Story Views
Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

In 1991 George Bush Sr., in at least two separate speeches, announced an active geopolitical endgame for global stability; something he called the “New World Order.” This was not the first time the concept of the NWO had been uttered by a prominent figure. Fabian socialist H.G. Welles wrote an entire book on the ideology decades before, in 1940, entitled ‘The New World Order’, and even scripted a thinly veiled propaganda film on the rise of globalism titled ‘Things To Come’. The core of this ideology is the institution of global governance and the erasure of sovereign nation states, ostensibly in order to end the persistent threat of world war.

It all sounds very noble on the surface, but there is much more to total globalization that the elites do not discuss very openly or very often.

A key quote from Bush’s White House speech to the nation on the eve of Operation Desert Storm in Iraq explains much behind the NWO concept:

“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order — a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful — and we will be — we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.”

The questions are, what did he mean by the “rule of law,” and what did he mean by the “law of the jungle?” As Bush clarifies further, the “rule of law” in his mind is the law as enforced by a globalist governing body (i.e. the UN). The “law of the jungle” would invariably be everything that represents the opposite of globalism (i.e. wild and unshackled sovereignty).

The “law of the jungle” sounds harsh and unforgiving, and it is, for people who do not pursue greater imperatives and who do not work hard to reach their ultimate potential.  This idea is often misconstrued as “fascist” in its origins.  That is to say, people commonly assume the law of the jungle is merely the subjugation of the weak by the strong.  This is how the globalists WANT you to view sovereignty, national or tribal identity, individualism, etc.; they want you to see these principles as akin to savagery.

In truth, it is the elites that promote savagery as the core of globalism, though it is to be sure a highly sterilized and scientific form of savagery. Their “rule of law” is entirely arbitrary- it is not based in the light of  conscience, but on darker desires of artificial advantage for the ruling class and the oppression of everyone else.  A better interpretation of the law of the jungle would be that it is a more colorful description of “natural law”, the inborn right of self determination guided by inherent conscience.  Under natural law, bureaucratic governance serves little purpose.  It becomes obsolete.

While the law of the jungle is not easy or carefree or eternally “safe”, I think there are many virtues to a “natural”, unfettered and decentralized way of life far above the mindless homogenization and collectivism of the globalist ideal.

Here are just a few examples on why humanity would be much better off living wild and free rather than living an inhibited and micromanaged existence under a global authority.

Surviving In The Jungle Requires Strength And Intelligence

A shallow interpretation of the law of the jungle would argue that “only the strong survive.” Collectivists would claim that this is unfair to the weak and ultimately barbaric in principle. I disagree. The assumption these people make is that the “weak” cannot improve their circumstances and therefore require constant babysitting by a central authority. However, if you actually allow people to be challenged rather than coddled, it can be surprising how strong they become.

Globalism destroys the environmental conditions that inspire excellence and instead rewards and protects mediocrity. Take for example the problems regarding “too big to fail” banks; these institutions are really failures in every respect and, like wounded gazelles, should be given a quick death. But under the theory of globalization the strategy has (so far) been to keep these failures limping along. In other words, the incentive for success has been undermined and weakness has been rewarded.

In this way, not just in the business world but also in the social world, globalism encourages people to accomplish as little as possible and comforts them with promises of being forever nurtured by the global nanny state. If this kind of world becomes an absolute, society will decay and revert to something subhuman. All evolutionary progress will be lost.

Read More HERE