Globalization

Warning issued over drive for Constitution Convention

By Bob Unruh

WorldNetDaily | Globalists are "salivating" over the possibility of a Constitutional Convention at which issues such as the 2nd Amendment could handily be dismissed, according to a leader who warns Virginia likely is the next target for the drive.

"There is no question in my mind that, should a new Constitutional Convention be called, it would be the end of the United States of America as we know it, and our current Constitution and Bill of Rights would be forever altered beyond recognition," Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin wrote in his latest commentary.

"The globalists who currently control Washington, D.C., and Wall Street are, no doubt, salivating over the opportunity to officially dismantle America's independence and national sovereignty, and establish a globalist North American Union – in much the same way that globalists created the European Union. A new Constitutional Convention is exactly the tool they need to cement their sinister scheme into law."

Read full article

Says global necessities should foster an “age of compatible interests”

By Steve Watson

Infowars | Bilderberg luminary Henry Kissinger has repeated his routine call for a new international political order, stating that global crises should be seen as an opportunity to move toward a borderless world where national interests are outweighed by global necessities.

Speaking with Charlie Rose earlier this week, Kissinger cited the chaos being wrought across the globe by the financial crisis and the spread of terrorism as an opportunity to bolster a new global order.

"I think that when the new administration assess the position in which it finds itself it will see a huge crisis and terrible problems, but I can see that it could see a glimmer in which it could construct an international system out of it." Kissinger said, referring to the transition between the Bush and Obama administrations.

The former National Security advisor and Secretary of State compared the current world climate to the period immediately following the second world war, which led to the creation and empowerment of global bodies such as the UN and NATO.

"If you look back to the end of the second world war, many people now think that the period between the end of 1945 and 1950 was in many ways the most creative period or one of the most creative periods of foreign policy, but it started with chaos and fear of Russian invasion of Europe and governments that were very weak." Kissinger stated.

"The new administration is really coming into office at a strange period in this sense," he continued. "It looks like a period of horrendous crisis all over the world. And we ourselves are in a severe crisis financially, but at the end of it our relative position in the world is actually stronger than it has been in the sense that Russia, China, India all have strong reasons to contribute to a quiet international environment because of the preoccupation they must have with their domestic affairs."

"They do not wish and have good reasons not to wish for an international atmosphere of crisis. So Paradoxically, this moment of crisis is also one of great opportunity." Kissinger commented.

Interviewer Charlie Rose, who has previously listened to Kissinger’s calls for a new world order, recognized the direction the conversation was taking and urged Kissinger to elaborate:

"When you talk about a new structure, I’m not sure, you’ve used the term new world order, what is it? Is it simply a world order that is defined by new interest and new mutuality of interest?" Rose asked.

"That’s certainly how you have to start. I know the view that you start by converting the whole world to our political philosophy. I don’t think that can be done in one or two terms of an administration. That is an historic process that has its own rhythm." Kissinger replied.

"There are so many elements in this world at the moment that can only be dealt with on a global basis, and that’s unique," Kissinger continued. "Proliferation, energy, environment, All of these issues necessitate a global approach, so you don’t have to invent an international order. So every country has to mitigate its pure national interests by the global necessities, or define it’s national interests by global necessities But it cannot push its own technically selfish interests only by throwing its own weight around." he stated.

Kissinger also related that he has been struck by how much the move toward a new global order has been enhanced by the recent crises.

"The jihadist crisis is bringing it home to everybody, that international affairs cannot be conducted entirely by drawing borders and defining international politics by who crosses what borders with organized military force." he said.

"This has now been reinforced by the financial crisis, which totally unexpectedly has spread around the world. It limits the resources that each country has for a foreign policy geared to an assertion of its own pure interests."

Kissinger claimed that the key players in international politics, India, China, Russia, America, Europe, should recognize they have parallel concerns and work together to forge what he termed an "age of compatible interests".

"I’m not saying that leaders will be up to all the opportunities that I may perceive but I think they can start moving in that direction and I’m actually fairly hopeful that we will be moving in that direction." Kissinger said.

By Gideon Rachman

Financial Times | 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.

Google Video | Will we let the elite pull the plug on Canada's sovereignty? A documentary exploring the Security and Prosperity Partnership and how it is a stepping stone for an eventual North American Union. The film also explores the resistance movement to the SPP and the protests of August 2007 in Montebello, Canada. For inquiries about obtaining a high-quality DVD, please contact: nations.deathbed.movie@gmail.com or dan@pressfortruth.ca.

By Graham L. Strachan

TYSK | Brock Chisolm, former Director of the (United Nations) World Health Organization, is quoted as saying, "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas." [GWB quote of the day, 7/7/1999]. Remove from the minds of men? Doesn't that sound like mental conditioning? How does that square with the Alexander Downer/Tim Fischer version of globalism as freer markets? It doesn't, does it?

Some years ago another hero of the globalist-Left, B.F.Skinner, in his book Beyond Freedom and Dignity, mounted a concerted attack on what he termed autonomous man. What was autonomous man? Autonomous man was an independently thinking and acting, morally responsible, individual human being. Skinner, who formed his ideas by training pigeons to peck different buttons in the laboratory in order to get food, spent a whole book arguing that the human mind does not exist. Just what he thought he was using to develop his argument never seems to have occurred to him, but such is the standard of modern scholarship, at least in the so-called social sciences. According to Professor Skinner (p. 196) science must abolish autonomous man if it is to prevent the abolition of the human species....To man qua man (man as a human being) we readily say good riddance. Skinner advocated the mass mental conditioning of human beings by an elite group of behavioural scientists. Beyond Freedom and Dignity became a standard text in teachers training colleges.

Why would socialists be so hostile to individualism, to autonomous man? Even their opposition to the traditional family can be traced to its capacity to build independence of character and spirit, and to foster politically incorrect ideas. National patriotism too is a uniquely individual emotion: the love of a country regarded as home in defence of which men have been prepared to die in wars not of their own making. Even the globalist hostility to religious dogmas can be sheeted home to the Christian teaching that man was created as an individual by God in His own image, with individual rights inalienable at the hands of worldly governments, including the right to commune directly with the Creator without the interposition of a human intermediary in the form of a priest or pope. Such ideas are anathema to those hell bent on people control.

But what is it about the independently thinking individual that socialists hate most? Ayn Rand identified it as the ability to reason [see Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual (1960), pp. 10-57, esp. p. 44]. Why would socialists hate the ability to reason so much? Because they can't do it! And what they can't do, or otherwise control, they will destroy. They are driven by envy, and that is the nature of envy: the hatred of the good for being the good. The fact is, the independent thinking individual has always posed, throughout history, the greatest obstacle to attempts to collectivise human beings and now, in the latest version of this oft-repeated human saga, the greatest obstacle to global collectivisation at the hands of the social science elite is again the independent thinking individual with a sense of dignity and self-worth. But let's go back to the beginning.

When modern man first appeared on the earth about 45,000 years ago he was living in small tribal groups, surviving by hunting and gathering, and using primitive stone tools and weapons. Obliged to follow his food sources about, he was unable to form permanent settlements. Tribal society was socialist, the individual was regarded as a tribal resource, everybody was required to work, all labour was linked to tribal survival, and the proceeds of hunting and gathering were pooled and shared according to tribal custom. Professor Friedrich Hayek describes this as everybody having a visible common purpose [F.A. Hayek, Law Legislation and Liberty, Vol.II (1976), p.134].

Around 8000 BC in Mesopotamia (now Iraq), certain tribes to turned from hunting and gathering to cultivating crops and domesticating animals which enabled them to settle into permanent farming villages. Settled argiculture brought about productivity increases which allowed parasitic elites to form whose members did nothing but rule over the productive masses, tax them, and squander the spoils on wars, monuments to themselves, and leisure, including sexual depravity. So what's new? By 3,500 BC, the first civilisation, Sumer, had developed in southern Mesopotamia.

Somewhere between 45,000 BC and 3,500 BC man developed language, and in a book called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, American psychologist Dr. Julian Jaynes of Princeton University argued that since language is essential not only for communication but also for reasoned thought, man, prior to the development of language, must have operated in another mental state, a kind of semi-conscious mode he called the bicameral or two-chambered (of the brain) mode. The person operating in bicameral mode would not be fully conscious in the sense of being a self-aware reasoning individual, but would still be capable of performing most tasks necessary for survival in a group or tribe, in much the same way as people automatically do up buttons without actually thinking about it. Tribal man, in other words, had a tribal mind which was not fully conscious in the modern sense.

