Episode Details

Rumble link Bitchute link

This week’s False Flag Weekly News co-host Peter Myers argues in his new book The Cosmopolitan Empire that there isn’t just one New World Order conspiracy. In reality, he says, there are four: The Rothschild Globalists (or Illuminati), the Zionists, the British, and the Green Left. The first two, he notes, are heavily Jewish, while the latter two, at least at first glance, seem less so.

Why are so many elite individuals and groups, of diverse orientations, pushing to roll back the sovereignty of nation-states and establish a one-world government? There are two categories of reasons: the selfish and the ostensibly altruistic. The obvious selfish reason why anyone would push for one-world government is that they imagine themselves, or their group, as prospective rulers of the world.

The supposedly unselfish reasons begin with the observation that history seems to be heading in that direction. Global trade and communications have knit the world more tightly together than ever before. All that remains is to establish some kind of central authority.

And if we don’t, we’re doomed. Or so say the one-worlders. The first and most obvious reason is war. Military technology has reached the point that the competition for power and resources between sovereign nation-states can only end in one of two ways: peacefully (or relatively so) with the emergence of a one-world superstate; or tragically, with a huge war triggering a regression to barbarism and rapid die-off of most of the world’s population.

H.G. Wells, the most prominent propagandist for the one-world superstate, saw war as the biggest threat. But today, many worry as much or more about ecological catastrophe and (bizarrely) naturally-occurring pandemics. And then there are asteroid hits, solar mega-storms, alien invasions, and other supposedly non-human-instigated threats that Earth’s human population supposedly needs to band together to defeat.

Philosophically, there are two main problems with the push for one-world government. The one that jumps out at almost everyone is that it might be a bad government. Clearly a world with many different sovereign nations whose governments are all run by wise and saintly rulers would be better than a one-world state ruled by Satan himself. Likewise, a one-world state run by the virtuous would be better that a many-nation world whose nations are under the sway of the vicious.

So what we want is justice, a.k.a. good governance; how we get there is secondary. It’s the same issue that animates debates between the advocates of democracy, autocracy, religious republicanism, and what-have-you. Only an idiot would prefer a vicious democracy to a virtuous autocracy. (Unfortunately, we have all been brainwashed towards idiocy in this regard, and tend to regard democracy as the end rather than the means.)

That observation leads us to a less obvious problem with one-world movements: The ends-versus-means dilemma. Assuming we agree that a one-world government is a good goal to strive for, we will quickly discover that those with a stake in the current system of relatively sovereign nations—the powers that be in today’s world—will oppose us. If defeating them using only virtuous means seems hopeless, as is likely, we may be tempted to use vicious means. And a one-world government that came to power through vicious means would almost certainly be a vicious one.

That ends-versus-means problem contributed to the failure of Com