Why does the New World Order want a one world government if they already control everything and profit from?

every war in the current system of nation states?

Question for believers in the NWO, new world order, people who believe the goal of the global elite is a one world government.

I’m NOT one of them, just interested how they see this. Isn’t the belief this elite has total power in the current system of nation states and always profit a lot from wars contradictory to the notion that their goal would be a one world government?

Maybe they have a good explanation, maybe not. Very interested either way.
DJnCSprings. Sometimes their is possesive, othter times it means they are and in your case the word you’re looking for is there.

I don’t do American idol and did my research. I interpret those leaders who spoke about it differently as you do. I believe in a new world order but interpret those wishes of the elite very differently than a one world government. They don’t need a one world government to establish a new world order. If you don’t get that I’m very sorry

Your patronizing attitude doesn’t hide the fact you obviously have no explenation
imback_missme

Thanks, can’t say we agree on the details but apreciate the answer.
Do you think they absolutely need a one world government to achieve this new ‘World Financial Order". or total control for that matter?
What’s from their perspective preferable about a one world government out in the open over the same control in the current system of nation states? Why would they give up their shadowy excistence that’s sucsesful, again from their point of view, in favor of open dictatorship? What’s the upsdie of that? They can have the total control withtout calling it a one world government or ending nation states, can’t they?
Seriously, aprciate your answer, please elaborate if you have thoughts about this.
zenmeister. The European constitution was rejected by the Netherlands and France, they lost. Even that agreement would have not overridden our domestic constitutions. Then the bureaucrats quit calling it constitution and tried to push a watered down version under the name The Treaty of Lisbon. Ireland rejected it in the only organized referendum on the matter, France and the Netherlands simply ratified it in parliament to avoid the population. The treaty explicitely states it will have to be ratified by each Member State in order for it to come into force. Ireland killed it, the EU bureaucrats lose again for now

http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/countries/index_en.htm#

Still the facts are very different from your understanding, that undermines your credibility. Regrettable
Giordano. You clearly misunderstood my ideas. I can’t be held responsible. Maybe you should have payed attention or I should have explained myself better, maybe a little of both but that’s done.

I tend to be hostile towards those who present lies, misdirections and nonsense as facts because they take attention away from the real issues and often misdirect people I care about into the dead end street of conspiracism.
Your capslock does not impress me, especially since you apparantly don’t even understand the quotes you use to make your point.
"The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole"
Dominate the political system of EACH country, they don’t need a one world government. One world government fetishism is a distraction. They can win without the misdirected nationalists even noticing.
47, that’s a great answer. Thanks for taking the time. Your answer does tell how you see it and why it’s not nessecarily contradictory.
I also apreciate the fact you recognize they could very well give in on the semantic part of the issue which in my opinion also means those opposing this evil need to look further than words and terms. To try to say it in your terminology, the more people wake up about the new world order the more likely they will not sell their idea under that name. Another issue where this is very relevant is the whole Amero thing. You can have an effective monitairy union with fixed exchange rates without officially adopting one currency. In practise that’s also the same.
I just hope everyone continues to think, they will
DJnCSprings. I take being called a shill by you as a compliment. Thanks for the info. Why am I a shill though? Are your beliefs above questioning?
I question all things, including your ideas, my ideas, what governments tell, the people claiming to oppose the government and self proclaimed truth seekers say. I will accept no ideas unchecked, I’m not a sheeple.
I’m skeptical of all sides but give everyone a chance to express their view. Why is that a problem for you?
Truth is whatever survives the cleansing fires of skepticism after they have burned away error and superstition. The healthy growth of civilization depends on skepticism more than it does on faith. – Oliver Wendell Holmes
Giordano. Typical hostily and name calling for someone lacking ideas.
I didn’t ignore your first quote, I read it, it’s not news and not something we argue about. What’s there to say? What do you expect? Me saying that quote is false while it’s not? I’m not a liar.
I see you ignore the point I made. They can easily get all the control they want, an effective one world government in the shadows while out in the open continuing the illusion of nation states. It seems to work in the American electoreal system. Millions of Americans still believe they have free choice while the US is in fact already a dictatorship of the big banks and corporate interest and while most who voted for change Americans will get more of the same. I see as little reason for the elite to call themselves a one world government as for the US to openly call itself a dictatorship. The goal, total control, is more important than any name they use. The last point you make actually supports that notion
Giordano
That they can fool some or attempt to fool some by calling it something else is excactly the point of this whole question.
While you basically accuse me of shilling you fail to realize by insisting their goal is one world government, other people might be convinced they didn’t sucseed just as long as the US is called the US even at that time globalists/elitists, capitalists in my view, effectively control it all.
80 percent of Americans and possibly more around the world believe Obama is change. We both know better, we shouldn’t be fighting over the details where we disagree
Giordano for your and everyone elses information I’m against the CFR and other institutions like it. We do see their power and influence, even their goals, differently but we both reject them.
It’s like the whole Bilderberg group thing. My position is basically they will aproach and be able to effectively buy/ influence, steer any politician in the current setup because that setup is corrupt to the core while the conspiracists view is groups like bilderberg, CFR appoint their "agents" corrupting an otherwise legitimate system.
imback_missme, thanks for the edit. I happen to know zeitgeist and believe it’s full of inaccuracies (
But unlike with many other truth gurus I do believe the maker believes what he’s saying and addendum obviously appeals to me. Marxists like myself have been blaming the for profit system for decades. While Peter Jackson gets caught up in semantics I feel and denies Marxism is a solution his whole analysis testifies to the Marxist notion that the for prfit motive brings out the worst in humanity. I believe that and he usues footage of economic hitman, definetely a very good documentary
If I was a truther I’d be pro zietgeist but I’m not, loved the Alex Jones interview with Jackson, it’s recommended. If you like, respect zeitgeist but take Jones serious too you want to hear this.
Your contribution is very much apreciated
It’s Peter Joseph, not Jackson oops
Giordano, nothing stops you or anyone else from adding me as a contact or you from linking here to the answers you refer to. That would be the fastest way and that you don’t do that while sugesting they tell it all, says enough. I can’t read your mind and know what answers you refer to but yes I stand behind my answers in regards to conspiracism
You fail to understand my points and I don’t have to adress your quote, the one you don’t understand yourself or the other one. Your incoherent ramblings and accusations offer little insight into how you think and give me the impression your agenda is to surpress an open debate and discussion
Giordano. No I didn’t change my mind. The corruption comes from within, from the inherent faillure of the American political setup, that’s my position here and was my position there. I stand behind that answer, like I estimated you don’t understand.

