Do the elite crave or fear a global government?

Just some musings

As people here probably know, I have been trying to find out why so many conspiracy theorist seem to want to aid the wealthy elite.
One theme is common to many of them, a hatred of a global government, they claim that the wealthy elite want to bring in a world government and that people should try and stop one from being formed.

But why?

The fact is that the wealthy elite who have been making a great deal of money out of economic globalisation would not want a democratic global government that would very likely limit its power and be more able to tax their wealth.

As pointed out in the book ‘The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order’ by George Monbiot democratically elected global institution could go a long way to right many of the wrongs of economic globalisation by making those that are profiting from it to be accountable to the worlds people.

It suits the wealthy elite to have a disunited world while they can act globally, a united world with integrated tax, legal, social, environmental and fiscal policies would limit their power.

We are unlikely to limit economic globalisation so unless we as a people can regulate it the few will have greater power than the many. So if our goal is to limit the power of the global Establishment shouldn't we be working for a democratically elected global government not against one.



**

 

That's it, you've done it.

All respect for your views have gone out the window.

Give me 3 examples in history of increased centralized power being a disadvantage to elitists.

anyone else who is finally sick of Balbus's pro-nwo, pro-establishment, for-the-good-of-the-people, if we just elect the right people and take away every one else's guns and hate speech, recreate a new constitution, smear tactics, lies, twisting of words, hounding, bullying and state sponsered propaganda can find me here: http://flag.blackened.net/forums

and here:

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=201

Ciao,

Shane

P.S.

You and Rat reek of shill.

 

Why am I a shill, Shane? I am not the one who supports world government. I do everything I can to warn people against it. So that makes me a shill?

If anyone is a shill, it's little teenage anarchist commies like yourself, whose movement is controlled by the NWO. I have never seen more gullible dupes than those in the anarchist movement, most of whom don't have a clue as to how the system is set up. It's a movement of young followers looking to identify with other malcontents like themselves. I mean, how can ANYONE take an anarchist seriously?

Balbus, on the other hand, appears to be a propagandist for the NWO elite. This should make his motives HIGHLY questionable.

All you have to do is read these people's writings to see they want a world government. If you are too pathetic to do the research, you deserve to not have the facts.

The fact is, the central bankers, not the politicians, wield the ultimate power. It is the bankers and their minions in the CFR, RIIA, Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission who want this world government, and the politicians are either their willing servants or dupes.

Just look at these quotes here. (And these are only just a small few I was able to quickly dig up. These Elites make no attempt at hiding their agenda in their publications which they know most of the public does not read.):

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."

-- Statement made before the United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 by James Paul Warburg

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries"

--David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991

"My country's history, Mr. President, tells us that it is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity, that common action is possible despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see here in this chamber. Progress and peace and justice are attainable. So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order."

-- Henry Kissinger, in address before the General Assembly of the United Nations, October 1975

"The Technocratic Age is slowly designing an every day more controlled society. The society will be dominated by an elite of persons free from traditional values (!) who will have no doubt in fulfilling their objectives by means of purged techniques with which they will influence the behavior of people and will control and watch the society in all details". "... it will become possible to exert a practically permanent watch on each citizen of the world".

-- Zbigniew Brzezinski

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism and religious dogmas ... We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school teachers, our politicians, our priests, our newspapers and others with vested interests in controlling us."

The reinterpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of the old people, these are the belated objectives ... for charting the changes of human behavior."

-- DIRECTOR, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION Brock Chisolm

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated [emphasis mine], that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."

--Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."

-- Strobe Talbot, Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

 

I dunno rat, maybe it's the fact that almost everything you champion, almost everything you claim to be truth, almost everything you rant against, is the exact same as those of anarchists and/or libertarians.

And yet you devote time to ridiculing anarchism in general without being able to point to a single piece of anarchism out of line with your thinking.

"How can anyone take an anarchist seriously?"

Why? Because of State infiltration and distraction tactics? that doent say anything about anarchist ideals or goals, only of the need to be cautious about the "anarchist" organizations an individual aligns himself with.

Have you ever wondered why the government infiltrates anarchists and greens?

Here's a clue: It's for the same reasons that 9/11 scholars are marginalized, opponents of zionism are labeled rascists and ELF/ALF are shoved into the same catagory as Bin Laden (who is working for the nwo btw).

How do you show opposition to elitism, the nwo, religious dogma, industrial rape of resources, wage slavery, wars of conquest, zionist oppression, rascism, marginalization, and the false mediation of revolt by undermining the very type of people that has always embodied the natural rejection of all these?

Too contradictory.

And so I say, shill.

http://flag.blackened.net/forums

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=201

 

The anarchist movement aside, the theory of anarchism has always been closely related to socialism, and anarchists are most often Leftist socialists. I am not a Leftist or a socialist, and I make no secret about this. I am also not a libertarian, though I may share similar ideas with some libertarians on some issues.

My criticism of anarchism goes straight to the roots. Bakunin and Marx were not only friends and members of the International Social Democratic Alliance, they were also high-level freemasons and disciples of Weishaupt and his teachings. They also shared the belief in the abolition of private property, family, and inheritance. Also, the belief that all children should be brought up (indoctrinated) on a uniform system (ie: public education).

 

You don't have to be leftist to be an anarchist.
I hate the left.
In fact ridding ourselves of the left/right paradigm has been a growing concern for anarchist for the past 7+ years.

Let's say that it true (for the sake of arguement) that Bakunin was a disciple of Weishaupt. That doesn't mean he was working hand in hand with Marx the entire time.


"Everything about Bakunin is genuine: his struggle, sufferings and death. Everything about Marx is bogus: his thirty years of incitement from the British Museum reading-room, his comfortable life on Friedrich Engels's bounty, his obviously ca1culated marriage to a "von", his genteel funeral with graveside orations; all are typical of the petty bourgeois who so loudly declaimed against the bourgeoisie."


"Broken in health Bakunin died a few years later, and apparently brought on his end by refusing to take food. With him died any hope (if such hope ever existed) that the organized world-revolution might be used to overthrow tyranny and liberate men; from the moment that it came "entirely under the auspices of Jews" (Disraeli) its purpose was to enslave men and to establish an indestructible tyranny. Bakunin's idea was to organize force against oppression, and the worst oppressor of all, in his eyes, was The State. These are his words: "The State is not society, it is only an historical form of it, as brutal as it is abstract. It was born historically, in all countries, of the marriage of violence, rapine, pillage, in a word, war and conquest . . . It has been from its origin, and it remains still at present, the divine sanction of brutal force and triumphant inequality. The State is authority; it is force; it is the ostentation and infatuation of force ..."

http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/Controversybook/TheWarningsofDisraeli.htm

If any of this is true (i think it's bullshit), then Blanc was worse than useless, Marx the destined tool, and Bakunin the rebellious son.

Everything about Bakunin life and works went against the grain of the illumanadi and DID NOT further it's cause.

that's why he wasn't the succesor.

And community supported "public education" doesnt mean "state run education".

 

Shane

As I’ve said I’m not sure that your views are what I see as being Anarchy they seem more like a survivalist version of Social Darwinism.

Here is my reply to some of your comments in the thread “The lefts better argument”


“I do care.

That is where we seem to differ, both emotionally and politically.

The Anarchist philosophy I admire is also caring, in it welfare would not be needed because people would care for others without having to be asked to. Laws to set such things as minimum wage would not be needed because people would get a fair and decent payment for their services because those employing them would see that as the caring thing to do. To me an anarchist society is one in which everyone cares for each other, the community and the planet.

When you say that to you Anarchy means giving everyone a gun, and letting each individual sort out his or her own survival, I can only despair. That is not a caring society it is its complete opposite. It would create a terrifying turmoil, an brutish place where everyone is in competition with everyone else for the resources to live, a place where human life is cheep and where the population (according to you) would just “drop off” in what I presume is some Darwinist free for all orgy of death.

I like most people don’t want to be permanently alone, I may like to take solitary walks or sit in solitary contemplation, but on the whole I want and like company. Even coming here is a part of that, I come to debate ideas with others because I enjoy the experience of interacting. I enjoy parties, the company of friends and family and I love been with my partner and child. To a large extent a human beings emotional wellbeing is dependent on such interactions.

The people I know are my tribe my clan, we learn from each other, help and support each other, but they are also just fellow humans I have meet along my way. A stranger in Toledo, Moscow, Hong Kong or Chipping Sudbury is just a stranger because you haven’t got to know them. As such I care for them as fellow humans and although the emotional bonds are not as strong as those I have with my friends they still exist.

You seem to be saying that this is wrong in some way that I should only care about myself and at a pinch, my very immediate family.

How is a society like that meant to work?

All you’ve said so far is that it would involve some kinds of ‘organisations’ that would come together in some way or other and kind of sort things out in some way you can’t explain.

