posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 01:53 AM
Ghost 01, my congratulations on being the first person ever to post something I've read that actually makes sense of the concept of the so-called New
NWO believers are correct in saying that there is a massive threat to free society from its richest and most powerful members. It's nothing new,
though -- there always has been and always will be such a threat. Where the believers are wrong is in believing there's a conscious conspiracy. There
isn't and there doesn't need to be. It is, as you say, more of an idea -- an idea that is gaining ground.
It isn't that the politicians and generals and international financiers and media moguls are suddenly keener than ever on 'taking over'. These
people have always run things anyway. The difference is that they now have the means to interfere with people's lives more frequently and more
thoroughly, and so they do.
The means is technology -- in particular computers, digital imaging and the Internet. These developments have made it easy to subject individuals to
far closer and more detailed surveillance and scrutiny than has ever before been the case.
Obviously, when technology like this exists, the temptation to use it is strong. When a justification like terrorism arises, the temptation becomes,
as we have seen, irresistible.
So privacy is eroded, rules and regulations proliferate, the grip of the politico-military-industrial complex becomes tighter, and everybody goes
round looking over their shoulders. All this makes nervous people imagine a global power conspiracy -- a New World Order or what have you -- but
actually it's just the usual suspects playing with new toys.
This is not to deny the threat. It is real. But it can easily be defeated, at least in principle. All that takes is for ordinary citizens to refuse to
be spied upon -- to agitate for laws restricting access to personal information about members of the public, to stop sensitive types of information
from ever being placed on record, to restrict the use of surveillance cameras and so on. Of course, this means that people will have to live with an
increased risk from terrorist attacks or whatever the bogey of the moment happens to be. Life in the twenty-first century is already much too safe and
comfortable, at least in rich countries; in my opinion, we need a few more threats to our lives and our children, just to keep us on our toes
and hone the genomic edge. But try convincing the general public of that...
And of course, that's the trouble. The general public is a long way from revolting against this new surveillance and intrusion because they think
such technologies are needed to keep them safe and warm and financially solvent.
That craven yearning for security has been exploited by would-be tyrants since the beginning of time. Nothing new there.
What is new is the technology. He used the words in a different context, but it seems as if Winston Churchill was visited by an unconscious
spirit of prophecy the day he suggested that 'all that we have known and cared for will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and
perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.'
Let's hope he was wrong, no?