Universal What Now? A Tale of the NWO

Then again the same old story,
World will travel, oh so quickly,
Travel first and lean towards this time.

Gather round, my ATS brethren, I have a story for you. It’s a story you’ve all heard before, and if you’re like me, you've regarded it as a new myth- a few unrelated factoids grafted together and amplified through countless distortion filters, a phantom given form by our collective anxiety around the globalization process.

A fairytale for the digital age.

Once upon a time, shortly before the first world war, there was a group of folks who decided that all the peoples of the world must be forged into a single nation- a monoculture that would span the globe. Conflict was seen as a product of our differences, rather than a function of resource misallocation. The goals laid out centered around an end to war, the ushering in of a golden age of mutual understanding and perfect harmony. This was to be achieved through the dissolution of cultural diversity and the all the markers that that make one human distinct from another, both as individuals and as nations.

A multi-pronged approach was devised; political, religious, commercial and cultural targets were assigned, and parcelled out to parties we might today recognize as “independent contractors”. A war was triggered that led to the formation of The League of Nations. Under that umbrella, things like Esperanto and Ba’hai, Theosophy and free trade were trotted out. Some measures enjoyed more success than others, and so the methodology and the players were continuously tinkered with; the prospect of hitting on the right formula becoming more concrete as our tech caught up with their ambitions.

After WWII, the League of Nations was supplanted by the more robust United Nations, and the Rockefellers funded the construction of the UN building in NYC- you will find that many of the cultural and religious initiatives spearheaded in the ‘40w and ‘50s can be directly traced back there. UFOs came on the scene, hand in hand with the New Age cultus and the Free Love movement. NAFTA, the EU, the multinationals followed.

Beyond that, overt efforts toward a NWO fizzled out. But what about covert efforts? What if there are still players dedicated to furthering the goals set up a century ago in pretty much the same ways, but without accountability or fanfare, and almost entirely through third-party action?

What would it look like? It might look like this:

Narrative Haxor

Or this:

Crypto-Esperanto

Or even this:

Free Love Redux

Globalism has resulted in a world, where, for the most part, Joe Average World Citizen is far less likely to die in a war than at any other time in our entire history. Ordinary people from every nation are connecting to one another in an explosion of cultural exchange. An organic process is underway that may result in a world much like the one envisioned by that mysterious group of idealists so many years ago.

So, if this story is more than just a fairytale, why force the issue? Has there been a drift in motive, away from philanthropy toward control? Or was the altruism just a beard for the same nasty old pyramid scheme we've been subject to ever since our distant ancestors transcended the tribe to organize around a symbol?

Here's hoping for a happy ending.

That has to be the most concise, to the point, 'state of then union' extant. It seems as if it's always been a "conspiracy" of schemers mixed with dreamers. Ever focused in the schemers' minds and a scattered feel-good philosophy in the dreamers' minds.

I went out for a smoke last night and looked up as always, felt my less-than-Atom-like smallness against the back-drop of infinite cosmos, and thought to myself--not for the first time: "There's not a damn thing I can do about it."

However, things do have a way of taking care of themselves. Maybe only after a lot of heartache and monumental sadness, but the bell...she tolls, eventually, for all.

Things seemed to have accelerated since Snowden. Purposely intended or after-effect I know not. Just that they have.

reply to post by The GUT


Thanks for the kind words, GUT, I live to synthesize.

Acceleration? On what fronts, specifically?

Yeah, maybe that organic process thing I referred to is causing some to reach for the blood pressure meds, and maybe also to step things up. Too much variety in the system, panic ensues. Add a few well-monied end timers into the mix, as well as the inevitable resource crunch, and we are looking at some interesting developments on the rapidly approaching horizon.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Acceleration? On what fronts, specifically?

Less need for facade or damage control mainly. That's just a highly-subjective personal observation of course. We're just data points along the way.

I keep hitting play on the New Order song. Reminded me of another of theirs I'll have to see if I can find.

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Acceleration? On what fronts, specifically?

Less need for facade or damage control mainly. That's just a highly-subjective personal observation of course. We're just data points along the way.

