New World Order Part 2 - Historical Deep Dive

World government refers to all humankind united under one political authority. Luminaires use many terms to describe world government.

Plato

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
Edmund Burke

Foreword

Welcome to New World Order Part 2 - Historical Deep Dive. Part 1, Back to the Future & Died Suddenly, provided an overview of global governance and my 25-year-long journey of researching and experiencing key events that shaped the world.

Background

World government refers to all humankind united under one political authority. Luminaires use many terms to describe world government, such as Globalism, Global Governance, Order of the Ages, One World Government, World Order, International Order, International Network, Utopia, Stakeholder Capitalism, Master Plan, Grand Plan, Sustainable Development, Leviathan, Green New Deal, Great Reset, etc. The common term, New World Order or Novus Ordo Seclorum, deserves special attention as luminaries often use it as a pejorative. Famous people like George H. W. Bush (1924-2018) and Joe Biden can say it. Bush invoked the New World Order at 7:42 during his January 16, 1991, speech announcing the Persian Gulf War. Meanwhile, concerned people who discuss it face the consequences of supposedly pushing a “conspiracy theory.”

The idea of worldwide authority goes back to ancient times. It is the ambition of popes, kings, emperors, politicians, poets, and philosophers’ dreams. Today, a world government abounds under the auspices of the United Nations (UN) 

Despite legacy media’s gaslighting to hide world governance, debate abounds. We must consider if a total global institutional framework is inevitable and subject to reversal. Furthermore, should a unified worldwide political and economic system be desired or feared? Is it justified or illegitimate, and should we actively promote or resist it? RESIST!

World government cheerleaders claim it is for the common(ist) good. They see world government as the solution to old and new human problems. It may seem noble to tackle global poverty, “inequality,” weapons of mass destruction, financial instability, infectious disease, pandemics, and environmental degradation. What can go wrong with that? Let’s take a journey back in history.

Historical Timeline

Ancient Ideas

Greek Philosopher Pythagoras (570-490 BC) promoted a “new way of life.” Since at least the first century BC, historians have given Pythagoras credit for discovering the Pythagorean theorem: “...in a right-angled triangle, the square of the hypotenuse is equal [to the sum of] the squares of the two other sides.” He likely was the first to introduce it to the Greeks, but the Babylonians and Indians already used it.

The association Pythagoras founded was called a “school” but, in many ways, resembled a monastery. A vow bound the adherents to Pythagoras and each other to pursue religious and ascetic observances and study his religious and philosophical theories. The sect members shared all their possessions and were devoted to each other. Historical records suggest Pythagoras practiced divination and prophecy. He developed a concept of “harmony of spheres.”

The ideas of the Pythagoreans significantly influenced Plato (427-347 BC). In 380 BC, Plato wrote his treatise The Republic. It is a communistic city-state ruled by philosopher-kings (guardians).

Dante Alighieri (1265–1321), the Italian poet, philosopher, and statesperson, articulated human unity under a universal monarch. In The Banquet [Convivio], he argued that wars would cease if:

… the whole earth and all that humans can possess be a monarchy, that is, one government under one ruler. Because he possesses everything, the ruler would not desire to possess anything further, and thus, he would hold kings contentedly within the borders of their kingdoms, and keep peace among them.

In De Monarchia, Dante describes a political power affirming a universal monarchy. Drawing on Aristotle (384–322 BC), he argued unity occurs from a shared purpose to develop and realize humanity’s intellectual potential. In his Book I, Dante claims peace is vital but unsustainable in a divided society. Just as “[e]very kingdom divided against itself shall be laid waste,” nevertheless, people share one goal:

…there must therefore be one person who directs and rules humanity, and he is properly called “Monarch” or “Emperor.”

Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) was a Renaissance humanist, English lawyer, judge, social philosopher, author, and statesman. Today the Catholic Church venerates him as Saint Thomas More. He served as Lord High Chancellor of England from October 1529 to May 1532 under Henry VIII. Influenced by Plato, in 1516, More wrote Utopia. That work describes the political system of an imaginary island state.

