I think centralization of political, economical and military power is very dangerous, it would only breed more corruption, and thus ultimately
creating a hi-tech fascist one world government from where there is no escape. Because there is no other government to stop it, and the people will
most likely be disarmed and oppressed by the ruling elite's police and military.
In order to prevent such from happening, power needs to be decentralized.
Personally I believe there is a elite of wealthy investment bankers, other businessmen and influential politicians that in a sense control the world,
or more accurately are able to effectively manipulate political, economical, social etc. events, and it seems that they are pushing for a world wide
empire that has never been seen before in human history. There has always been selfish control freak elites, what makes our generations any
diffrent?
As seen after the previous world war, a need for more unification arrised. The UN, NATO and eventually the EU were created. A possible way to create a
one world government, would be to manipulate political events to bring forth a third world war, a nuclear/biological/chemical war. This would serve
two important purposes for the establishment of a one world government. It would show that many of the previous forms of government have failed, to
prevent further wars a one world government would have to be established, because then there would be no other countries to fight, obviously. People
would also be desperate for new "revolutionaries". Secondly, population reduction, the population would be reduced to more manageable levels.
What about the environment then? Not even the elite would like to live in a wasteland. Well there is a "solution" to that problem. Most people live
in cities, and with nuclear warheads that are accurate and small enough, maybe 100 to 1000 kilotons, while launching like two or three of those per
city/military base, you could reduce fallout to more manageable levels. Biological and chemical weapons could also work.
Then there's another way, a bit more peacful but slower. You slowly adjust the populace to a one world government over a period of maybe one or two
hundred years, that means first establishing regional organizations and unions, and giving them more and more power over a period of decades, the EU
is a good example of this. First it was the Coal and Steel Union, then the European Economic Community, then the European Comunity and now it's the
European Union. Once several of these regional unions have been established and converted to states, you'd give even more power and influence to
international organizations like the UN, NATO etc. Then after a while a one world government would have established itself. Propaganda, controlled
media, distractions (sports, entertainment), suppression of dissent, restriction of civil liberties, disarmament, more control via surveillance and
other forms, would be required, in moderate levels at first, but getting more intense by the years.
Population reduction would also be important, but it would also be slow, like poisoning food, water, humans etc. with components that lead to diseases
that lay latent for long periods and then eventually start killing people. Like cancer, AIDS, heart-related diseases etc. etc.
When you remove moral and reduce people to sheep, animals or just numbers, it's probably much easier to execute these types of plans. But it's not
civilized or even human, it's savage. Sick.
Obviously the elites have been working on the second method, but it seems to be getting out of hand. I think we can expect the first method to be used
within the next ten or twenty years.
But don't be silly, Bush isn't the only one involved, I reckon he's just a puppet. Actually from what I've seen the most that are fighting against
this are republicans. The democrats just oppose Bush, but accept the UN.
But seriously, the "top" dems and reps are equally as bad and in bed with eachother. Seriously, you've got to get over the left-right paradigm,
it's a charade, an act, theater, and nothing more.
And no, I don't believe in reptilians.
Anyway, that's what I think, in a nutshell.
[edit on 28/10/2005 by SwearBear]