We have heard much about the New World Order. What exactly does it mean? It may mean many things to many people but what does it mean to the people who are the professed leaders of the western world? That is more difficult to gauge due to the inherent secrecy of the western world's 'establishment'. There are conspiracy theories abound flooding the internet from the 'Illuminati' to the take over of the world by reptilian aliens from space. Make no bones about it the secret services of the western world must be laughing their heads off at the gullibility of the public to swallow just about anything. From what I can gather the New World Order is the formation of a world government, for the purposes of this article it is not important what the formation of that world government is. As with all governments they would be transitory and if the first world government is not as democratic as we would like it to be then time will heal that, if that is what the citizens of the world want.
So, how is this 'world government' going to form? The simple answer is with a multitude of deaths. It is happening now. How many wars and 'terroristic' type incidents are happening now? The vested interests, I will come on to that later, know that the peoples of the democratic countries around the world are resistant to change. After being force fed nationalistic policies for decades that brainwashed the peoples into thinking that they actually belonged to a piece of dirt called a nation it is going to be nearly impossible to convince them to dump their nationalistic views and swap that for a world nation. So how are they going to do this? They will use the same technique that they have always used; they will use the idea that there is some threat to their 'nation' and, therefore, we need to attack whoever it is that is that threat whether real or imagined.
I will concentrate mostly on the USA in this article, not because I am against the USA but because it is easier to see the techniques that the USA have used to convince their doubting public. It's easier in the west to rally the populace, like the UK, because you just have to wave the flag and people flock to it like moths to a flame, and, like moths, they invariably get burned.
I will start off with the first World War because it is easier to see where the technique of coalescing public opinion into national self interest was publicly available. The USA, despite its public protestations, were eager to get into the first World War (more commonly called the Great War) as Woodrow Wilson wanted to be at the table when the war ended so he could put forward his League of Nations idea. (This was one of the first attempts at world government through an independent national agreement instead of empire building.) It wasn't until several ships belonging to the USA were sunk by the Germans who, quite rightly, had the legal and moral right to sink them as they were supplying aid to their enemy, and the 'telegram', which was produced by the British Government, showing that the Germans were trying to bring Mexico into the war on the side of the Germans, was just the excuse that the USA needed to participate in the war. This is, in itself, a 'red herring' because all sides in the war were trying to convince other nations not already in the war to join on their side. After all, hadn't the British been doing that with the USA?
So, on the 6th of April 1917 the USA formally entered the war just in time to meet the near one million German troops back from the eastern front when Russia, because of its revolution, withdrew from the war.
The USA joined WWII on 8th of December, 1941 after the surprise attack by the Japanese on Hawaii. We all know this, but what we didn't know was that the USA knew approximately when the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor. The USA were looking for an excuse to join the fray and seized upon the Japanese plans to allow this to happen. The fact that the USA had broken the Japanese codes and cypher before the attack gives credence to the lie that it was a surprise attack. Then there was the question of the Japanese radio silence. Evidence seems to support the theory that the Japanese did not have radio silence. [see note 1 in appendix]
One of the most important points was the disappearance of the USA aircraft carriers from Pearl Harbor before the attack. It had already been established that the days of the battleships were already numbered and the future was to be the aircraft carriers. They were the capital ships not the huge battleships of WWI. They were too exposed to aircraft and submarines. So what had happened that the USA aircraft carriers (Enterprise, Lexington & Saratoga) went missing? The Enterprise was returning to Oahu after delivering aircraft to Wake Island and its aircraft engaged the Japanese aircraft attacking Pearl Harbor to little effect. The Lexington was also away delivering aircraft to Midway Island but ordered to search out the Japanese fleet when the attack on Pearl Harbor happened. The Saratoga was at San Diego picking up its aircrew after training.
It was the Japanese who conducted the first military attack by aircraft from a carrier whose target, ironically enough, was the Germans in WWI on the Tsingtao peninsula, China from (more irony) a Scottish built ship, the Lethington, renamed the Wakamiya-Maru from September to December 1914.
.jpg/300px-USS_Maddox_(DD-731).jpg)
The USA's involvement in the Vietnam war was dramatically increased by LBJ [Lyndon B. Johnson] after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in which the USA claimed that the USS Maddox was attacked by 4 North Vietnamese motor torpedo boats. The USS Maddox was on a covert intelligence mission electronically listening to North Vietnamese radio traffic in international waters, claimed by North Vietnam, under a CIA initiated operation called Desoto. The USA already had US troops (Eisenhower had 900 'advisers' in Vietnam which was later troop surged by JFK [John F. Kennedy] but JFK had started to withdraw the troop surge when he was assassinated) in South Vietnam. This was the excuse the USA needed so, when LBJ took over the presidency, he initiated an attack on North Vietnam torpedo boat bases and a fuelling dump. The USA was now fully involved in that war.
