FRONT PAGE PLEASE!
There is nothing new about one-world
rule. From a political and economic point of view,
ruling the world means controlling everything
one can reach that is worth controlling. Alexander
the Great conquered the whole world that he
could reach, and the treatment of those he
conquered serves as a model for the realities of
life under a world dictatorship.
Rome also conquered pretty much the
whole world that it was aware of (until it hit
Germania). Life was pretty good if you happened
to live in the capital city within walking distance of
the Colloseum and the Circus Maximus, but
everywhere else life was made harsh by Roman
rule, else there would have been no need for
legions located across the empire to stamp out
rebellions by the tax-weary populace. All
conquerors like to boast that they are a benefit to
the conquered, but common sense and history
shows this to be a self-serving lie. Whether you
are Caesar or Hitler, if you use military might to
force your way of life on another, then the people
being forced clearly do not agree that the way of
life of the conquerors is a blessing.
One-world rule is great for the rulers, but
terrible for the ruled. My opposition to a One-
World Government is based on two arguments,
one obvious, and one subtle.
The obvious argument against a One-
World Government is that while the New World
Order groupies imagine a One-World
Government with a benevolent Santa Claus in
charge, the reality is that power will attract the
very sort of people who should not have it, who
will do anything to get it, and therefore once they
have it, will do anything with it.
Human history proves that as soon as we
are all slaves to a One-World Government, it is
inevitable that this government will fall into the
hands of another Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or
Torquemada. No purported safeguards can
prevent that from happening. Hitler was elected
by the German people, and our own recent
history proves that elections can be rigged by
powerful individuals or agencies.
Past genocidal monsters were stopped
because the nations they ruled, however
powerful, were only one out of many. Those
other nations were then able to band together to
stop the single monster, as was the case in
World War II.
What happens if a One-World
Government falls into the hands of another Hitler?
The people of the world would be no more able
to stop a new Hitler than the people of Germany
were able to stop the first one. Imagine the world
today if Hitler had won WW II. That is the world
which MUST sooner or later come to exist,
cannot help but come to exist, under a One-
World Government. That danger alone, of the
creation of a one-world dictatorship waiting to be
plucked as a prize by the most ruthless cutthroat
the species can breed, is alone reason to abandon
the suggestion of a One-World Government.
The second reason to avoid a One-World
Government is a bit more subtle. The creation of
such a One-World Government pre-supposes
that the very structure of such a government is
the best of all possible systems under which
people could be ruled. But every system ever
created assumes that they are the best possible
system. The Egyptians believed that. So did the
Romans. So did the Confederacy. And the rulers
of such systems, being the beneficiaries, worked
hard to preserve those systems and to crush out
examples of alternative systems that might
actually be better ones.
The process by which one social system
replaces others is a process of evolution. Under a
One-World Government, such social evolution
would stop. There would be no tolerance for
alternative systems, no experimentation with new
social orders, no possibility of recovery from
socio-political trends detrimental to the people.
The political structure of the New World Order
would be no more tolerant of alternatives than
are the two established parties of the United
States, the Republicans and the Democrats (which
are in reality two faces of the same oligarchy).
It is impossible to claim that the perfect
socio-political system has been found, yet the
establishment of a One-World Government is
founded on the very assumption that it is the
perfect socio-political system, and that therefore
no corner of the world should be allowed to rule
themselves with a different system.
Michael Rivero is in charge of the website
whatreallyhappened.com

Some of us here understands what this is all about. We should oppose it.

*yawns whilst scratching his nuts*

youmour: *yawns whilst scratching his nuts*

LOLZ!

@ op great truth info site



http://whatreallyhappened.com/


he linked this story today ...



"I am sick to death at the notion of another proxy war, billed as an extension of the US's "war on terror", which is really a war against the Mali people, who have the gall to be sitting over some mightily prized gold reserves the West wants to expropriate for itself.

And I am willing to make a rather cynical, but probably accurate, prediction: this proxy war will go just as well as has the war in Afghanistan, and probably for a longer period of time."
M.R.


African Union: Western Nations to Bankroll Mali Invasion
Britain, Others Expected to Fund African-Led War


http://news.antiwar.com/2012/10/26/african-union-western-nations-to-bankroll-mali-invasion/

Afro_Blue: @ op great truth info site



http://whatreallyhappened.com/


he linked this story today ...



"I am sick to death at the notion of another proxy war, billed as an extension of the US's "war on terror", which is really a war against the Mali people, who have the gall to be sitting over some mightily prized gold reserves the West wants to expropriate for itself.

And I am willing to make a rather cynical, but probably accurate, prediction: this proxy war will go just as well as has the war in Afghanistan, and probably for a longer period of time."
M.R.


African Union: Western Nations to Bankroll Mali Invasion
Britain, Others Expected to Fund African-Led War


http://news.antiwar.com/2012/10/26/african-union-western-nations-to-bankroll-mali-invasion/

Glad I saw it and glad I could help.