But beyond these fuzzy comments you will not go, because you admit you don’t know.

But it seems to me that if no one cares about anything beyond looking after number one, how are they going to care enough even to get involved in organising anything beyond their own self interest.

I mean you make it quiet plain that in your opinion the human next door is the same as a human in Dafur and a person should not care what happens to either of them, since it has nothing to do with you. So if a persons next door neighbour is being raped, tortured or hacked to pieces with a machete they shouldn’t care, help or even empathise with them. What happens to other people should be a complete irrelevance.

So if people are too sick to make a living, let them die. If people are too old to survive let them die? If you kill a hundred people by selling them dangerous drugs or infected meat that’s ok? Poison a river and kill a thousand, fine. Make the planet uninhabitable for people in the future, that all right too. I mean you owe them nothing all that is important is your immediate survival.

But to me that’s not Anarchy, it is utter madness.”

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2691450#post2691450

**

I can give many examples from history where increased democracy has improved the quality of life and liberty of the people. Or are you saying the most people were better off under feudalism or absolute monarchy?

**

You say that I’m full of “shill” well that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it, but running away because you are unwilling to defend your own views against criticism seems to me like you are afraid deep down that they are impossible to be defend.

**

 

OK I normally don’t like cut and pasting long articles but it is obvious that people have no idea of the context within which to place the debate, so I thought this might help.


The Age of Consent

Text of lecture given to the Royal Society of Arts, and printed in their magazine
By George Monbiot, June 2004

