthier and more powerful, it could invade sovereign nation states, forcefully expanding its domain.

Which nations will be the first to join, the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, France?
We hope no one.
China?
In my estimation China is still too conservative and nationalistic, the prime candidates for globalism are in the west, where the globalists came out of, and perhaps some weak, underdeveloped nations the globalists already largely control.
Powerful, nationalistic states like Russia and China (even tho the Chinese are at the forefront of social credit and transhumanism) will be less likely to join, and so the globalists may have to compete economically, militarily, and culturally with Brazil, Russia, India, China, Iran, Turkey and so on.

I do believe we’re headed for a multipolar world, but what I think we’re missing is, globalism itself will likely be one of the poles, if not the pole, not just Russia, China the US and so on, but world government itself will probably increasingly become a force to be reckoned with…assuming civilization doesn’t completely collapse due to some unpredictable manmade or natural calamity.

If the US has a civil war, it’ll probably be over this question, to join or not to join world government.
All western, and many developing nations may have to have a civil war over this question.
In some nations the globalists may win, in others lose, and in others still nations may split into two or more entities over it.

[Ecmandu]

Nonobsrvnt wrote:

“ What that means is that the normally expected and historical staged false flag wars to keep the hierarchy strong might not be required any longer - people will be drones serving AI and not knowing anything else.”

Ecmandu replies: What makes you think that’s not already occurring?

[obsrvr524]

@Gloominary

So how will world government come about?
In a sense we’ve already had world government.

At the height of Roman power in the mid 2nd century AD, conservative opinion is that the Empire was comprised of some 65 million people. Assuming that the world population was still roughly about 300 million people, this would mean that the Roman population was approximately 21% of the world’s total.

By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23% of the world population at the time.

However, what we’re talking about is somewhat different and unprecedented.
We’re not talking about a city or nation state conquering other city or nation states, or national globalism if you will, we’re talking about global, globalism, something more akin to the United Nations or European Union, but far more covetous.

World government could be achieved through the UN, or a new entity, perhaps emerging after a crisis or crises, real, imagined or exaggerated (like you know what), let’s call it the WU (World Union).
The ultimate objective of the WU would be to abolish nationhood altogether, but barring a manmade or natural catastrophe of epic proportions, such a lofty objective couldn’t be achieved overnight, it would take many decades if not centuries, and they may not get the whole world, only a large portion of it, say 20-25%.

The WU could begin innocuously enough, like the European Union began as the European Economic Community, as a free trade agreement between several nations, from there more nations may join.
Later, member states could relinquish their national currencies for the world, digital currency.
The world currency would be tied in with social credit.
People with a low score would have their finances restricted, like in China.
If you’re bad, they can just restrict or turn off your purchasing power.

From there, it could get more covetous, demanding member states surrender more and more of their sovereignty till there’s none left.
In addition to currency, the WU would have a world army, bureaucracy, court, education, healthcare, just about everything nations have.
Incrementally member states would adopt its systems.
As the WU grows, becoming wealthier and more powerful, it could invade sovereign nation states, forcefully expanding its domain.

Which nations will be the first to join, the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, France?
We hope no one.
China?
In my estimation China is still too conservative and nationalistic, the prime candidates for globalism are in the west, where the globalists came out of, and perhaps some weak, underdeveloped nations the globalists already largely control.
Powerful, nationalistic states like Russia and China (even tho the Chinese are at the forefront of social credit and transhumanism) will be less likely to join, and so the globalists may have to compete economically, militarily, and culturally with Brazil, Russia, India, China, Iran, Turkey and so on.

I do believe we’re headed for a multipolar world, but what I think we’re missing is, globalism itself will likely be one of the poles, if not the pole, not just Russia, China the US and so on, but world government itself will probably increasingly become a force to be reckoned with…assuming civilization doesn’t completely collapse due to some unpredictable manmade or natural calamity.

If the US has a civil war, it’ll probably be over this question, to join or not to join world government.
All western, and many developing nations may have to have a civil war over this question.
In some nations the globalists may win, in others lose, and in others still nations may split into two or more entities over it.

That seems all out of sync. Most of what you propose “could be done” was done and we have been living under it since about 1945 - and it came about via 2 global wars.

@"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

Wikipedia[/url]"]The International Court of Justice (ICJ; French: Cour internationale de justice; CIJ), sometimes known as the World Court,[1] is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN).[2] It settles disputes between states in accordance with international law and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. The ICJ is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between countries, with its rulings and opinions serving as primary sources of international law.

