Monthly Archives: February 2009

And Now For A World Government – Article In Financial Times Of London

Financial Times Of London

By Gideon Rachman

Published: December 8 2008 19:13 | Last updated: December 8 2008 19:13

function floatContent(){var paraNum = “3” paraNum = paraNum – 1;var tb = document.getElementById(‘floating-con’);var nl = document.getElementById(‘floating-target’);if(tb.getElementsByTagName(“div”).length> 0){if (nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”).length>= paraNum){nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”)[paraNum]);}else {if (nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”).length == 3){nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”)[2]);}else {nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”)[0]);}}}}

James Ferguson

I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.

How Realistic Is A North American Currency? – Wall Street Journal

By Todd Harrison
Last update: 6:12 a.m. EST Jan. 28, 2009

“World, hold on. Instead of messing with our future, open up inside.” — Bob Sinclair
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Thomas Jefferson once said: “When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hang on.” As the global financial system pushes on a string, investors are desperately trying to hold tight.
The New World Order is upon us, full of hope, promise and a fair amount of fear. In our recent discussion regarding the direction of our country, we noted the risks of catering to conventional wisdom and the implications for the U.S. dollar. See MarketWatch column on New World Order.
The Minyanville mantra is to provide financial news you need to know before you know you need it. That’s a fine line to walk, as foresight often flies in the face of mainstream acceptance.
In 2006, it seemed counterintuitive to forecast a “prolonged socioeconomic malaise entirely more depressing than a recession.” See Minyanville column.
For years, the notion of an “invisible hand” was conspiracy theory until we learned that the Working Group on Financial Markets was a central policy tool. See Minyanville column.
And now, as we gaze across our historically significant horizon, we must open our minds to thoughts and ideas that may seem foreign to folks conditioned by the past and stunned by the present.
Currency crossroads
As governments take on more risk — as they price assets on behalf of the market and transfer debt from private to public — the common denominator, or release valve, becomes the currency.

If our economic condition is allowed to take medicine in the form of debt destruction, the greenback will appreciate, and asset classes as a whole will deflate. If we continue to inject drugs that mask symptoms rather than address the disease, the likelihood of a seismic readjustment increases in kind.

The deflationary forces in the marketplace are pervasive, and the “other side” of our current equation, hyperinflation, may be years away. Given the magnitude, breadth and pace of the global financial epidemic, however, we must explore each side of the twisted ride.
Years ago, the Federal Reserve wrote a “solution paper” regarding the need to combat zero-bound interest rates. The concern was the flight of capital from the U.S. and an option discussed was a two-tiered currency, one for U.S citizens and one for foreigners.
Canadian economist Herbert Grubel first introduced a potential manifestation of this concept in 1999. The North American Currency — called the “Amero” in select circles — would effectively comingle the Canadian dollar, U.S. dollar and Mexican peso.
On its face, while difficult to imagine, it makes intuitive sense. The ability to combine Canadian natural resources, American ingenuity and cheap Mexican labor would allow North America to compete better on a global stage.
Experience has taught us, however, that perceived solutions introduced by policy makers and politicians don’t always have the desired effect.
Unintended consequences
I’ve long contended that, much like the Internet prophecy proved true — but not before the tech crash — so too would globalization, albeit not without painful-yet-necessary debt destruction.
To get through this, we need to go through this. If we’re not allowed to go through it, foreigners will seek alternative avenues. Remember, for holders of dollar-denominated assets, seeds of discontent have been sowing under the surface for years, with the greenback off 30% since 2002.
More likely than not, global leaders will watch how our new administration attempts to tackle the financial crisis before taking drastic steps. They understand that co-dependent risk exists as a function of the derivatives that interweave our financial infrastructure. If they could disassociate from our economic ecosystem without inflicting massive damage on themselves, they would have done so long ago.
If forward policy attempts to induce more debt rather than allowing savings and obligations to align, we must respect the potential for a system shock. We may need to let a two-tier currency gain traction if the dollar meaningfully debases from current levels.
If this dynamic plays out — and I’ve got no insight that it will — the global balance of powers would fragment into four primary regions: North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. In such a scenario, ramifications would manifest through social unrest and geopolitical conflict.
This particular path isn’t something one would wish for, but the cumulative imbalances that steadily built in our finance-based economy must be resolved one way or another. Therein lies the critical crossroads we together face as our wary world attempts to find its way.
Scary? Yes. Probable? Not so much, at least for the time being. Possible? Certainly, although I’ll again offer that it could take years before the pieces of this prickly puzzle fall into place.
Effective money management dictates weighing the entire probability spectrum of potential outcomes and factoring them into our decision making process. While the notion of a seismic currency shift may seem obscure, we must respect the possibility long before it becomes front-page news.
For if we’ve learned anything through the last few years, proactive thought provocation is a necessary precursor to effective preparedness. End of Story