Without global democracy, national democracy is impossible. If you don’t believe me, take a look at what has happened to Luiz Inacio da Silva. Before he became president of Brazil, Lula promised to transform the way his country was run. The economy would be managed for the sake of society, rather than society for the sake of the economy. Well I think it is fair to say that he has done his best. But Brazil still looks like a neoliberal economy. The reason is obvious: the key economic decisions were not made by him, but by the financial speculators and the International Monetary Fund. Even if our representatives want to change the way our nations are run, they are unable to do so. They become technocrats, managers of the conditions thrust upon them.
The shift of power to the global sphere is the reason why almost every major political party on earth now has the same policies. Their policies are pre-determined by the banks and financial speculators, the corporations and the global institutions. At the national level, there is democracy but no choice. At the global level, there is choice but no democracy. The great question of our age is what the hell we intend to do about it.
Many within our movement have responded to this problem in two related ways. The first is to seek to regain control of politics by dragging it back to the only level at which true democracy could be said to work: the local community. The second is to accept that representative politics has failed, and to ditch it in favour of “participatory” or “direct” democracy. I understand and sympathise with both positions. But I feel they are inadequate responses to the challenges we face.
All the issues we care about most – climate change, international debt, nuclear proliferation, war, the balance of trade between nations – can be resolved only at the global or the international level. Without global measures, it is impossible to see how we might distribute wealth from rich nations to poor ones, tax the mobile rich and their even more mobile money, control the shipment of toxic waste, sustain the ban on landmines, prevent the use of nuclear weapons, broker peace between nations or prevent powerful states from forcing weaker ones to trade on their terms. By working only at the local level, we leave these, the most critical of issues, to the men who have appointed themselves to run the world.
Moreover, everything we attempt to implement at the local level can be destroyed at the global or the continental level. Look at what the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas has done to local environmental protection. Look at what the General Agreement on Trade in Services will do to public education and healthcare. Look at what European subsidies have done to small farmers in the developing world. Ignoring global governance does not make it go away. It is happening now. It will continue to happen, with or without us. And – and this is the most uncomfortable truth with which we must engage – it must happen, if the issues which concern us are not to be resolved simply by the brute force of the powerful.
It seems to me, in other words, that it is not enough to think globally and act locally, important as this is. We must act globally as well. Our task is not to overthrow globalisation, but to capture it, and to use it as a vehicle for humanity’s first global democratic revolution.
Now many will respond, “but we are operating at the global level already. Are you not aware of the protests in Seattle, Cancun, Genoa and one hundred other cities? Are you not aware of the World Social Forum and the meetings which build up to it? Are we not already doing all that we can to seize control of global politics?”
My response is that these are the most exciting political developments in decades, and that we have begun a movement which really does have the potential to change the world.
But we have two basic problems, with which we must engage if we are serious about global justice. The first is that, vast and inspiring as our movements are, they have not yet shaken the seat of power, and do not yet show any sign of being able to do so. We rightly exposed, for example, the outrageous trading demands of the rich nations, and helped some of the weaker nations to find the courage to stand up to them, contributing to the collapse of the reviled World Trade Organisation. But has this prevented injustice? Not a bit of it. The European Union and the US have discovered that they are in fact better off without the WTO. They have now struck bilateral deals with most of the weaker nations, which are even more oppressive than the policies they tried to impose through the trade organisation. What we have found, in other words, is that the WTO was not power, simply the organisation through which power was brokered. We have helped to smash a symbol of power. We have done nothing to prevent the exercise of power.
The second problem is that, though we have a better claim than any other global grouping to speak on its behalf, we are not the world. Most of us who attend the national and global social forums, who travel to our capitals or other people’s to protest, who fill cyberspace and the printed page with our opinions and debates, are members of a priveleged minority. We have time, money, passports, literacy and access to technology.
At the European Social Forum in November, I was struck by how young and how white the meetings were. It is a wonderful thing that young white people gather in vast numbers to discuss the issues neglected by mainstream politics. But we spoke and argued there as if we were speaking and arguing on behalf of everyone. Participatory politics is valuable and important, but at any level above that of the local community, it becomes representative politics, only with this difference: that we elect ourselves to represent everyone else.
These two problems are, I feel, closely connected. Our power is limited partly because our mandate is limited. In all periods of history, people seeking democracy under conditions of dictatorship have possessed two sources of power. The first is force of arms. Modern military technology ensures that the overthrow of existing powers by means of armed civilian revolt has become all but impossible. If we sought to storm the modern world’s Bastille at Guantanamo Bay, we would be blown to bits long before we came anywhere near. Terrorism, of course, remains an effective weapon: Bin Laden’s key demand, that US troops be removed from Saudi Arabia, has quietly been met by the superpower. But, like all violent revolutionary means, it is inherently anti-democratic. It requires secrecy, while democracy requires transparency and accountability. It empowers those with the means to violence, and they are likely, once their first aims have been met, to turn it against the citizens with whom they disagree.
So just one legitimate source of power remains: moral authority. It is the force which helped to remove Marcos, Ceauceascu, Suharto, Milosevic, de Lozada and Shevardnadze from government. It is the force we possess in some measure already – why else did James Wolfenson, the head of the World Bank, apply to speak at the World Social Forum last year? It is a force which we would possess in far, far greater measure if we could show that we represented the people of the world, rather than just ourselves.
Alongside our participatory forums, in other words, we need to build a representative forum. We need a world parliament.
Many people consider this an appalling idea, and I can understand why. Representative democracy at the national and the regional level looks bad enough. Why on earth would we want to replicate that system at the global level? And if true democracy can function only at the level of the community, surely by the time we get to the global level, it’s going to be a pretty shoddy version of the Athenian (or Zapatistan) ideal.
The answer to the second question is yes, it will be. But I would ask you this. If not by this means, then what? Not having a world parliament is also a decision. It is a decision to permit the world to continue to be run by a self-appointed group of men from the rich nations. A world parliament is a far-from-perfect solution to the problem of global governance. But not nearly as far-from-perfect as the alternative: permitting the global dictatorship to resolve the problem on our behalf.
The answer to the first question is also yes. The existing model of national parliamentary or congressional democracy in most parts of the world is a dreadful template on which to base a new system. It has been corrupted by monied interests, by unfair voting systems, by executive power and media control. But there are many lessons we can learn from the failures of our systems, and I would like to take a moment to spell some of these out.
I suggest in The Age of Consent a number of safeguards which could make a world parliament radically different from national parliaments. Most importantly, it must belong to the people from the beginning of the process. With our vast international networks, we are in a good position to start building a representative assembly from the bottom up.
In the first instance, I see such a parliament as operating purely by means of its moral authority. Its purpose would be to draw up principles of good global governance, assess the performance of the other international bodies against those principles, and call upon them to answer for themselves when they are found to fall short. This presents those other bodies with an uncomfortable choice. Either they disregard the parliament’s request, in which case they abandon any claim to be acting in the public interest, or they turn up and go through the motions, in which case they recognise and therefore enhance the parliament’s authority.
What we have here, in other words, is a means of making the instruments of global governance respond to the demands of the people. But this means would be weak if applied to the current instruments, most of which are constitutionally obliged to represent only the interests of the major powers. It would be a powerful means when applied to a system which was constitutionally just. Our next task is to create that system.
My starting point in trying to figure out what such a system might look like is this: that the only thing worse than a world with the wrong global institutions is a world with no global institutions at all. We’ve seen what that looked like: 500 years of European colonisation, theft, piracy, murder and genocide. Of course, the existing system of global governance, controlled by the major powers, has not prevented most of these things from happening today, but that is not an argument against global governance. It is an argument for a global political system which belongs to the world’s people.
Let us assume for the moment that we have the means to design whatever system we please. What would that system be? It seems to me that it must do what the existing global institutions claim to do but fail to do. In other words, we need a body through which nations can negotiate with each other to achieve peace. We need a body which distributes wealth between nations. We need a body which lays down fair trading rules, defending citizens and the environment. To travel from here to there means transforming some of the world’s institutions and destroying others.
I should emphasise at this point, as the idea is commonly misunderstood, that I am not talking about any further transfer of powers from the nation states to global or international bodies. I am simply talking about the democratisation of those powers which have already been ceded by nation states to the global level. I am not inventing global governance, but merely trying to make it work in the interests of the people.
Let us start with the United Nations. In principle, it’s a good idea. In practice, it helps the strong to bully the weak, for three reasons. The first is that the permanent members of the Security Council have been granted absolute power. The second is that it is riddled with rotten boroughs: the tiny nations have the same vote as the very large ones. This is grossly unfair – every Tuvaluan, for example, is worth 100,000 Indians – and it also means that the strong nations have a powerful incentive to kick the small ones around. The third is that the dictatorships have the same voting rights as the democracies, and none of the attendant governments have any obligation to refer to their people before voting.

