In unity, as we all know, there is strength. But strength for whom? Well, the unifiers, of course. When a collection of squabbling states become united under, say, a Bismarck, as in Germany of the latter part of the 19th century, or in Italy, under Garibaldi, at about the same time, those rulers gain the revenues, assets, and services of the united states, and the strength that naturally accompanies those acquisitions. History is, among other things, the story of such acquisitions of strength. It tells the story of schemers and plotters, such as Cavour, Mazzini, Garibaldi, Bismarck, or wars — too numerous to list — and the rise and fall of empires. Unification led, ultimately, to Hitler and Mussolini, whose activities are grist for the historian’s mill.
But what of the people themselves — the unified? History doesn’t deal with them, but they are the raison d’tre of the whole shebang. Why struggle to become a ruler, without someone to rule? Without their work, there is nothing worth fighting about. It is to gain their (involuntary) servitude that plots are hatched, and wars fought. What of these subjected peoples? Do they benefit from unification? Maybe they do, and maybe not. The desire to consolidate power burns so brightly in the bosom of every politician that it scarce matters what becomes of the people brought into subjugation, except that they continue to produce, and remain passive.
It is interesting that this unification of diverse peoples, which comprises such a major theme of history, has no counterpart in nature. I can look out of my window and see dozens of trees: maples, oaks, ash, willows, and others I cannot identify; but nature seems content to let them remain separate entities. There is no ruler tree, no subject trees. The hundreds of members of the rose family seem to be doing quite well without the dominance of a ruler rose.
The subjugation of people to the procession of rulers has traditionally been accomplished by violence — the use of which is sanctioned by governments for their own purposes. A simple ploy by which governments gain the loyalty of their subjects is by assuring them that without government protection, they will be seized and ruled by some other group with a different language and different — and repellant, of course — customs.
The picture is different today. One might almost conclude that military skirmishes that so fill our airwaves constitute a diversion, a distraction from the real conflict, which is: who shall issue the money for the unified world? Make no mistake: the intention to bring more and more people under a single government’s control — the One World Government — is the desire of ambitious men. If it is good to govern 50 states, why not 100? And it can be accomplished without firing a shot, by manipulation of the currency. First it was the dollar vs. the yen; the dollar won that battle. Now the dollar battles the euro, and is doing badly. But the yuan has come on strong, and may overwhelm both. Perhaps, in the background, the rupee is waiting its turn. The winner will be the banking system whose fiat survives longest.
The words of President James A. Garfield shed light: "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." Master, in other words, of everyone, directly or indirectly.
Have you heard of the Amero? It has been proposed as a new currency for Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Who made the proposal? Robert Pastor, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and author of "Toward A North American Community." The U.S. Congress would be replaced — not by nothing, unfortunately!!! — but by something even worse: a "North American Parliamentary Group." And who would control the "volume of money" in this union? The creators and issuers of the Amero. It would enter the ring to do battle with the yuan and the euro. The winner would be "absolute master of all industry and commerce" in most of the industrialized world. The centralization of power would have taken a giant step toward totality.
Reginald McKenna, once Chancellor of the Exchequer of England, also sheds some light: "Those who create and issue money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people." The real rulers work behind the scenes. You can’t vote for them; you don’t even know their names. That’s bad enough when they are local, and at least theoretically influenced by local opinion. It’s worse when they are national; it’s truly horrific when they are international, distant, remote, and totally unaware of your existence, much less concerned about it. The proposed Amero is a step in that direction. Does anybody care? How about those buffoons in Washington who are, theoretically, there to protect our rights? Are they more readily influenced by you and me, or by the creators of "money?" A rhetorical question!