Al Gore Tells Children Their Parents Are Stupid

theoracularopinion.blogspot.com

Al Gore, the father of the internet and one-time future President, who basically fell off the deep end, told 3,ooo 12 yr olds that they shouldn’t listen to their parents.

On January 19th, Gore told impressionable youngsters at the University of Maryland Youth Inaugural Conference that it was up to them to question their parents; because there are some things that they know that older people don’t.

“But I’m thinking back a long way to when I was your age and the civil rights revolution was unfolding,” Gore said. “And we kids asked our parents and their generation, ‘Explain to me again why it’s OK for the law to officially discriminate against people because of their skin color?’ And parent’s try to tell their kids the right thing, you know? Usually, I do. And when our parent’s generation couldn’t answer that question, that’s when the law started to change.”

Okay, so let me get this straight. According to Gore’s statement above, the Civil Rights Revolution was made possible because my parent’s generation couldn’t answer why blacks didn’t have the same rights as whites; so the law just changed all by itself.

Listen up, Al. There were plenty of PEOPLE that could and did answer the question as to why there was reprehensible discrimination. Those very PEOPLE fought for what’s called an Amendment and that very Amendment is now in what’s called our Constitution. Therefore, Al, the law didn’t perform magical tricks and transform itself. American People, ADULTS, made it happen. ADULTS were and are more intelligent than school aged children.

Al Gore went on to tell these children that they should question their parents; because we are in a period of rapid change and parents have old assumptions that are obsolete. He said there is new knowledge out there and it’s more widely available to young people who are in school and aren’t weighed down by the old flawed theories of their parents.

In a nutshell, Gore told these children that their parents are stupid and outdated and that their opinions and beliefs are wrong! He told these kids that they are the only ones that can access new information because schools are the only places that have all this new knowledge. Wow, I had no idea-probably because I’m just a stupid, outdated, flawed parent. Guess I better chuck my computer, internet, cancel cable, quit reading and just ask my kids what’s going on in the world!

Gore should be brought up on criminal charges. He has no right or authority indoctrinating our youth. He has absolutely no right and again, no authority, telling our children not to listen to their parents. It’s child abuse telling children that their parents are stupid and that their ideas, opinions and beliefs are wrong. Al Gore is a menace to society and if anything is a threat to our global atmosphere it’s him.

Kissinger Again Shills Obama and the New World Order

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
Tuesday, Jan 13, 2008

It’s too bad war criminal and Rockefeller minion Henry Kissinger is not a few decades younger. If he was, he might be turning somersaults and slapping high fives over the current state of the global economy. Instead, Kissinger has penned an ebullient — for Kissinger — editorial lauding the coming depression for the International Herald Tribune.

Kissinger Again Shills Obama and the New World Order  onepixel
9/11
Kissinger pals it up with the last CFR installed president.

According to Kissinger, the rapidly unfolding economic depression and accompanying misery for billions of people “generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy” to usher in “a world financial order” and force sovereign nations “to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered only by common action,” that is to say through world government and a New World Order, a phrase Kissinger repeats several times in the article.

(Article continues below)


“An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled,” writes Kissinger. In other words, if nations do not embrace the “international order” in response to the bankster engineered global depression, they will be left to twist in the wind, sort of like Zimbabwe and other third world nations where absolute poverty and human misery are the rule of the day.

“The nadir of the existing international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made globally accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos,” Kissinger warns.

Obama the manufactured messiah out of nowhere, Kissinger writes, is the answer. “The extraordinary impact of the president-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order.”

Obama was selected by the global elite Kissinger so faithfully serves to push the New World Order scheme, misleadingly defined by Kissinger as “an opportunity, not a policy.” Kissinger’s primary goal is to shill for world government. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group. In the late 1920’s, financing for the CFR came from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation.

“The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common — they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States,” explained Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a former CFR member. “A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.”

Kissinger is merely informing us of the plan his masters have had in mind now for more than sixty years. Obama will be the front man the globalists will use to usher in the New World Order, a phrase coined by H.G. Wells when he used it as the title of a book about a socialist one-world government future. “The phrase has also been linked to American presidents, including Woodrow Wilson, whose work on establishing the League of Nations pioneered the concept of international government bodies, and to the first President Bush, who used it in a 1989 speech,” writes Drew Zahn. “Kissinger’s ties to government and international powers – as well as his use of the phrase – have made him suspect in the eyes of many who are wary of what ‘new world order’ might actually mean.”

Prior to his International Herald Tribune article, Kissinger mounted the floor of the New York Stock Exchange and told CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” hosts Mark Haines and Erin Burnett that in essence Obama would be the man tapped to realize the one-world slave labor and control grid. Obama’s “task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.”

In fact, it is a classic example of the problem-reaction-solution paradigm. The banksters engineered the current economic “problem” specifically to shove their “solution” down our throats — a New World Order of total control and global totalitarianism.

Research related articles:

  1. Kissinger Sent to Russia to Cut New World Order Deal
  2. Kissinger Calls for a New World Order
  3. Obama’s New World Order plans revealed
  4. Kissinger Calls For New International System Out Of World Crises
  5. Gordon Brown calls for new world order to beat recession
  6. Obama, world crisis and the new world order
  7. Groups to call for new world order during G-20 summit
  8. Washington Post: “most nations, including the United States, have acknowledged that a new world order has emerged”
  9. Time for a new world order: Australian PM
  10. Obama urged to shape new economic order
  11. Gary “New World Order” Hart Hails Obama
  12. Former Kissinger Policy Planner, CFR Member Calls For New Global Monetary Authority

The Chance For A New World Order – By Henry Kissinger

iht.com

As the new U.S. administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy.

That opportunity involves a seeming contradiction. On one level, the financial collapse represents a major blow to the standing of the United States. While American political judgments have often proved controversial, the American prescription for a world financial order has generally been unchallenged. Now disillusionment with the United States’ management of it is widespread.

At the same time, the magnitude of the debacle makes it impossible for the rest of the world to shelter any longer behind American predominance or American failings.

Every country will have to reassess its own contribution to the prevailing crisis. Each will seek to make itself independent, to the greatest possible degree, of the conditions that produced the collapse; at the same time, each will be obliged to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered only by common action.

Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled.

The nadir of the existing international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made globally accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos.

The financial and political crises are, in fact, closely related partly because, during the period of economic exuberance, a gap had opened up between the economic and the political organization of the world.

The economic world has been globalized. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market.

The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend. Inevitably, when the affected publics turned to their national political institutions, these were driven principally by domestic politics, not considerations of world order.

Every major country has attempted to solve its immediate problems essentially on its own and to defer common action to a later, less crisis-driven point. So-called rescue packages have emerged on a piecemeal national basis, generally by substituting seemingly unlimited governmental credit for the domestic credit that produced the debacle in the first place – so far without more than stemming incipient panic.

International order will not come about either in the political or economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves.

