So being a fairly skeptical person of all things politics, I often think about the various theories around the New World Order or just a general cabal of people who pull the ultimate strings.
I haven't really coalesced my thoughts on this but I suspect there is no such thing as the New World Order, or any centralized secret governing authority. This is based on the following assumptions.
1. It would require great skill to pull of a feat like the NWO. Historically, seats of great power, are not meritocracies, but plutocracies and oligarchies, which result in nepotism that allows peoples sons and relatives into the fold. These people are often dummies, like G.W.Bush, who would be incapable of skillful leadership.
2. As per the above, there is too much erroneous rule and fuckups to believe that any skillful master organizational is calling the shots.
3. Ruling the world requires cooperation and a certain level of evil. These are pretty mutually exclusive as the quest for money and power, central to an NWO member, will invariably conflict with others request for money and power.
I do believe that there are pockets on power concentration in various sectors but that these are largely unconnected.
Thoughts? Is someone puling the strings? If so who? Bilderberg?
The biggest powers IMO are corporations and OPEC, and there's nothing really secret about that. I guess if you wanted to narrow it down to an evil boardroom type scenario, I'd take the OPEC delegates of the 4 or 5 largest oil producing nations and the lobbyists in charge of the 20 largest corporate political funds.
Now that's of course an extreme generalization. There are simply too many government bodies across the world with power of their own to consolidate power on a massive scale. Of course there are groups like the G8 along with more secretive collectives, but none of them can typically even agree on very much, much less go back to their respective governments and unilaterally implement something.
At the very least, countries like Iran and North Korea are going to have nothing to do with such a group.
I assume we're not talking about WWE.
I doubt any one will be able to pull all the strings. Look at the nature of holding supreme power--there must be an "other". If you ARE the sole power...there is no "other" and therefore no raison de etre for you. If the group doesn't need you to lead them to fight this "other" or doesn't need to defeat this "other" so badly that they're willing to trade their powers for it, then there's usually no reason for the group to have you or nothing they want bad enough to trade their powers for. Even a StrawMan other eventually disintegrates.
Also, many groups around the world are so diametrically opposed to aligning themselves with any sort of over-arching authority figure that there will always be a substantial population of people who won't consent and will interfere with The System. Many people would rather face disorder than face a world with only one choice of who is in charge, no matter how benevolent-seeming.
Plus, the game-theory of how power works always means that there are a myriad of people out there, scheming to take it from you. The world is too big to be able to stamp all of your competition out. Someone will always be there with a power-base that you can't ever fully take, dividing your kingdom, stealing your wife or your money. No leader can ever hold enough of a group's loyalty to overcome that. Look at the current nature of weapons--you can use household items to kill thousands of people with some measure of planning and effort. Because of this, no one group can ever take all of the weapons in the world away; people will always find some tool to fight with especially if they don't mind going kamakaze.
It really comes down to the notion of "not even God can make everyone happy, what makes people think they can succeed at pleasing everyone?" Someone will always be unhappy and won't mind doing something about it.
"The most dangerous things in the world are your habits"--Proust
Oh what a great topic... I could post tons of pics on this, lol
But seriously though.. the new world order is not the conventional territorial powers at play, but more simply, money. And the lending thereof...
Something like this...
But it's more fun to post this...
I've read so much about these theories that i'm sick of it. Especially when i was deployed, it's pretty much how i passed my time.
Firstly... people just assume a small group of individuals would not be able to pull the strings. How would you know? Perhaps bits and pieces have trickled out of this group of elites, and this is how we know what we know? Any evidence produced that is not 100% concrete however, is considered irrelevant and considered fake. There is evidence out there, just like there is evidence of US involvement in 9/11. It's not 100% so most people just go 'meh'
Secondly, there probably is no small oligarch running the world. They would have no leverage to do so. Even if they were all worth billions of dollars, currency is just currency, and it by itself can not force men to kneel.
Personally i do believe that there are groups of people who are so influential and think so highly of themselves and those they associate with, that they do effectively drive the direction of modern society. Perhaps not intentionally, but their influence makes it so. This i believe is more plausible than any deranged group of individuals bent on world control.
"To roll poorly once may be regarded as misfortune. To roll poorly twice looks like carelessness."
If there is a new force of control then we brought it on ourselves. The greatest threat to to personal freedom/expression has been brought about not by some discrete control freakery, but by the near bankruptcy of western nations due to the banking sector pretty much devouring itself. We simply weren't up to the task of behaving responsibly, and so regulation will be the instigator of a new form of social influence, call it control, if you will. The Global market place and the internet have consigned large scale militaristic land-grabbing to history, for example, the Chinese near monopoly of resource exploitation in Africa, helping construct a mighty Chinese economy has taken place with barely a shot fired, virtually no colonialization and just a few thousand village relocations here and there with a couple bags of rice as compensation, but the form of control that China will need to exert to keep the stream flowing remains to be seen. Empires as forms of social control are just too expensive to maintain, especially if the residents are unwilling to participate, (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc) and the only reason I can think of for empire is profit & vanity.