Like Plato’s Republic, More’s Utopia creates a benevolent class over the dreams of a peasant or worker. Utopia eliminates private property. “There is nothing within the houses that is private or any man’s own,” writes More. In Utopia, people pile up goods in the marketplace every three months. Like a free recycling center, people take what they need. That work inspired medieval proposals for global political authority. Meanwhile, the quest for a world empire gained traction under imperial Rome’s historical model or myths. In an optimistic posture, some have applied the positive elements of More’s work to a “third way” that functions very well under a system called Distributism (not to be confused with all the other “isms).

In his work Leviathan (1651), the philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) postulated the formulation of sovereignty and an overarching supreme coercive legal authority. He argued that interests and vulnerabilities prompt individuals to give up their liberties. In exchange, they get protection from sovereign states. As such, there is a less rational basis for a global Leviathan:

….because states uphold the Industry of their Subjects; there does not follow from the international state of nature, that misery, which accompanies the Liberty of particular men.

In Project for Making Peace Perpetual in Europe, early philosophe of the Enlightenment Charles Castel Abbé de Saint-Pierre (1658–1743) extended Hobbes’s argument. He avered that rational interest in self-preservation necessitated the creation of the Leviathan in the international realm. Saint-Pierre also asserted that reason should prompt the princes of Europe to form a federation under a social contract.

In his comments on Saint-Pierre’s proposal, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) acknowledged rationality:

Realize this Commonwealth of Europe for a single day, and you may be sure it will last forever; so fully would experience convince men that their own gain is to be found in the good of all.

To Rousseau, however, existing societies had corrupted humans’ natural innocence. He argued they were largely incapable of discovering their genuine or honest interests. Thus, Saint-Pierre’s proposals were not utopian because “... men are crazy, and to be sane in a world of madmen is a kind of madness.” Rousseau also noted that the sovereigns were not likely to agree voluntarily to form a federation:

No Federation could ever be established except by a revolution. That being so, which of us would dare say whether the League of Europe is a thing more to be desired or feared? It would perhaps do more harm in the moment than it would guard against for ages.

Rousseau argued that well-governed societies along the lines he demonstrated in his work The Social Contract prevents war. Humans will only realize their full rational and moral potential in such contexts. To establish perpetual peace, Rousseau argued for the moral perfection of states over world government.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), in his Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose (Seventh Proposition), argued counter to Rousseau:

… to take the step which reason could have suggested to them even without so many sad experiences—that of abandoning a lawless state of savagery and entering a federation of peoples in which every state, even the smallest, could expect to derive its security and rights not from its own power or its own legal judgment, but solely from this great federation (Foedus Amphictyonum), from a united power and the law-governed decisions of a united will.

Kant’s views on world government desirability were complex. He argues that reasoning dictates a “republican” type of world oversight. Under that system, people would be free and equal under a global ruler. On the other hand, he claims world government would later lead to tyranny.

After Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) ransacked Europe under “Republicanism” for over a decade, the rulers of the victorious allied countries sought to re-establish control with the 1815 Congress of Vienna. Then, all of Europe was “the world” in the mind of the people. The Congress redrew national lines to ensure France didn’t become a threat. Member Friedrich von Gentz, said:

Never have the expectations of the general public been as excited as they were before the opening of this solemn assembly. People were confident of a general reform of the political system of Europe, of a guarantee of eternal peace, even of the return of a golden age.

New Millennium

In 1902, H.G. Wells (1866–1946) wrote the treatise “New Republic,” an Anglo-American creed about world dominance. He denounced racial theories and promoted a universal world state with a civilizing mission. In his 1940 book The New World Order, Wells proposed an international framework to guide the world toward achieving peace. To achieve these ends, Wells asserted that a socialist and scientifically planned world government would defend human rights. The outbreak of World War II motivated Wells to write The New World Order.

Albert Einstein (1879–1955) wrote in 1946 that technological developments had shrunk the planet. Drivers included mutual vulnerabilities from weapons of mass destruction and economic interdependence. Concerned with his work raising the risk of Armageddon, he wrote:

A world government must be created which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. This government must be based on a clear-cut constitution which is approved by the governments and nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive weapons.

Emery Reves (1904-1982), in his The Anatomy of Peace, condemned the nation-state in a bow to internationalism:

The modern Bastille is the nation-state, no matter whether the jailers are conservative, liberal, or socialist.

Reves, like Rousseau, avered that nation-states threaten justice, freedom, and human peace. By diverting funds from basic needs, Independent nations prolonged a global climate of mistrust and fear. That created a war machine, ultimately causing actual conflicts. The world wars made it difficult to view nations as agents of moral progress.

