How The Globalism Con Game Leads To A 'New World Order'

Authored by Brandon Smith via,

When globalists speak publicly about a “new world order” they are speaking about something very specific and rather sacred in their little cult of elitism. It is not simply the notion that civilization shifts or changes abruptly on its own; rather, it is their name for a directed and engineered vision - a world built according to their rules, not a world that evolved naturally according to necessity.

There are other names for this engineered vision, including the “global economic reset,” or the more general and innocuous term “globalism,” but the intention is the same.

The ultimate goal of the new world order as an ideology is total centralization of economic and governmental power into the hands of a select and unaccountable bureaucracy made up of international financiers. This is governance according the the dictates of Plato’s Republic; a delusional fantasy world in which benevolent philosopher kings, supposedly smarter and more objective than the rest of us, rule from on high with scientific precision and wisdom. It is a world where administrators become gods.

Such precision and objectivity within human systems is not possible, of course. Human beings are far too susceptible to their own biases and personal desires to be given totalitarian power over others. The results will always be destruction and disaster. Then, add to this the fact that the kinds of people who often pursue such power are predominantly narcissistic sociopaths and psychopaths. If a governmental structure of high level centralization is allowed to form, it opens a door for these mentally and spiritually broken people to play out their twisted motives on a global stage.

It is important to remember that sociopaths are prone to fabricating all kinds of high minded ideals to provide cover for their actions. That is to say, they will adopt a host of seemingly noble causes to rationalize their scramble for power, but in the end these “humanitarians” only care about imposing their will on as many people as possible while feeding off them for as long as time allows.

There are many false promises, misrepresentations and fraudulent conceptions surrounding the narrative of globalism. Some of them are rather clever and subversive and are difficult to pick out in the deliberately created fog. The schemes involved in implementing globalism are designed to confuse the masses with crisis until they end up ASKING for more centralization and less freedom.

Let’s examine some of the most common propaganda methods and arguments behind the push for globalization and a “new world order”…

Con #1: Globalism Is About “Free Markets”

A common pro-globalism meme is the idea that globalization is not really centralization, but decentralization. This plays primarily to the economic side of global governance, which in my view is the most important because without economic centralization political centralization is not possible.

Free markets according to Adam Smith, a pioneer of the philosophy, are supposed to provide open paths for anyone with superior ideas and ingenuity to pursue those ideas without interference from government or government aided institutions. What we have today under globalism are NOT free markets. Instead, globalism has supplied unfettered power to international corporations which cannot exist without government charter and government financial aid.

The corporate model is completely counter to Adam Smith’s original premise of free market trade. Large corporations receive unfair legal protection under limited liability as well as outright legislative protection from civil consequences (Monsanto is a perfect example of this).  They also receive immense taxpayer funded welfare through bailouts and other sources when they fail to manage their business responsibly.  All this while small businesses and entrepreneurs are impeded at every turn by taxation and legal obstacles.

In terms of international trade being “free trade,” this is not really the case either. Only massive corporations supported by governments are able to exploit the advantages of international manufacturing and labor sources in a way that ensures long term success. Meanwhile economic models that promote true decentralization and localism become impractical because real competition is never allowed. The world has not enjoyed free markets in at least a century. What we have today is something entirely different.

Con #2: Globalism Is About A “Multipolar World”

This is a relatively new disinformation tactic that I attribute directly to the success of the liberty movement and alternative economists. As the public becomes more educated on the dangers of economic centralization and more specifically the dangers of central banks, the globalists are attempting to shift the narrative to muddy the waters.

For example, the liberty movement has railed against the existence of the Federal Reserve and fiat dollar hegemony to the point that our information campaign has been breaking into mainstream thought. The problem is that globalism is not about the dollar, U.S. hegemony or the so-called “deep state,” which in my view is a distraction from the bigger issue at hand.

The fact is, globalist institutions and central banks permeate almost every corner of the world. Nations like Russia and China are just as heavily tied to the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements and international financial centers like Goldman Sachs as any western government.

Part of the plan for the new world order, as has been openly admitted by globalists and globalist publications, is the decline of the U.S. and the dollar system to make way for one world financial governance through the IMF as well as the Special Drawing Rights basket as a mechanism for the world reserve currency. The globalists WANT a less dominant U.S. and a more involved East, while the East continues to call for more control of the global economy by the IMF. This concept unfortunately flies over the heads of most economists, even in the liberty movement.

So, the great lie being promoted now is that the fall of the U.S. and the dollar is a “good thing” because it will result in “decentralization,” a “multi-polar” world order and the “death” of globalism. However, what is really happening is that as the U.S. falls globalist edifices like the IMF and the BIS rise.  We are moving from centralization to super-centralization. Globalists have pulled a bait and switch in order to trick the liberty movement into supporting the success of the East (which is actually also globalist controlled) and a philosophy which basically amounts to a re-branding of the new world order as some kind of decentralized paradise.

Con #3: Nationalism Is The Source Of War, And Globalism Will End It

If there’s one thing globalists have a love/hate relationship with, it’s humanity’s natural tribal instincts. On the one hand, they like tribalism because in some cases tribalism can be turned into zealotry, and zealots are easy to exploit and manipulate. Wars between nations (tribes) can be instigated if the tribal instinct is weighted with artificial fears and threats.

On the other hand, tribalism lends itself to natural decentralization of societies because tribalism in its best form is the development of many groups organized around a variety of ideas and principles and projects. This makes the establishment of a “one world ideology” very difficult, if not impossible. The first inclination of human beings is to discriminate against ideas and people they see as destructive and counter to their prosperity. Globalists therefore have to convince a majority of people that the very tribalism that has fueled our social evolution and some of the greatest ideas in history is actually the source of our eventual doom.

Nationalism served the globalists to a point, but now they need to get rid of it entirely. This requires considerable crisis blamed on nationalism and “populist” ideals. Engineered war, whether kinetic or economic, is the best method to scapegoat tribalism. Every tragedy from now on must eventually be attributed to ideas of separation and logical discrimination against negative ideologies. The solution of globalism will then be offered; a one world system in which all separation is deemed “evil.”

Con #4: Globalism Is Natural And Inevitable

As mentioned earlier, globalists cannot have their “new world order” unless they can convince the masses to ask for it. Trying to implement such a system by force alone would end in failure, because revolution is the natural end result of tyranny. Therefore, the new world order has to be introduced as if it had been formed by coincidence or by providence. Any hint that the public is being conned into accepting global centralization would trigger widespread resistance.

This is why globalism is always presented in the mainstream media as a natural extension of civilization’s higher achievement. Even though it was the dangerous interdependency of globalism that helped fuel the economic crisis of 2008 and continues to escalate that crisis to this day, more globalism is continually promoted as the solution to the problem. It is spoken of with reverence in mainstream economic publications and political discussions. It receives almost religious praise in the halls of academia. Globalism is socioeconomic ambrosia — the food of deities. It is the fountain of youth. It is a new Eden.

