The notion of a unified global order has been explored in various contexts, often with the aim of harnessing scientific and ethical insights for societal organisation.
Esc, at last I have read this One World piece, having only glanced at it previously. Very erudite. You have studied the work of many philosophers. Very thoughtful as you have quite rightly pointed out the many dangers of a One World process.
Jacob Nordangard has written 3 books about this topic, the first one called Rockefeller Controlling the Game describes the steps taken by that dynasty to achieving world domination, as per the quote you provide at the end of your piece. The Rockefellers promoted the Omega Point idea, their morals were/are to achieve Conservation, Population growth control and Global Government; basically, Eugenics and anti-ordinary folks.
In my opinion, the basis of everything is biology: male, female, children, the need to eat, drink, have shelter and security. Too many men try to philosophize instead of sharing the cleaning, cooking, fetching water, reproductive and caring essentials. The trouble with many men, a few women and most of the wealthy clase is that they get others - usually girls and women - to do these essential tasks. And this results in the lazy ... losing touch with reality, and, worse, becoming totalitarian lunatics.
The primary determinant of ethical 'rightness' is the individual human heart which is imbued with natural knowing and free will. All of these elaborate constructs assume that these elites must make ethical determinations for us and pretend that we can't do it for ourselves. They wish to abolish personal freedom and creativity so we can all be herded uniformly into their service as obedient slaves. I hope there is still a majority of us who would rather fight than switch.
the point relates rather to the centricity of 'ethics' as as concept - it's obviously gamed.
post on 'global ethics' (on twitter) and it's sure to attract absolutely no attention. everything just dies. the only logical reason i can find is that they don't even want people discussing it in the first place.
Seems ironic that these bright minds use ethics as a tool to gain control when they are so often found to be unethical themselves. Clearly what they want to achieve is unethical. It would be a repugnant restrictive mental prison subject to their puny whims and fanatical ambitions even if they did obtain 'efficiency'. This attainment would be antithetical to human freedom imo. It is a worthy subject and should be studied to prevent it from being allowed to happen. Thanks for illuminating it!
...i've only read a bit of this 'One World' so far, very interesting...i'm wondering escapekey if u have any thoughts on this article...assuming that u may be interested... i came across it a couple of years ago and Frances Leader had 'mirrored' it ...i mentioned ur SS in my comment there, inquiring if Frances or anyone had any ideas on it, https://francesleader.substack.com/p/what-does-the-rule-of-law-mean ...
You are taking a long road in just describing legal positivism, which replaced Natural Law Theory. This is simply Nietzsche’s forecast in its Darwinian evolution. There is a much deeper analysis that you are missing however… Keep up the good work.
Looks like an excellent piece. I've just finished a 12 page one on the same topic. Could send you the link when it's online as I don't have a substack.
Esc, at last I have read this One World piece, having only glanced at it previously. Very erudite. You have studied the work of many philosophers. Very thoughtful as you have quite rightly pointed out the many dangers of a One World process.
Jacob Nordangard has written 3 books about this topic, the first one called Rockefeller Controlling the Game describes the steps taken by that dynasty to achieving world domination, as per the quote you provide at the end of your piece. The Rockefellers promoted the Omega Point idea, their morals were/are to achieve Conservation, Population growth control and Global Government; basically, Eugenics and anti-ordinary folks.
In my opinion, the basis of everything is biology: male, female, children, the need to eat, drink, have shelter and security. Too many men try to philosophize instead of sharing the cleaning, cooking, fetching water, reproductive and caring essentials. The trouble with many men, a few women and most of the wealthy clase is that they get others - usually girls and women - to do these essential tasks. And this results in the lazy ... losing touch with reality, and, worse, becoming totalitarian lunatics.
*They* are the useless eaters.
The primary determinant of ethical 'rightness' is the individual human heart which is imbued with natural knowing and free will. All of these elaborate constructs assume that these elites must make ethical determinations for us and pretend that we can't do it for ourselves. They wish to abolish personal freedom and creativity so we can all be herded uniformly into their service as obedient slaves. I hope there is still a majority of us who would rather fight than switch.
the point relates rather to the centricity of 'ethics' as as concept - it's obviously gamed.
post on 'global ethics' (on twitter) and it's sure to attract absolutely no attention. everything just dies. the only logical reason i can find is that they don't even want people discussing it in the first place.
Seems ironic that these bright minds use ethics as a tool to gain control when they are so often found to be unethical themselves. Clearly what they want to achieve is unethical. It would be a repugnant restrictive mental prison subject to their puny whims and fanatical ambitions even if they did obtain 'efficiency'. This attainment would be antithetical to human freedom imo. It is a worthy subject and should be studied to prevent it from being allowed to happen. Thanks for illuminating it!
its not ironic, because 'ethics' provides a bridge from science, and break into morality, legislation, and imperative. its by full intent.
The use of so-called 'ethics' to attain an unethical result (regardless of means) is the 'irony' - even if it is intentional.
that's a matter of perspective. it's ironic to you, it's convenient to them.
Agreed. Point well taken. Thanks again for putting all these pieces together. It is important information. Keep up the good work!
...i've only read a bit of this 'One World' so far, very interesting...i'm wondering escapekey if u have any thoughts on this article...assuming that u may be interested... i came across it a couple of years ago and Frances Leader had 'mirrored' it ...i mentioned ur SS in my comment there, inquiring if Frances or anyone had any ideas on it, https://francesleader.substack.com/p/what-does-the-rule-of-law-mean ...
You are taking a long road in just describing legal positivism, which replaced Natural Law Theory. This is simply Nietzsche’s forecast in its Darwinian evolution. There is a much deeper analysis that you are missing however… Keep up the good work.
The predator class don’t get to win.
The entire book of revelations is a giant spoiler alert: backed up by Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel and Jesus Christ, Lord and saviour.
Looks like an excellent piece. I've just finished a 12 page one on the same topic. Could send you the link when it's online as I don't have a substack.
feel free to post in comments, in fact, please do