The USA, along with its allies, attacked Afghanistan on 7th October, 2001 because of the 9/11 attacks. It is now obvious that the story given by the US government is so full of holes and inconsistencies that no reasonable person would fully accept the US government's position on this.
The USA, with the UK and other forces, attacked Iraq on the 20th March 2003 because of the threat to the West of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Were there any WMDs found in Iraq? No, none whatsoever. It was all a con for a mass grab of Iraq's oil wealth and for various companies to rip off the Iraqi peoples.
We have over half of the world's population near, at or under the poverty line while the majority of the other half is in a range between copious consumption or hovering close to the other half. It is less than 1% of the world's population that controls over 90% of the world's resources. Not a very pleasing picture of the world in 2013. So, what is the answer? There have been many attempts at creating stability (in a global sense) from empires to totalitarianism be it communism or fascism. None of them have worked. Why? Because of greed and familial (national) interests that supersede everything else in the scramble for control.
So, is a NWO necessarily a bad thing? Personally, I long for a world government where every human has the same rights of freedom as everyone else. A world where wars are a thing of the past. Where poverty is abolished and education is a right, not a privilege. So, is this what they are offering? The truth is we don't know because they are not telling us. So, why are they not telling us? The answer may lie in several answers. I answered one of them earlier on when I wrote about the decades of 'nationalist' brainwashing. Another could be the conflicting interests of national needs and the aspirations of individual nation states.
Let's make no bones about this, a world government is already on the way. If it could be compared to a pregnancy then it would be in its middle term. The world is already forming into blocs under the watchful eye of the UN.
Should we be wary or should we celebrate? So far, when the world has attempted ideas like this in the past, hundreds of millions of people have died. I suspect that celebration is a while off yet; which leaves only one answer...
Appendix
1. Robert B Stinnett, in his book 'Day of deceit' brings forward evidence that radio silence was not observed by the Japanese Naval fleet prior to attacking Pearl Harbor. As expected Stinnett was blasted by a horde of doubters over the evidence he presented in his book. The one thing that supports him is that no one denies that FDR was looking for an excuse to get into the war with Germany, therefore, stating that FDR was not interested in the Pacific seems dubious, to say the least.
So, how is this 'world government' going to form? The simple answer is with a multitude of deaths. It is happening now. How many wars and 'terroristic' type incidents are happening now? The vested interests, I will come on to that later, know that the peoples of the democratic countries around the world are resistant to change. After being force fed nationalistic policies for decades that brainwashed the peoples into thinking that they actually belonged to a piece of dirt called a nation it is going to be nearly impossible to convince them to dump their nationalistic views and swap that for a world nation. So how are they going to do this? They will use the same technique that they have always used; they will use the idea that there is some threat to their 'nation' and, therefore, we need to attack whoever it is that is that threat whether real or imagined.
I will concentrate mostly on the USA in this article, not because I am against the USA but because it is easier to see the techniques that the USA have used to convince their doubting public. It's easier in the west to rally the populace, like the UK, because you just have to wave the flag and people flock to it like moths to a flame, and, like moths, they invariably get burned.
US Techniques
World War I
I will start off with the first World War because it is easier to see where the technique of coalescing public opinion into national self interest was publicly available. The USA, despite its public protestations, were eager to get into the first World War (more commonly called the Great War) as Woodrow Wilson wanted to be at the table when the war ended so he could put forward his League of Nations idea. (This was one of the first attempts at world government through an independent national agreement instead of empire building.) It wasn't until several ships belonging to the USA were sunk by the Germans who, quite rightly, had the legal and moral right to sink them as they were supplying aid to their enemy, and the 'telegram', which was produced by the British Government, showing that the Germans were trying to bring Mexico into the war on the side of the Germans, was just the excuse that the USA needed to participate in the war. This is, in itself, a 'red herring' because all sides in the war were trying to convince other nations not already in the war to join on their side. After all, hadn't the British been doing that with the USA?
So, on the 6th of April 1917 the USA formally entered the war just in time to meet the near one million German troops back from the eastern front when Russia, because of its revolution, withdrew from the war.
World War II
The USA joined WWII on 8th of December, 1941 after the surprise attack by the Japanese on Hawaii. We all know this, but what we didn't know was that the USA knew approximately when the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor. The USA were looking for an excuse to join the fray and seized upon the Japanese plans to allow this to happen. The fact that the USA had broken the Japanese codes and cypher before the attack gives credence to the lie that it was a surprise attack. Then there was the question of the Japanese radio silence. Evidence seems to support the theory that the Japanese did not have radio silence. [see note 1 in appendix]
One of the most important points was the disappearance of the USA aircraft carriers from Pearl Harbor before the attack. It had already been established that the days of the battleships were already numbered and the future was to be the aircraft carriers. They were the capital ships not the huge battleships of WWI. They were too exposed to aircraft and submarines. So what had happened that the USA aircraft carriers (Enterprise, Lexington & Saratoga) went missing? The Enterprise was returning to Oahu after delivering aircraft to Wake Island and its aircraft engaged the Japanese aircraft attacking Pearl Harbor to little effect. The Lexington was also away delivering aircraft to Midway Island but ordered to search out the Japanese fleet when the attack on Pearl Harbor happened. The Saratoga was at San Diego picking up its aircrew after training.
It was the Japanese who conducted the first military attack by aircraft from a carrier whose target, ironically enough, was the Germans in WWI on the Tsingtao peninsula, China from (more irony) a Scottish built ship, the Lethington, renamed the Wakamiya-Maru from September to December 1914.
Vietnam
The USA's involvement in the Vietnam war was dramatically increased by LBJ [Lyndon B. Johnson] after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in which the USA claimed that the USS Maddox was attacked by 4 North Vietnamese motor torpedo boats. The USS Maddox was on a covert intelligence mission electronically listening to North Vietnamese radio traffic in international waters, claimed by North Vietnam, under a CIA initiated operation called Desoto. The USA already had US troops (Eisenhower had 900 'advisers' in Vietnam which was later troop surged by JFK [John F. Kennedy] but JFK had started to withdraw the troop surge when he was assassinated) in South Vietnam. This was the excuse the USA needed so, when LBJ took over the presidency, he initiated an attack on North Vietnam torpedo boat bases and a fuelling dump. The USA was now fully involved in that war.
Afghanistan
The USA, along with its allies, attacked Afghanistan on 7th October, 2001 because of the 9/11 attacks. It is now obvious that the story given by the US government is so full of holes and inconsistencies that no reasonable person would fully accept the US government's position on this.
Gulf War II
The USA, with the UK and other forces, attacked Iraq on the 20th March 2003 because of the threat to the West of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Were there any WMDs found in Iraq? No, none whatsoever. It was all a con for a mass grab of Iraq's oil wealth and for various companies to rip off the Iraqi peoples.
What are the reasons behind a 'New World Order'?
The most obvious one is control of, not only the populace but, the mineral, financial and idealogical resources that world has to offer. However, you may ask yourself what has this got to do with establishing a NWO. Doesn't the first world countries already have this with their bullying tactics and control of world's financial and commodities markets? No, not really, there is still a world wide commercial war out there with national interests at the fore. It's like a boxing ring with a couple of dozen boxers fighting it out with each other while keeping the majority of wannabe boxers out of the ring. At the same time there is a mass of alliances forming in, and outside, the ring with none of the boxers trusting any of the other boxers. This is how the world is functioning just now.We have over half of the world's population near, at or under the poverty line while the majority of the other half is in a range between copious consumption or hovering close to the other half. It is less than 1% of the world's population that controls over 90% of the world's resources. Not a very pleasing picture of the world in 2013. So, what is the answer? There have been many attempts at creating stability (in a global sense) from empires to totalitarianism be it communism or fascism. None of them have worked. Why? Because of greed and familial (national) interests that supersede everything else in the scramble for control.
So, is a NWO necessarily a bad thing? Personally, I long for a world government where every human has the same rights of freedom as everyone else. A world where wars are a thing of the past. Where poverty is abolished and education is a right, not a privilege. So, is this what they are offering? The truth is we don't know because they are not telling us. So, why are they not telling us? The answer may lie in several answers. I answered one of them earlier on when I wrote about the decades of 'nationalist' brainwashing. Another could be the conflicting interests of national needs and the aspirations of individual nation states.
Let's make no bones about this, a world government is already on the way. If it could be compared to a pregnancy then it would be in its middle term. The world is already forming into blocs under the watchful eye of the UN.
Should we be wary or should we celebrate? So far, when the world has attempted ideas like this in the past, hundreds of millions of people have died. I suspect that celebration is a while off yet; which leaves only one answer...
Appendix
1. Robert B Stinnett, in his book 'Day of deceit' brings forward evidence that radio silence was not observed by the Japanese Naval fleet prior to attacking Pearl Harbor. As expected Stinnett was blasted by a horde of doubters over the evidence he presented in his book. The one thing that supports him is that no one denies that FDR was looking for an excuse to get into the war with Germany, therefore, stating that FDR was not interested in the Pacific seems dubious, to say the least.
No comments:
Post a Comment