Number Six | 29 June 2011

As Eric Blair put it, in order for one to understand present events, those of yesteryear must be spelled out. Daily, the populace is bombarded with revisionist propaganda and so citizens must frequently instill themselves with past truths, so as not to forget.

Seeds of 19th Century Internationalism

What is called “globalism” today emanated from “internationalism” a century prior. The dictionary defines the latter as “principle cooperation among nations, for the promotion of their common good”. It is dated back to 1850 and culturally defined as accepting the arbitration of nation states by supranational international organizations.[1]

The best step toward unification of nation states has always been the legal advance: the arbitration of and submission to an international court. 17th century writer Émeric Crucé drew up the principal proposal. There are two general approaches to the unification of nations (regionalism): through force or by peace. Henry IV wanted to use force, just as Hitler, to unify Europe. Legalism is the slow, peaceful method (as witnessed in the European unification process, commencing in the 1940s). The 1899 Hague Conference was one of the early moves in setting up such a system.

Full story

Chrystia Freeland - 2011/01

F. Scott Fitzgerald was right when he declared the rich different from you and me. But today’s super-rich are also different from Yesterday’s: more hardworking and meritocratic, but less connected to the nations that granted them opportunity - and the countrymen they are leaving ever further behind.

Full story

Brandon Turbeville - November 9, 2010

If there is anyone out there who still reads Newsweek you might be particularly interested in picking up a copy of the October 4, 2010 edition. While the cover story focuses on Sarah Palin and Republican women, one of the more interesting features stories is written by Joel Kotkin entitled, “The New World Order.” In this article, Kotkin argues that “Tribal Ties – Race, Ethnicity, and Religion – Are Becoming More Important Than Borders.” The first page of the article, contains a color-coded map denoting new regions of the world not defined by contemporary governmental borders but those designated by region, race, and culture.

The rest of the article is devoted to a breakdown of the reasoning behind the new borders of which there are 19 new regional governments, 4 city states (London, Paris, Singapore, and Tel Aviv) and 6 Stand-Alone countries (Brazil, France, Greater India, Japan, South Korea, and Switzerland.)

Full story

Andrew Gavin Marshall - October 26, 2010

Problem, Reaction, Solution: “Crisis is an Opportunity”

In May of 2010, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the IMF, stated that, “crisis is an opportunity,” and called for “a new global currency issued by a global central bank, with robust governance and institutional features,” and that the “global central bank could also serve as a lender of last resort.” However, he stated, “I fear we are still very far from that level of global collaboration.”[1] Well, perhaps not so far as it might seem.

The notion of global governance has taken an evolutionary path to the present day, with the principle global political and economic actors and institutions incrementally constructing the apparatus of a global government. In the modern world, global governance is an inter-lapping, intersecting, and intertwined web of international organizations, think tanks, multinational corporations, nations, NGOs, philanthropic foundations, military alliances, intelligence agencies, banks and interest groups. Globalization – a term which was popularized in the late 1980s to refer to the global spread of multinational corporations – has laid the principle ideological and institutional foundations for this process. Global social, economic and political integration do not occur at an equal pace; rather, economic integration and governance on a global level has and will continue to be ahead of the other sectors of human social interaction, in both the pace and degree of integration. In short, global economic governance will set the pace for social and political global governance to follow.

Full story

The Daily Bell - Oct. 6, 2010

Dominant Social Theme: The world needs a central bank and the IMF is ready to be one.

Free-Market Analysis: As we have written plenty of times before, it’s startling to see how fast the Anglo-American power elite is willing to move now toward a more specific and comprehensive global governance. When we read this article, even just the beginning, it was obvious to us what was going on. And then we came to this sentence: “It means a de facto obligation to provide unlimited liquidity in euros…but the IMF is not a central bank for the world.” Exactly. Is there a sub dominant social theme in the article. Perhaps so: “Pushback will continue but the IMF’s expanded role is inevitable.

