Most people would say that the American
politics is drawn to the middle, towards
Moderates, and that the Left Wing is
Socialism/Communism while the Right Wing
is Fascism and Dictatorship.
This is technically incorrect, though.
Left Wing is ALL Government (100%
Power), while Right Wing is NO
Government (0% Power). No Government
means Anarchy and All Government is
Communism, Oligarchy, Plutocracy and
Fascism. Those who claimed Nazism and
Fascism are to the far Right never
defined their terms. They are 100%
Government and thus belong to the far
The Middle of the spectrum would be a
limited government which protects the
rights of the people. That's where the
United States is (or should be) -
So what about Democracy? That must be
somewhere in the Middle, right?
Actually, it's not.
Most Americans today think that America
is a Democracy, but it isn't (or at
least not meant to be). It was NEVER even meant to be - for
good reasons! America is supposed to be a Republic and not a Democracy.
The difference between the two is vast
as we shall see.
Here are the 5 basic forms of government
in list form, plus a lesser known form
of political system, Meritocracy:
Dictatorship, ruled by one
by a few
Anarchy, ruled by
by a majority
can now be narrowed down to even fewer:
1. Monarchy or Dictatorship
This system is supposedly run by one
Monarch or Dictator, but Monarchy
doesn't really exist in it's real
definition, which is 'Rule By One'. In a
Monarchy or Dictatorship, the society is
ruled by a group or people, who have put
one person in front to be the Ruler. In
reality this person is ruling together
with the group behind him. A King has
his Council of Nobles or Earls and a
Dictator has his Bureaucrats or
Commissars. So Monarchy and Dictatorship
as defined don't truly exist, so let's
eliminate this political system from our
Government ruled by a group. This is the
most common form of government in
history, and even today. Most governments
in the world are ruled by a powerful
few, a Power Elite. Therefore, Oligarchy
remains on our list.
At the other end of the spectrum we find
Anarchy, which is 'Without Government'.
People supporting Anarchy are often
those who have looked through history
and found that most crimes have been
committed by Government, and therefore
Government must be bad and should be
hammered out of existence and 'No
Government' may be a good idea. But it
doesn't work in practice, because like
the old Greeks said: "Without law there
can be no freedom". Our Founding
Fathers, who were very educated in
ancient history and politics, knew
well about the details of the Roman and
Greek cultures, and as a matter of fact,
they took the best out of the two when
they formed the Constitution and the
American Government. They knew that
Government in a limited form is
necessary for people to be free.
In a state of Anarchy, however,
everybody has to protect their houses,
cars and properties with their lives all
because there are no rules and there are
no laws, except the 'law of the jungle'.
Everybody must be armed to be able to
protect themselves and their families
and friends - not against the Government
(because it doesn't exist) but against
their neighbor and people on the street.
Anarchy becomes chaos, becomes
criminality and murder and the destruction
of the civilized world, if allowed to go
Some kind of law enforcement needs to be
in place to prevent Anarchy from
happening. Anarchy is not freedom, but
ultimate terror. In the civilized world,
people have always hired some kind of
guardian or police force to protect
their rights and when done so they can
be more relaxed, leave their property
knowing that it will still be there for
them when they return (most of the
time). And if someone has taken
possession of it while you were gone,
the law kicks in and the intruder will
be forced to leave the property or else
suffer the consequences of the law.
The proper amount of government makes
Some people want Anarchy, not for the
reason of 'No Government', but simply
because they don't like what they have
at the moment. They use Anarchy as a
tool for a Revolutionary Change. Anarchy
is pretty much the vacuum between two
political powers. They want to break
down the existing government with riots,
killing, looting and terrorism, creating
confusion and horror. Unfortunately,
people who have to live through such
chaos often go to those who they think
can put an end to it, and the people who
are the best ones to put an end to the
chaos are often the same people who started it
in the first place.
The Anarchists who created the problem
now create a government run by them, and
we have a new oligarchy, where they have
total power. This happened in Russian
when Lenin took total power; it happened
in Germany when Hitler took over and it
happened in Cuba when Fidel Castro came
to power. It's happened over and over
again throughout history.
Today we call it "PROBLEM - REACTION -
SOLUTION". Someone creates the chaos
(Anarchy), the masses reacts and want
something done about it, and the same
people who created the chaos comes up
with the solution - they put THEMSELVES in
Anarchy is an unstable type of
government, merely a transition between
two political powers, so therefore it
does not exist as a political system we
can maintain. So we can cross
Anarchy off the list as well.
The word democracy means that the power
is with the people - the people rules,
majority rule. This sounds like a good
system, but imagine if the majority is
manipulated to think it's okay to take
away your home, your kids, your
possessions or even your freedoms? There
must be a limit. If more than 50% in a
Democracy are persuaded to believe
something, they rule! This is the danger
Republic comes from two Latin words,
Res which means Thing and
Publica, which means The Public
= THE LAW.
A true Republic is one where Government
is limited by law, leaving the people
The Founding Fathers had a lot of
opportunities. They could have set up an
Oligarchy for example. In fact, some
people wanted to make George Washington
a king, but he realized that if this
would happen, the oppression people
suffered from under the reign of King
George of England would just transfer over to the
New World. Same reign, another name. So
the Founding Fathers chose to give us
the Rule of Law in a Republic instead of
a Rule of a Majority in a Democracy.
Why? A good example to show the
difference between Democracy and
Republic is to go back to the Old Wild West.
Let's say we have lynch mob in a
Democracy, chasing a gun man. When they
catch him they decide by raising their
hands if the gun man should be hung or
not. The majority raise their hands and
they hang the man in the nearest tree.
Justice is done!
Then we have the same lynch mob in a
Republic. The mob catches the gun man
and vote for hanging him. Before they
get a chance to do it, the Sheriff shows
up and says, "You can't hang him. He is
entitled to a fair trial". So they take
the murderer into town and provide the
evidence in a court of law. A jury is
selected from the people; they hear the
evidence and the defense, and if decided
guilty per the law, the gun man may be hung.
Not even the jury decides by majority
rule. Every person of the jury must be
on the same page, or the man on trial
goes free. This is the essence of a
Many Americans would probably be
surprised when they notice that the word
Democracy does not appear in the
Declaration of Independence or the U.S.
Constitution. Nor does it appear in
either of the Constitutions of the 50
In fact, the Founders did everything
they could to keep us from having a
Democracy, because they knew the dangers
involved in such a political system.
Alexander Hamilton said:
"We are a
Republican Government. Real liberty
is not found in despotism or in the
extremes of Democracy".
The Founding Fathers
had good reasons for preventing a
Democracy from forming. They knew what
happened in the past, old Greece being a
perfect example. The Greek Democracy
soon created the wildest excesses of
governments imaginable. In every case,
they ended up with mob rule, Anarchy and
then tyranny under an Oligarchy.
Rome, on the other
hand, created a Republic with a limited
government limited by law, which left
people alone. By being left alone,
people understood that they could
produce and keep the fruits of their
labor. In time Rome became wealthy and
the envy of the rest of the world.
In the midst of
plenty, however, the Roman people forgot
what freedom entailed. They forgot
that the essence of freedom is the
proper limitation of government.
When government power grows, people's
freedom recedes. When the Roman people
dropped their guards, power-hungry
politicians slowly but surely started to
exceed their power granted to them by
the Roman Constitution. People now lost
more and more of their freedoms to the
government until many couldn't make ends
meet. The consequence was protests,
riots and anarchy and many traded
freedom for security (recognize the
pattern?) The whole system eventually
came crashing down. It went from a
Republic to a Democracy and ended up
with an Oligarchy under the Caesars.
Thus, Democracy is
not a stable form of government.
Instead, it's the gradual transition
from limited government in a Republic to
the unlimited rule of an Oligarchy. We
cross it off our list.