Part One -

 

Part Two -

It seems to me that the answer here is not to junk the UN, but to democratise it. The first step is surely to scrap the Security Council and vest its powers in the UN General Assembly. The second is to weight the votes of the member states according to their country’s size and their degree of democratisation. Democracy rankings are already being developed by groups such as Democratic Audit. But we should begin to develop our own. Among the criteria we should investigate are the nation’s degree of economic democracy (the distribution of wealth) and the extent of public consultation before global voting takes place.

This weighting of votes has the double benefit of democratising global governance and encouraging national democratisation, as the quickest means by which a nation can enhance its power at the global level. It also means that the nations with the biggest votes – the largest and most democratic – are the hardest to bully and blackmail: vote-buying, in other words, becomes much more difficult.

There is a further possible outcome of this process: over time, we could envisage the reformed General Assembly and the world parliament beginning to draw together. The parliament enhances the assembly’s legitimacy by holding it to account; the members of the assembly enhance their voting powers by encouraging elections to the world parliament. We have the makings, in other words, of a bicameral parliament for the planet. We could then envisage a transfer of real powers from the indirectly- elected chamber to the directly-elected chamber.

While the UN is, in theory, reformable, the IMF and the World Bank are not. It’s not just that they are controlled by the rich world but operate in the poor world. They are also constitutionally obliged to place the entire burden of dealing with trade deficits and international debt on the deficit and debtor nations, which are least able to do anything about them. When they were established in 1944, a much better idea had already been proposed.

John Maynard Keynes had been working on his proposal for an International Clearing Union for 12 years. When he unveiled it in 1943, it was almost universally recognised as a work of genius. Not only had he solved the problem of debt and the balance of trade; he had also discovered a formula for global economic stability. The Clearing Union was a bank operating at the international level, in which nations held their trade accounts. They would be charged interest not only on their trade deficits, but also on their trade surpluses. Before the end of every year, therefore, when the interest payments fell due, they would have a powerful incentive to “clear” their accounts – in other words, to end up with neither a deficit nor a surplus. The only way in which surplus nations can clear their accounts is to change their terms of trade, so that they import more and export less. By getting rid of their surpluses, in other words, they also get rid of other nations’ deficits. As accumulated trade deficits are the major component of international debt, by preventing the accumulation of deficits you also prevent the accumulation of debt.

Keynes’s idea was blocked by the US government. Many economists warned at the time that the result would be a massive accumulation of unpayable debt on the part of the poor nations, and a corresponding increase in the powers of the rich nations. They have been vindicated. It is time to bring the Clearing Union back to life.

We also need some kind of a global trading body, if the weaker nations are to have any possibility of collective bargaining. A fair trade regime might look something like this:

The nations which are poor today would be permitted to follow the routes to development taken by the nations which are rich today. This means protecting their new industries from foreign competition until they are big enough to fight their own corner, and making free use of other countries’ intellectual property, for trade within their own borders and with other poor nations. What I am suggesting, in other words, is a sliding scale of trade priveleges: the poorest nations are permitted full protection of their infant industries and the free use of intellectual property; slightly richer nations lesser priveleges, the richest nations none at all.