Joining my contacts opens my whole Q&A, everyone knows that or can see for themselves, that’s enough
People with unfair power and privilege generally try to hold onto that unfair power and privilege. Sometimes they make plans that are not publicly announced. Sometimes they engage in illegal plots. Real conspiracies have been exposed throughout history. History itself, however, is not controlled by a vast timeless conspiracy. The powerful people and groups in society are hardly a "secret team" or a tiny club of "secret elites." The tendency to explain all major world events as primarily the product of a secret conspiracy is called conspiracism. The antidote to conspiracism is Power Structure Research based on some form of institutional, systemic or structural analysis that examines race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, class and other factors that are used to create inequality and oppression. Political Research Associates does not criticize conspiracism because we want to shield those with unfair power and privilege, but because we believe that conspiracism impedes attempts to
to build a social movement for real social justice, economic fairness, equality, peace, and democracy.

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/index.html

Maybe you will understand the difference now but it’s very doubtful

First of all, everyone must understand that ‘profit’ is not the goal here. There are motives beyond simple greed, and I know it’s hard for anyone with a conscience to really imagine what must be going on in the minds of these elites. EDIT: They’re f*ckin psychopaths. It seems like they’re obsessed and compelled to play god, and recreate the world according to their vision.

Money is not the END, it is the MEANS. The same can be said of war. It IS all going somewhere. These people do not intend to use War as a geopolitical tool -forever-. EDIT: Albert Pike’s "three world wars" had a theoretical objective. He never mentioned a fourth (that I am aware of…).

Have you heard of the Iron Mountain Report? Whether real or a hoax, the question posed to this think tank was "how can we maintain Anglo-American dominance in a future devoid of war?" The consensus was that they would need a common threat (i.e. environmental) that the world could unite against.

Secondly, they don’t already have "total power" (it’s quite the contrary – they seem to be losing it!)

"Total power" is what they’ve always been after, that’s what they are using their money and their wars to get. If they HAD total control, then all their wealth could not buy them any more influence, could it? Then it would become worthless to them.

Moreover, if they DID already enjoy total global control, most of us would probably be dead right now, and we certainly wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Also, a "World Financial Order" …IS… a "world government" ! (for all intents and purposes)! If you attended the first day of NWO 101, then you should know the influence that central banking systems hold over national governments, and you should know that the difference between "World Financial Order" and "world government" is purely semantic.

"They can have the total control without calling it a one world government or ending nation states, can’t they?" EXACTLY. That is exactly what I expect them to do. They’re not going to just come out and announce one day: "Welcome to the New World Order! Here’s your new flag and your new money." Yes, nations will continue to exist (in name only) long after global governance has been established. That is a NECESSITY, or the people would obviously revolt.

Global dominance has been attempted by force before, and it did not succeed. Conquest by deception seems to be working far better, so far… and I expect the deception to continue, at least until the globalist institutions have become so strong that they can no longer be challenged.

So, no, there is nothing at all contradictory about the idea of using war and economic manipulation to steer the geopolitical landscape gradually towards "global governance" or whatever you choose to call it. It’s really the only way to accomplish this.

When describing the level of control the globalist elite actually have over world events, I commonly use the metaphor of trying to steer a huge ocean liner at high speed in choppy seas.

I hope that answers your question.