Good Cop, Bad Cop - The UN & Bush
October 3rd 2006 11:07
I have always been wary of revolution, in the sense of an uprising of the people against the government, especially so when considering what it has brought to the world. Hitler, Stalin and Kim Il-Sung are just a few examples of the dictators that have risen out of such revolts, not to mention our dubious excuse for 'democracy'. However, it would be very narrow-minded to think of revolution as purely a negative thing. There have been many revolutions that have changed the world for the better, but it seems to me that they have been of a very different nature. For example, the rennaisance and the scientific revolution have helped us advance both spiritually and technologically & the non-violent Indian Independence Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi was without a doubt one of the most succesful revolutions of modern times.
For a revolution to occur, two large parties with entirely conflicting viewpoints are required. If one of the parties is significantly smaller than the other they can be regarded as merely a minority of extremists and if the viewpoints are not entirely conflicting some form of compromise is usually reached. Neither scenario justifies a radical uprising. However, it would appear that the current state of world affairs fits the first description perfectly. We have two of the worlds largest military powers with completely contrary agendas, the UN 'Peace Keeping' force which by its definition is designed to resolve conflict before it occurs and the US/UK who, by their own admission, are comitted to fighting a 'war against terror' that they claim will last many years.
It is the opinion of the conspiracy theorists/truth activists such as Alex Jones, Jack Blood, David Icke and many more, that the ultimate plan of the elitists (a term used to describe the hidden hand controlling the government) is to establish a 'New World Order' under one world government, one world bank, one world army etc. It is my opinion that, if this is indeed the plan, we are only one step away from this globalization, the United Nations now comprises of 192 states (as of 2006).
If the UN is opposed to the forceful invasion of countries that pose no threat, such as the US led occupation of Iraq, why does it do so little to prevent it? Could it be that they are both on the same side? Are we being fed the illusion of having a choice when really the only option is between the 'good cop' and 'bad cop'? Are we meant to view Bush and all his Neo-Con buddies as the bad guys (remember Bush's infamous "With us or against us" quote) and the UN as the peaceful option?
I know that this is just a list of questions, but I dont know the answers. I think they are questions that we should all be asking ourselves and if anyone has any answers, then please let me know, all comments are welcome whether good or bad. As George Orwell once said "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
For a revolution to occur, two large parties with entirely conflicting viewpoints are required. If one of the parties is significantly smaller than the other they can be regarded as merely a minority of extremists and if the viewpoints are not entirely conflicting some form of compromise is usually reached. Neither scenario justifies a radical uprising. However, it would appear that the current state of world affairs fits the first description perfectly. We have two of the worlds largest military powers with completely contrary agendas, the UN 'Peace Keeping' force which by its definition is designed to resolve conflict before it occurs and the US/UK who, by their own admission, are comitted to fighting a 'war against terror' that they claim will last many years.
It is the opinion of the conspiracy theorists/truth activists such as Alex Jones, Jack Blood, David Icke and many more, that the ultimate plan of the elitists (a term used to describe the hidden hand controlling the government) is to establish a 'New World Order' under one world government, one world bank, one world army etc. It is my opinion that, if this is indeed the plan, we are only one step away from this globalization, the United Nations now comprises of 192 states (as of 2006).
If the UN is opposed to the forceful invasion of countries that pose no threat, such as the US led occupation of Iraq, why does it do so little to prevent it? Could it be that they are both on the same side? Are we being fed the illusion of having a choice when really the only option is between the 'good cop' and 'bad cop'? Are we meant to view Bush and all his Neo-Con buddies as the bad guys (remember Bush's infamous "With us or against us" quote) and the UN as the peaceful option?
I know that this is just a list of questions, but I dont know the answers. I think they are questions that we should all be asking ourselves and if anyone has any answers, then please let me know, all comments are welcome whether good or bad. As George Orwell once said "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
| 67 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog























