You’re Already Obeying the New World Order – and Have Been Since Childhood!

(Before It's News)

What the heck is AUTHORITY?  There is a large collection of terminology that grows out of the concept of “authority.” What all such terms have in common is that they imply a certain legitimacy to one group of people forcibly controlling another group. Here are just a few examples:

“Government”: As mentioned before, “government” is simply the term for the
organization or group of people imagined to possess the right to rule. Many other terms,
describing parts of “government” (such as “president,” “congressman,” “judge,” and
“legislature”) reinforce the supposed legitimacy of the ruling class.

“Law”: The terms “law” and “legislation” have very different connotations from the
words “to/eat” and “command.” The difference, again, depends upon whether the ones
issuing and imposing such “laws” are imagined to have the right to do so, [f a street gang
issues commands to everyone in its neighborhood, no one calls such commands “laws.”
But if “government” issues commands through the “legislative” process, nearly everyone
calls them “laws.” In truth, every authoritarian “law” :s a command backed by the threat
of retaliation against those who do not comply. Whether it is a “law” against committing
murder or against building a deck without a building permit, it is neither a suggestion nor
a request, but a command, backed by the threat of violence, whether in the form of forced
confiscation of property (:.e., fines) or the kidnapping of a human being (i.e.,
imprisonment), What might be called “extortion” if done by the average citizen is called
“taxation” when done by people who are imagined to have the right to rule. What would
normally be seen as harassment, assault, kidnapping, and other offenses are seen as
“regulation” and “law enforcement” when carried out by those claiming to represent
“authority.”

Of course, using the term “law” to describe the inherent properties of the universe, such
as the laws of physics and mathematics, has nothing to do with the concept of
“authority.” Furthermore, there is another concept, called “natural law,” which is very
different from statutory “law” (i.e. “legislation”). The concept of natural law is that there
are standards of right and wrong intrinsic to humanity that do not depend upon any
human “authority,” and that in fact supersede all human “authority.” Though that concept
was the topic of many discussions in the not-to-distant past, it is rare to hear Americans
using the term “law” in such a context today, and that concept is not what is meant by
“law” in this book.

Fear is how most are controlled.  Here’s a cool video that highlights that fact:

“Crime”: The flip side of the concept of “law” is the concept of “crime”: the act of
disobeying “the law.” The phrase “committing a crime” obviously has a negative
connotation. The notion that “breaking the law” is morally wrong implies that the
command being disobeyed is inherently legitimate, based solely upon who gave the
command. If a street gang tells a store owner, “You give us half of your profits or we hurt
you,” no one would consider the store owner a “criminal” if he resisted such extortion.
But if the same demand is made by those wearing the label of “government,” with the
demand being called “law” and “taxes,” then that very same store owner would be
viewed, by almost everyone, as a “criminal” if he refused to comply.

The terms “crime” and “criminal” do not, by themselves, even hint at what “law” is being
disobeyed. It is a “crime” to slowly drive through a red light at an empty intersection, and
it is a “crime” to murder one’s neighbors, A hundred years ago it was a “crime” to teach a
slave to read; in 19405 Germany it was a “crime” to hide Jews from the SS. In
Pennsylvania, it is a “crime” to sleep in or on top of a refrigerator outside. Literally,
committing a “crime” means disobeying the commands of politicians, and a “criminal” is
anyone who does so. Again, such terms have an obviously negative connotation, Most
people do not want to be called a “criminal,” and they mean it as an insult if they call
someone else a “criminal.” Again, this implies that the “authority” issuing and enforcing
the “laws” has the right to do so.

“Lawmakers”: There is a strange paradox involved in the concept of “lawmakers,” in that
they are perceived to have the right to give commands, impose “taxes,” regulate behavior,
and otherwise coercively control people, but only if they do so via the “legislative”
process. The people in “government” legislatures are seen as having the right to rule, but
only if they exert their supposed “authority” by way of certain accepted political rituals.
When they do, the “lawmakers” are imagined to have the right to give commands and
hire people to enforce them, in situations where normal individuals would have no such
right. To put it another way, the general public honestly imagines that morality is different
for “lawmakers” than it is for everyone else. Demanding money under threat of violence
is immoral theft when most people do it, but is seen as “taxation” when politicians do it.