Meritocracy is a
structure where a person's talent and
goals are supported.
As a teenager, I was
already discouraged by the school
system. I thought it filled no purpose
and it didn't lead to anything
constructive. I remember telling my
friends at the time that it would be
great if someone asked us when we were
kids what we wanted to be when we grow
up and then support us to become just
that! Most people thought it was a great
idea, but of course, we all felt
powerless and I just did what I had to,
so I could get out of there. I didn't
know, and hadn't heard of, Meritocracy.
In my opinion, a
Republic which applies Meritocracy would
be the best political system I can think
of. We want a limited government, both
in size and limited by law, so it can
leave us alone with its only duty to
support and protect us.
So how would
Meritocracy be applied to a society?
I think it would be a
great idea to spot a person's talents
and goals early in life. Sometimes you
can see an indicator already in small
kids; you notice what their interests
are. These talents and interests should
be supported by the whole society,
including the school system, so we can,
on a collective level, help the
individual to become what he/she is best
If we accomplish
this, we will get a society where people
are happy, caring about others, and proud of
themselves. I am also suspecting it will
diminish crime to next to zero, because
most people are doing what they like to
do and can make a living out of if.
Sometimes, our goals
and interests change as we grow up and
grow older, and in my type of
Meritocracy, this would be totally fine.
You can change your direction anytime,
as long as you are not doing it to be
lazy or to use the system.
This is meant
to be a very humanitarian society where
everybody has his/her place by choice
and not by force. Of course, there are
always people who get sick or can't
produce as much as others for a number
of reasons, and these people need to be
supported in a way so that they can go
back to what they were doing or now want
to do, if this is an option. The important thing
is that no one should feel he/she isn't
being supported in the best way
Knowing this, we
Americans are left with only three
We can have a
Republic (if we can keep it, like
Benjamin Franklin added)
We'll end up with
an Oligarchy, the tyranny of an
We can have a
Republic which practices
It doesn't take a
genius to see where we are today. The
Republic is almost dead and we are ruled
by the few, while the Government is
getting bigger and more powerful by the
day. We, the people, a long time ago
dropped our guard and it is now a piece
of cake to rule us into a full blown
Dictatorship. And this does not end with
the United States, it happens all over
the world at approximately the same time
and for the same reason, to complete the
Old World Order [def]
and create a One World Government under
a One World Dictator. This would still
fall under Oligarchy, but now with only
One Global Government. This is certainly
not what we want.
There are no easy
solutions. We have had all those
political systems in the past (except
perhaps Meritocracy), and they have all
failed - even the Republic, which is the
most humane of them all. And why has the
Republic failed? It failed because
people get lazy, taking their freedoms
for granted and trust the government
instead of constantly scrutinizing it.
It would be naive to think that if we
overthrew the current government and
started a new, everything would be
better. It wouldn't. In time, we would
go back to old habits and the Republic
turn into a Democracy and we would end up
with an Oligarchy again.
In a perfect world, a
Republic which applies Meritocracy would
be the way to go, but before this Utopia
can become a reality, we need to expand
our consciousness. Again, we go back to
spiritual enlightenment and development,
which I have stressed so many times.
If we don't stop letting us being
manipulated and lazy, nothing will
change. The Old World Order will
continue prospering and a One World
Dictatorship is inevitable.
So there is only one
solution. We need to educate ourselves
to what is REALLY happening, then
applying what we learn, meanwhile
growing on a spiritual level. Only then
can we create laws that benefit people
and be able to keep these laws intact
and uncorrupted. Still, it's a
constant struggle to keep the
power-hungry out of the government.
important that we use what we learn to
educate and change the world. Each and
everyone of us is responsible for our
collective future, and what I am doing
to help and what you are doing to help
may be two totally different things.
This is all good! Take what you know and
figure out how you can use that
knowledge to help the rest of the people
who are still asleep. Only by doing
nothing can we succumb.
(This information is based on, but not
the least limited to, the following
Want your opinion to be heard?
