New World Order Conspiracy? What’s going on?
This piece began as a quick email to a friend and blossomed. It now reveals thinking I meant to share with my friend (information of interest, plus a caution against our human inclination to leap to conclusions), with a lot of added musings, in which I give my personal working definitions of communism, socialism, democracy and finally anarchy.)
Before I go any further I confess: I have made little in-depth study of various forms of government. My definitions are suggestive rather than academic. I am guilty for instance of using the terms “republic” and “democracy” as synonyms — while finding it annoying that others do the same with “socialism” and “communism”! As I said, I describe personal working definitions. Anyone who wants to clarify may do so!
See YouTube: David Rockefeller on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqUcScwnn8&feature=related.
This YouTube submission – this specific one – has a big problem — the person who submitted it adds their own spin at the end “I’m sure … population control …” and does not offer any research source to support the “alarm”.
As thinking people, the one thing we must watch for in ourselves is “going off-half cocked” with imagined threats.
I DO think there is a strata of wealth/power so completely disconnected from ordinary life that it’s likely to them we are just statistics – to be “managed” from the point of view of their “wisdom”. Further, I suspect they are busy developing “management systems”.
BUT I DO NOT think this specific YouTube clip offers even a tiny bit of evidence to support the statement made: “Rockefeller is evil” .
On the other hand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7K8iQAReXQ (Rockefeller thanks the media for their “discretion” on behind the scenes global planning by a few. At the end, one learns the video is a Ron Paul promotion. Bush Sr., Gordon Brown of Britain, and Cheney are featured.) This second YouTube video is more informative, and may raise questions that need answering about who is manipulating whom, to accomplish what, on behalf of humanity.
Asking questions, and sorting through the facts, takes time. I seem forever in a state of “gathering more information before I think I know”. It’s my attempt to prevent another inclination I have – to leap to conclusions. Heres’a a related ‘for instance’ I have to half-cocked thinking. There is a lot of hype calling “manipulation toward a bleak new world order” “communistic and socialistic”. This shows of lack of information and knowledge. The kind of manipulation that seems possibly developing seems far closer to fascism.
To my knowledge, the distinctions are:
Communism results when a deeply distressed and angry general population rises up, usually following a charismatic and effective leader, and the population is so committed to “throwing the bastards out” that they give their power to that leader, who then goes far beyond anything representing “for the people.” Communism has citizen voting, but candidates are restricted to members of the party. Chavez may have turned the corner and be headed that way. He began as an effective leader for a general population that had very real “big economic enemies”. In the last year Chavez seems to me to be turning “dictator” — I’m waiting to see if the people notice! To my knowledge, communism never comes about except in countries where a ruling elite or monarchy has ignored or supressed economic, and at least modestly comfortable well-being, for a large population.
A further note: Chinese communism, Cuban communism, and Russian communism are not each the same in how the population fares. China has developed a government that has moved toward greater responsibility to general population welfare and opportunity. Although it has serious flaws, it appears responsive when population dissatisfaction grows wide-spread enough. The difference between Tienem Square (communist country) and Kent State (democratic republic) is huge, but the two events are all too similar – citizen voice stilled by armed government intervention.
Socialism need not be a dictatorship. It is not to be equated with communism. Socialism is government focused on “the people” sharing resources in a way that gives the maximum number of citizens some of the “pie”. Most forms of socialist government are full-fledged democracies, with multi-party systems, with individual citizens of all races and religions casting votes in orderly elections. Most democratic socialist countries are extremely modern, with most citizens pleased at general outcome. Citizens generally feel they have created their social and economic structures by their own voice/vote. (Their version of “of, by, for the people”, and it’s a valid version.) I am personally weary of hearing socialism equated with communism.
Fascism is the same thing to a general population as is communism. Limited participation in policy development by ordinary citizens. Conditions leading to fascism are different from those leading to communism. We witness communism developing out of citizen revolution, “fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system” (Wikipedia). In other words, fascism arises when a population goes along with 2 key developments: 1-extreme nationalism, 2-corporate led economic policy.
A population that is fiercely nationalistic in its outlook, eager to blame ‘outsiders’ for its woes, and also supports extreme “capitalism” as found in “extreme corporate power”, is ripe for becoming fascist.
If one puts communism on one end of a line of possibilities and fascism at the other, and pulls the line into a circle shape, the similarity “can be seen” and makes sense.
Mixed economies: every modern country in the world, our republic, other republics, and democratic socialist countries, even communist countries operate mixed economies. Mixed economies contain the following: individual enterprises, small companies, medium-sized to larger corporate companies (all privately owned and profit-oriented); government regulation of these; and government-owned non-profit public enterprises (armies, police, social services, health care, education, …). (I do not mention private non-profits, although we know they exist as well, to my knowledge in at least republics and in social democracies – don’t know about communism and fascism, assume private non-profits may be present there.)
In the end, all countries vary in ratios of “free” and “public” enterprises.
Ideally, a well-educated, thinking population, knows how to ask critical questions, keeps self and “other” (common weal) in mind. Such a population can “run itself” by electing its government to serve its wishes. BUT, voting is not very effective if it is not coming from a high percentage of voters with thinking minds – which also, of necessity, must be guided by caring hearts.
