The secret has been out for decades now. A few very wealthy and powerful men want to impose a way of life on us they like to call a New World Order. Many people throughout the world, in fact most of those who know and understand this NWO agenda, are deeply and utterly opposed to the idea - yet we are closer to the New World Order today than we have ever been at any point in history. Why are we so ineffective in fighting this?

We are ineffective because we have been cleverly maneuvered into fighting the wrong things.

Even the phrase "new world order" is innocuous in itself. It could mean many, many things, and not all of them are bad. Many people have used the phrase in public speaking, and not all of them are even a part of the conspiracy. Hell, I would have to search my early writings to learn if I myself ever used it before I understood the sinister connotations. "New" means simply - well, new. New is not necessarily bad. And world order could mean anything from the elimination of national sovereignty (bad) to a worldwide cultural change (not necessarily bad at all).

Put simply, like most huge and complicated ideas, the New World Order is not entirely bad. Parts of it are certainly very, very bad, but perhaps we should take a logical look at the overall agenda before we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Elimination of racial divisions, for example, is most certainly not a bad thing. Judging someone based on the melanin content of their skin is admittedly one of the brain-dead dumbest ideas that mankind has ever spawned.

Elimination of the glass ceiling, which made women somehow less than human, isn't a bad thing at all either. Limiting 52 percent of your population to menial jobs is amazingly stupid.

Greater international cooperation, leading eventually to worldwide peace, certainly sounds pretty good to this writer - and I think to most of my readers. Some of the colder folks out there might remind me that humans do our Darwinian species culling as adults, but instead of culling via bloody warfare (which with modern weapons often culls our best and brightest), it might be wiser and more humane to do it in some other great endeavor - such as the exploration and colonization of other planets, which becomes a real possibility once we stop wasting our wealth on warfare.

Needless to say, when we publish our rants against the New World Order, we are immediately accused of speaking out against cooperation and peace, which is not even remotely true - but it identifies us firmly in the category of wingnuts and eliminates our effectiveness in this war of ideas.

What we are fighting, in a nutshell, is the loss of our national sovereignty, and the inevitable loss of individual freedom and prosperity that would follow.

Above all, we need to stay on topic with our arguments - and we need to offer real and workable alternatives to a New World Order. Promoting a system that will actually work is far more effective than merely ranting against a system that cannot work, now or ever.

One of the favorite arguments that NWO advocates love to put forth is that national sovereignty causes wars. On the face of it, this does appear to be the case, but upon examination, it really isn't true. The root cause of warfare is far more basic than national sovereignty. The root cause of warfare is the idea, planted deep in our psyches from birth, that a group somehow has more rights than an individual. There is a word for this - socialism. No one argues that it is wrong for an individual to steal or murder. The issue somehow becomes more vague when our nation invades another country, steals its resources, and kills the people in great big, bleeding batches. There is a warped view of patriotism that says that we are supposed to support our country, right or wrong, in all such cases. That isn't patriotism, any more than it is parental love to teach a child to kill his or her playmates. True patriotism lies in building a country we can support with pride.

Another thing we must avoid is hysteria. Anyone who has ever been in a life threatening situation knows that hysteria will get you killed faster than any other single thing. When your mind shuts down and you start emoting at those levels, you cannot be effective at all in countering any threat. Well, whatever you may believe, you are right now in the most life threatening situation in the history of man, if "life threatening" means a threat to your happiness and your way of life. It's time to coldly plan your way out of this mess. You don't have the time or energy to spare for emotion.

Fortunately, the hard work has already been done for you. The concept of individualism is not a new one. I hesitate to use the word "libertarian" because it has become so identified with the failed political party of the same name, so let's go back to the real roots of the philosophy and call it "objectivism."

Put simply, objectivism comes down to this. Human beings have a moral code that states that it is wrong for us to harm one another. Put another way, it is wrong to initiate force against another human being to achieve personal, political or social goals. If you apply this moral code to your government as well, you have achieved a system that will work. If it is wrong for you to put a gun to your neighbor's head and demand his possessions, it's just as wrong for your government to do it. It's really a very simple concept. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Remember, also, that we speak here of the initiation of force, not the response to force. If your neighbor does the initiating by putting his gun to your head, you have the right and the duty to send him home in a body bag. Pretty soon, those willing to initiate force will either have a change of heart or be quite dead - and hopefully before they have a chance to pass on their warped morals to another generation. Problem solved, and without harming the innocent.

And what about religion? Well, what about it? Religion is, and should remain, a private matter. Once it enters into the realm of politics, all common sense flies out the window. Every single problem with religion surfaces when religion tries to invade the realm of the secular. What should the state of another man's soul matter to you? As Thomas Jefferson once said, " . . . it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Your freedom to believe - or not believe - should be absolute. To keep that freedom, you must grant the same freedom to others. When you forget that, our rulers gain one hell of a weapon to use against you. Are our rulers Luciferian? Or are they Christian? I seriously doubt they are religious at all - they just like to talk about it to manipulate us. But what difference does it really make? The problems have not changed. What you must fight against has not changed. And ranting about it just makes you look like an idiot, which kills your effectiveness in this war of ideas faster than anything else possibly could. Your allies in the struggle for freedom belong to many religions. Some are Christian, some are Muslim, some are Buddhist, some are outright atheists and some are neo-Pagan. Some may just choose not to talk about their beliefs. Are you going to spurn their help because they don't share your religious beliefs? If so, you deserve to lose your freedom.

If our government and our people had adhered to these principles, America wouldn't have seen a single war since the war of 1812, and we would probably be roaming the stars by now. We sure as hell wouldn't have an income tax - or a Federal Reserve system to destroy our currency. Slavery would have ended with the founding of this country, and a woman's future would only be limited by her willingness to work. You and I would certainly live in a far better world.

So how can we bring this about now? It's never too late, but it won't be easy. Perhaps a thousand people right now control our destiny, and the fact that the gun at our collective heads isn't always a physical one does not make the force exercised against us on a daily basis any less real. The wealth and power these men and women can bring to bear against us is vast. No one person can hope to fight back alone.

Millions of us can, though, if we act as individuals. No force should be used, and none should be needed. We just don't play their game. We live free, as individuals, and totally ignore the New World Order crowd. We don't acknowledge their authority, and we don't play along in the slightest way.

It's kind of like a sixties song, if you think about it. What if they gave a war, and nobody came?

Technorati Tags: