Why The New World Order Will Fail!
When someone mentions “The New World Order,” it conjures up thoughts of conspiracy involving the Illuminati, the Freemasons, Skull and Bones, old privileged family wealth and royal lineage. Beneath that you think of the already bought and paid for world leaders and the secret agenda. And you might be right.
When I think of the New World Order, I’m thinking of an idea. It’s an idea that’s as old as war itself. How many times must we keep hearing this same ideology? Every single empire from the beginning of man had this same dream. You know the one, the dream of controlling everything beneath the sky from horizon to horizon.
Nothing has changed in thousands of years except the horizons and the dreamers. When all you could see was the Aztec Empire, then controlling that was good enough. When all anyone could see was the Roman Empire, then that was good enough. When the Spanish saw a New World, that was enough and when we got to Hitler, he saw all the horizons of the Earth. To the Nazis, that would be enough. When we hear this same language coming from the President of the US and other world leaders, I think that we’ve heard enough. Then one world leader or another talking about moon bases and bases on Mars as we hear today coming from Russia and China and talk of the New World Order from the US, you have to admit that it sounds all too familiar.
What’s the difference who says it, if in the end the meanings of the words are the same? As part of the population of Rome or Spain, or Germany, or the Aztecs, did they think that suddenly their populations were any better off as they were conquering all they could see? Not if you were in Germany and you were Jewish, Polish, English, Russian or any other non-German race. Let’s not forget, that the Germans were not pro-white, they were pro-German. The Germans were the superior race, anything else was inferior.
The one thing that most Empires had in common was that the good life was set aside for an elite few. If you were around people like Stalin, it became fewer and fewer every day. So when you hear the same rhetoric coming from the leaders of the free world, don’t worry because that’s different. We are all Americans and we don’t discriminate. We’ll unite the whole world and all the leaders will follow us because we’ll have one president and of course he’ll be from America. Even if he isn’t, America will still be controlling the world. We do, after all, know what’s in the best interest of the rest of the world. This seems to stem from a widely held belief from 19th century US called “Manifest Destiny.” It is the belief that the US was the Promised Land willed to the early settlers by God who preordained them to dominate the Americas. The belief that Americans are exceptional continues to this day and that somehow it’s God’s will that we control others. How can anyone argue with God?
Just as a note here, Russia has recently been thrown out of the G-8 and they are now calling it the G-7. So now there are tensions between the NATO nations and Russia which were once all considered by most outside observers to be core nations of the New World Order. What is exposed here is just how fragile these concepts of a one world government are. With the US-European Union alliance always wanting to run the show, this is an example of calamity. Northern Europe always wanted to dominate the world and now with the US along for the ride, we have arrogance on steroids.
In their study paper titled “US Magnetic Weapons and Human Rights” by Peter Philips, Lew Brown and Bridget Thornton they wrote as part of “The Sonoma State University Project Censored Media Freedom Foundation”:
“We are in a time of extremism, permanent war, and the unilateral manifestation of ethnocentrism and by a cabal of people in the US government. These power elites have been in operation for decades and are set on nothing less than the total US military domination of the world. They defy the foundational values of the American people to achieve their ends. This is nothing new. The repression of human rights has been present within the US government throughout our history.” They continue: “A long thread of sociological research documents the existence of a dominant ruling class in the US that sets policy and determines national political priorities.”
Do I really believe that this is the agenda of some near and outdated pro New World Order enthusiasts? Well of course I do. Do I believe they’ll succeed? In my “OWN” humble opinion, No! It’s not because the good people won’t go along with it, it’s because of the masses that won’t. You might as well target most of the world because the ones who are writing about the abuses are probably speaking for most of the ones who are in disbelief or still don’t know. Not everyone is living a wonderful homogenous life in American suburbia. If you are, then the world is such a beautiful place for you. Most of the rest of the world doesn’t live the good life in homogenous suburban America.
There will not be a “New World Order” — at least it won’t be the one purportedly being plotted. Aside from that, where would all of the conscientious objectors go? I mean, right now, you could go to any number of anti-New World Order countries and perhaps be given a safe haven. Today we have some well-known people who have fled for safe havens from the NWO, like Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, and Julian Assange. Where would you go if the entire world were ruled by a one world government? That in itself precludes a one world government from realizing its own existence. The people would never accept that there would be nowhere to escape to. It is after all a world of the masses.