Obviously, this adoration for globalism is nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that globalism is a positive force for humanity, let alone a natural one. There is far more evidence that globalism is a poisonous ideology that can only ever gain a foothold through trickery and through false flags.

We live in an era that represents an ultimate crossroads for civilization; a time of great uncertainty. Will we seek truth in the trials we face, and thus the ability to create our own solutions?  Or, will we take a seemingly easier road by embracing whatever solutions are handed to us by the establishment? Make no mistake — the globalists already have a solution prepackaged for us. They have been acclimating and conditioning the public to accept it for decades now. That solution will not bring what it promises. It will not bring peace, but eternal war. It will not bring togetherness, but isolation. It will not bring understanding, but ignorance.

When globalists eventually try to sell us on a full-blown new world order, they will pull out every conceivable image of heaven on Earth, but they will do this only after creating a tangible and ever present hell.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.


LetThemEatRand FoggyWorld Wed, 04/25/2018 - 22:07 Permalink

A small example, but yet an important point is the article on ZH earlier today about the former Clinton aide (Carmen Turner) who let loose on the cops that pulled her kid over.  These are the people who want to run the world.  They call themselves "liberal" or even "socialist."  They want to run the world for the same reasons people have always wanted to run the world.  Pretty much anyone in national politics right now is of this mindset, liberal or conservative. Or they wouldn't have made it that far in this system.

In reply to by FoggyWorld

Heros beepbop Thu, 04/26/2018 - 04:16 Permalink

As usual, Brandon Smith ignores the JQ.  And all this foaming at the mouth about "globalism" makes him sound like Alex Jones.

"Globalism" is the label they have allowed to be put on their centuries old movement in order to sugar coat it for the stupid goyim.

This spiral into a living hell is actually about a heirarchy of fake jewish families trying to assert eternal control over the entire planet and turn all its inhabitants into their slaves.  Clearly, satanic worship and rituals are involved, even if one believes that the eternal liar does not exist.

In reply to by beepbop

FBaggins Heros Thu, 04/26/2018 - 11:20 Permalink

Con #1: Globalism Is About “Free Markets”

Yes, totally agree with Smith. This is one of their greatest cons. Recent UN Agendas appear to advocate openness for migration, but in reality what multinationals and banksters want is an openness without borders so that nations like Iran and Russia which assert ownership and control over their resources will no longer be a barrier to the monopolistic habits of these power brokers.  Concentration of wealth and power into through resource, currency and financial monopolies is in fact what is central to the interests of the Western globalists, who in fact are also neocons.

Con #2: Globalism Is About A “Multipolar World”

Mostly Disagree with Smith. The push of the globalists is for a One World Government, not just to make laws to further various UN Agendas as many think, but mainly to establish a legal basis and security protection for the proposed One World Bank, which the Western globalists no doubt want it to emerge from the structures, connections, and credit with the BIS, the IMF, and the World Bank. Perhaps, in issuing a currency to take over as THE official world reserve currency, they will to some extend in the process pull to plug on the present leading reserve currencies, like for instance, the US dollar.  Like with so many dollars out their not back by anything but the fiat of the banks holding the credit, the exchange for a SDR type currency may be very little. Could be why Russia and China are trying to back their currencies with at least some gold. In any case what is happening today is that Russia is particular is the leader and the center of the “Multipolar World” and the Western globalists are not beating that drum but rather trying to silence it altogether. The main financial objective of the Western globalist is concentration and control of the credit and the issuance of it in some form of currency. They do not want a multipolar world but a one-world-order.

 Con #3: Nationalism Is The Source Of War, And Globalism Will End It

Yes, this is a con as well. However, Smith deliberately confuses tribalism with nationalism. There are numerous concepts and variations of ‘tribalism’ out there as there are variations of nationalism, and they sometimes do coincide, the most prominent coincidence in current Western society being the nationalistic state of Israel, founded on the exclusive tribal identity of Zionism. In the 20th century the German Nazis largely based their nationalism on the mythical tribal identity of the Arian race, and they acted very “tribal” in the process. It is interesting that Smith does not make any distinction between a kind of exclusive nationalism based mostly on tribalism and the nationalism in nations like in the US based on a more pluralistic concept, or a melting pot model of races, ethnic and tribal groups. What Smith fails to observe is that it is the very Zionist tribalism in Israel which is bringing the world closer and closer to war, and yet it is the Western globalists which are mostly fostering this Israeli aggression, obviously to foster their goal of concentrating valuable resources into their hands for more power, and likely as a backing to their proposed replacement of the petrodollar. We should be asking why the Western globalist establishment is so adamant about destroying every nation asserting ownership and control over their own resources and trade. Nations like Russia and Syria (“nationalists”) are trying to protect their nations made up of many tribal groups, against the aggression Western “globalists” using nations like the US, the UK, France and Israel to destroy them.

Con #4: Globalism Is Natural And Inevitable

What is inevitable is that if people are free to communicate, travel and exchange ideas around the world, a networking emerges which softens alliances based mainly on tribal, racial, or nationalistic differences. But this does not mean everyone just through communication will be united into one big happy world. People take positions on issues usually relative to their own interests, and nations will remain the basis of any civilization.  Some aspects of globalism which serve the common good like keeping our oceans clean from plastics should get majority backing, while taking down borders to allow a free migration of people everywhere is obviously only acceptable to a minority of globalists attempting to concentrate their own wealth and power by fragmenting nations which oppose their machinations.  

In reply to by Heros

Scipio Africanuz LetThemEatRand Thu, 04/26/2018 - 05:13 Permalink

A true human being, seeks power only over himself, his passions, and his soul. Others seek power over sentient beings - humans - that they may act like gods. We were warned against that!

We were given an operation manual - the Ten commandments - to guide us and when it seemed we couldn't understand it, it was summarized to ONE COMMANDMENT - " love your neighbor as yourself" - and if that is still hard to understand, it was further clarified as " do unto others, as you'd have them do unto you",  and just in case it wasn't still understood, the reason for the commandments was made VERY CLEAR, "what you sow, you reap".

So here we are today, baffled by what's going on in the world, neglecting to self-contemplate, and realize that as a species, "we sowed the tempest, now we reap the tornado!"

We abused all of nature, the air, the seas, the land, the animals, the fish, the birds, the plants, and finally, ourselves!

Mama earth has just begun the disciplinary actions, we ain't seen nothing yet! Our eyes will water from sheer terror, our hearts will tremble within us, our souls will quake in undiluted trepidation, and our spirits will almost fail but it'll be for our survival. Never mess with a mom who's determined to dish out iron discipline...

In reply to by LetThemEatRand

GreatUncle LetThemEatRand Thu, 04/26/2018 - 05:15 Permalink

If you do not have that mindset you are not allowed ...

Hence the Clinton deplorables statement is the underlying theme. The problem for their supporters!

There is not enough room for all of them in the wonderful wonderland and they will eventually become deplorables.

Go tell a snowflake they and many of their snowflake friends they are not chosen and they will become deplorables then watch them cry and run for a safe space.

Love it .. .the moral and future for snowflakes is they eventually melt they do not last forever.

In reply to by LetThemEatRand

desertboy Wed, 04/25/2018 - 21:48 Permalink

Plato's Republic required, first and foremost, the destruction of any continuance of the cronyism/nepotism-based family dynasties, which is the same issue today. 

Article forgets that the sons of Plato's "philosopher kings" were taken away at birth.

fulliautomatix Whoa Dammit Wed, 04/25/2018 - 23:13 Permalink

Already a done deal. What we're seeing now is how the basic misunderstandings and contradictory impulses of those 'in charge' are leading them to a result they don't want. They have power and it is killing them.

For example - the economy. sigh. If you concentrate the wealth and the means to wealth, the opportunities available for development of technology are necessarily limited when compared to the opportunities available when more people can pursue technology 'projects'. Examples of economic growth following broad-based opportunity within a society are legion (they describe the ascent of the middle classes from feudal times), but most easily observed in the history of the USA particularly and the West in general. The same is true for resource harvesting and intellectual pursuits, is true for all aspects of human productivity. The economy must necessarily decay under this set of circumstances - and that isn't allowed. So we see them try to attempt the impossible.

The hard decisions have been put off for so long that they are now distastefully harsh in application. It was known by 2011 that the banksters had hung themselves, but our courts still cannot bring themselves to jail the crooks. The judiciary has seen the law treated with contempt by its creators and guardians and has not taken those people to account - they now face the terrifying prospect of having to re-establish the rule of law. Hard to do? No - you just need judges jailing people who lie to them. You also remind people who claim to be outside the law that they are not party to the protections it provides - the court may do what it wishes with them, does not even have to listen to their pleas or arguments. Sure, it is a personal action - judges must take responsibility for making bad calls, but if our judges are not people who are capable of making the right call when required the law is already dead and we're just a debating society who can't agree on the meaning of words and actions. Again, not a society able to maintain its well-being, economic or otherwise.

The complexity of the make-believe economy is such that it needs a static system to function at all (command economy). This is problematic as a stagnant economy isn't a growing economy. Profit is hard to come by - but easiest if legislated (ref. 'obamacare', 'IRS'). As the tax-payer comes to realise that he and she is being slugged for their vig at every opportunity by every ticket wielding sociopath granted access to power, they will do less and less to make sure they pay taxes - underground economies must be quite big now (ref. oil sales through Turkey from Syria).


In reply to by Whoa Dammit

GreatUncle DownWithYogaPants Thu, 04/26/2018 - 05:24 Permalink

To bring a NWO ...

The new international bank that China, Russia set up and the UK is part of?

If you needed to flip a bankrupt global economy what would you do?


Now think of petroyuan and you needed to flip to another looks promising.


Gold trading has moved to China? Get the feeling that ...


Get the drift, disconnect from the existing then you flip it and watch the existing one go down.

Failure to plan for this would result the single verison collapse into chaos.

I think cryptos will pay a part of this also.


In reply to by DownWithYogaPants

GRDguy Wed, 04/25/2018 - 22:09 Permalink

Abraham (Genesis) is probably the world's first documented sociopath. There were no covenants. No need to hate anyone. Just don't let others lie-to, steal-from or kill you simply because you don't believe their particular story. (polite word for "lie") Prior to Abraham, some folks believed in three commandments; "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds."

Johnbrown GRDguy Wed, 04/25/2018 - 22:24 Permalink

The Religion of Anarchism - A New Form of God

In AD 1, the Jews were praying for a messiah. More than 2000 years later they are still waiting. In the interim, billions of people have lived and died believing that the Jewish Messiah has already come and redeemed humankind. These people call themselves “Christians”. Christianity was a Jewish spin off, that originally distinguished itself from Judaism on this singular point of disagreement. The Christians believe the redeemer has come and was crucified, but they believe he will come again. His coming will usher in the millennium, a period of peace and harmony, when the lamb will lay down with the lion. In a certain sense, therefore, both the Jews and Christians share the same hope – that the messiah will come. The only difference is that Christians believe he has already visited earth once, in the form of Jesus, whereas Jews reject this idea.

Christians have a narrative about Jesus and the Jews. They believe the Jews made a mistake. They believe the Jews misunderstood the prophecy of the old testament. The Jewish leadership, so the story goes, thought the messiah would be a great king, a great military hero, who would recapture the holy land, and free Israel from imperial domination. According to the Christians, they were wrong. They were looking for the wrong thing. Their minds were not open to a different, better type of savior. Therefore, they were unable to see the messiah that god actually sent. When Jesus claimed to be the son of god, and was crucified, the Jewish leadership believed that that proved that he was not the savior. Why didn’t he save himself if he was? Christians explain that the Jews fumbled by being too certain that they knew god’s plan. Because of their narrow preconception, they were unable to see the savior passing right in front of their eyes.

Whether you believe in the Christian narrative or not, the fact that billions of people have believed it demonstrates that ideas of divinity can change. As time and circumstances change, the religious leadership of any era will necessarily conform their teachings about god to the demands of the time. In a pre-Greco-Roman era, for example, the idea of a great conqueror messiah might have been what the Jewish people needed. It might have united them. It might have given them the strength to endure subjugation, war, and conquest. But in the Roman era, any thought of military conquest was inconceivable, and potentially dangerous. The old concept of a conqueror god was therefore discarded, and a new ideal of god was crafted by contemporary religious leaders. This new ideal better matched the necessities of the time. It promoted a new type of god, one that offered salvation only in the afterlife. This new divinity called for people to reject temporal victory, and model their lives after the unconditional surrender of Jesus. Instead of hoping for a god who would bring justice on earth, the new religion taught people to abandon any hope for redemption in the temporal world. As Frederich Nietzche argued, Christianity became a vessel by which the persecuted (who he called the “slaves”) took the pitiful, helpless figure of a crucified man and used it to construct a new ideal – a messiah whose unseen kingdom existed outside space and time. As centuries passed, that ideal served the purpose for which is was originally crafted. It gave the dispossessed the strength to soldier on and endure. It offered them the promise of heaven. Within a thousand years, Christianity was ascendant, and the Christian values had became dominant – the law of the land.

If this interpretation of the transition from Judaism to Christianity is true, if the concept of god was changed, if it is malleable, and can be changed by religious leaders to conform to contemporary societal needs, then the question arises: How much could the concept of god change? Is there any form that would be impossible for religious leaders to make divine? If religious leaders in one era can deify the incredibly powerful symbol of a militaristic, conquering old testament messiah, and religious leaders of another era can deify the incredibly pitiful symbol of a sacrificial messiah, then what would be impossible to deify? The difference between these two is so stark, that it would seem that anything, whether beautiful and sublime, or pitiful and ugly has the potential to be elevated to divinity, if necessary. Arguably the possibilities of things to make divine include even non-human forms. Some scholars argue, for example, that ideologies such as communism and fascism are modern, non-theistic religions. But are there other, yet undeveloped non-theistic religions that might conform better to contemporary societal needs? I will return to this question later in the essay.

Whatever the forms that divinity may take in theory, to succeed in practice, a religion must ultimately serve a purpose. Successful religious leaders must craft a god, or ideal of divinity that responds to the unspoken needs of the people. The form of divinity must motivate and give hope; it must give purpose; it must offer something in which people can believe, it must elaborate a system of sanctions, and offer a reward. Under this paradigm, religion is not the mandate of a divine being, but instead the enlightened effusion of the wise or learned in any particular era. They are the true givers of law. The law they give is not arbitrary, however. It is their “best guess” as to which values society needs and will respond to at a particular moment in time. To successfully take hold, their divine ideal and system of values must resonate with some profound, unexpressed need or hope. The Christian Jesus, for example, must have spoken to the unconscious wishes of the underclass in the Roman Empire. Likewise, any new concept of god, must promote the right set of values, at the right time.

But having the right set of values alone is not sufficient. If religious leaders want to change the prevalent concept of divinity, they must find a way to bridge the new ideal with the old. No matter how much they might wish, they will not succeed in creating a new concept of god, without referring it to and framing it against the old. The new values must be grafted onto the old. Religious leaders must be patient and develop a plausible narrative that provides continuity, and serves as the “connective tissue” between the two. Concepts of god necessarily change slowly, over many generations. Neither a person, nor a people will abandon their religion without a fight. A religious belief when it takes hold of a mind is a very serious matter. Arguably, the entire evolutionary purpose of religion is to give each person a sense of meaning, and to group together like minded people willing to fight and die for their beliefs. In this sense, religion would not serve its purpose if it was easy to uproot and change.

The development of Christianity demonstrates this point. Consider the transition from a Jewish warrior-god messiah to a Christian sacrificial-god messiah. There is a huge difference between the two. Early Christian leaders must have been confronted with this discontinuity. If Jews were raised to believe in one type of messiah, how might they ever pivot and begin believing in something fundamentally different? To bridge this chasm Christian leaders developed the narrative of the error of the Jewish leadership that I have explained above. This explanation, as nonsensical and counterintuitive as it might seem, gave those Jews who were inclined to the Christian concept of god the cover they needed to make the transition. The explanation acted as a catalyst, permitting them to believe in the new god, while not overtly abandoning their old god (since according to the explanation, the new faith was actually the same as the old one). Similarly, early Christians patterned many of the rituals, symbols, and festivals of Christianity off the pagan religion which was all around them. Doing so must have made early Christianity seem more familiar. This familiarity would have made pagan conversions easier.

If everything thus far is accurate, we should now be able to abstract some general principles about the formation of a new religion. First, the conditions must be right. There must be a dissatisfaction with the old forms of divinity. The conditions and circumstances of the society must have changed dramatically as compared to the conditions and circumstances that were conducive to the old god. They must have changed enough so that the old god is not longer able to satisfy the deepest, most profound contemporary longings. People must be seeking a new direction, a new source of meaning. Second, there must be a religious leadership that recognizes consciously or not, that new values are needed for the survival and restoration of balance and harmony to the world. The new religious leadership must be willing to craft a new concept of god consistent with those values. They must be willing to seek that god in unconventional forms and symbols. They must recognize that if an appropriate symbol or ideal of god is found, people will have the capacity to deify it and see it as sacred. This is true even if the new concept of god seems very unconventional or very unlike the old concept of god. Finally, the religious leadership must find a way to craft a narrative connecting the old god to the new. In doing so they will facilitate conversion to the new faith.

We are now ready to apply the lessons of history to our present day. No sober observer of the contemporary world could say that any Abrahamic god still suffices. New ideas such as the theory of evolution, modern insights into the nature and formation of the universe, contemporary critical scholarship of the sacred biblical texts, and comparative anthropology, have rendered a fatal blow to the old gods. As Neitzche himself argued a century and a half ago: “God is dead.” But then… what shall replace Him? Humans need a religion, they need a source of meaning. There is no escaping it. The need for a story, a narrative, an idea around which to organize and for which to fight is one of the greatest evolutionary adaptations of humankind.

Where there is demand the market will attempt to create supply. Since the beginning of the decline of Christianity, certain philosophers in the western world have attempted to create new religions. They have failed. They may have had noble intentions, but their “best guesses” of the values society needed turned out to be wrong. Their ideal deities turned out to be “false gods” who brought destruction and ruin, instead of peace and prosperity. Each group in turn, promoted their respective religion. Each in turn, failed. Among them were nationalism, communism, fascism, democracy, and socialism. They failed because they did not conform to the hopes, wishes, and needs of a people confronting new challenges. The enlightenment and the industrial revolution had put humankind in very different circumstances compared to those in which Christianity and Islam had developed. People sought, and still seek, something correspondingly new and different.

But the modern religions offered nothing but a bastardization of the Abrahamic concept of god. They were all attempts to bring the Abrahamic god down to earth, but not to fundamentally change its nature. These new religions tapped into the Christian ideal of an all powerful deity, but attached it to the state or a “great leader” who was anything but all powerful. So, instead of being told to pray to a disembodied spirit in the sky, people were now told to vote for or worship a disembodied state. Instead of fearing a sky god, they were taught to fear the leviathan state. Instead of having faith in eternal justice and salvation, they were told that justice and salvation could be achieved through the systemic violence of the state – an absurdity. These new religions were not new at all. They were an attempt to bring the Judeo-Christian god unchanged, into the temporal world – an impossibility.

It’s as if the early Christians, instead of selecting a completely new symbol around which to rally – the pitiful and crucified Jesus, had instead attempted to deify the leader of the failed Jewish rebellion against the Romans. You could imagine how that religion might have taken hold for a while because a military leader was at least similar to what the Jews expected. But in the end, that religion would have failed. It would not have offered a sufficiently different concept of god. It would have only been the old concept of the messiah, refashioned and diluted. Why would a failed military leader be preferable to the old ideal of an all conquering messiah? Such a religion would not really offer new solutions. It would have been a step backwards. What was needed, and ultimately succeeded, was a fundamentally different ideal of the deity. One that conformed to the people’s needs. A crucified Christ, for example.