But this is only one component of fair trade. A Fair Trade Organisation would also become an international licensing authority for corporations. Only those companies which can demonstrate that they are not employing slaves, banning trades unions or dumping their pollutants in the rivers would be permitted to trade internationally. All global trade is therefore run on the principles of the fair trade movement today. A corporation wishing to trade internationally must employ monitoring companies to examine its performance and report back to the FTO. Among the criteria they apply should be the requirement that companies pay the full costs of production themselves, rather than dumping their costs on other people or the environment.

So how does any of this happen? All international treaties have the threat of force behind them, and if we are to design new ones, those who are weak today must find the means of becoming strong. I believe that these means exist. The poor nations have a weapon they have never recognised as such. That weapon is their debt.

It is often said that if you owe the bank $1000, you’re in trouble; while if you owe the bank $1 million, the bank is in trouble. So what if you owe the bank $2.2 trillion? What if, between them, the poor nations own the global financial system? If they were to threaten a sudden collective default on their debt unless they got what they wanted, they would transform their greatest enemies – the financial markets – into their allies. The banks would be forced to go to their governments and say: if you don’t give them what they want, we, and therefore you, are ruined. This is by no means the only weapon the poor world possesses, but this is the scale on which we have think if we are serious about a global transformation.

And the citizens of the rich world are not without their weapons either. Our greatest ally is currently the president of the United States. For the past three years, he has been attacking the very institutions which were designed to sustain his power: the UN, the World Trade Organisation, even the IMF and World Bank. In doing so, he has been presenting the other powerful nations with a stark choice: either they accept that from now on the world will be run directly from Washington, without their involvement, or they seek to build new multilateral systems. Already they are choosing the latter option, constructing an International Criminal Court and seeking to ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change. But they cannot take on one superpower without the support of the other, namely global public opinion. This provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to press our own demands.

What I have attempted in The Age of Consent is not a final or definitive description of a new world order, but an analysis of existing patterns of power and their weaknesses, and of the means we might possess of exploiting those weaknesses to try to turn an injust world order into a just one. To some people it will seem under-ambitious, to others wildly optimistic. But I hope it helps to stimulate debate and concentrate minds on the question which looms behind all the issues with which we engage: what do we do about global power? None of the means I have proposed are easy or certain of success. But it seems to me that unless we seek to devise a political programme with global reach, we are certain only of failure.

http://www.monbiot.com/

 

You know i'm not, so stop twisting shit around!

Anyone wanting an example of Balbus's tactics need only look at the thread he reffered to: http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169214

Read that entire thread, and then you tell me...

 

Shane

I said – “The fact is that the wealthy elite who have been making a great deal of money out of economic globalisation would not want a democratic global government that would very likely limit its power and be more able to tax their wealth” and “democratically elected global institution could go a long way to right many of the wrongs of economic globalisation”

I didn’t mention centralisation once.
.
You replied – “Give me 3 examples in history of increased centralized power being a disadvantage to elitists”

As I’ve said I had not mentioned centralisation once only democracy, so presuming you where somehow associating democracy with centralisation I relied – “I can give many examples from history where increased democracy has improved the quality of life and liberty of the people. Or are you saying that most people were better off under feudalism or absolute monarchy?

You reply “You know i'm not, so stop twisting shit around!”

This has me confused, so why did you mention centralisation in this context when I hadn’t, could it be that you were trying to twist the meaning of what I’d said or something?

**

"Anyone wanting an example of Balbus's tactics need only look at the link he's provided. Read the entire thread, and then you tell me..."

What tactics?

I hope people do read the thread it was an interesting discussion. I thought you were doing very well until you began ranting about giving everyone a gun and letting them fight it out.

But to understand it completely I’d also suggest they read the thread ‘Is Anarchy ‘post-leftist
(http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170713)

 

cen·tral·ize ( P ) Pronunciation Key
v. cen·tral·ized, cen·tral·iz·ing, cen·tral·iz·es
v. tr.
To draw into or toward a center; consolidate.

To bring under a single, central authority: The Constitution centralizes political power in the federal government.

v. intr. To come together at a center; concentrate.



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/centralization


So you tell me, how does the economic and political dissolvement of "a disunited world" and the creation of "global government" not constitute a centralization of power and resources? Democratic, Autocratic, Theocratic, doesn't matter, it's still one State claiming to be sovereign over all.

Interesting my ass. I got sick of answering your questions, just so you could either pretend i didnt and keep asking them or give meaning to my responses that were not even hinted at.