Bossing people around and forcibly controlling their actions is seen as harassment,
intimidation and assault when most people do it, but is seen as “regulation” and “law
enforcement” when politicians do it. They are called “lawmakers,” rather than “threatmakers,”
because their commands – if done via certain “legislative” procedures – are
seen as inherently legitimate, In other words, they are seen as “authority,” and obedience
to their legislative commands is seen as a moral imperative.

“Law Enforcement”: One of the most common examples of “authority,” which many
people see on a daily basis, are the people who wear the label of “police” or “law
enforcement.” The behavior of “law enforcers,” and the way they are regarded and
treated by others, shows quite plainly that they are viewed not simply as people, but as
representatives of “authority,” to which very different standards of morality are believed
to apply.

Suppose, for example, someone was driving down the street not knowing that one of his
brake lights had burned out. If an average citizen forced the driver to stop and then
demanded a large sum of money from him, the driver would be outraged, It would be
viewed as extortion, harassment, and possibly assault and kidnapping. But when one
claiming to act on behalf of “government” does the exact same thing, by flashing his
lights (and chasing the person down if he doesn’t stop) and then issuing a “ticket,” such
actions are viewed by most as being perfectly legitimate.

In a very real sense, the people who wear badges and uniforms are not viewed as mere
people by everyone else. They are viewed as the arm of an abstract thing called
“authority.” As a result, the properness of “police officer” behavior and the righteousness
of their actions are measured by a far different standard than is the behavior of everyone
else. They are judged by how well they enforce “the law” rather than by whether their
individual actions conform to the normal standards of right and wrong that apply to
everyone else. The difference is voiced by the “law enforcers” themselves, who often
defend their actions by saying things such as “I don’t make the law, I just enforce it.”
Clearly, they expect to be judged only by how faithfully they carry out the will of the
“lawmakers,” rather than by whether they behave like civilized, rational human beings.
“Countries” and “Nations”: The concepts of “law” and “crime” are obvious offshoots of
the concepts of “government” and “authority,” but many other words in the English
language are either changed by the belief in “authority” or exist entirely because of that
belief. A “country” or “nation,” for example, is a purely political concept. The line around
a “country” is, by definition, the line defining the area over which one particular
“authority” claims the right to rule, which distinguishes that location from the areas over
which other “authorities” claim the right to rule.

Geographical locations are, of course, very real, but the term “country” does not refer
only to a place. It always refers to a political “jurisdiction” (another term stemming from
the belief in “authority”). When people speak of loving their country, they are rarely
capable of even defining what that means, but ultimately, the only thing the word
“country” can mean is not the place, or the people, or any abstract principle or concept,
but merely the turf a certain gang claims the right to rule, In light of that fact, the concept
of loving one’s country is a father strange idea; it expresses little more than a
psychological attachment to the other subjects who are controlled by the same ruling
class – which is not at all what most people envision when they feel national loyalty and
patriotism. People may feel love for a certain culture, or a certain location and the people
who live there, or to some philosophical ideal, and mistake that for love of country, but
ultimately, a “country” is simply the area that a particular “government” claims the right
to rule. That is what defines the borders, and it is those borders which define the
“country.”

Thanks for taking your time to check out this information. Love to hear what YOU think in the comments section below! If you find that you liked this story, don’t forget to hit the “RECOMMEND CONTRIBUTOR” and “RECOMMEND STORY” button at the top of the page so that I can bring you more stories like this. 

If you got something out of this, consider sharing it with others.

And before ya go…let’s stay connected:

Subscribe to my YouTube channel

Follow me on FaceBook

Follow me on Twitter

Subscribe to my Website:

• It May Be Time to Abolish Our Current Form of Government
• War News, US Delivery of TOW Missiles to ISIS Seized by Iraq
• Gen Mcchrystal Questioned About Assassination Teams…..
• Minds.com 10-7-15… “MONSANTO TANKING: Posts $495 million quarterly loss and plans to eliminate 2,600 jobs”
• Finally, Everyone Knows Obama Is A Bad Guy
• Large Solar Eruption..Israel On The Edge_BPEarthWatch
• Will the Democratic Debate Expose Gulf Between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton?
• Shocking! Eric Harris Investigation Exposes Sheriff Glanz Theft
• VIDEO: Food Snobs Think They’re Eating Organic Food, but It’s Really McDonald’s
• GM Pig Organs Could Soon Be Used For Human Transplantation