@"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council

Wikipedia[/url]"]The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers, outlined in the United Nations Charter, include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action. Its powers are exercised through United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The Security Council held its first ever session on 17 January 1946 at Church House, Westminster, London. Since its first meeting, the council, which exists in continuous session, has travelled widely, holding meetings in many cities, such as Paris and Addis Ababa, as well as at its current permanent home at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City.

There are 15 members of the Security Council, consisting of five veto-wielding permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and 10 elected non-permanent members with two-year terms. This basic structure is set out in Chapter V of the UN Charter. Security Council members must always be present at UN headquarters in New York so that the Security Council can meet at any time.

The issue isn’t about having a “world government” - it is about having

• a World Democratic Republic - “International Globalization”

• or -

• a World Communist Empire - “Globalism”.

“Globalism” refers to having virtually no national borders - no democracy - no autonomy - bow and obey - one authority - a global emperor (although only a global general assembly to begin with).

“International Globalization” refers to the governing coordination of the many nations through social-capitalist agreements achieved by the U.N. General Council. A US style constitution should have been adopted early on - but — what can anyone expect.

[Gloominary]

@obsrvr524

@Gloominary

So how will world government come about?
In a sense we’ve already had world government.

At the height of Roman power in the mid 2nd century AD, conservative opinion is that the Empire was comprised of some 65 million people. Assuming that the world population was still roughly about 300 million people, this would mean that the Roman population was approximately 21% of the world’s total.

By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23% of the world population at the time.

However, what we’re talking about is somewhat different and unprecedented.
We’re not talking about a city or nation state conquering other city or nation states, or national globalism if you will, we’re talking about global, globalism, something more akin to the United Nations or European Union, but far more covetous.

World government could be achieved through the UN, or a new entity, perhaps emerging after a crisis or crises, real, imagined or exaggerated (like you know what), let’s call it the WU (World Union).
The ultimate objective of the WU would be to abolish nationhood altogether, but barring a manmade or natural catastrophe of epic proportions, such a lofty objective couldn’t be achieved overnight, it would take many decades if not centuries, and they may not get the whole world, only a large portion of it, say 20-25%.

The WU could begin innocuously enough, like the European Union began as the European Economic Community, as a free trade agreement between several nations, from there more nations may join.
Later, member states could relinquish their national currencies for the world, digital currency.
The world currency would be tied in with social credit.
People with a low score would have their finances restricted, like in China.
If you’re bad, they can just restrict or turn off your purchasing power.

From there, it could get more covetous, demanding member states surrender more and more of their sovereignty till there’s none left.
In addition to currency, the WU would have a world army, bureaucracy, court, education, healthcare, just about everything nations have.
Incrementally member states would adopt its systems.
As the WU grows, becoming wealthier and more powerful, it could invade sovereign nation states, forcefully expanding its domain.

Which nations will be the first to join, the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, France?
We hope no one.
China?
In my estimation China is still too conservative and nationalistic, the prime candidates for globalism are in the west, where the globalists came out of, and perhaps some weak, underdeveloped nations the globalists already largely control.
Powerful, nationalistic states like Russia and China (even tho the Chinese are at the forefront of social credit and transhumanism) will be less likely to join, and so the globalists may have to compete economically, militarily, and culturally with Brazil, Russia, India, China, Iran, Turkey and so on.

I do believe we’re headed for a multipolar world, but what I think we’re missing is, globalism itself will likely be one of the poles, if not the pole, not just Russia, China the US and so on, but world government itself will probably increasingly become a force to be reckoned with…assuming civilization doesn’t completely collapse due to some unpredictable manmade or natural calamity.

If the US has a civil war, it’ll probably be over this question, to join or not to join world government.
All western, and many developing nations may have to have a civil war over this question.
In some nations the globalists may win, in others lose, and in others still nations may split into two or more entities over it.

That seems all out of sync. Most of what you propose “could be done” was done and we have been living under it since about 1945 - and it came about via 2 global wars.

@"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

Wikipedia[/url]"]The International Court of Justice (ICJ; French: Cour internationale de justice; CIJ), sometimes known as the World Court,[1] is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN).[2] It settles disputes between states in accordance with international law and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. The ICJ is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between countries, with its rulings and opinions serving as primary sources of international law.

@"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council

Wikipedia[/url]"]The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers, outlined in the United Nations Charter, include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action. Its powers are exercised through United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The Security Council held its first ever session on 17 January 1946 at Church House, Westminster, London. Since its first meeting, the council, which exists in continuous session, has travelled widely, holding meetings in many cities, such as Paris and Addis Ababa, as well as at its current permanent home at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City.

There are 15 members of the Security Council, consisting of five veto-wielding permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and 10 elected non-permanent members with two-year terms. This basic structure is set out in Chapter V of the UN Charter. Security Council members must always be present at UN headquarters in New York so that the Security Council can meet at any time.

The issue isn’t about having a “world government” - it is about having

• a World Democratic Republic - “International Globalization”

• or -

• a World Communist Empire - “Globalism”.

“Globalism” refers to having virtually no national borders - no democracy - no autonomy - bow and obey - one authority - a global emperor (although only a global general assembly to begin with).

“International Globalization” refers to the governing coordination of the many nations through social-capitalist agreements achieved by the U.N. General Council. A US style constitution should have been adopted early on - but — what can anyone expect.

I expected someone to make this point.
Right, what I’m talking about is the globalism of the WU, not the internationalism of the UN.
This post wasn’t for describing what life would be like under globalism, I already did that in previous posts, but talking about how it would be incrementally imposed from the top-down by a world government like the WU on its member states, beginning with free trade agreements, then the incremental imposition of the WU’s authoritarian socioeconomic system through its world digital currency-social credit, then with the incremental imposition of the WU’s socioeconomic system by force, through its world army, and world police, until member states ceased to be nations, becoming collections of sectors and subsectors within the WU.
It was for talking about which nations would be more likely to join a world government like the WU, and how some nations might civil war over the question of joining it.

[Gloominary]

I see the internationalism of the UN and this plandemic as prep for globalism.
The UN could devolve from internationalism to globalism, or world government could be established by creating a brand new entity like the WU.

[Gloominary]

@Gloominary

I see the internationalism of the UN and this plandemic as prep for globalism.
The UN could devolve from internationalism to globalism, or world government could be established by creating a brand new entity like the WU.

Along with free trade agreements, open borders, corporatism, this political correctness nation states from Canada to Italy are adopting, this homogenizing of nations, all prep for globalism, but still not globalism, it’s quasi-globalism or globalization.

[Gloominary]

Yea liberalism is a funny word.
I think a name’s meaning oughta bear a resemblance to its etymology, so I use liberalism to mean, not libertarian, but libertarian leaning.
The globalists calling themselves liberals are butchering the word.
Trump for instance is far more liberal than his opposition.
Then liberalism can be combined with various things, like liberal conservatism, liberal populism, liberal progressivism, as opposed to authoritarian conservatism, authoritarian populism and authoritarian progressivism.
Liberal progressivism for example means little or some progressive intervention in socioeconomic life, not a lot.

[obsrvr524]

@Gloominary

I expected someone to make this point.
Right, what I’m talking about is the globalism of the WU, not the internationalism of the UN.
This post wasn’t for describing what life would be like under globalism, I already did that in previous posts, but talking about how it would be incrementally imposed from the top-down by a world government like the WU on its member states, beginning with free trade agreements, then the incremental imposition of the WU’s authoritarian socioeconomic system through its world digital currency-social credit, then with the incremental imposition of the WU’s socioeconomic system by force, through its world army, and world police, until member states ceased to be nations, becoming collections of sectors and subsectors within the WU.
It was for talking about which nations would be more likely to join a world government like the WU, and how some nations might civil war over the question of joining it.

I am not seeing any difference between your proposed WU and the current UN (that was my point).

@Gloominary

I see the internationalism of the UN and this plandemic as prep for globalism.
The UN could devolve from internationalism to globalism, or world government could be established by creating a brand new entity like the WU.

That - the globalization of the UN - is what the last 20 years has been about - it is already “devolving” into that WU - and it is doing it by designs that are about 80 years in the make. The original plans were apparently a 100 year conversion (China bragged on it) and they appear to be exactly on track now that they got Mr Trump out of the way.

[obsrvr524]

@Gloominary

liberal conservatism

That term hurts my brain - I guess you mean maybe “loose conservatism” or “left leaning”.

[Gloominary]

@obsrvr524

@Gloominary

liberal conservatism

That term hurts my brain - I guess you mean maybe “loose conservatism” or “left leaning”.

No I don’t mean progressive conservatism.

Liberal Conservatism: Gays shouldn’t have the same marriage or adoption rights.
Conservatism: Gays should be fined or jailed.
Authoritarian Conservatism: Gays should be executed.

We agreed conservatism means keep the socioeconomy as is, or, restore it to the way it was.
Well, that’s what we use to do with gays.
For you, conservatism and liberalism are like two different ways of saying the same thing, conserve liberalism.
For me, yea you can conserve liberalism, from progressivism, Marxism and globalism, or you can go back further to when queers were marginalized, or back further to when they were fined, jailed or executed.