How many times in that thread did i address your "Parent/State trying to look out for the best interest of the child/individual" arguement?

You make sure ever discussion you are in very much one sided with the other's views distorted as hell.

Bravo, i'm sure your debating team would give you a high five, but for someone wanting a real conversation you just appear to be an ass.

So would i.

Let the see how many times i answer the same questions over and over and over....

 

Shane

Great, so I was right you did associate the democratic government I was theorising about with centralisation.

So when I said – “I can give many examples from history where increased democracy has improved the quality of life and liberty of the people. Or are you saying that most people were better off under feudalism or absolute monarchy?”

It was correct, I wasn’t trying to twist anything as you claimed.

So you seem to agree that increased democracy has improved the quality of life and liberty of the people in the past. All I’m saying is that it could do it again in the future?

**

“How many times in that thread did i address your "Parent/State trying to look out for the best interest of the child/individual" arguement?”

Well actually never. As I pointed out I’d asked - Would you lead the girl to safety? And you’d reply rather evasively along the lines of - I think it terrible that some politicians use fear to pass legislation I don’t like. (post 68)

The closest you came to it was saying you would treat your child and a stranger from Toledo differently (post 73), but I gave you my opinion of that viewpoint in a following post (76) to which you didn’t reply.


But that really is a mater for the other thread if you wish to return to it I’d be very happy to continue the discussion.

**

 

Increased decentralized (local, state, federal) democratic power does disadvantage elitists. Increased democratic power (rule by the people for the people) makes elites, the powerful and wealthy answer to the many. Without this democratic power(democratic governments) who will the elites answer to but themselves?

Now, it is another story whether democratic governments are under the power of the people or under the power of elites.

 

It's amazing how some people are so brainwashed and naive that they buy into all this bullshit about "democracy" (which is one of the WORST forms of government EVER!) that is being promoted by the very people who want this world government. They get behind causes that seem wholesome and for the good of the people because they know stupid but well-meaning people will fall for it. After all, who wouldn't want a united world without wars, where everyone just shares the land and we all walk around barefoot? Some people just don't understand that there is a difference between the way things are sold to the masses (ie: propaganda) and how they really are. Then again, they don't have a clue about the people who are behind this one world government, which are the same elite families who have funded and manipulated every major war of the past 100 years (and before that) into being. One of the key purposes of war is the centralization of power, along with mass psychological manipulation.

It's these same Elites who control the media and just about everything we read and hear.

People like Balbus obviously haven't read the writings of Elite gofers like Kissinger and Brzezinski, who openly talk about a one world government in their books, where eugenics plays a major role, as well as direct control over the human mind through technology and drugs. As Brzezinski called it, a technocratic society where computers are interfaced with the human mind. Brzezinski was talking about this back in the 70s, and now, in the age of terrorism, mandated microchips for every man, woman and child are just another 9/11-style attack away.

World government IS the centralization of power in the most blatant form. If the elites are so against world government as you claim, which is just ABSURD, then how do you explain the creation of the EU, which was created behind the backs of of the people? It's just like now, with the North American Union, which is being created without the public's knowledge or informed consent. These are nothing more than building blocks for a centralized world government, so it would figure the public has no say in any of this, let alone is allowed to even know about it before everything is already all said and done (as was the case with the EU).

Anyone who thinks the Elite are against a one world government had better go back and take another look. All you really have to do, if you have eyes, is take a look around you. We are well on our way to world government, and we have been for the better half of the past century. We are at the tail end of it now, and if people do not stand up and take action, we will -- I repeat WILL -- see a fascistic one world government within our lifetime, if not within the next 5-10 years.

It's all about the control over the many by the very few, who feel they are superior to the rest of humanity in which they see as cattle that need to be dominated and controlled. People like Balbus are buying right into the hands of these people while they laugh their asses off at how damn gullible they are.

If people believe that idiots like Bush and Blair have the ultimate say in ANYTHING, they are never going to understand how the system works. They are never going to understand that those who control the money -- not the "elected officials" -- have the power, and it's these people who are working to fulfill the goal of a world government from behind the scenes, which is a goal that is literally hundreds of years old.

 

Is a world government possible? Sadly yes, but knowing this, what options are we left with? Now Rat, if we are indeed "cattle" as you've written, there is obviously nothing we can do to avert such a frightening future. If protests, political groups, and all other elements of what we think of as democracy are controlled by these Elite, then it seems we should just surrender to fate. On the other hand Rat, if you are as aware of this scenario as you claim to be, then there must be a way to stop this from emerging as our future. What are we to do? What are your proposals? Clearly, according to your beliefs, all the facets of civil disobedience are already corrupted by the powers that be. I'm saying this free of hostility or confrontation, what are we supossed to do?