It also harkens me back to something I was reading about by philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Although the idea is credited to him, he credits it to philosopher, Immanuel Kant, and it’s the idea of “thesis-antithesis-synthesis.” The translation of this is debatable with some saying that the idea was actually thesis-antithesis-whole. I kind of like “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” myself, because it reminds me of the exact type of logic and writing style used by Charles Fort in his books. Fort is difficult to understand at times not only because of his writing style, but you sometimes wonder if he’s really being serious. It is circular thinking and as Fort would put it, “a circle leads to nowhere.” Although Hegel lived before Fort, his detractors also complained that his writing and logic were at times too difficult to understand. In fact, even though his writings were very inspiring and influential throughout the world, (especially his contributions to philosophy) some philosophers said he didn’t make any sense. After much of my own reading, I have to concur. But it isn’t just Hegel, a lot of philosophical writing is difficult to follow.
Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis however leads us to my point. In the context of what I was reading, it was about the French Revolution. Thesis = (French Revolution), antithesis = (the Reign of Terror that followed), synthesis = (the Constitutional state of free citizens). Now in my view this was a battle formula that would lead to freedom. My problem with that, is as Fort would put it “nothing-something = something-nothing” or a constant state of becoming something else. It’s an ever-evolving universe. Nothing is the same from moment to moment, it only gives the appearance of sameness relative to the passing of time.
Everything is in a constant state of evolution, so how long could they actually hold on to power? This was attempted in Nazi Germany and “you” can answer me. How long did they stay in power? The dream of the “Thousand Year Reich” lasted 12 years.
Is a rock a rock or is it compressed dirt? Before it was a rock it was dirt and after it erodes it will be dust. So is it dirt, a rock, or dust? It all depends on what it is at the time you look at it. Although objects give us the illusion of sameness from moment to moment, they are in a perpetual state of change. Everything is always on its way to becoming something else. A seed becomes a seedling, to a tree, to decompose back to the soil. So is it a seed or is it soil? It’s neither and it’s both. It is in a particular state at the particular time that it is being observed.
In my opinion, the idea of The New World Order would be the catalyst, or “seeds,” to its own demise. But then where would we go from there? The old Soviet Union broke up. I suppose we could build a wall like China. Maybe if we build walls around all the inner-cities then call it a “prison planet.” Oh wait, I think that’s a website.
The conscientious objectors would also, of course, be your neighbors. What would we do about them? If there were no safe harbor for dissenters, everything would be clandestine. Everyone with an opposition to a one world government would not go to the polls, they would go underground. This would, in my opinion, create sub-societies or sub-cultures of resistance groups. This would also, of course “in my opinion,” be the downfall of such a government. This would inevitably lead to class war and every other socio-economic backlash that every empire in history has experienced. It has been the downfall of empires throughout time. Capitalist countries have fared no better, by the way.
When mentioned, Marxism spins people’s heads but paints a pretty accurate picture of capitalism as a usurious system based on classism. The entire structure is based on de-facto slave labor. Realistically a worker enters into a voluntary contract with an employer to work for wages. However the employer holds all the power over a worker that he knows needs that job to feed his family. The worker can’t simply quit and most capitalism is organized to keep the balance in favor of the employers. The US’s “Great Depression” of the 1920s and 30s is a great example of the imbalance. An employer could control his workers with old style abuse. The workers needed the job more than the employer needed them and people expected to work for 20 years at that job.
The fact that so many influential elitists believe that this one government idea is a plausible solution to our planet’s problems has more to do with the desire for control than it does with the concern for any types of societal structures. And I know this how? I know this because I am one of those people. I am not one of those born into an elite and fortunate club left alone to live freely. Not one of the ones who went to Yale because my grandfather or father did. I’m not one of those born with the silver spoon who would someday be groomed to inherit the earth because of the womb from which I dropped. I am the other son. I am the one who was not the “fortunate son,” but the flotsam of humanity washed ashore by the waves of time and chance. I represent “possibility, not probability.”
The same waves that carried all of humanity through a possibility of existence are the same ones that carried me to existence in this phenomenal world. So now that I’m here to say, that I am no one of any significance and I am everyone of no significance. That circular thinking, as with Rene Descartes, Hegel and even me, is what makes up this circular world. The masses if you will.
I am only the average American living in a country made up of average Americans. I’m nobody and yet everybody, just one of the whole of averages. However, as an individual identity I am me. But to take that just a bit further, I would have to say I am also all of you. I don’t represent all of you and nor do I dare subscribe to that supposition, but I represent me, which no matter what you think about that, I have enough in common with any common man.
No matter what your opinion, I have come to find that there are others who think exactly like you. So when I say that I am me I mean that I am the common man. The common man who may seem powerless by himself. But the common man is America. Is America powerless? And then is the common man in America “powerless?”
Long ago when I was three, I remember some construction workers discussing JFK’s assassination. I remember I was in New Haven and I picked up a dime from the ground. I was in the yard next door. As I grew older, I thought to myself about that day and how any man has the power to change the course of history with the flip of a coin. I thought Lee Harvey Oswald, whether acting alone or not, changed history. Then I started to think, who is Lee Harvey Oswald? He is a no one and any one. Anyone with the inclination therefore in this world, has the ability to change history. Anyone can become an assassin or a serial killer if they were so inclined. The ability then to alter the course of history has no more to do with the womb from which you dropped than it does with the lineage of blood that runs through your veins.
It is not the number of the waves by which washed you upon the shore of time into the current of existence, of this world, of this dimension. Anyone can grab for a chance to effect change just as easily as anyone else can. Through words like “I had a Dream” or the gun like “The Son of Sam,” anyone can stake their claim to history.
If this is so, then you have to decide whether you even care. Is it important to you? If any man can stake a claim to history, then that man has to decide what type of man he wants to be. Leading back to the epic battle between good and evil, what would you choose? If anyone has the ability to change the course of history, would you choose to be Hitler or Gandhi, loathed or loved?
I, for one, believe this is so. No one is powerless, and one can choose whether or not to stake a claim to history. The fact is that a position in history is not important to most people in the world. Most people in the world would be happy to be free to raise their families and eke out a living in peace. Most people in the world would not want to be Gandhi and would most definitely not want to be Hitler! Most people in the world would not even care to be a revolutionist as much as they would care to be poor. Many times, our lots in life choose the individual rather than the individual chooses his lot in life. But, when someone wants to make that choice for us, the timeline seems to send us people like Patton, Washington, Martin Luther King, Bolivar, Spartacus, Moses and so on.
I myself would rather be remembered as a good man who tried to live a good life rather than be remembered as a bad man who lived an evil life. My biggest evil in life is synthetic, created by a broken government bent on ruling the world and micro-managing the population. Does this mean I can’t stay in the suburbs after the New World Order takes over? Did they give you your “SS” number yet? When you read the fine print, we probably each manage to break many laws per year without even knowing it. That’s because we haven’t read the fine print.
The history buffs haven’t read the fine print either, otherwise they would remember it. Four days after the declaration of independence was read by Thomas Crafts in Boston, The Boston Committee of Correspondence ordered the townsmen to show up for military draft. The rich however could avoid the draft by paying for substitutes — the commoners and poor had to serve. This led to riots and shouts of “Tyranny is Tyranny let it come from whom it may.”
The entire revolution started over class distinctions and unfairness, how many times are Americans supposed to turn the other cheek? Americans, in case you don’t remember, let you push them up until the point where they push back. True patriots throughout history have always been the ones who speak up about tyranny. This led me to write my own slogan for America because, although I like my state’s slogan for Connecticut “the Constitution State,” I like New Hampshire’s “Live free or die.” Only it’s too forgiving. So the slogan I came up with for America is: “America – Live free or kill.” — Robert Torres
Now before any of you war mongers attach yourselves to this, I don’t mean that in a predatory capitalistic sense. I mean in the sense of individual American’s right to live free and America as a whole of individuals defending freedom in more of a Christian sense of “Just War.” Just as in human, social and civil justice or the right of the peoples to “justice” as in St. Augustine’s “Just War.”