Similarly, when modern people were first presented with the new religions they initially responded positively. Perhaps they thought: “Maybe this is the next step forward! Maybe this will lead to a better world!” But eventually they realized their error, and faced the dissatisfying choice of either reverting back to their old god, who they had abandoned, or seeking in vain for some other ideal that promised meaning. Many people today find themselves in exactly this state. They are discontented or unconvinced by traditional concepts of god, but also dissatisfied with the modern alternatives. They exist in a sort of existential limbo, an uncomfortable state of disbelief, lacking real purpose or direction.

But if the modern religions were and are destined to fail, then is there a new religion that could offer a new form of deity that DOES actually conforms to contemporary needs? If there is, it would have to describe a new, radically different understanding of god. It would have to very deliberately NOT be a redesign of the Abrahamic god. It must be something completely different, and it must explain why the Abrahamic concept of god is wrong.

I believe anarchism could be fashioned into just such a religion. In fact, I do not believe anarchists can ever hope to achieve a stateless society until we do just that. It is all well and good for philosophers and economists capable and willing to read huge tomes, and able to comprehend long chains of reasoning to understand the reasons why everyone should share the anarchist values of self-ownership, non-aggression, and private property. But for the majority of people these values will not take hold until we, the “religious leaders” of anarchism, root them in an integrated system of belief. As reluctant as many anarchists may be to do so, we must bring god into the discussion.

Religions serve to sacralize, elevate, and deify certain symbols or ideas. The religion of anarchism would be no different. But what needs to be made sacred if our goal is a stateless society? What form must our new god take to bring about that end? What ideal form should we deify? What would get people to revere and respect private property? What form of god would get them to recognize and respect the boundaries that exist between themselves and others?

The answer is that the religion of anarchism would teach each person that he has a responsibility to develop his own sense of deity, that he himself must become god, or at least his own living representation of god incarnate on earth. Because, at root the errors of statism stem from a willingness by some people to project their form of god onto others. Such projection is a disrespect of the boundary that exists between separate minds. Your god is not my god. No matter how convinced you might be that he is, he isn’t. This point cannot be over emphasized. Your god, really is ONLY your god. In fact, the form your god takes, is YOU. It is not ME. It is not acceptable for a person to impose his form of god, as the “right” form for everyone. Even if he does so in secret. Doing so denies the sovereignty of others, and it is a simple logical step from believing you know my god better than me, to believing you should control my property. True individual sovereignty will only be achieved when each person is challenged to develop his own unique understanding of what it means to be god. Only then will aggression against another, and violations of property boundaries be seen as something unholy, and sacrilegious, a form of deicide. So to answer the question about anarchism’s form of god: Anarchists want to shatter the collective god. We want god to exist independently in each mind. We seek to prohibit any unity in the concept of god.

Building a religion within which each person is recognized as a deity, may seem bizarre, even contradictory. Skeptics may argue that “a religion where everyone is god, is no religion at all!” Well… perhaps… At some point the argument becomes one of semantics. How do you define “religion”? Perhaps it would be better to classify the religion of anarchism as a type of meta-religion. Maybe that would make it easier to understand. The meta-religion of anarchism, would serve only as a scaffolding, a comprehensible system of ethics, and rules for co-existence on earth that all deities (meaning people) would respect. Each would be free to peacefully develop their own understanding of their place in the cosmic order. Anarchism would permit any interpretation of non-ethical questions such as the existence or lack thereof of free-will, continued life or lack thereof after death, or ultimate purpose. Unlike the old religions, anarchist dogma would be silent on these questions.

The practical consequence of each person being his own god, is that no person could excuse his actions, by blaming them on some other deity. Instead, as a god, each person would be expected to become a law giver, and be responsible for his own actions. With no godhead in the state, and no godhead in the sky, a person would have nothing behind which to hide. When he or she is accused of a crime, and claims as a defense “I did it because I was ordered,” every anarchist would reply: “But you are a god. A god does not follow another god’s orders without reason. Why did you obey?” Ignorance also would not excuse crimes. “You had a responsibility to know. You are a god after all.”

Obviously, creating a religion in which each person is a deity would be a radical departure from traditional religions. Abrahamic religions, for example, explicitly prohibit any person, or people from thinking they can be gods. In their creation story god condemned adam and eve for giving into the temptation of the tree of knowledge: “… your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:5. Later, god supposedly divided mankind and confused their languages to punish them for their arrogance in trying to reach heaven by constructing a tower of babel.

But these are just stories. They are stories that were imagined in the minds of men. They were stories specifically designed by some men to prevent other men from attempting to do the same thing the original group had done themselves: to attempt to interpret the mysteries of life and the cosmos, to create laws, and give form to the unknown ultimate cause of the universe. They were stories designed, perhaps unconsciously, to enslave men’s minds.

But the priests of a future religion of anarchism could tell stories too. Perhaps our creation story will be something along these lines: “In the beginning there were men. Some men imagined a god. They told stories about their god. But they were afraid. They were afraid that other men might also imagine a god. What if the new men imagined a new god that was different from the old god? That might mean that the original god, was not the only god. The original men did want there to be another god. They wanted everyone to believe in only their god. So these men created a story. They told the other men that long before a man had been punished for trying to become god. They called this punishment “original sin.” They blamed all the problems of the world on this sin. But the religion of anarchism teaches that it was the story of original sin itself, that was the original sin. For this story was an attempt by some men to arrogate to themselves the exclusive right to describe god. And this sin is what has caused mankind to live in a desert ever since. But there is a way out of the desert. Each individual must defy the collective god, and become his own god.”

The stories told by the priests of anarchism could explain something else. They could reconcile the religion of anarchism with the old religions. Like the early Christians who told a story about the error of the Jewish leaders, as a way to explain how Jesus, a pitiful crucified criminal could actually be god, we could describe the errors of the religious leaders of the past. We could explain that all ancient Abrahamic religions had a story about a messiah. We could explain that the universality of this symbol shows that men have always unconsciously hoped and prayed for the day that they themselves would rise, throw off their mental constraints, and realize that if anything is god, they are. For millennia, we could explain, men waited for a god in the form of a man, to come save them, and because they thought that the messiah would necessarily be outside of themselves, they were unable to realize that they, themselves were called to be their own god-savior. We could call on all men to finally realize the prophecy for themselves – to rise and become law givers, to come in glory and judge the living and the dead. “To judge the living and the dead? I want to! But by what standard shall I judge them?” They might ask. It is this moment that we will have an opening to explain praxeology and the ethics of liberty.

This and other essays, available exclusively here:

In reply to by GRDguy

GRDguy SocratesSolves Thu, 04/26/2018 - 00:38 Permalink

I agree. Keep it simple. A good man pointed out that the truth would set you free, but his audience at the time claimed they were not slaves, they were children of Abraham.  He told them the truth, and they crucified him for it. Just as we do now when someone speaks the truth. No new religion needed; just stop lyin', or at least stop listening to liars and be true to yourself.