 

I never said anyone is cattle. That is how the Elite view society. They feel they have to dumb us down so they can better control us, which is exactly what they're doing.

I am not against protesting if it's done at a grassroots level and not the product of NGOs that are funded by the major tax-exempt, Elite-controlled foundations such as the Carnegie Endowment and Ford Foundation. Unfortunately, few large protests -- especially the ones which receive widespread media coverage -- are.

I also feel it's important that people know what they're protesting against. Most people only know what the media has told them, which is why the opposition is largely a controlled opposition. Because not only is the anti-war movement funded by the NGOs and tax-exempt foundations, the information people are receiving is also controlled. You will find those in the anti-war movement talking about how evil Bush is (and I agree he is an evil bastard) and how he lied about WMDs in Iraq, but rarely do you hear anything mentioned about the neocon agenda and what its goals really are.

For instance, regarding the War on Terror, rarely do you hear people talking about how the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were planned out years in advance by the zionist Project for the New American Century, and well before 9/11, which was used as a pretext to engage in these imperialistic wars for centralized control. Oil is but a mere fraction of what it's really about, though because people are told that's what it's about, it becomes their mantra and they look no further. How convenient.

This is just one example among many which I won't get into tonight.

Before the public takes the action needed, they need to become informed as to how the system works. Protesting is meaningless if people don't know what they're protesting. Standing in the street with the unwashed masses holding up signs reading "BUSH LIED" and "STOP THE WAR" does nothing. This isn't the 60s anymore.

 

The Elite are a symptom of neurotic fears, and it is these fears that also motivate our common craving for a Global Hierarchical Father-Figure Government

Global Society normally would be a natural human growth; clans, who find they share common ground, eventually join into tribes, tribes join into nations, and nations naturally join globally on this little biosphere.

Egalite', not Hierarchy is the social norm throughout human history, and normally Globalization would be a healthy organic social evolution.

However, this late social anomoly we call Hierarchical civilization is accelerating and shaping the Globalization process in a pathological direction.

Global exploitation and Global protection of private property is the ambition of every one raised in the status competition of hierarchical civilization.

Because amongst fear-driven men both property and hierarchy generate powerful psycho-sexual anal-associations, property and hierarchy naturally become the preoccupation of Global Government.

The Elite within the Hierarchy are simply creating a Global Government that most effectively expresses their anal-preoccupations with property and hierarchy.

That's true of every civilized man, and expresses the Global desires of every civilized man, while The Elite are simply more ambitious about it.

While at the forefront of taking full advantage of the competitive disunity dividing nation-states, The Elite are also at the forefront creating Global Government protection for their now global property rights.

The Global Government that exists now is the Global Government of property and hierarchy.

Since 1492 a de facto Global Property Aquisition Racket has conquered and governed all four corners of The Globe.

Indeed, the seed of the Global Government of Property and Hierarchy was sown 500 generations ago as the Middle East was turning into the desert it is today.

A local behavioral adaptation of a small group of men reacting to the stress of a dying environment by regressing to childhood, submissively surrendered their adult autonomy, and like a fear-driven child sought the security and authority of Hierarchical Father-Figures.

Global Government is not shaped by mentally healthy and wholistic individuals, but by the now six billion anal-retentive, social-climbing, status-seekers fighting to be closer to the Social Elite within the Hierarchy of Civilization.

This is not a simple Elite conspiracy, this is a now, near-universal, Global psycho-dynamic.

I know, it's not a pretty picture.

The Left, however, is the political direction that opposes Hierarchy, while the Right is the direction that supports Hierarchy.

True, The Left as a whole, has little understanding of the latent-homosexual psycho-dynamics behind conservative Hierarchy and property.

Yet, unlike those who believe simplistic black and white comic-book caricatures of satan-worshiping evil-doers stiring their Global conspiracy cauldron, The Left, at least unconsciously, seeks mental health through a non-Hierarchical Global Government as a first step back to the healthy adult autonomy of a normal egalitarian Global Society.

 

Here's a question: do you support policies of multi-culturalism in white nations that are hostile to the demographic/cultural majorities? If you dont, you are on the correct side. Otherwise, you are on the wrong side.

 

could you be more specific or clarify the question?