In my opinion, whilst a “one world order” is seemingly on the lips and minds of many, the efficacy of such a venture is doubtful. For one, those singular entities / dictators who are in power will not by any means other than death, relinquish their position and bow to any foreign influence that will reduce the amount of power they have. Even in the free world, the European Union, a minuscule experiment dealing with unelected authorities over many countries, is failing. By example, England, our closest ally, was a part of that union and when that country found itself unable to fully govern itself because of that union, they split from it. That doesn’t mean that the alliances between the union countries and England are now null and void, it just means that England is unwilling to give up its own sovereignty and abide by rules and regulations that do not necessarily meet with the common good of England. All that written, other than the Biblical one-world-order, if indeed a man made order were to be possible and somehow eventually comes to pass, I will undoubtedly not be around to see it.
I hope all those elements that you mention do indeed mitigate against the establishment of world government. My post was more to describe what 'they' want rather than make any forecast that they're going to get it.
Citizens and state governments want all the money and free stuff they can get. They don't see past that. If the WEF truly had our best interests at heart, they would fly commercial planes and not private jets to decrease their OWN carbon footprints. They would use their billions to clean up the oceans and farm sustainably instead of buying up all the farmland to make factory farms. There is an increase of unexplained deaths since covid vaccines. And the WEF is charitably offering to take over healthcare. I think, mostly heart related. See John Campbell.
Sounds like recycled John Birch Society, Joe McCarthy, and Pat Robertson, with a new touch of Q-Anon, all rolled into one. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ... Free speech and religion are alive and well. There ought to be an equivalent of an ABA (American Bar Association) for investigative reporters, so the jokers pretending to be news outlets on the internet, and the like, can't portray themselves as journalists. Report 3 untruths without immediate retraction and you are off the list as a credible journalist. (Pre-empting the replies?): No one can trust the ABA. It's the "Deep State." There is a convenient answer for everything in the playbook.
For me, Natural News kind of wears tin foil hats. But you can definitely find 'real news' on the WEF. They seek a one world government and they are about halfway there in the G20.
Yeah, that's what we need. Let the progressive Democrats decide who is allowed to report the news. That would be the epitome of a free press. It's just what the Founders had in mind. Of course, we can't allow just anyone to start a religion either, so we'll need a board to decide which religions are allowed, as well. If we don't control what people hear, we can't control what they believe, and it's hard to maintain power that way.
We HAVE freedom of religion. But churches were shut down without recourse while Obama, Pelosi and AOC partied maskless. I have chinese restaurant here that figured, early on, a way to stay open with a trap door for food and payments.
New World Order has been under development since before WWII. It was one of Woodrow Wilson's aspirations and he saw the opportunity to implement his version after WWI, but was somewhat stymied when the Senate didn't ratify the League of Nations treaty. Some of the major elite tried again during the Depression by controlling both energy and food supply for the world, but that was interrupted by the outbreak of WWII. This has been going on for some time. The difference now if that instead of trying to control food and energy, the "Elite" are trying to control information and finance. That is behind the goings-on in Ukraine. Europe and the West believe they can control the world through info and money, while Russia and China are clinging to the older ways of controlling food, energy, and, in China's case, world manufacturing. Only time will tell who wins, but the goal in the East is national sovereignty while the West's goal is to establish a three-tiered system similar to the Medieval with the "lords", villeins, and surfs.
You could pick a random sample of teenagers to sit on the Bar. Given adequate resources and time (which ordinary people do not have but reporters do), I think they could figure out when something is true, or not true, or too opinionated. Too many opinions gets you demerits as a reporter also. All they need is a good understanding of the English language.
It seems that our form of democratic republic has never worked so well for the good of the people and has now totally failed. Republican and democratic ideals don't seem to last long in the real world. I used to spend a lot of time thinking about some form of government that might work. I remember reading a book years ago called The Rich And The Super Rich. The author concluded that the mass of people really want benevolent dictatorship. Obviously a dictatorship is achievable but he didn't explain how the 'benevolent' was to come about. The author had many good insights into society but this wasn't one of them. My best guess was a type of democracy where people are picked by lottery to be part of the governing body. That eliminates the obvious flaw of elective democracy where political power largely falls to those who want it most and have the money to get it. With a lottery you could preemptively rule out those with substandard intelligence, bad health or obvious moral or mental illness and hopefully end of with a group of empathetic rulers working for the people because they come from the people and go back to the people at the end of their term. It might work. If I ever get to be a benevolent dictator I'd pass it all on to this type of democratic lottery. Btw, it's been a while since anyone has praised my wit and intelligence. I need my fix, people.
Sire, the enemy of your enemy is your friend. I was reading that China and Russia central banks are stocking up on gold like crazey. They intend to have a gold backed money that we can't control by sanctions or whatever. Europe is upset with us because of our messing with Ukraine. All of this is throwing a wrench into the World Economic Forum. So all you need to do is ply us with gold and we will fall in behind you as our leader!
I get what you're saying about a commodity-backed currency but I'm not entirely sure Russia and/or China are not wholly or partly players in a script that is playing out. Maybe no single person or group knows all of who or what is genuine or what isn't - the old controlled opposition drama playing out. Some of the conflicts we see are staged to distract us from other things.. The globalists pushing for world government aren't a monolithic group and I'm pretty sure that Russia and China both have factions that are surreptitiously cooperating with the push for world government. Of course China wants a version where they are the head honchos. Figuring how it will all work out is like flipping a coin that could land on one of 10 sides.
I am not sure that Russia and China want to control the world, although China is questionable. Russia wants to control its "sphere". China is that way too, but feels they have to control most of the world in order to control its "sphere". China learned from Japan that you have to control the U.S. to control the Western pacific/ East Asia realm. They are destroying the U.S. from within with the assistance of our own leaders, so they shouldn't have much trouble. Japan couldn't sustain a prolonged war because of our industrial might. Now the roles are reversed and we are the ones who cannot maintain a war of attrition. The industrial might is China's. China and Russia as allies are unstoppable and they know it, but the West may not realize it. The BRICS currency is going to be a crypto based on gold. I have only heard guesses as to where the price of gold will be pegged--probably between "equivalent" $3000-$6000 per Troy ounce. The fiat currencies of the West will continue to dwindle, while those based on gold will maintain their value. If you were a resource exporting country, which nation would you want to deal with, one whose currency continues to decline every year, or one based on gold that will retain value?