In reply to by SocratesSolves

NYC80 Johnbrown Wed, 04/25/2018 - 22:51 Permalink

I read your whole essay, and you have some good ideas. Unfortunately, you leave out the human element. Your concepts might work if you were trying to convert a bunch of smart, competent people who could be self-reliant, but most people are stupid and lazy. They don't want to be God. They don't want to rely on themselves. 50% of society is perfectly happy to mooch off the other 50%, and of the 50% who want to be productive, 95% or more want someone to tell them what to do in order to be productive. Maybe 2% of society (in the West) can actually lead or run anything effectively.


We are relatively smart great apes, and, yes, we are great apes, just like chimpanzees. We are wired to be hierarchical and social, and we have brain structures devoted to determining our place within the hierarchy. There aren't a lot of alphas - for very good reasons - and most betas/gammas/deltas have no interest whatsoever in being alphas.


You can't found a religion that only works for alphas. For one thing, it will be rejected by the vast majority. And, perhaps more importantly, society has to be organized by the alphas. It's not even just because alphas want to control it, it's because the non-alphas require it. You're describing a world that would appeal only to (somehow) egalitarian alphas and the betas/gammas/deltas who are too stupid to think it through, but who would hate it if it were ever actually realized as their lives would be immeasurably worse off if they had to actually think for themselves. That's a pretty tiny minority. Maybe if some non-apex-predator species whose eyes don't look forward towards prey develops civilization some day, it's doable, but what you're describing will never, ever succeed with actual humans involved.  

In reply to by Johnbrown

commoncourtesy NYC80 Thu, 04/26/2018 - 04:35 Permalink

You are correct, but have you ever tried to organize another or a whole family or a whole street for a period of time. Each man, woman and child is unique and all have a variety of different wants and perceptions of their ideal world. A group of people can be a genuine nightmare to 'manage'. Most accept no responsibility for themselves whatsoever. My sympathies go to those much lower-down the pecking order who stay the course out of genuine care for others and not self-gratification. 

However, I believe most forms of government today should be outlawed. They are utterly corrupt and totally self-serving egotists.

Power really does corrupt!

In reply to by NYC80

the Dood Wed, 04/25/2018 - 22:09 Permalink

So glad Trump drained the swamp and then refilled it with PNAC/NWO members. Reminds me of that scene from Piranhas when they push the button "drain pool." 

Johnbrown Wed, 04/25/2018 - 22:12 Permalink

History is not cyclical, it is ours to make.

Our world is constantly changing. History is full of the rise and fall of empires, religious and political movements, war, conquest, commerce, and new technologies. Observing this perpetual change, certain historians of the past developed a theory that history was cyclical. According to them, regardless of our ambitions to permanence, the arc of history always revolves back to the mean. It is a theory that is tinged with determinism, because its proponents argue that an individual’s actions do not matter, as much as the historical forces within which the person lives. But while the theory may make a person feel less empowered, it also gives comfort. Because if what I do doesn’t matter, neither does what anyone does. Sometimes the good will win, and sometimes the evil, but the battle will continue, forever. Nobody and nothing wins permanently.

But many historians reject the cyclical theory. Instead they argue that the world is headed in a specific direction and is taking us somewhere new. A person who views history this way tends to believe in the power of individual action. He or she has no assurance that somehow good and evil will always battle each other. Instead he realizes with terror that evil has the potential to win, permanently, and this makes him fearful for the future. But, at the same time, he realizes, that good could win, also permanently, and this makes him hopeful and motivated.

If history is taking us somewhere new, where specifically is it going? What is the ultimate end or purpose of history? The study of the answers to this question is called teleology. Teleology deals with “ultimate purpose”, and it is the intersection between a person’s theory of history, and his theology. If a person believes history has an ultimate purpose, by implication, he believes there is some consciousness designing it. Religious people call this ultimate designer God. But a person can believe there is a purpose to history, without believing in God. He can believe that human beings are the designers of the future. History, from this perspective, is the cumulative agglomeration of billions of purposeful minds, each working to bring about their own vision of the future. Each answering the question:

Where do we want to go?

Where we are in history

Whatever the purpose of history, the evidence of modernity seems to disprove the old idea that it is cyclical. In this moment in history, there exist phenomenon never before seen on earth. They are “game changers”, that preclude the possibility of us ever “cycling” back. Think about nuclear bombs, for example. If there is ever another large war, it will be the last. Because of nuclear bombs, the cycle of war and peace must come to an end. Or what about the internet? Ideas can be instantaneously communicated across boundaries, without any centralized control. When we consider that Wikipedia, Youtube, and other online cultural repositories will remain online no matter what happens, it is hard to imagine us cycling back to another “dark age”. Or what about the global fiat currency system? Totally unprecedented. Never before have a few central bankers been able to collaborate and create unlimited currency units. It is hard to imagine that those in power will ever voluntarily relinquish their total control over money. Their very existence is tied up with people’s willingness to accept paper money. Finally, what about the existence of the UN? Never before has an institution modeled like a government existed between nations. As long as the nation state is here, it is unlikely that the UN will be disbanded. Each of these “game changers” is evidence that history is moving into something unprecedented.

Because of these and other game changers, the world has become unstable in a way it has not been before. Think of the world as a radioactive isotope. The isotope cannot remain in an unstable condition. Eventually something gives and it degrades into a more stable form. Similarly, when our world finally “degrades” what will its new form look like? To use a charged expression: What will the coming “new world order” look like? Are we entered a hell on earth, that will make us pine for the old days of conventional warfare, diseases, rituals, and tradition? Or are we entering a heaven, that will make us wonder why we waited so long? The choice is up to each of us.

I’d like to argue that when the isotope that is our world degrades, it will degrade into one of two possible forms. Either we will have a world government, or we will have a world free of any coercive state. Both would be stable. Both would be lasting. Both would initially capture the aspirations of large numbers of people. But, collectively, we can only have one or the other. Individually, each of us must choose one for which we will fight. Lines are being drawn. The side you select will pivot on how you answer one question:

Is any coercive state legitimate?

What is your answer?

This is a pivotal time

For thousands of years human society has been torn apart by the co-existence of anarchy and coercive states. People who benefit from the state hate anarchy, because it frustrates their efforts and prevents them from exercising complete control. People who do not benefit from the state hate it and view it as predatory; an organization to be avoided and circumvented whenever possible. Historically anarchy served as a final check on despotic states, because it “permitted” a stronger, more liberal sovereign to invade and overthrow the despot. At the same time, the state checked anarchy. Relatively free people, frightened by larger states, would give their consent, implicit or explicit, to the expansion or unification of their own state, one that would then grow to “snuff out” their relative freedom.