Are you referring to the surveillance angle? Meh, that has its own discrete set of drivers, and was inevitable once we possessed the capability for it. Humans love to watch other humans, and will contrive any excuse to do so, protectionism being the perennial go-to.

But it's a tool that cuts all ways: the NSA is watching us while we watch them when we aren't too busy watching each other.

If I had to call it, I'd say the absolute reduction of privacy will be one of the main sources of an authentic planetary union. Through communication and resultant mutual understanding, a new social equilibrium could be struck once we get over the need to punish one another for the things we all do. Even if we delegate the trawling to the bots, state players are no less human than the rest of us, and subject to the same affective forces. Whatever side of the lens you find yourself on, we will all come out of this knowing one another more deeply than ever before.

Which was probably not the point when someone let Snowden slip the leash, but that's where it will end up regardless.

Ahh, yes, here it is:

Up, down, turn around
Please don't let me hit the ground
Tonight I think I'll walk alone
I'll find my soul as I go home...

...Each way I turn, I know I'll always try
To break this circle that's been placed around me
From time to time, I find I've lost some need
That was urgent to myself, I do believe

Oh, you've got green eyes
Oh, you've got blue eyes
Oh, you've got grey eyes

And I've never seen anyone quite like you before
No, I've never met anyone quite like you before
Bolts from above hurt the people down below
People in this world, we have no place to go

Oh, it's the last time...

reply to post by Eidolon23


Excellent above assessment, as TheGut, said, Eidolon; your original OP ties many "threads" together, I find.
And such a good question.....will this result in less of a quagmire, and be for the good or not, and whose, in particular, as you've point out succinctly, and I heartily agree, this end goal depended on removing our uniqueness, making a world of one archetype, collecting our narratives and mashing them all into less diversity, as this approach erases personalities, histories, as you put it, uniqueness.

Are you referring to the surveillance angle? Meh, that has its own discrete set of drivers, and was inevitable once we possessed the capability for it. Humans love to watch other humans, and will contrive any excuse to do so, protectionism being the perennial go-to.

As for this, I have to laugh at the mental image of everyone having become a voyeur, hmmmmm, watching while being watched, watching. And I also like the way you put "its own discrete set of drivers." I'm not really sure if Snowden slipped any leash, really, or he was let off one purposefully.

I am astounded, really, that people were shocked and/or amazed by his information. I assumed it well known, for quite some time. I commented in another thread that perhaps I was just older than most here, but seemed to remember a long time ago people were aware those pink flamingoes for your yard weren't just yard ornaments.
And we do call this thing we are staring at right now, and communicating with a "monitor."
Tetra50

As for this, I have to laugh at the mental image of everyone having become a voyeur, hmmmmm, watching while being watched, watching.

Irony being, a predilection that has always been used to regulate others in the form of gossip and condemnation may lead, in time, to widespread self-regulation.

I'm not really sure if Snowden slipped any leash, really, or he was let off one purposefully.

I'm pretty certain it's the latter. As you pointed out, the idea that our data was being monitored and harvested isn't a novel one; but I know I, for one, assumed the bots carrying out the observation gave less than zero ****s about what kind of pRon I watch, or how much time I waste on somethingawful.com, or my unfortunate spending habits.

Snowden let us- and the entire international community- know that they are being watched in a very personal sense, and there's a ready made cage there. But it's a flimsy one, and it's hardly going to keep the violent or the vile from doing their thing, just as it doesn't keep me from doing mine.

But until the capability to actually collate and use all that data is developed (and that's where things like NLP engines come in), it's something anyway.

And we do call this thing we are staring at right now, and communicating with a "monitor."

Ha! Staring back unflinching into the All-Seeing-Eye.

reply to post by Eidolon23


Eidolon,

Great discussion...

Allow me to throw Globalization into the thread. Since Rockefeller was already mentioned, let's start there.

For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
The anti-Rockefeller focus of these otherwise incompatible political positions owes much to Populism. "Populists" believe in conspiracies and one of the most enduring is that a secret group of international bankers and capitalists, and their minions, control the world's economy. Because of my name and prominence as head of the Chase for many years, I have earned the distinction of "conspirator in chief" from some of these people.
Populists and isolationists ignore the tangible benefits that have resulted in our active international role during the past half-century. Not only was the very real threat posed by Soviet Communism overcome, but there have been fundamental improvements in societies around the world, particularly in the United States, as a result of global trade, improved communications, and the heightened interaction of people from different cultures. Populists rarely mention these positive consequences, nor can they cogently explain how they would have sustained American economic growth and expansion of our political power without them.

Rockefeller is a proud internationalist, a globalist. But what does that really mean? Eidolon mentioned monoculture, but it has been my experience that the intent of a globalist isn't to create a melting pot where the end result is a bland, tasteless stew with no color or flavor. Instead, it is to celebrate culture by recognizing that we all have something to contribute. Rockefeller has stated that he does not believe in one world government. His support for globalism isn't one of a shady pyramid scheme where only the select wealthy prosper. It is one of networks...

Do you understand the difference between Globalism versus globalization?

Globalism versus globalization?

Many people would think the two terms refer to the same phenomenon. However, there are important differences between the two.

What is globalism? Globalism, at its core, seeks to describe and explain nothing more than a world which is characterized by networks of connections that span multi-continental distances. It attempts to understand all the inter-connections of the modern world — and to highlight patterns that underlie (and explain) them.

In contrast, globalization refers to the increase or decline in the degree of globalism. It focuses on the forces, the dynamism or speed of these changes. In short, consider globalism as the underlying basic network, while globalization refers to the dynamic shrinking of distance on a large scale.

Globalism is a phenomenon with ancient roots. Thus, the issue is not how old globalism is, but rather how "thin" or "thick" it is at any given time.

Globalism versus Globalization

Why is Globalism important to this discussion? Because there is a natural cycle to civilization. As the modern worlds' civilizations (ALL of them) go through this natural evolution, what "fills the void" is a migration toward Globalism. It isn't a stretch to understand that the invention of the Internet has fueled the movement in this direction. Nations, if they are aware of this evolution, have tried to fight it by minimizing their citizens' access to the global community. Others embrace the change. Just like Intelligent Design, there are too many complex parts to this evolution for it to be controlled or manipulated by a select group of men (or women) at the top of the pyramid.

reply to post by CIAGypsy



Neat!

One of the reasons this fairytale is so compelling is because we long for unity.

We also strive for autonomy and respect, and to flourish and flower on the trellis provided by our heritage, our culture, our family, and our beliefs. If someone with clout recognizes that unity and individuation aren't mutually exclusive, then that's a real right on.

But, Ms. G., you know there are other types, with different motives. And factions upon factions upon splinter groups, and a fair amount of weird power fetishes thrown in there. Tracing some of these lines around, isn't it reasonable to think that some of those factions are aiming toward total homogenization?

Originally posted by Eidolon23
But, Ms. G., you know there are other types, with different motives. And factions upon factions upon splinter groups, and a fair amount of weird power fetishes thrown in there. Tracing some of these lines around, isn't it reasonable to think that some of those factions are aiming toward total homogenization?

Human nature and historical precedent would certainly seem to suggest so. "Weird power fetishes"---what a brilliant way to put it.

But I agree, Gypsy's post was uber-fascinating and had plenty of food for thought.

reply to post by The GUT


She's a complete gem, for sure. Bless her, and all those who are carrying the torch.



I keep coming back to that Kissinger quote that I totally misunderstood when I was 12 and first ran across it.

"Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."

I thought, at the time, that he was referring to the effect of power upon women (or men, W/E).

Realized, much much later than I ought, that he was referring to himself. I have a friend who worked as an assistant to someone who was closely associated enough with the guy that he would often stroll through the office, oblivious to every human being there. It was a trait he shared with her boss.

And that's a really dangerous, utterly potent factor: you reach a certain level of abstraction, and other people not only cease to exist, but large numbers act as a sort of demographic viagra.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
reply to post by CIAGypsy

 

Neat!

One of the reasons this fairytale is so compelling is because we long for unity.

I wouldn't say we long for unity. I would say we long for society. Humans are a societal group. We need socialization. Unity implies equilibrium. Because humanity's spiritual evolution is on such a diverse path, equilibrium is akin to the utopia that we know we should achieve but also acknowledge as unlikely due to human egos. So what do you do? You focus on what you can control....which is your part of the network.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
reply to post by CIAGypsy

 

We also strive for autonomy and respect, and to flourish and flower on the trellis provided by our heritage, our culture, our family, and our beliefs. If someone with clout recognizes that unity and individuation aren't mutually exclusive, then that's a real right on.

I agree... Striving for autonomy and respect also stokes certain parts of the ego which give an individual "personal value." It's your personal values that define you. This is the same process that also affects a person "with clout." It's all in the approach. You can motivate by fear....or acceptance. Those who understand this principle simply apply it on a global level. Does that make sense?

Originally posted by Eidolon23
reply to post by CIAGypsy

 

But, Ms. G., you know there are other types, with different motives. And factions upon factions upon splinter groups, and a fair amount of weird power fetishes thrown in there. Tracing some of these lines around, isn't it reasonable to think that some of those factions are aiming toward total homogenization?

Yes, that's very reasonable....and very likely. But it's like GUT mentioned in his first post....look at those motivations in the scope of the whole history of humanity and you see that it is insignificant. Much to the chagrin of many megalomaniacs, the directions of society aren't guided by the desires of a few men at a moment in time. They evolve out of a complex intertwining formula of needs and egos.

reply to post by Eidolon23


Or, as my incredibly crude and astute roomie put it:

"Nothing gets you harder than bombing Laos."

Let me illustrate it this way.... You have heard the idiom about the microcosm in the macrocosm. One is a reflection of the other on a larger scale.

The individual, with all their complex egos and personas, is the microcosm.

Society, with all it's complex networks that drive human evolution, is the macrocosm.

They are each a reflection of the other.

So while you undeniably have those people who are motivated by "strange fetishes of power," they are but one sub-frequency in a larger spectrum. They are ultimately inconsequential. Look through history and you will see this truth. Look at terrible tyrants such as Caligula or Ivan the Terrible. Democracy, humanity, innovation have all evolved despite the evil intents of these and other characters.

I agree... Striving for autonomy and respect also stokes certain parts of the ego which give an individual "personal value." It's your personal values that define you. This is the same process that also affects a person "with clout." It's all in the approach. You can motivate by fear....or acceptance. Those who understand this principle simply apply it on a global level. Does that make sense?

The most sense, thank you.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy


So while you undeniably have those people who are motivated by "strange fetishes of power," they are but one sub-frequency in a larger spectrum. They are ultimately inconsequential. Look through history and you will see this truth. Look at terrible tyrants such as Caligula or Ivan the Terrible. Democracy, humanity, innovation have all evolved despite the evil intents of these and other characters.

But they absolutely aren't inconsequential, as any of their millions of victims could testify to.

And that's the problem, as they seem to have a lot more reach than the sane ones. Or, rather, they seem to inflict a lot more damage, because they aren't checked.

Originally posted by Eidolon23

Originally posted by CIAGypsy


So while you undeniably have those people who are motivated by "strange fetishes of power," they are but one sub-frequency in a larger spectrum. They are ultimately inconsequential. Look through history and you will see this truth. Look at terrible tyrants such as Caligula or Ivan the Terrible. Democracy, humanity, innovation have all evolved despite the evil intents of these and other characters.

But they absolutely aren't inconsequential, as any of their millions of victims could testify to.

And that's the problem, as they seem to have a lot more reach than the sane ones. Or, rather, they seem to inflict a lot more damage, because they aren't checked.

Okay, bad choice of words on my part.

My point is that humanity always finds a way to move forward. Sometimes that movement happens through pain and loss, but it always happens.

reply to post by Eidolon23

Cool story and all. But what oh E23 person is the moral of this particular story?

Second.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
But, Ms. G., you know there are other types, with different motives. And factions upon factions upon splinter groups, and a fair amount of weird power fetishes thrown in there. Tracing some of these lines around, isn't it reasonable to think that some of those factions are aiming toward total homogenization?

Hmm?

It seems that you may have somewhat succeeded in that mind-meld, either that or you've been Doxing me

Nice thread, as per usual