The tribal mind would have had no sense of self, of being an individual separate and distinct from the collective. The tribal individual would learn their behaviour from other members of the group, and in novel situations would call upon hallucinated instructions arising in the right temporal lobe of the brain, which were interpreted as instructions from the gods, much like a schizophrenic hearing voices. Jaynes presented evidence that man operated in this mode even into the fairly advanced stages of early civilisation.

As civilisation advanced, however, and agricultural production and trade expanded, the number of new situations the bicameral had to cope with daily increased and the bicameral mode was no longer viable. It began to break down and a new way of thinking evolved. This used the imagination to develop an internal map of the outside world, enabling an individual to reason through various alternative ideas or courses of action and to decide on the most appropriate. The learned action and automatic thought of the bicameral tribal mode was replaced by the self-willed action and independent thought which is now described as consciouness.

The important point Jaynes made was this: the transition to full consciousness was volitional, not automatic. The individual had to choose to adopt the new mode of thinking, and had to make a conscious effort to continue to think that way. Failing that, through mental laziness, by allowing others ( authorities ) to do their thinking for them, people could readily lapse back into bicameral mode. The thing which initially encouraged people to exercise their consciousness was competition. Survival was still a problem then, and the fully conscious individual had a distinct competitive advantage over the person lingering in bicameral mode. Because of this competitive advantage consciousness won out over bicameralism. Until recently that is, but more on that in a moment.

With the rise of permanent settlement and the collapse of the bicameral mind, tribal society gave way to an individualist social order in which people were free to pursue their own goals in their own way, bound only by common rules of conduct (morals). The new order was based on production and exchange. A concept of private ownership developed, and the nuclear family replaced the tribe, or extended family, as the principle social unit. This new social order was to persist for the next 10,000 years. Socialists call it the bourgeois capitalist system, because it is based on private ownership of property. Professor Hayek calls it a Great Society, and Professor Karl Popper an Open Society [see Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies (5th. Edition revised, 1966)]. It was a society in which each individual was free to use their knowledge for their own, not tribal, purposes.

Not everybody welcomed the new social order. Some people wanted to lapse back into bicameral mode and avoid self-responsibility, longing for a return to the warm fuzzy feeling of being protected or taken care of within the tribal environment. Others, particularly the parasitic ruling classes, saw advantages in the greater degree of social control afforded by the tribal organisation. As Ayn Rand pointed out, there is only one means of survival available to those who live parasitically off the efforts of others: to control those who produce.

As a result, as Karl Popper describes it, ....this civilisation has not yet fully recovered from the shock of its birth...the transition from the tribal or closed society ....to the open society which sets free the critical powers of man. He refers to the rise of reactionary movements throughout history which have tried, and still do, to overthrow civilisation and return to tribalism. Totalitarianism, according to Popper, belongs to a tradition that is just as old, or just as young as civilisation itself [Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Volume 1, Introduction]. Professor F.A.Hayek also identified Socialism and its variants, Communism and Fascism/Nazism as attempts to re-impose tribal values and a tribal organisation on large modern societies [see F.A. Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty (1972-9), esp.Vol.II, p.133 et.seq.].

Globalism is merely the latest version of these reactionary movements, this time striving to create one big global tribe, or global village, an attempt to recreate paleolithic tribal society on a global scale.

What about the so-called big brave capitalists? How does big business fit into this picture? Martin Page, in his book The Company Savage (1972) drew the parallel between the modern corporation and the tribe, which he defined as a group of people who superstitiously believe that, together, they add up to more than the sum of their individual beings. From this superstition springs another notion found in almost all tribal societies: that the tribe itself is a living force in its own right, which exists independently of the people who make it up. In Africa, says Page, tribesmen call this force the Tribal Spirit, in Britain it is called the Company Spirit. This pagan belief is even recognised in corporate law as the fictional persona, the corporate personality. It is also the basis of the idea of the organic corporate state.

Antony Jay, author of the book, Corporation Man (1972), also recognised the similarity between the tribe and the modern corporation and even sought to apply the dynamics of tribal behavior to corporations in a bid to have them function more effectively. Professor Hayek also attributed the recent revival in tribalist thinking to the fact that more and more people were obliged to work in larger and larger organisations, both public and private.

Globalists are socialists and therefore collectivists, in other words, tribalists. They view society not as many individuals, but as various tribes, pressure groups, or human resources whose interests are necessarily in conflict. They readily accept concepts such as inherited tribal guilt, guilt for past wrongs allegedly committed by people of the same tribe or race. It is therefore meaningful for them to apologise for the alleged crimes of their tribal ancestors, and to try to persuade others to do likewise. They are obsessed with issues of race, culture and group rights, while they ignore and set about abolishing individual rights.

The more disturbing aspect of global tribalism lies in the adoption of policies which are having the effect of causing the masses to revert to bicameral or tribal mode. Globalists are committed to mass people conditioning along the lines advocated by B.F. Skinner, and in a society supplied with an abundance of material goods, in which information is carefully controlled by the mass media, and in which independent thought is discouraged from an early age by an education system which rewards conformity, it is possible to achieve that. Masses of people, through the encouragement of mental laziness and reliance on authorities, can be lulled back into bicameral mode. Once there they can be induced to believe almost anything provided it comes from an accepted authority figure or source, such as political leaders, professors of this or that, newspapers with coloured pictures, teachers in the classroom, the lyrics of pop music, or the TV.

People can be persuaded to reject their morality and to adopt values actually threatening to themselves and their society. They can be induced to believe the butchery of defenceless civilians by NATO is a humanitarian action, that war-making is peacekeeping, and that it is wrong to judge people who do such things because moral rules are merely an outmoded form of social control, a conspiracy by naughty people from the old individualist order. Faced with ideas seemingly too difficult to grapple with, bicamerals will reject them out of hand as conspiracy theories or just another person's opinion, and move on to easier things, like sport or gossip.

Large numbers of people in Western society now fit this description. In Australia it tends to be dismissed as political apathy. But the disturbing thing is that the self-styled elitists who now monopolise the institutions of governance.... global governance, and what's left of national governance....are themselves exhibiting signs of bicameralism, increasingly inhabiting an imaginary world of their own making, and making statements which bear no relation to reality or to logical consistency.

That bicameralism should infect the institutions of governance is not surprising. According to Martin Page, tribalists gain from the tribe a sense of identity that they mostly cannot provide from within themselves. Expulsion from the tribe can lead to breakdown, even death, through the loss of this. It follows that the prospect of expulsion can motivate members to accept unquestioningly the beliefs and values of the group, no matter how bizarre they might be, gaining authentication for those beliefs from the fact that significant numbers of influential people subscribe to them.

Politicians, bureaucrats and academics operating in bicameral mode can believe that the world is warming up even though it isn't, an economy can be healthy even though it is over a quarter of a trillion dollars in debt, that globalisation can be good for Australia even though it requires the surrender of the nation state, that increasing monopoly in economics is leading to increased competition, that banning unpopular views is consistent with free speech, that discriminating against discrimination prevents discrimination, that giving preferential treatment in the allocation of state benefits or employment to some groups at the expense of others promotes equality, and that a conspiracy between government and opposition to exclude parties like One Nation from the political process is consistent with democracy. They can also be persuaded that the sexual mollestation of children is not paedophilia but cross-generational sex, that every child has a right to a relationship with a loving paedophile, and that the merging of semen with faeces in an anus has equal legitimacy to its deposition in a vagina.

Ultimately, fed the right sort of bunkum, bicamerals in government, the bureaucracies, academia and the media can come to inhabit an upside-down world which has no relation to reality, in which the unreal becomes the real and vice versa, in which good becomes bad, lies become truth, ugliness becomes beauty, morality is dismissed as a social control conspiracy, in which evil becomes good, crime goes unpunished while innocence is condemned, perversion is normal, self-defence is a crime against the attacker, real assets can be bought with imaginary money, and tyranny is freedom (from the tyranny of too much freedom). It's the world of Rousseau in which men must be forced to be free, or of George Orwell in which war is peace, freedom is slavery, and 2 and 2 make 5. Get used to it. That's the new world order.