Erna said:
My question is this: Why is this considered to be such a bad thing? One reason I would imagine would be that the stronger economy, in this case the US, would be weakened by merging with weaker economies? But explain to me why this kind of thing is considered to be sooo..."Orwellian"? Is it because total control of the masses is then so much more accomplishable?
I think that's a good question that definitely needs a serious critical analysis. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter, which of course can be wrong. One thing to consider is what is happening in US right now and in other countries. If it wasn't for people in other countries criticizing the policies of US so vehemently, then the chances that the citizens of US would ever see anything outside of the perspective that is carefully managed by their own mainstream media are pretty slim I think. Of course, one reason for this is because US is stepping on the "toes" of other psychopaths in power of other countries, so they have anti-US propaganda to try to put US in its place. But another reason is because the people of other countries are not subject to the same exact propaganda that the US is subject to (the US government does not own all the media in the world, mostly just their own media), so their perspective is naturally more objective about the actions US, though when it comes to their own countries and religions it may not be the case. But then again, some countries are less "ponerized" than others, and while the pathocracy is a global disease, it is not equally strong everywhere. Sometimes when it focuses on one part of the world I think it neglects the ability of the other, less ponerized parts, to interfere.
Or what happened with Nazi Germany - if other countries besides Germany did not exist, if the democratic society of Germany (as it was at the time) was actually a global civilization, what would happen when Hitler and the Nazis completely ponerized this society, only it was the whole world? There would be no one else to get in its way.
I think the problem is that Hitler "sold" his propaganda to his own people, but having no access to the media of other countries, the people of those countries weren't "sold" on specifically that propaganda. They were "sold" on the specific propaganda of their own megalomaniac psychopaths for leaders. And the psychopaths in charge of those other countries wanted to keep their power, and Hitler threatened it. But they couldn't of course use that as an excuse because that makes them just like Hitler, so they had to use their own propaganda to make Hitler look evil (which he was, but so were the leaders who were saying this) and to "defend the world" from evil so to speak, which in reality was "defend our interests".
As far as I understand it, the current situation in the world has been maintained this way for thousands of years. Humanity is divided by languages, religions, cultures, nations, etc. This makes it easy to pit groups of humanity against one another for any of the above reasons and more, constantly keeping people busy and in fear of one another. So actually I think dividing humanity into groups seems like a stable long-term strategy for the PTB, it has worked for thousands of years, so the question is, why change a strategy that has worked for thousands of years?
Well we know that the pathocracy needs fear to control. Historically it has always been some other group of humanity that was the threat - whether it was a different religion, culture, country, race, whatever. So if they are about to shift things around, why? Well, psychopaths ARE known for a stark lack of long term perspective and are blinded by their own wishful thinking and drive to get more and more power, often unable to see the consequences of this like scratching a healing wound because it's very itchy usually ends up tearing away the scab and causing a lot of pain, way more than the itch. They rise up, try to get way too much power way too fast, and historically always collapse on themselves or get taken over by someone else who inevitably also collapses and/or gets taken over, and the cycle just keeps happening. So they do mess up on a national level all the time, but they have not yet messed up on a global level. I think one possibility why globally they have not messed up like they do on a national level all the time is maybe because the people who are in control of the world are not the same as those who get to rule individual countries. Probably smarter, more careful, etc. But being STS no doubt have their share of wishful thinking, and something has got to "give" even with them eventually as their drive to ponerize the world and give themselves more power ultimately fails because.
I think the reason for that is that the people of the world are not psychopaths, they cannot function in a completely ponerized environment for too long just like a healthy body cannot survive after it is completely infected with a disease. The healthy body requires certain things to survive, a disease requires other things and it cannot see beyond its own needs. The more the disease tries to force a body to function according to its criteria, the sicker the body becomes, and eventually dies, which also kills the disease because it depended on the body for its own survival. So if the scab of your wound is itchy, you have an impulse to scratch it, it's an immediate "need" you feel. But if you consider your body's needs, you realise that you'll hurt your body (and therefore yourself) a lot more if you rip off that scab, or similarly if your eyes have allergies and itch, you hurt yourself a lot more by scratching them and causing them to swell and hurt even more, and itch even more. If you are like a psychopath, the more it hurts and itches, the harder you scratch to get rid of the itch, causing even more pain and swelling and itching and eventually leading to some very serious problems.
So would this compulsion for power and control be the driving force behind announcing an official one-world governmen? Because if this is true, why did they work so hard to separate humanity and pit it against one another for thousands of years? It would seem that the compulsion for power and control was responsible for this constant artificial separation in the first place, so how could the same compulsion lead them to do the exact opposite of what they've been doing? This suggests to me that there must be more to it. I think the reason is because something is different now that forces them to do it. Something that is different from the way things have been for thousands of years. But what? I think the probable answer is what is coming in the next few years - the comets, the Wave, and other surprises. Otherwise I cannot think of any other reason that would suddenly make the PTB go against their own methodology that was designed to control everyone in the first place.
Historically, a country that became "too ponerized" collapsed. But not until the ruler had everybody in the country in a completely iron grip of total control for at least a little while. So it seems to me that while having control over the world with many nations, they do not have total control. They could have total control with one world goverment, but it would probably collapse, and while the psychopaths do not see this, I think the global PTB know it, which is why they have not yet tried on a global scale what the low-level psychopaths constantly try on a national scale. But this time they ARE trying it, so why? I think the reason is as I said, what's coming up in the next few years. They want everyone in a complete and total control so they can manage the population during the catastrophes, and they're not afraid that this control will collapse because they expect the majority of the population to be wiped out by the cataclysms anyway. After the dust settles, they want to regain control, but I'm wondering if they'd want to continue a one-world-government control after that, or go back to how they've been doing this with artificial divisions again. The latter has proven to be stable long-term so probably that's what they'll go with. But the former total control version is not stable long-term, but it provides "relief" in the short term like scratching an infection or an allergy or a wound.
Anyway, these are my thoughts at the time, but as you can tell I'm not exactly clear on this stuff, I'm just brainstorming here trying to make sense of things. So take that with a grain of salt, it's definitely an important question.