Make a comment
have it posted here, uncensored and unedited!
as long as it's written in a civilized manner.
Write me an email
and put the same title in
your email subject line as the name of the article you want
to comment on. You can be anonymous if you like,
or write under a pseudonym. Wes Penre.
The word Illuminati means 1.
People claiming to be unusually
enlightened with regard to a subject. 2.
Illuminati: Any of various groups
claiming special religious
enlightenment. Latin illmint,
from pl. of illmintus,
past participle of illminre,
to light up. See
definitions say, any group which considers itself "enlightened"
could rightfully call itself the Illuminati. So is also the case. If
you google "The Illuminati", you will find quite a few groups
claiming this name.
can be confusing, so before we continue,
I want to make very clear that the
Illuminati we are discussing here is NOT
a benevolent secret society who wants to
create peace and harmony in this world
by helping to bring freedom to the
people. Such a benevolent group DOES
exist and happens to call themselves
"The Illuminati", and is actually the
original group using this name.
They have been working behind
the scenes for a very long time to help humanity free themselves
from the chains we have been stuck in for thousands of years.
Unfortunately, the Powers That Be, the evil puppet masters running
this show on war and destruction, infiltrated the truth movement
already in an early stage by adopting the term Illuminati to
describe themselves, thus using the same name as the original
benevolent group. This to further confuse the matter.
Now, almost all researchers
(including myself) have adopted the term "Illuminati" to describe
the Dark Side, and by doing so, we have to a certain degree
unwittingly helped discrediting the benevolent group with this
original name and made it harder for them to get the job done.
Therefore, I will let this
definition follow each and every article posted on this website from
now on in an effort to try to clear up the confusion. I apologize
that so many people now have mixed up the groups, and I have partly,
but ignorant to this fact until recently, been responsible for that.
The point is that the Illuminati I am
exposing here is the super-rich Power Elite with an ambition to
maintain the slave society they have been working so hard to
accomplish over the millennia!
term "New World Order", just like the term "Illuminati", has been
used by at least two different groups, meaning basically two
1) A goal to put an end to the current Order (called "The
Old World Order" - OWO),
which is considered evil and anti-survival, and therefore the
current power elite needs to be overthrown and their Old World Order
to be destroyed and replaced with a benevolent "New World Order".
The goal is a humanity-friendly One World Government. The
means putting an end to the current Old World Order with violence, if
Personally, I don't agree with using violence to stop the Old World
Order, as I am more into a spiritual solution (see elsewhere on my
website), but I want to make my
readers aware of that there IS a group calling themselves "The
Illuminati", who want to replace the current Old World Order (the
Rothschilds, Rockefellers etc.) with a benevolent New World Order,
where people are no longer slaves to this Power Elite.
2) A goal to create a micro-chipped society, so that they more
easily can maintain the current Order that they have created
throughout the millennia. This is the
"New World Order" the Bush's, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds,
Gordon Brown, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and others are
supporting and working on maintaining. This is also the "New World Order"
I am fighting against via this website.
Just like in the case with the term "Illuminati", this second group
has confused researchers and truth seekers by using the basically
benevolent term "New World Order" for their negative and malevolent
goals. This has made it harder for the Resistance to operate,
because both "The Illuminati" and the "New World Order" have been
used as a propaganda for the Dark Side and everything connected to
these two terms now are perceived as negative.
If we really look at it, it's nothing
"new" with what this Power Elite officially calls the "New World Order",
more than an effort to hold on to the Old World Order they have
I hope this to some degree makes things clearer.
Penre is a researcher,
journalist, the owner of the
and is the publisher of the
same. He has been
and the New World Order and
exposed the big players
behind the scenes for more
than a decade now. He has
published his research on
the Internet at the above
domains, which are currently
updated to keep people
informed what is going on.
You can also find his
articles linked up,
discussed and republished
all over the Internet.
This page from illuminati-news.com may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has
not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
I am making such material available in my efforts to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights,
economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on
this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes.