Good Versus Evil: The New World Order

You can read a lot on the Internet about the "New World Order" and what it represents.

In my opinion, what is meant by this term is nothing new; it represents a very old world order whose time is running out but that is desperately clinging on to power via its control of the world financial system.

We mind has recently been opened by reading the work of Lyndon LaRouche.  I now realise that there are two known systems of running Human affairs, the Republican system and the Oligarchical system.

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")^[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control.


re·pub·lic  /riˈpəblik/ Noun / A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president.

I would argue that most developed nations are ruled by an trans-national oligarchy, which desire to extend their control over the globe by covert means.


I am currently reading Webster Tarpley's "George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography".  Tarpley apparently either does or did support LaRouche's way of thinking.  In Chapter 10, for me he sums up the situation perfectly.  He writes:

For oligarchs...are well aware that there are only two ways to organise human affairs, namely the republican and the oligarchical modes. The republican mode depends upon the presence of citizens– well educated, technology-oriented, mature, and courageous people who are willing to think for themselves. Oligarchical forms function best in the presence of a culturally pessimistic, hedonist, superstitious mass of passive witnesses to the passing scene.

Does the oligarchical form defined above sound eerily like life today?

He describes the type of World oligarchs wish to see:

For the Anglo-American finance oligarchs, the leading problems of the world then as now could be summed up under the headings of overpopulation, especially among the non-white ethnic groups of the planet, and industrial pollution. The remedies, then as now, were to be sought in limiting population growth, or better yet reducing the existing population wherever possible, while at the same time shutting down industry. In this way the oligarchs sought to return to their bucolic and medieval dream world, and especially to a degraded and servile mass psychology agreeable to oligarchical forms of domination.

Thus, at the end of the 1960′s, London financiers and their Wall Street counterparts made available abundant foundation funding for such projects as the Triple Revolution, which proposed the now- accomplished transition from a productive society to a post-industrial society, and the 1968 founding of the Club of Rome with its absurd “Limits to growth” hoax of a few years later, the international flagship for the Malthusian revival. What the oligarchy had in mind was not just a minor adjustment of the Zeitgeist: the greening of the western cultural paradigm made mandatory the quick erosion of the imperatives of subduing and dominating nature contained in the first book of Genesis, the demolition of the beliefs in education, science and progress which had animated the philosophy and nation building of St. Augustine, Charlemagne, the Italian Renaissance, Leibnitz, Franklin, and the American Revolution.

 We learn more about the clash between Republicanism (good) and Oligarchy (evil), and why Oligarchy fears Republicanism in the following paragraphs:

The economics of Malthus, the Club of Rome, and of Yale economist George Bush lead inexorably to world depression and an economic breakdown crisis so severe as to put the future prospects of world civilisation itself into the gravest jeopardy. Bush’s most fanatically held beliefs concerning Anglo-Saxon race superiority are equally bankrupt and grotesque. Human beings have no genetic-racial identity. Human beings belong to cultures, which are learned as children are reared in the home and educated in schools, but which have nothing to do with heredity or blood, as the American experience itself in its better moments most impressively documents. Indeed, there is no such thing as a race or breed among humans as these categories exist among dogs and horses. Among these animals, race or breed defines a fixed repertoire of behaviour and reaction, a fixed mental disposition which rules out most changes that education might bring. Among human beings, it is just the opposite: any child of whatever colour or ethnic background, if placed as an infant in a family of a different colour and language, will invariably be accultured into the civilisation of the new family. This reflects the universality of the human personality beyond all distinctions of race, colour, religion, culture, and nationality, and proves the thesis of the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. The universality of apostolic Christianity as a world religion seeking to reach out to all ethnic groups on the planet without exception is expressed in the idea that each and every concrete human individual is very practically the living image of God, and no difference of colour or “race” can change this in the slightest.

Oligarchical thinking rejects all this. Oligarchs have historically been obsessed with justifying and perpetuating the irrational and destructive domination of a feudal aristocracy, generally in the form of a titled nobility ruling through usurious banking practises, secret intelligence agencies, and militarism, at the expense of the progress of humanity. If the human personality is indeed universal, then there is no such thing as an hereditary aristocracy, and the concept of oligarchy itself is in big trouble. But feudal aristocrats, breeding horses and dogs as their status symbols, are often imbecilic enough to think that they have become authorities on human genetics.

What rational, properly educated Human Being would rank someone born into a so-called "Royal Family" as superior to someone who is not?

Sadly, we have seen in recent days in the UK that a proportion of the population are still hypnotised by the attraction of Royalty.

If you are interested in how life could be arranged under Republican thinking, I advise you to read LaRouche.