[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
10.75 - NWO
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: 10.75 - NWO
- From: Anonymous <[email protected]>
- Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 15:42:37 -0500
- Comments: This message was remailed by a FREE automatedremailing service. For additional information on this service,send a message with the subject "remailer-help" [email protected]. The body of the message will bediscarded. To report abuse, contact the operator [email protected]. Headers below this point wereinserted by the original sender.
- Sender: [email protected]
It's really a secondary matter whether the
centralization of power is the result of a conscious
collusion aimed at creating a world government.
Conspiracies are real, and conspiratorial behavior is
inseparable from politics, since politics is largely the
pursuit of power by sneaky people.
I don't think Abraham Lincoln intended to destroy
the independence of the states when he conducted the
Civil War. He merely wanted to save the Union, and
he thought in terms of that immediate goal. But it
doesn't matter what he meant to do. As a practical
matter, his policy set the United States on a course of
centralization. The Union victory meant that no state
could ever secede again, regardless of how tyrannical
the Union might become. That removed an essential
restraint on Union -- alias "federal" -- power.
I doubt that Franklin Roosevelt meant to destroy
all remaining constitutional restraints on the
government; he merely knocked them out of his way
when necessary.
In the same way, today's globalists and
interventionists, forever pursuing international treaties
and alliances, may think they are promoting peace and
prosperity, seeing no tyrannical potential in a "new
world order." But the rest of us have to worry about
what these arrangements may mean for us and our
children down the road. Good intentions are beside the
point. What is the actual tendency of these new
contracts among superstates?