David Mitrany (1888–1975) formulated a world federation or “world state” in his work Functional Approach to World Organization. He argued it should focus on building “a spreading web of international activities and agencies” that could work in the pursuit of world integration and peace.

Aldous Huxley (1894–1963) wrote his book Brave New World in 1931. It is a dystopian novel set in a futuristic World State. Environmentally engineered citizens form an intelligence-based social hierarchy. Huxley anticipates huge scientific advancements in reproductive technology, sleep learning, psychological manipulation, and classical conditioning in his book. These elements combined create a dystopian society challenged by only a single individual: the story’s protagonist. Huxley nailed it, as we see in the emerging digital realm of today.

In 1949, George Orwell (1903-1950) wrote his dystopian science fiction novel and cautionary tale Nineteen Eighty-Four or 1984. It centers on the consequences of totalitarianism (mass surveillance and repressive regimentation). It also examines the role of truth and facts within communities and their manipulation. Much of 1984 has come true, like Brave New World, and more is unfolding before our eyes.

The Atlantic Union Committee, formed in 1949 by Clarence Streit (1896-1986), called for a federal union of democratic nations that would give birth to:

… free world government, as nations are encouraged by example to practice the principles which would make them eligible for membership, namely the principles of representative government and protection of individual Liberty by law.

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) founder Paul Warburg was a member of Roosevelt’s “brain trust.” In 1950, his son, James, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it – by conquest or consent.” In 1975 CFR member Admiral Chester Ward (1932-2019) wrote:

[The CFR has as a goal of] submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government… This lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of its membership… In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First.’

Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) was an American historian and theorist of the evolution of civilizations and taught at Georgetown University. Luminaries (lack of a better word) such as Bill Clinton “heard that call clarified by a professor I had named Carroll Quigley.” In his 1966 magnum opus Tragedy and Hope, Quigley wrote:

This radical Right fairy tale, which is now an accepted folk myth in many groups in America, pictured the recent history of the United States, in regard to domestic reform and in foreign affairs, as a well-organized plot by extreme Left-wing elements ... This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the Radical right believes the Communists act. … I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records.

The 1965 founding fathers of the Malthusian-like think tank Club of Rome included Alexander King and Aurelio Peccei (Fiat Car Company senior manager). Gianni Agenelli, a family member that owned Fiat, was David Rockefeller’s close friend. Rockefeller bestowed Agenelli a membership on his Chase Manhattan Bank division known as the International Advisory Committee. The birth of David Rockefeller’s globalist-leaning Trilateral Commission in 1973 included Aegnelli as a founding member. Alexander King, head of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Science Program, was also a consultant to NATO.

An example of psychological operations is a clip from the 1981 sitcom Barney Miller spoofing the Trilateral Commission.

The Club of Rome published Limits to Growth in 1971. With rapid population growth combined with fixed resources such as oil, Limits to Growth predicted an end to civilization. In 1974, the Club of Rome declared:

The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man. … the world is facing an unprecedented set of interlocking global problems, such as, over-population, food shortages, non-renewable resource depletion, environmental degradation and poor governance. … ‘horizontal’ restructuring of the world system is needed…drastic changes in the norm stratum – that is, in the value system and the goals of man – are necessary in order to solve energy, food, and other crises, i.e., social changes and changes in individual attitudes are needed if the transition to organic growth is to take place.

In their 1974 report, Mankind at the Turning Point, The Club of Rome avered:

Increasing interdependence between nations and regions must then translate as a decrease in independence. Nations cannot be interdependent without each of them giving up some of, or at least acknowledging limits to, its own independence. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for organic sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all finite resources and a new global economic system.

Of note, the Club of Rome assisted with the crafting of UN Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the 2020 Davos Great Reset.

At the 1992 Bilderberg meeting, Henry Kissinger said:

Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil….individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government.

Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State under Presiden Bill Clinton, in a 1992 Time Magazine article, wrote:

I’ll bet that within the next hundred years ... nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority…

Afterword

With the above historical backdrop, stay tuned for Part 3 - the Grand Agenda. There, we will expose the plan to evolve CO2, a critical element for plant life, into the Malthusian mechanism to usher in a New World Order. In addition, see how COVID is the capstone of the worldwide system to control and depopulate humankind.

---