From: Anonymous <anon@anon.efga.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 04:57:05 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: 10.75 - NWO
Message-ID: <f90bb9ba9703f9a2ada5a6b2dd82b1fe@anon.efga.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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?