This tension has existed as long as there has been human society. But the “game changers” listed above, are bringing this age old conflict to its final denouement. The world will eventually “degrade” and either the state or anarchy will finally, and permanently “win”. Once either side “wins”, it will be very difficult to resurrect the other side. In a stateless world people would never tolerate the construction of a new state. In a world ruled by a world state, those in charge would never allow anarchy to gain a foothold.

Which world would you prefer?


Why you either support a world state, or stateless world

To repeat, the question at hand is: Is any coercive state legitimate?

If you say “yes” your position will be for the construction of a world state. That will be your “heaven”, your utopia. If your answer is “no”, then your position will be for the deconstruction of all states. That will be your “heaven”, your utopia. There is no intellectually consistent middle ground.

Libertarians might bristle at this claim. “Certainly I can be for a limited federal state, and not for a world government!” they’d argue. But such a position is not defensible. A person grants the state legitimacy for a specific reason. They want the state to accomplish a specific end. Their grant of legitimacy is necessarily linked to the accomplishment of that end. A person might argue, for example: “a state is necessary BECAUSE we need national defense.” or “a state is necessary FOR provision of courts and justice”. Whatever the justification, it is the accomplishment of the end in mind that is key. This is an important point. The FORM of the state, is a secondary consideration. Once a person has accepted a certain end to justify the state, the form of the state must logically follow that end.

Without question, the most effective way for advocates of the state to accomplish the ends they claim justify the state (and coercive taxation), is through world government. For if the state, any state, is legitimate, then the execution of its legitimate task will be frustrated by anarchy. Assume, for example, that a person claims the nation state is justified in taxing others to provide mutual defense against other states. What will that person conclude when another state overwhelms his state’s national defenses? He will have to admit that the nation state form of government is not optimal, because it will not have been successful in providing defense. If the person still believes that defense is a legitimate role for a coercive state he will necessarily conclude that only a world state can be successful at accomplishing that task. So if a person believes that the provision of defense justifies the state, his position will be to support world government, and the elimination of anarchy from the world.

Another example: assume a person believes the state is justified in redistributing wealth, to make the economy “fairer”. What will such a person think when he sees the wealthy citizens of his state using offshore tax shelters to avoid wealth confiscation? He will realize that the anarchy of the international system frustrates what he believes to be the legitimate role of the state. If he does not abandon his claim that wealth redistribution is a legitimate role for the state, he will become a proponent for a world state. “We can’t give them anywhere to run and hide!” So if a person believes redistribution of wealth justifies the state, his position will be to support world government, and the elimination of anarchy from the world.

The same could be repeated for labor laws implemented nationally, that companies avoid by regulatory arbitrage, for intellectual property “pirates”, for drug smuggling etc. WHATEVER a person thinks government should do, only a world state could effectively do it. Belief that any coercive state is legitimate is like being pregnant. You can’t do it half way. If you answer “yes” to the question, you necessarily want anarchy eliminated from the planet.

Dangers of a world state (the worst thing imaginable):

Most people assume that some form of state is legitimate. Very few people are even willing to consider our position that ALL coercive states are illegitimate. Most people reflexively answer “yes” to the question posed above. Sometimes, they will even scoff “of course we need a government!”. They consider those who challenge the existence of a coercive state to be “absurd” or “ridiculous”. Even most libertarians refuse to entertain a contrary position. This is the “fatal conceit” that will deliver all of us into the bondage of world government, if we do not begin challenging it.

The dream of a world state is dangerous precisely because it is so appealing within the false mental constructs of a person who believes the state can “do good”. The dream is beautiful. A world without war! But, as we know, a world state might end the war between states, but it will enable the amplification and intensification of the perpetual war between the state and the individual.

When a world government is first formally proposed, the advocates of world government will make promises. They will talk about protections of rights. They will talk about check and balances. They will wax poetically on the amazing “system” they have designed to ensure that their creation will never go off the rails. They will be very confident that they are playing a central role in the salvation of mankind. We must see through their deceptions, deliberate or not, and challenge them. Rest assured, that once power is centralized into a singular body, all of humankind will be enslaved. There will be no Russia for American dissident Edward Snowden to run to. There will be no Equador for Julian Assange. There will be only one refuge for those willing to resist that monolithic state: death.

When our current unstable world order begins degrades, we should be prepared for the attempt to construct a world government. Every thinking person has an obligation to do what he or she can to prevent this from happening. It would be the end of humankind as we know it.

Fortunately, we do not need to attempt to “beat something with nothing.” We have an alternate solution to the world’s problems. Our solution is informed by our correct understanding of the nature of the coercive state. Our solution is for people to organize and begin the long process of breaking states into smaller pieces. Our eventual goal will be the privatization of all property and the elimination of the coercive state entirely. Our solution will also eliminate war. For a war could not be conducted without concentrations of political power, and coercive taxation.


What’s it going to be? Will you advocate for a world state or no state at all? Which side are you on? Is it ok for a person to force his values on another? Is there any justification for a coercive state? A sword of Damocles hangs above our heads. Your answer may determine the fate of our world.

SocratesSolves Johnbrown Wed, 04/25/2018 - 22:49 Permalink

Not a world state, nor not a world state. Rather, a simple World Law. Individuality, freedom, and a guiding World Law. Up until now, humanity has never had this. It now does. Suggest you read The Hero With A Thousand Faces by the tremendous and late Joseph Campbell. The answer for the ills of society can, and will only come in, through the unconscious. This is what has happened already. The effects will be seen in the world in time. In fact, this is already starting to be the case. 

In reply to by Johnbrown

NYC80 Johnbrown Wed, 04/25/2018 - 23:11 Permalink

OK, you have another long essay here. Not knocking you for thinking - you have a well articulated concept of how you'd like things to be. Then again, so did Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Wilson, Castro, and tons of other people. What they all got wrong, and what you get wrong, is simple. THERE WILL NEVER BE A UTOPIA AS LONG AS HUMANS ARE INVOLVED. 

We did not evolve to be happy. We did not evolve to be rational. We did not evolve to get along with all the other humans. For most of our semi-recent evolution, we evolved to tolerate and trust those within our very tiny hunter/gatherer tribes, which tended to be about 8 people but sometimes got as large as 50. Basically, we are pretty good at trusting and loving small groups of people to whom we are very closely genetically related and with whom we share a distinct common culture, and we are wired to be afraid of everyone else.

That's reality. And those traits are features, not bugs. If we'd gotten along too well with the neighboring tribes, our little encampments would have grown too big, and when it didn't rain for a while, we'd starve and/or kill one another. There was lots of food, but not so much that big cities made sense prior to relatively advanced agriculture. We crave sugar and fat because those were rare, and craving them meant we'd gorge on them when they were available, and having a little extra fat was really useful when one of the biggest causes of death was starvation.

