For that specific reason, I would not think that the Rothschilds would have any part of 911, which they'd have to realize was an exercise in absulute stupidity. Only a tiny portion of the 1% is stupid enough to think that they could manage under an American dictatorship. Dictatorships are unpredictable and an American dictatorship would be insanely unpredictable. Not bound by any rules of law, there would be no way to reason what was to come next. As the insiders jockey for the reigns of absolute power, no one could predict what course history would take next.
To illustrate, think what might have happened had Hitler won. Already suffering from parkinsons, exacerbated by the attempts on his life, who can say how much longer he'd have lived? For sure the killing would have gone on. But for sure, Hitler would have invaded Japan, India, Indonesia on and on. While back in Berlin, as his health declined, the insider jousting for position would intensify. The usual thing in such cases, where the current leader is in decline, there are those who see opportunity in moving quickly to seize power, before the process of succession sets the next leader on top.
Then, who knows what will be the proclivities of the next leader? Worse yet is that, with each new leader there comes new favorites. Some insiders become outcasts, some outcasts become new insiders. It has more to do with skill than with money, so who can know who will survive? Who will get to keep their fortunes and who will be put to the axe because of their fortunes?
At the least, under a democratic republic, one may not like the leadership, one may be an outsider, one may be out of favor at all, but there are laws that protect these outsiders. They cannot be undone by simple decrees, proclaimations and military orders. Unlike the travails that might beset them under a full blown dictatorship. Thus, it pains the very wealthy to think very clearly about what shape any new form of government will have. Only a cadre of newly empowered neophytes would not have such thoughts to restrain them in their quest for absolute power. In fact; such neophytes would probably not even see that; absolute power would result from their macinations. While they focused on much smaller ideological objectives, they would fail to see the thoroughly trashed "rule of law" being left in their wake. As in: In pursuit of the Queen the Bishop was lost, in pursuit of the King the Knight was lost, in pursuit of them both the Castle was lost. 'Till, finally, there was nothing left of the law to protect anyone from anything.
No! The families of wealth and power, who have a history spanning more than one government form, will be incredibly wary of men offering to further enhance their domininions. Most especially those who by doing so, will weaken the powers of laws. It might all seem so glowingly attractive on paper, but the incredible instability that would follow such a :success", would leave them exposed to the very same turmoil that their ancestors had to deal with. Never knowing, each day upon waking, whether to go to the office or flee the new "Robespierre" of the age.
Well, it's certainly something to think about, even if I've got something wrong.
To illustrate, think what might have happened had Hitler won. Already suffering from parkinsons, exacerbated by the attempts on his life, who can say how much longer he'd have lived? For sure the killing would have gone on. But for sure, Hitler would have invaded Japan, India, Indonesia on and on. While back in Berlin, as his health declined, the insider jousting for position would intensify. The usual thing in such cases, where the current leader is in decline, there are those who see opportunity in moving quickly to seize power, before the process of succession sets the next leader on top.
Then, who knows what will be the proclivities of the next leader? Worse yet is that, with each new leader there comes new favorites. Some insiders become outcasts, some outcasts become new insiders. It has more to do with skill than with money, so who can know who will survive? Who will get to keep their fortunes and who will be put to the axe because of their fortunes?
At the least, under a democratic republic, one may not like the leadership, one may be an outsider, one may be out of favor at all, but there are laws that protect these outsiders. They cannot be undone by simple decrees, proclaimations and military orders. Unlike the travails that might beset them under a full blown dictatorship. Thus, it pains the very wealthy to think very clearly about what shape any new form of government will have. Only a cadre of newly empowered neophytes would not have such thoughts to restrain them in their quest for absolute power. In fact; such neophytes would probably not even see that; absolute power would result from their macinations. While they focused on much smaller ideological objectives, they would fail to see the thoroughly trashed "rule of law" being left in their wake. As in: In pursuit of the Queen the Bishop was lost, in pursuit of the King the Knight was lost, in pursuit of them both the Castle was lost. 'Till, finally, there was nothing left of the law to protect anyone from anything.
No! The families of wealth and power, who have a history spanning more than one government form, will be incredibly wary of men offering to further enhance their domininions. Most especially those who by doing so, will weaken the powers of laws. It might all seem so glowingly attractive on paper, but the incredible instability that would follow such a :success", would leave them exposed to the very same turmoil that their ancestors had to deal with. Never knowing, each day upon waking, whether to go to the office or flee the new "Robespierre" of the age.
Well, it's certainly something to think about, even if I've got something wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Just keep it civil.