In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonized in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units.

A new Bretton Woods-kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome. America’s role in this enterprise will be decisive. Paradoxically, American influence will be great in proportion to the modesty in our conduct; we need to modify the righteousness that has characterized too many American attitudes, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

That seminal event and the subsequent period of nearly uninterrupted global growth induced too many to equate world order with the acceptance of American designs, including our domestic preferences.

The result was a certain inherent unilateralism – the standard complaint of European critics – or else an insistent kind of consultation by which nations were invited to prove their fitness to enter the international system by conforming to American prescriptions.

Not since the inauguration of President John F. Kennedy half a century ago has a new administration come into office with such a reservoir of expectations. It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United States.

The extraordinary impact of the president-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy.

The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a common strategy reinforced by the realization that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.

The new administration could make no worse mistake than to rest on its initial popularity. The cooperative mood of the moment needs to be channeled into a grand strategy going beyond the controversies of the recent past.

The charge of American unilateralism has some basis in fact; it also has become an alibi for a key European difference with America: that the United States still conducts itself as a national state capable of asking its people for sacrifices for the sake of the future, while Europe, suspended between abandoning its national framework and a yet-to-be-reached political substitute, finds it much harder to defer present benefits.

Hence its concentration on soft power. Most Atlantic controversies have been substantive and only marginally procedural; there would have been conflict no matter how intense the consultation. The Atlantic partnership will depend much more on common policies than agreed procedures.

The role of China in a new world order is equally crucial. A relationship that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the international system.

China made possible the American consumption splurge by buying American debt; America helped the modernization and reform of the Chinese economy by opening its markets to Chinese goods.

Both sides overestimated the durability of this arrangement. But while it lasted, it sustained unprecedented global growth. It mitigated as well the concerns over China’s role once China emerged in full force as a fellow superpower. A consensus had developed according to which adversarial relations between these pillars of the international system would destroy much that had been achieved and benefit no one. That conviction needs to be preserved and reinforced.

Each side of the Pacific needs the cooperation of the other in addressing the consequences of the financial crisis. Now that the global financial collapse has devastated Chinese export markets, China is emphasizing infrastructure development and domestic consumption.

It will not be easy to shift gears rapidly, and the Chinese growth rate may fall temporarily below the 7.5 percent that Chinese experts have always defined as the line that challenges political stability. America needs Chinese cooperation to address its current account imbalance and to prevent its exploding deficits from sparking a devastating inflation.

What kind of global economic order arises will depend importantly on how China and America deal with each other over the next few years. A frustrated China may take another look at an exclusive regional Asian structure, for which the nucleus already exists in the Asean-plus-three concept.

At the same time, if protectionism grows in America or if China comes to be seen as a long-term adversary, a self-fulfilling prophecy may blight the prospects of global order.

Such a return to mercantilism and 19th-century diplomacy would divide the world into competing regional units with dangerous long-term consequences.

The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level. The current crisis can be overcome only by developing a sense of common purpose. Such issues as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, energy and the environment demand strengthened political ties between China and the United States.

This generation of leaders has the opportunity to shape trans-Pacific relations into a design for a common destiny, much as was done with trans-Atlantic relations in the immediate postwar period – except that the challenges now are more political and economic than military.

Such a vision must embrace as well such countries as Japan, Korea, India, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand, whether as part of trans-Pacific structures or, in regional arrangements, dealing with special subjects as energy, proliferation and the environment.

The complexity of the emerging world requires from America a more historical approach than the insistence that every problem has a final solution expressible in programs with specific time limits not infrequently geared to our political process.

We must learn to operate within the attainable and be prepared to pursue ultimate ends by the accumulation of nuance.

An international order can be permanent only if its participants have a share not only in building but also in securing it. In this manner, America and its potential partners have a unique opportunity to transform a moment of crisis into a vision of hope.

Henry A. Kissinger served as national security adviser and as secretary of state in the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Distributed by Tribune Media Services.