Voters who are seriously unhappy, willing to believe anything they are told, willing to believe a “not-me-but-other enemy” prevents them from comfort (the lazy, the ‘other’ party, that other country, etc.) have very real potential to vote themselves into some form of dictatorship, probably fascism.
Maybe it’s fair to say communism develops when a revolution arises out of a huge population living in true misery. They attempt to find equity by following a single charismatic leader or set of leaders. ‘Peasant level’ citizens support a leader who promises radical revision of economic circumstances because they live in grinding poverty while an elite among them lives very well. Communism seeks shift power from a few elite to the general population. Fascism develops when a less miserable, even comfortable, large percentage of a population wants to solve degraded circumstances by following a single charismatic leader or set of leaders! It’s very close to the same thing – but “citizen distress” is quite different in the beginning.
Many ordinary, German citizens experienced degraded circumstances from what they had come to expect. They supported Hitler because he helped them “see” whom to blame, and promised to “fix the problem and its causes”. I don’t have a thorough understanding of the history of German fascism and Hitler. “The other” grand fascist scheme usually mentioned is Italy, and I know even less about Mussolini! I remind readers: my discussion grows out of my “personal working definitions”.
Even if I’m correct – that communism and fascism develop from different types of citizen distress, the two are nevertheless akin. Both communism and fascism are set up with little to no respect for intelligent self-management by ordinary citizens, of themselves and of their government. An overpowering assumption is that ordinary citizens “don’t know what’s good for them and must be manipulated to support government, or forced to do so by control measures”. Both go awry because leaders either have, or develop, justification for the authority of their “vision,” even if the people did not mean to give unopposed authority. Communism goes awry because leaders become greedy and self-important after the revolution is successful. Fascism goes awry because leaders are greedy and self-important before the success of the regime is established! Any pretense that ordinary citizens can be self-governing, or want to be, is abandoned by both.
Republican and democratic systems** are based on the premise that ordinary citizens not only can manage themselves, but that they are intelligent in how they go about it. Theoretically, in republican and democratic systems, leaders are servants who take direction from a well-educated and thoughtful public.
Back to the YouTube videos referenced above. The problem I hear in the second more informative one is what I don’t hear! – a problem of omission. No one mentions individual or general citizen comfort, freedom, richness of life experience. The only “goals” mentioned (spelled out especially by Gordon Brown’s remarks) are purely numbers – economics. The question seems to be: “How can our country’s bottom line economic indicators stay strong or gain strength?” These folks are single-focused. They seem to assume “conventional economic indicators” gives true and accurate measurement of “overall human progress and comfort”.
Conventional economic indicators are not a reliable sole measure of humanity’s progress. Consider an empire. At best, empires view portions of an affected population as “human so above draft animals” but may go no further! The British Empire was built on the backs of many, many who not only did not experience “wealth of the empire” but who were deemed “not of a class requiring great comfort” – nor did they require or merit land or property they could know as their own. An empire’s “success” might be measured in conventional economic bottom lines, and might look excellent by such measure, but “collateral suffering” might also be quite significant.
The single missing perspective in national or global achievement, has been a call to “uplift each and every” (by creating best conditions for basic essentials to be available, freeing individuals to thrive and contribute talent by choice, rather than dire economic necessity.) The blindness of movers/shakers, from their position of power (and usually some wealth), is stunning. The blindness results in callous disregard for “humanity”, despite what they may believe of themselves and their leadership.
These folks do not question their privilege. Many are not elected by anyone, but are selected, or self-selected. They function as if they have “entitlement” to leadership. They believe their role is to “direct” others, rather than to promote autonomy of every unique individual. They are “top down” rather than “bottom up” leaders. They are prepared to “use” individuals within their populations as “fodder” to build giant “successes”.
They likely do not percieve themselves as “conspirators.” In this sense they are “innocents”; but they are also gravely and profoundly ignorant of the beauty, intelligence, potential, and grace that is unique to human individual life – profoundly ignorant of “who we are” as humans.
Yet, they demonstrate an aspect of “being human” contained within each of us. Had we been born into their lives, and lived them, we would be right where they are, acting as they do. Our task is to know this about them, but also to know this potential within ourselves. It is only through finally coming to terms with “who we are as humans” that we can hope to find truly new solutions.
One final definition:
Anarchy is the most extreme form of “government of, by and for the people”. It is based on the premise that a high percentage of the population is so intelligent, so well-informed, and so dedicated to self and other care, that institutionalized, organized government is scarcely necessary – might develop for various needs as they arise, and fade when those are met. But any parental role by government to “divvy up family responsibilities and resources” is unnecessary. There is no bottom, no top. Everyone is free, everyone thrives. A Utopian dream. Anarchy is a disastrous concept unless/until humanity is in a mood to function with full cooperation toward everyone’s talents and needs. In this sense, in its requirement for cooperation, anarchy is “socialistic”. But it transcends anything so “rough and rudimentary” as any form of “government” yet to be known.
I have long said it will take us a good 300 years beyond now to be mature enough to manage ourselves in this hypothetical anarchy. I recently heard an interviewee say 700 years, so I probably need to revise my estimate!
**Republics and democracies represent two forms of representative government out of many found in the world today. The rights of the individual are always protected, no matter how they are represented.” excerpt from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-republic-and-a-democracy.htm
My Best! – MaggieAnn