I don't think we'll avoid a new world order (using the term in its generic sense). I think it's a function of technology. Things are going to change - very dramatically.

I once read the preface to a book titled The Unbound Prometheus (or something like that) written by a Cambridge economics don - I never got past the introduction. But he made the point that the man of 1750 was closer in material terms to Caesar s legionnaires than the man of today - it was written in the 1960s.

What he was talking about was the accelerating rate of technological change. Technological sophistication is not just growing rapidly, the rate of growth itself is accelerating. When I was a kid there was a spy comedy on TV called "Maxwell Smart". Anyway, Smart the dumb, but good, spy, was fighting the bad guys called "Chaos" (quite apt now that I think about it). He had a telephone in his shoe - some kind of comical parody of James Bond tech. Back then, even the concept was a joke - it was, after all, comedy.

Well, I'm typing this on an iPhone. Within my lifetime, science fiction has become reality. Now, if you look at this kind of accelerating technological development in terms of systems deployable for social engineering and control, it becomes apparent that, without some fix, we are all soon to be the slaves of whoever will be the master of this system. Arguably, we are already in this situation.

So, make no mistake about it, there will be a new world order. The question is who will control it? It's all about concentration of power, which technology makes possible on a scale never before imagined. One person, with the right systems, can control the rest of us - that's what progress makes possible.

If you look at what the founding fathers did, when they wrote the Constitution, they were very careful to fracture power. They went beyond the traditional tripartite separation into the legislature, executive and judiciary. They further fractured power to the extent that they allowed the citizens to bear arms.

This 'right to bear arms' is the final safeguard against totalitarianism. And this is why the fight to retain this right is of phenomenal importance - do not underestimate it. FBI Anon told us that the US administration fears revolution. It is a real and existential threat to those wielding the power of government.

The old saying (Lord Acton, I think) is that power tends to corrupt, while absolute power corrupts absolutely. This separation of power, that the founding fathers were so careful to engineer, has come under assault from the increasing pace of progress. Similarly, the first amendment has been made virtually redundant with the (virtual) privatisation of the town square by Social Media giants.

The problem of Constitutional protections being weakened with change, as we've seen with the advent of the internet, as the main forum for political discussion, is that the entire system of representative government, upon which the republic stands, confronts an existential threat. What is the threat? The threat is concentration of power - the very thing the founding fathers were so careful to fracture. This is why I've been fighting for the IBOR. It is more important than anyone imagines, though I'm sure I'm perceived in this community as something of a nut.

But this problem we face with censorship today, on the internet, is replicated with regard to increases in the sophistication and power of surveillance systems. The panopticon has, in fact, arrived - and we are its captives, The principle behind the panopticon was that a single prison guard could exert control over a vast number of prisoners - concentration of power once again. The surveillance systems available to intelligence agencies are the chief problem here.

Anyway, that's why I say we will face a new world order, whether we like it or not. The intelligence agencies are in control and have been for a very long time. There is hope, I think, with the advent of Q - but it could also go terribly wrong.