What's so bad about the New World Order?

98% of the U.N. is socialist representatives, all of whom lust to be god of their countries. Constitutions limit Godwannabe socialists. That’s is why they seriously hate Constitutions.

Originally, when I posted the word "fucktard’, I wasn’t talking about you…

Democracy has its roots dug into things.
I suspect a constitutional NWO.
I’m sorry if people are being disrespectful towards you.

Anyone who is, please stop.

Also this is a disrespectful generalization.

What’s so bad about the New World Order.

Communism took all property away and made it the State’s property.

Capitalism says the property belongs to the individual and nobody has the right to take it away.

The Pope condemns Communism but he also condemns Capitalism.

So in the name of fairness the New World Order will be something in between?

Private Property

Thomas Aquinas, wrote no treatise on economics, but his thinking, based on that of Aristotle, is foundational for understanding the economic thought of the Roman Catholic Church State. (The Growth of Economic Thought).

So what did Thomas Aquinas say.

Because the goods of some are due to others by the natural law, there is no sin if the poor take the goods of their neighbours.
Thomas wrote "In cases of need, all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common. (7th article Summa Theologiae).

Not only is such taking of another’s property not a sin, it is not even a crime, according to Thomas.

Therefore, because private property is immoral, all men - individuals and governments have the moral obligation to redistribute goods held unjustly by property owners.

If this is the basis for a New World Order, then nothing a person owns will be his and there will be nothing you can do about it. A redistribution of your goods.

There is another word for the redistribution of wealth. Theft.

The Bible says thou shalt not steal.

This system of human rights breaks every commandment of God.

When God distributed land to Israel how was it distributed? As an eternal inheritance, it was your land and your children’s, forever.

Redistribution is the New World Order.

Bertrand Russell. The only possibilities are now world government or death.

The Humanist manifesto II, urges us "to move toward the building of a world community

Pope calls for a New World Order. CNN January 2004.

Robert Muller, former Assistant Secretary General of the united nations, said "We must move as quickly as possible to a one world government, a one world religion under a one world leader.

I wonder who that is going to be.

The experiment with economic freedom, Pius XI wrote, must end, and economic life must again be subjected to planning and government.

New World Order is intended not just to unite the nations (BTW that which God had separated) but to eradicate that which refuses to bow to the Papacy.

The Kingdom of God for Catholicism is the Kingdom of Catholicism ruling the world on this earth.

“Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” – Woodrow Wilson

Yup. =D>

Robert Muller, assistant secretary of the United Nation said it, so we might as well do it. Jar Jar Binks said we might as well do it, well, we might as well do it. Let’s give supreme power to the Pope.

One world government
The trouble is that you assume that the world government will represent its people. Who can fight against it? especially if the people have no guns, see below. You could end up with a world government like that of Iran.

Banning guns

Switzerland ranks 4th and Sweden Ranks 9th. Both safer than the U.K. Most gun crimes in USA are gang related, if the USA wants a safer society it must eradicate gangs and change its culture which glorifies them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of … by_country

Do you know that there is no law that requires the average American worker in the private sector to pay a direct unapportioned tax on their labor in compensation for services.

America from Freedom to Facism, are they one step away from being serfs.

This vid is quite long, but certainly worth watching.


Ending the drug war would go a long way to cutting back on violent crimes.

Nah… national socialism is a front for Nationalism, the epidemic groupist dogma of modern times which any true philosopher ought to hate.
Nationalism is the single biggest culprit.
Globalism = no nationalism, so see? There’s a hell of a lot of a difference.

I totally agree with OP, the New World Order is a good thing. But the way it is pushed, by shadowy eltes, might not be a good thing. Nah, we need the people to awaken and install a New World Order.
That’s the only way it’ll work?
But how can we do that?

We can bank upon our dear Trixie to lead the charge.

We must begin at public funding*
More details on the strategy to be adopted, here:
djedefsauron.net/index.php?o … Itemid=151

  • The first stage of our coup de logic must be Public-funding, like FDR’s “New Deal” – distribution of newly printed moneys as wage to state-employed citizens – should partly replace the failed central bank policy: a network of (inter-) nationalist, selectively bailoutist central banks functioning as serfs of the financial elite

Well, I agree there is that difference. With nationalism, “National Socialism”, everyone in the nation is required to live solely to please the nation’s leaders. But with Globalism, everyone in the world is to live solely to please the World leader’s - The new World Pharaoh.

Because it might not be possible to make.

You can see how a globalist regime will have the same problems, but at a global level, as natinalism, when you look at the various wars carried out internally in the US. The war on drugs, the war on terrorism, with all the attendant racism, classism, fascism, surveillance, and incredible incarceration rates. Soviet countries of course carried out similiar wars against their own people, earlier in history often around betrayals of the regime. There is absolutely no reason to assume any of this would stop with a global government and there are many reasons to believe it will actually increase. 1) there are people whose temperment is suited to this kind of top down control. They will no longer have to compete with other countries for being the good guy. 2) Control of media and information will be easier. Right now the complexity of viewpoints is somewhat protected by there being so many countries, so many propagandas which do want to get at negative truths about other countries, media corporations that are not unified with all countries by semi melded with one or two. After a final merger of all governments, the oligarchy can eliminate, streamline control. 3) the larger a country, the greater the distance from the supposedly represented or at least serviced by the government. Even a Senator or a member of Parliment or some Communist bureaucrat is fewer degrees of separation from all different kinds of people, than the government members, the law enforcement members, the military members of a one world government. A litle nuancing, send region 1 troops to put down resistance in region 6 if you are concerned about vestiges of national or ethnic identity causing some reluctance, can make things run smoothly. But basically accountability is even less likely. They are really far away, dealing with people even more as statistics who they will never meet the cousin of or share a favorite professor with or run into somewhere or have ones cousin run into. It is pushing bottons and dealing with numbers. To an even greater degree.

Control of information, the systematic inhibition of even the last vestiges of empathy due to the centralization, and the easy to find excuses for survellance, control, monitoring and law enforcement/military use internally set up for the worst possible scenarios.

One might argue it will just be a coin toss. A good one world government will be just as likely as a bad one. That is one fucking dangerous coin toss and I don’t think it is worth the risk. But further I think it is much more likely to be a bad flip. A single world government will have to have an incredibly deep hierarchy which leads to the even greater loss of empathy and distance issues I raised. It also acts as an enzyme for control by wealth. Oligarchies begin to accumulate wealth in smaller and smaller groups. Even tyrants of smaller countries had a kind of self-image investment in maintaining the lower classes with some degree of survival.

Toss in the technological advantages oligarchies have, coupled with control of the minds of children and you are baking a really bad loaf here.

I have generally had much better experiences with mom and pop stores than corporations. Eye contact, they know me, human to human.
When I try convincing a rep in India that my American sold to me product made by Chinese workers out of parts made wherever is not working and I should have compensation, just the very inertia of working my way through the corporation is oppressive, in the best of circumstances when the corporation actually decides, in the end, I do deserve help. And when they do not I am actually talking mainly to recorded messages who give me false dichotomy options to press.

And wait until a one world government gets an AI and robots or transhuman organism/cyborgs as tools.
Sure, it is a nightmare if a number of nations get these and use these, but at least they then have other enemies than us to use them against.

And the chances that some ‘side’ effect will have horrible effects seems high to me. And what if those side effects take 12 generations to show clearly?

It’s not possible to make. Nature’s perfection cannot be replicated by man.

The trick is to bring about a new kind of New World Order. Forget past methods of revolution, … it is not correct to extrapolate the failures of the past regimes, into a global level, there can’t be a global failed state.

Can a 1-world authority defy ALL the people on earth? It cannot. Increase in size of empire is directly linked to adoption of objective logic by the empire’s core.

What is the trick to success?
The Soviet revolution was led by an elite class (Bolsheviks). Therefore it failed. What I propose is a cultural revolution* led by the people at the grassroots, who come up in naturalist** enclaves sponsored by public funding*.
That is bound to succeed.

The trick is that the political system should be decentralized from the beginning itself (unlike the scheme of Marx, who said that the 1-world government will ultimately dissolve (NOT), leading to the kingdom of man (NOT!)).

What is more, humans can do it.

The Vainakh peoples of the North-Caucasus, (balkanizingly misdescribed as “Chechens, Ingush” et al.), are described as “mountain dwelling peoples with a highly complex, clan-based social organization and a strong attachment to the concept of freedom.” Here, we see – for the first time ever, in earth, an inherently strong society at the grassroots: “Individuals are united in family groups called “Tsa” – house. Several Tsas are part of the “Nekh” – road; a group of Nekhs is in turn a Teip. All such social structures bore responsibility and respect for law and order.” This is not how it is in our “democracies,” where centralized solutions are pandered for a few problems, and most problems go unsolved, the only constant thing being that the people, in any case, are not allowed, economically or otherwise, to make any decisions.

But in the society of the Vainakh, “if a problem is not solved in the Tsa, or Nekh, or Teip councils, it could move to Tukkhum counsil, and further even to Mekhk-Khel, the People’s Council, which addressed issues of large (national-like) scale. Representatives of this Council were elected by each Tukkhum Counsil, and had an enormous influence on the destiny of the people.” A people who had an idea of objective logic, and lived by choice, creating their own destiny. Johanna Nichols says of the Kists that they never fought, even once, a war for any purpose for any other purpose but defense. They were noted for their exceptionally fierce devotion to freedom and their ability to resist invaders, ranging from the Arabs to the Scythians to Turkic peoples to the Mongols. After the Mongol invasions, they became known to outsiders as the Ichkeri (Turkic for “freedom people”). “The egalitarian nature and democratic value of freedom and equality of Chechen society have been cited by many as a major reason why their resistance to tyranny has been so intense (there was no “elite” to be coopted, as Tony Wood notes)”… “To the Nakh people, hospitality is considered very important, less important only than freedom (considered of first importance) and equality (second importance). As the third most important value, it has a profound effect on the functioning of the teip system. Many times, originally foreign groups have been completely integrated into the teip system, becoming their own teip. These teips are eventually viewed as integral parts of the Vainakh, despite their foreign origin”… “During the Bolshevik era, he Teip council system has been much criticized by Russian governments and their puppet governments” …

If the leaders of the future world order’s “Mekhk-Khel” tend to become despotic, they can easily be checked, after all nobody can defy humanity at large.

To be sure, that was the theoretical idea of the USSR as well (“Soviets” were autonomous local governing bodies),
therefore we must be extra-careful in obtaining a balance between the power of local bodies and the power of the 1-world authority (who should constitutionally focus on breaking up anti-individual herds (e.g.: ultimately anti-individual recidivists displaying nationalistic tendencies) – not repressing individuals.

Utopia is assured If the power of this UN-like 1-world anti-herd authority is constitutionally checked…
if, in particular, money printing is a local activity handled by local powers and not the 1-world anti-herd authority (we need a clear compartmentalization of “government”, break it up into less monolithic small bodies performing various highly specific functions – one body with a global presence to oppose nationalistic tendencies and this body can’t be entrusted to police civilians – that’s a separate task to be carried out by local militias. If these local militias band up and rebel in a nationalistic manner, the global body kicks in, until then it stays out of the picture. A new 1-world constitution has to be written :slight_smile:

Thanks for pointing this out. This should be prevented by providing (in the NWO constitution) for two, instead of one police like bodies- firstly an international (anti-nationalist) force, and secondly the local protection force, which is similar to the local militias we see in many parts of the world
(note: at the same time, armies will be rendered redundant and dissolved, with the death of nationalism).


For the most part, no top-down control is envisioned for the NWO. Rather, bottom-up control, Vainakh style, is envisioned.


But the bounds of the 1-world regime will be strictly defined. It can’t dabble into culture. Culture will be relatively spontaneous and with the backbone being the free internet. I can as well argue that the greatest hoaxes are spread by nationalists – the nuke hoax, the moon/Mars hoax (how much $$ they funnel out for rogue academics who agree with these lies and divide the funding obtained for taht - all taxpayers’ money.


The NWO will be (it can only be) a blend of anarchist and governmentalist principles, so these fears are unfounded; the bounds of the 1-world regime will be strictly defined.


In our NWO, We limit the powers of the government. How? The government does not run the money printing operations – the people do. It is out of their generosity that the government is maintained (so what I’m saying is the opposite of what we have today. That is why it is the NEW world order. It cannot be pre-judged on the basis of the old world order.


Not really, as I said before… by the people’s act of taking back money-printing power, we limit the powers of the NWO government

You see… if govt. is married to central bank, as is today, it is only then that your fears are justified… but as i said, in the scenario i specify, that is not the case. The NWO can only be a good flip.

Whaaaat? Don’t worry about that, that’s never gonna happen except in Hollywood.

I used to think like that, but it is the people who will in fact have the power, in any successful NWO.
Like how Alexander stabilized his empire by bestowing governing power to the peoples he “conquered”.

Well, I’d be glad for you to prove that one to me.