Any religion, or ethos, or system of civilization that denies the truth about human nature is destined to fail. Sure, you can mask it - you can gloss over the truth and succeed - but only if your system adequately accounts for that. Jews knew we bond with those with whom we eat, so they came up with a crazy system where people needed two sinks. Almost no one had two sinks, so they had to eat communally in a place with two sinks, and they bonded. Christians knew people hated being poor and miserable, so they recruited the poor and miserable, along with the richer and guilt-prone, and made things more tolerable for the poor and miserable while relieving the guilt of the rich and guilt-prone. They never spelled out the reasons for these things, but they served a purpose that directly tied to the reality of what it is to be human.

I like your idea of a new religion, and a new society. I am not opposed to your figuring it out - heck, I think about these things, too. Just be rational about it. The things that's always bothered me about religion isn't the difficulty of believing in a sky God, even one who gets angry, floods the Earth, and then has a change of heart and invents rainbows. For me, it's wondering, "Why does God care about semi-smart, murderous, lying, vindictive, tribal not-so-hairy apes in the first place?" I have no answer for that. Humans are.... lacking. We are lacking in almost every way possible. The only semi-satisfactory answer I've ever discovered is that we're pretty clever - often too clever for our own good - and that we're a quasi simulation (in that its all real, but it's a spawned universe) that was created by a "God" who was human in his/her prior universe. The math and physics all work for that - it's totally doable, and you could control it using quantum entanglement. It also gets around the BS of the "Big Bang". I'm not saying the "Big Bang" didn't happen - sure it did, but it didn't come from "nothing". The universe wasn't "nothing" and then just somehow exploded into "something". That doesn't make sense. What DOES make sense is that there was a universe, and it spawned a new universe through a Big Bang, and, in this case, it was controlled such that it would evolve into more or less what we have and then go on to develop intelligent life that would start its own new universes and spawn new controlled ones ad infinitum, such that there are literally an infinite number of universes and there is no beginning because there were always an infinite number. The complete absence of a beginning or end, coupled with infinity, mathematically solves the incredibly idiotic notion that somehow something came from nothing. More importantly, THE MATH WORKS. If that's the case, some guy (or gal) many billions of years ago graduated from "God school" and got his/her own universe to start from scratch, and probably mostly copied what had worked in his/hers, so that "God" loves us because we really were created in the same image. I can buy that. That said, if that's the case, we're near the end game, which is to develop crazy powerful computers and an enormous understanding of physics that lets us spawn new worlds, upload our consciousness to computers, combine that consciousness with AI and all the massive powers into which we could tap, and start it all over again.


And before you write that off as non-sense, what did "God" say to Jacob in Genesis? "be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins." It's all just a fractal. Sure, "fruitful and multiply" works for actual people, but it works just as well for spawning infinite universes with their new "Gods" fresh out of "God school" in the old one. If nothing else, it's like the old koan - if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? Well, yeah, the physics happen, but what makes it a sound is the fact there's someone there to actually hear it. In the most simplistic terms I can muster - the meaning of life is a combination of "be fruitful and multiply" and the fact that our amazingly rich and beautiful world requires some kind of smart(ish) conscious creatures to be there to appreciate its beauty, in precisely the same manner and for the same reasons as quantum superpositions degrade to static positions upon measurement - sentience and observation are integral to the whole of existence, and the math entirely supports that concept.

In reply to by Johnbrown

snblitz NYC80 Thu, 04/26/2018 - 01:24 Permalink

The problem with asking "Why?" of God is that our brains are relatively small and therefore somewhat limited.

From a strictly scientific point of view, it is pretty hard to prove any of what we experience really exists.  So far as you and I are concerned our entire experience of the universe is via electrical impulses travelling along a few nerve bundles.  What is *really* on the other side of those nerve impulses?  The best I have been able to settle on is Occam's Razor.

But even then this unimaginably large universe does seem a bit overkill.

In reply to by NYC80

fulliautomatix snblitz Thu, 04/26/2018 - 01:53 Permalink

Turn the question around - see God (religion) as a necessity given the imperfection of our understanding of the universe: the concept has arisen from a need to end an authoritative argument with 'Because it is so!' and the statement is born of our limited understanding. Given that no model can be perfect for the fact that it isn't the thing it describes, there must be some sort of grab-basket of stuff we're only a little sure of, as well as the stuff we're absolutely certain of but cannot explain. Throw it in the God basket and keep looking around, keep growing. Mythos, legos, cosmos - stuff we believe, stuff we rule as necessary in our behaviours (though not necessarily in our understanding, where proof by inspection has trumped any number of proofs by induction, deduction or wild-assed guess), stuff we perceive. 

In reply to by snblitz

IDrankWhat snblitz Thu, 04/26/2018 - 12:48 Permalink

"But even then this unimaginably large universe does seem a bit overkill."

If you consider the God of Christian theology, God is working with unlimited space, time and material resources.  For me, the burning question is why would a perfect God bother with humanity given our track record.


Consider NYC80's post excerpt to this article:

"Why does God care about semi-smart, murderous, lying, vindictive, tribal not-so-hairy apes in the first place?" I have no answer for that. Humans are.... lacking. We are lacking in almost every way possible..." 

I thought his whole post was interesting and well-written.

In reply to by snblitz

earleflorida Johnbrown Wed, 04/25/2018 - 23:16 Permalink

the timeline the author speaks of is inconsequential?

#1) The 'Dark Ages' 500-1100 AD {(forget the Roman Empire [27 BC-476 AD]) or the (Byzantine Empire [330-1453 AD])} or the Greeks philosophers? All Propagandized BS!

#2) It was the 'Black Death' (Bubonic Plague 1340-1350 AD-- just a decade) that changed the entire complexion of the world where a third of Europe's population perished. This was a monumental Event!

#3) But, the greatest period in tyme was the 'Renaissance (14th - 17th Century) Period,... which btw brought us the 'Gutenberg [15th Century] Press [1439 AD]' with moveable keys bringing the printed word and all its knowledge to the illiterate world!

#4) Then came the 'Enlightenment Period' [1650-1800 AD] and the world was now availed by sea and land. 

#5) But, the greatest event in tyme has been the 'Internet' est. 1983, that made the ~8 Billion World inhabitants (~ today) having access to the minds 'Library of Free Thought and Discovery'!

Tis the Internet that has saved mankind!!!

Ps. to the author regarding 'Adam Smith' and free markets...--- he was a fraud!!! as was his protégé Hamilton that gave us Fiat Money via a unconstitutional '1st US Bank [1791-1811] and the War of 1812 [1812-1815]', and then, miraculously comes the 2nd US Bank [1816-1836].

1913 was the begin... of our ill-fated destiny when unknown foreigners control our purse---... now empty!?!


In reply to by Johnbrown