The Man of The System and The New World Order

All governments wrestle with the question of, to what degree they should intervene in the lives of their subjects in order to maximize their power, and to what extent they should intervene in commerce in order to maximize their wealth. The fatal flaw is that the answer – one that they cannot accept – is: none. Yet they persist. The end product is a return to serfdom. The modern serf has a flat-screen TV and a smartphone, but his freedom and autonomy are lost.



In 1759, Scotsman Adam Smith, who is widely regarded as the world’s first true economist, published his first great work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. In it, he postulated that all social evolution can be attributed to “individual human action, as opposed to “individual human design.”

By this, he meant that whatever understanding worked well between any two people was likely to lead to progress. The reason for this was that such agreements would, of necessity, be based upon “trust and empathy.”

He believed that, if mankind were left alone to sort out all commerce and other interaction on their own, using truth and empathy, they’d succeed at moving society forward.

He further postulated that, historically, the failure to progress could be attributed to what he termed to be the “Man of System.”

The Man of System was any individual who believed that he knew what was best for others and sought to impose his system (from the top, down) on the population, whether they agreed or not.

Mister Smith felt that the failure in all such systems was the same – that the Man of System was dangerous for two reasons. First, the Man of System believed that he knew more than he was actually capable of knowing. Second, the Man assumed that, if he simply dictated human action, the individuals in question would comply – much like pieces being moved around on a chessboard.

In his supposition, Adam Smith succinctly described the central failing of all of those who seek to establish control over their fellow men, based on their own personal vision.

We see this in all walks of life. It exists in a religious leader who enforces his own version of morality on his parishioners, insisting that those who fail to follow his interpretation of morality will face damnation.

We see it in teachers, who focus more on learning historical facts by rote than on understanding the underlying causes of history.

And, of course, we see it in political leaders who focus on one “ism” or another, through which they believe a society can be forced to obey, thereby creating a “greater good” for all.

So, do these individuals truly believe in the overall vision that they attempt to force on others, or do they simply find it expedient to pretend that this is their belief, as it provides them with the leverage to lord over others?

In some cases, it may be the former and in some cases it may be the latter. In still other cases, it may be both. But the answer matters little. What is significant is that the Man of System seeks to pervert the natural function of human action and fails to understand that, never in history, has this approach to order truly succeeded. Invariably it fails, due to the fact that people, no matter what level of controls are placed upon them, will always seek to think and act independently of any system of diktat.

Subsequent to the publication of his first book, Adam Smith focused on the way forward for societies if they were to succeed in expanding themselves socially and monetarily. He published his conclusions in his second book, The Wealth of Nations, in 1776.

This was a fortuitous date, as the book had a major influence on those in America who would become the founding fathers of the United States.

They agreed with the Smithian principles that wealth is created by individuals, operating in their own self-interest, and that this is achieved through the understanding that empathy for others was required in order to earn the trust of others. Trust was required in order for others to voluntarily choose to engage, socially and in commerce.

The founding fathers of the US chose to minimize the role of government and to rely on free enterprise to be the engine of the nascent nation.

By contrast, the French Revolution, which was inspired by the success of the American Revolution, took a decidedly different turn. The French people were aware of Adam Smith’s books, and he was, in fact, a respected celebrity in Paris. However, the leaders of the French Revolution, having promised social and economic freedom, betrayed the French people and delivered a new regime that echoed the old one.

The French traded one “Man of System” for another. After a brief period of chaos and bloodshed, they once again lost their freedom to autocracy.

The Smithian principle is based upon voluntary exchange – a free market, from the bottom up, not the top down. In it, each creator of goods chooses to create, not that which he most wishes to create, but that which is most likely to be salable to others.

Similarly, he recognizes that he must produce it for a price that others are prepared to pay and in no greater amounts than they are prepared to buy. Increased demand may tend to raise the price being asked, but higher prices will inspire others to compete. Their production inevitably creates a balance between demand, availability, and prices.

The free market, therefore, satisfies the provision of goods, the volume of goods available, and the prices of goods. No one is forced to produce. No one is forced to buy. It’s an entirely self-sustaining and endlessly self-renewing process.

In a free-market system, there are no top-down controls by legislators or regulators. In a top-down system, attempts are made to dictate quotas and prices and apply taxation. All are counter-productive.

This “natural liberty,” as Mister Smith termed it, is invariably destroyed to a greater or lesser degree by outside forces, such as governments and trade unions. They seek to dictate prices and impose quotas, tariffs, and taxation.

Not only do these entities not have the ability to regulate every individual agreement between any two parties, they invariably fall prey to corruption – giving rise to cronyism, monopolies, and insider deals.

Government is therefore the very worst of Man of System and, in fact, is ultimately the destroyer of free enterprise.

All governments wrestle with the question of, to what degree they should intervene in the lives of their subjects in order to maximize their power, and to what extent they should intervene in commerce in order to maximize their wealth. The fatal flaw is that the answer – one that they cannot accept – is: none.

In modern times, free enterprise (i.e., capitalism) has been blamed for impoverishment, over-pricing, inadequate quality of goods, and more. Yet a truly free market corrects these problems. These problems, which are only too real, are the product of a century of governmental regulation and interference in the free market. We may criticize the free market, yet we have never actually lived in a free-market system.

A successful government does not need to do good things for you; it only needs to cease doing bad things to you.


In the 1930s, cartoonist Rube Goldberg became famous for designing machines that sought to fulfill a task but did so in such a complex way as to be utterly ridiculous and, very possibly, unworkable.

Governments, of course, are Rube Goldbergs on steroids. They have a penchant for making any task absurdly complicated, expensive, and, ultimately, dysfunctional.

Whilst this is the norm in any era, we’re presently living through a period that’s becoming overwhelmingly confusing worldwide. The governments of the First World countries are pushing a whole series of mismatched agendas all at the same time. They seek to present a uniform objective, but even they cannot manage much consistency of purpose. Although all of the First World countries (US, UK, EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) are fully on board, there’s no real match-up in their game plan or even their statements as to what the end goals are meant to be.

There are several main themes: the purported evil of the Second World leaders and the need for First World aggression toward them, even though no one on the other side seems to want to engage. The reinvention of society in which basic truths are turned on their heads and replaced with new, often ridiculous “truths” that no one seems to fully understand, even when they’re rabidly promoting them.

And, of course, the COVID scare. COVID-19 was identified early on by a few observers as a lab-created variation on the seasonal flu that was consciously released in several countries at the same time as it was released in its “source” country. It was then hyped to be a killer disease that would create a pandemic.

The virus itself is a threat to the cardiovascular system. The powers behind the scare insisted that the only acceptable treatment was a selection of mRNA vaccines.

The rollout of this effort has been bungled so badly that even its leading salesmen have found it necessary to continually change their stories as to the effectiveness and necessity of lockdowns, distancing, masking, and the cancelling of freedoms.

But one constant has remained: No previous flu treatment was of any use and should absolutely not be considered, no matter how effective it had been for decades. Only a vaccine and, indeed, only an mRNA vaccine would do – the patents for which seemed to be held by the salesmen who were leading the vaccine charge in the media.

So, what’s really going on here? We’re looking at a host of absurd notions, each obsessively presented as being beyond question and told that, if we fail to accept all of them 100%, we’re a danger to society and need to be punished.

For those of us who have been paying attention over the last decades, it’s been quite clear that the New World Order – an extension of the concepts of Mayer Rothschild in the eighteenth century and revitalized by the Rockefeller family a hundred years ago – has been in the works since that time and has recently approached fruition. Most of the pieces of the puzzle are in place and the primary goals appear to be on the horizon.

First, a collectivist form of rule is nearly complete. Collectivism consists of a gumbo of ingredients – socialism, communism, fascism, and crony capitalism – with whatever recipe works for the particular population it is foisted upon. The actual recipe can be changed to fit whatever the tastes of the given country may be.

To soften up the people, ideals and beliefs must be done away with. Karl Marx was quite correct when he postulated that the removal of core beliefs was essential; that perceptions of truth be replaced with non-sensical “truths” and that the only faith be faith in the rulers.

Next, the constant threat of aggression from others is necessary. If no armed conflict exists, conflicts need to be invented. The people must live in fear of a perceived enemy.

The end product is a return to serfdom. The modern serf would have a flat screen TV and a smart phone, but his wealth would be lost to such a degree that he’d be unable to take charge of his own life. He must rely on his government to provide him with his needs on as short-term a basis as can be made workable. This makes him compliant.

Okay, so the New World Order concept has ben kicking around for a long time. It’s been the great pride of David Rockefeller, its senior proponent for the greater part of his life.

But why all the craziness? Why now? Why has this behemoth of disjointed concepts suddenly come together and why the rush to make it all happen at the same time? Why not phase it in, possibly over a decade or two?

Well, there’s a problem. The very concept of a New World Order, in which a very small number of people lord over millions of proles is, at its heart, a sociopathic one. A part of the pathology of sociopaths is to see the world see the world as a playland that exists for them alone. As they see it, if they die, the world has no further reason to exist.

But the principal movers of the New World Order are now getting very long in the tooth. They’ve spent their lives pursuing their individual versions of a New World Order, whilst putting up with the versions that their fellow conspirators envision. And, of course, being sociopathic, this dream cannot be achieved by those who come after them; it must be achieved whilst they are alive.

David Rockefeller is now 101. He endorses all facets of a New World Order, but his pet project is eugenics – the decimation of most of the people in the world – the “human weeds” as they’re described. He’s joined by Bill Gates Sr., now 94 and also in his last years. Understandably, they want results now, even if it’s premature in the programme.

Henry Kissinger, now 97, has spent his life believing that a New World Order is best achieved through diplomacy – positioning each of the world’s countries for maximum usefulness and cooperation. Close friend George Soros, now 90, believes that dominance is best achieved through chaos and destruction. Klaus Schwab, 83, has spent the last half-century pursuing the concept that the proles must be taught to give up their possessions in favour of the rulers’ largesse. Baron Rothschild, now 85, continues to follow his family’s long-held belief that the solution for dominance lies in the control of all the currency in the world – both its creation and its distribution.

What we’re looking at is a cabal of the most politically and economically powerful people and business entities in the world, with an overall agenda, but each with their own individual mini-agendas, each fighting to lead the charge. Predictably, this once-cohesive-sounding concept is beginning to resemble a Rube Goldberg creation.

Such a condition cannot last. However, whilst it’s in play, it will be a cock-up of mythical proportions and will assure that the next few years will be as devastating as they’ll be confusing. By the end of the decade it’s likely to be over, and the world will be forever changed. The trick will be to sidestep events as much as possible and make it to the other side. That will be no easy task.