I’m not saying that’s what I want to do, I’d be content with gays not having the same marriage and adoption rights, altho it’s not an important issue for me, I’m just saying
that conservatism isn’t necessarily synonymous with liberalism, even in English speaking countries, unless you’re using conservatism very narrowly to mean how things are or were a few decades ago in English speaking countries, which admittedly is the way most English speakers use it these days, but that’s not how I use it.
Joseph de Maistre was a conservative, but he was no liberal.

Political and economic conservatism, is that a democratic republic and capitalism?
Sure, but it could also be about protecting or restoring the supremacy of the royal family and gentry in the commonwealth, the house of lords and the power of the governor general to appoint the senate in Canada.

[Gloominary]

@obsrvr524

@Gloominary

I expected someone to make this point.
Right, what I’m talking about is the globalism of the WU, not the internationalism of the UN.
This post wasn’t for describing what life would be like under globalism, I already did that in previous posts, but talking about how it would be incrementally imposed from the top-down by a world government like the WU on its member states, beginning with free trade agreements, then the incremental imposition of the WU’s authoritarian socioeconomic system through its world digital currency-social credit, then with the incremental imposition of the WU’s socioeconomic system by force, through its world army, and world police, until member states ceased to be nations, becoming collections of sectors and subsectors within the WU.
It was for talking about which nations would be more likely to join a world government like the WU, and how some nations might civil war over the question of joining it.

I am not seeing any difference between your proposed WU and the current UN (that was my point).

@Gloominary

I see the internationalism of the UN and this plandemic as prep for globalism.
The UN could devolve from internationalism to globalism, or world government could be established by creating a brand new entity like the WU.

That - the globalization of the UN - is what the last 20 years has been about - it is already “devolving” into that WU - and it is doing it by designs that are about 80 years in the make. The original plans were apparently a 100 year conversion (China bragged on it) and they appear to be exactly on track now that they got Mr Trump out of the way.

Yea I figured as much.
I read this conspiracy theory about Albert Pike.
He supposedly predicted something far more globalistic and totalitarian than the UN would form after WW3, the way the UN formed after WW2 and the league of nations after WW1.
Anyway, just a thought experiment, at this point they probably don’t need a new entity, the UN is already devolving into world government.
Since they mean to do away with the nation state altogether, in the future they may give the UN a new name, like the World Union.

[Urwrongx1000]

The pundits on the Conservative-Right keep prematurely declaring “we’re winning! they’re scared!” but I don’t think so. I disagree.
They’re losing (those pundits). America is losing, badly. We are losing. The “American Giant” is under attack, but still groggy, tired, and trying to get out of bed.

Waking up from the “American Dream”, the delusion, takes time. It could be too late by that time. (The house is on fire!)

The more discord, chaos, rioting, violence, fear, paranoia, hatred they (the Davos Group / UN) can stir-up, in USA and around the world, the better it is for them. Thus, it doesn’t matter (to them) if Australia makes Concentration Camps for the Aboriginals. This is just the beginning, and there is no significant Resistance. The world is apathetic, and they know it. So pressure will continue. “The beatings will continue, until Morale improves.” As the saying goes.

When nations collapse (when, not IF) then they will swoop in as the newly organized United Nations, and pretend to be the “good guys”, the Morally elite. Lecturing the rest of the world, “How could you all let this happen?!” when they were the ones who orchestrated the whole circus. This will legitimize their Military power and armies they hope to assemble. Then those armies will unite under singular banners.

They want Civil War in the United States. And at this rate, they’ll get it sooner than later.

[Gloominary]

Is capitalism, conservatism?
In one sense it is, in another sense it’s (conserving) economic liberalism.
Is free trade conservatism?
Is allowing manufacturing jobs working and lower middle class families depend on to be offshored to China and Mexico conservatism?
Is being dependent on China conservatism?
Or is protectionism conservatism?

In another sense, Mussolini’s class collaboration is conservatism, or government intervening, not to overturn socioeconomic hierarchies, but to preserve and strengthen them, ironing out the kinks and imbalances, as opposed to the top-down class warfare of corporatism or the bottom-up class warfare of socialism.
Also see paternalistic conservatism.

In another sense, distributism is conservatism.

[Urwrongx1000]

Conservatism: No border, No nation.

This is why Liberals are pulling in millions of illegals. It is the antithesis of Conservatism. These people are begging for war, and they will very likely get it.