 06 September 2001
|
|---|
By Albert Coggs
coggsalbert@hotmail.com
Do we really want to relinquish national sovereignty so that a relatively small group of people control the whole of society? Is it in everyone's best interest to turn over the reins of local and regional control to individuals in the United Nations (UN) who may not fully understand the customs, mentality, and needs of those who live in each, individual country--each, individual neighborhood? Such a state of affairs may also constitute a conflict of interest as those who make global decisions could very well prove prejudicial because of their own, personal nationality.
Such is now witnessed in environmental affairs is it not? Where developed nations must adhere to strict environmental guidelines, third-world nations are admittedly exempt from the same. If the environment were really at risk, all peoples would or should be subject to the same rules and regulations. Isn't this typical of a true democratic society?
Whether the intentions of the small, elite group who run the global show from the shadowy corners of the United Nations are presently honorable and forthwith or not, the consolidation and centralization of local, national, and global power is nothing more than an equation for tyranny later. The setting up of such a mechanism would provide insurmountable power to a select few, placing at their disposal the means by which any mandate given could be forcefully enforced anywhere on the face of the earth.
British colonization of India comes to mind whenever one considers the possible outcome of a centrally controlled world under a single governmental body, only this time the stakes will be much higher. Just as today, the British colonized many parts of the globe, such as India, purely for economic reasons. But along with their monetary motives came local and regional control. Many decisions involving Indian nationals were made by individuals in Great Britain, not India. Hence, Indians were often subjected to hardships because of decisions made thousands of miles away by those who had little or no appreciation for Indian culture and individual needs.
The enormous military might that integration of the world's most powerful nations provides is a power tool (as NATO). There would be little chance of escape from a tyrannical, global source of goverance even for the Americans who still possess an enormous number of personal weapons, in excess of 200 million. In due time, even the Americans will be stripped of their only means of personal defence. Whenever that happens, and assuming that global control is then made complete, we will see the true intentions of those who are now working to be our global keepers.
In conclusion, human nature being what it is, are we absolutely sure that globalisation is the ticket to economic and personal freedom for all of mankind? Is it really our only option, as many globalists want us to believe? Are we really on board a global gravy train, or are we on a runaway that cannot be stopped?
 |
|---|
| Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in today's commentary are that of the author and not necessarily that of Al Colombo or others who appear in this publication. Thank you. |
| Editor's Note: Permission is granted to reproduce this or any of the other articles and commentaries that appear on this web site, providing they appear in their entirety with the author's name, e-mail address, and www.GiantKillers.Org included. Thank you. --Al Colombo |
Allan B. Colombo
Copyright©2001
No comments:
Post a Comment