Indeed, the IMF is being cast in some places as an inevitable precursor to a world central bank. It need only graduate from SDRs to bancors and then expand its monetary authority. Of course we’ve covered this evolution in the past, but we didn’t take it very seriously. The world moves slowly and is a complex place. But as we’ve seen (and commented on) over the past year, the Anglo-American elite seems to have shed any inhibitions about moving slowly or deliberately toward global governance goals.

It is in a race of some sort, though who or what it is running from or towards is not clear. But in picking up the pace in a kind of mad dash toward some unseen finish line, it is abandoning at least a century of deliberate, promotional construction designed to bring Western citizens in line with its goals. We’ve written we have no explanation. Let’s say for argument’s sake there are 6,000 in the ranks of the Anglo American familial elite. That still leaves six billion people that one needs to “bring along” presumably. But convincing people seems about the last thing on the mind of elite these days so far as we can tell. In aggregate, it gallops madly forward, careening out of control, oblivious to obstacles, increasingly leaving a trail of ruin behind.

Full story

William Jasper - Feb 16 2010

World government and world socialism. Those are the explicit goals of the Socialist International (SI), one of the planet’s most influential organizations, but one that is virtually unknown to the vast majority of Americans, since it is rarely mentioned in the major U.S. media.

For the last two weeks of December 2009 and throughout all of January 2010 the headline story at the top of the home page of the Socialist International’s website boasted of the organization’s prominent influence and clout at the recently concluded United Nations Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark. However, the brief article, entitled “SI at COP15 in Copenhagen: reaffirming social democratic priorities,” does not begin to do justice to the Socialist International’s central role, not only in pushing the current alarmism over global warming, but also in building a global militant environmental lobby from 1970 to the present.

The SI was most notably represented in Copenhagen by its president, George Papandreou, who is also the current Prime Minister of Greece.

“At this time, we are observing the birth of global governance,” Papandreou said while addressing the UN summit on December 18. “We must, however, agree to an obligation and be committed to carrying this out,” he stressed.

Full story

By Joan Veon
September 28, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

In 1994 when I covered my first global meeting, there was a press briefing by the Commission on Global Governance on their forthcoming report, Our Global Neighborhood. The man giving the briefing was one of the co-chairs, Sir Shridath Ramphal who was not only president of Guyana but also president of the (British) Commonwealth Association. As I read the glossy brochure, I thought he meant “global government” to which he replied “No, no, no we mean global governance.” When I asked about a global currency, he laughed and said, “No, not for a long time.”

The meeting recently held in Pittsburgh comprised the third meeting of the heads of state and finance ministers from the Group of Twenty nations: the developed countries led by the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Russia and Germany and the top developing countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey, as well as the European Union. Together, they represent 85% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product-GDP and 80% of world trade.

The Group of Eight-G8 began meeting in 1973 when Richard Nixon called together the leaders of four countries to determine how the world would be run economically now that he had put the world currencies on a floating basis when he removed the last ties the dollar had to gold in 1971. A formal meeting was held in 1975 in France with five countries and soon it was seven countries known as the Group of Seven until 1998 when Russia was officially admitted. Since 1975, whatever decision these seven or eight countries came to was law and if the rest of the countries of the world knew what was good for them, they would follow suit. In short, the Group of Eight acted as a “Global Board of Directors” for the world. Over the years, they expanded their purview to include every facet of government: labor, education, transportation, trade, housing, finance and the environment.

Full story

By Pieter Bottelier - May 29, 2009

Since People’s Bank of China governor Zhou Xiaochuan’s proposal for reforming the international monetary system was published on March 23, there have been new developments with regard to the international use of the Chinese currency, the renminbi, also referred to as the yuan.

The historical context of governor Zhou’s proposal and the prospects for the international use of the renminbi are interrelated. In spite of the generally negative press reports in the United States, Zhou’s proposal was couched in careful, professional and non-provocative language. Although the proposal may have been partly motivated by domestic politics, it does reflect deep-rooted concern in China that the international financial crisis and subsequent US responses to it could undermine the purchasing power
of the dollar.

Since most of China’s US$2 trillion plus reserves are invested in dollar-denominated financial assets, Beijing’s concerns are understandable. While some in the United States argue that China should not fret about excessive dollar exposure - because that is the result of its controversial exchange rate policy - it should be recognized that China’s worries about the future of the US dollar are widely shared and that Zhou’s proposal appears to have been well received in many quarters around the world.

Full story

Do we really want the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) issuing our global currency?

Hakan Altinay and Andre Wilkens - 14.04.2009

Could a global emissions-trading system serve as the European Coal and Steel Community of our times?

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary ideas, like the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, which later became the European Union. That idea transformed a continent of conflict and hatred into a haven of peace, stability and prosperity.

Jean Monnet conceived of it becoming even more. In his memoirs, he wrote that “the Community we have created is not an end in itself. The sovereign nations of the past can no longer solve the problems of the present; they cannot control their own future.” The European Community should only be a stage on the way to the organised world of tomorrow, he wrote.

(more…)

Henry Lamb - April 04, 2009

Sovereignty means “supreme, independent authority. …” National sovereignty means “supreme, independent authority in government.” The United States bought its sovereignty with the blood of sovereign individuals who laid down their lives so this nation could be free from the dictates and demands of another nation.

The United States joined the community of nations as a sovereign nation. Over time, however, little by little, this sovereignty has been stolen.

Full story

Henry Lamb - March 12, 2009

For more than a century, the idea of a world government has persisted. From Cecil Rhodes’ vision of a global British Empire, to Woodrow Wilson’s vision of a League of Nations, to Franklin Roosevelt’s creation of the United Nations, this dream of a world government has advanced. In Berlin, Barack Obama announced that he is a “citizen of the world.” He and his administration are about to pay homage to that global citizenship.

The people who created the League of Nations for Woodrow Wilson were behind-the-scenes advisers. In the United States, Wilson’s advisers were known as Edward Mandell House’s “Inquiry.” In England, the government was advised by Alfred Milner’s group called the “Chatham House Gang,” created by Cecil Rhodes in 1891. These two groups drafted the Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War and created the League of Nations.

During the final days of treaty negotiations, these two groups met at the Majestic Hotel in Paris and decided to formalize their organizations. The European group became the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and House’s group became the Council on Foreign Relations. These two groups have been the sustaining power behind the idea of world government throughout the 20th century.

Full story

Parts 1 and 2.

February 9, 2009
By Cliff Kincaid

urprise and even shock were among the reactions to my recent column about how elite members of the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, were considering a proposal for a new global television network to usher in a state of “global governance.” It sounded authoritarian, even totalitarian, to some.

Here are more of the troubling details.

The media proposal, which was included in “The Global Agenda 2009″ report, is to create “a new global network” with “the capacity to connect the world, bridging cultures and peoples, and telling us who we are and what we mean to each other.” Several prominent U.S. media figures signed on to the alarming and controversial proposal.

Isn’t it nice that we might have a TV network telling us “who we are?” And “what we mean to each other?” Perhaps we will learn that we are global citizens. Perhaps a global leader of some sort will tell us that. Who might that be?

This outlandish and frightening proposal doesn’t come from a fringe organization. The WEF is an exclusive club of very rich and powerful people from around the world. It describes itself as “an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas.”

This year’s conference featured speeches by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Chinese Premier We Jiabao. Many U.S. corporations, including some getting Wall Street bailout money, were sponsors. News Corporation, the parent of Fox News, was a “strategic partner” of the event.

Full story

Mark Baard - November 7, 2008

Note: This is a lightly edited version of the piece Alan Watt read last night on his radio program, Cutting Through the Matrix (Fri., Nov. 7, 2008).–mb

Announcement encourages lowly earthlings to salute global governance

The European Space Agency next Friday will launch a copy of the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights to a permanent spot aboard a space lab orbiting the Earth.

It’s a symbolic gesture, celebrating an empty promise, which the UN made 60 years ago to protect the world’s most vulnerable people.

“In recognition of the fact that human beings are at times downtrodden, the Declaration can symbolically find its place ‘above’ all the peoples of the world,” ESA astronaut Léopold Eyharts said in an announcement (link, below).

Full Story