Thursday, February 15, 2007

The Difference Between Being Globalised and Being Sodomised: Apparently with the latter, there's usually a pillow to bite on

The popular conception of Globalisation is that, at some time or other, governments of the world got together with a view to revolutionising world trade so that, as we are constantly told, the smooth streamlining would lead to an economic Utopia . Of course governments of the world were content to let sleeping dogs lie and weren't about disabusing their governed of this most monumental of illusions. To do otherwise may have had a type of domino effect on other popular illusions, such as the smoke and mirrors production that casts national governments as actually being in control of the nations in which they are ensconced.

As we shall see, in the true state of play national governments have been reduced to little more than pawns on the global chess board, bearing out the sentiment behind the words of one Meyer Rothschild: 'I don't care who makes the laws, as long as I control the money.' 'The money', Meyer knew, would be followed by politicians like birds on a trail of bread crumbs.

Humans, being humans, the urge to dominate has been around since, well ... since humans became humans. With every incremental step that has led to the marvelous peak of technological achievement we stand on today, the scope for domination has increased. When it was that people began thinking in terms of world domination is unclear, but it's a safe bet that it began around the time that people first began conceiving of a world - any kind of world, no matter how small or flat.

Since the world we actually have has been understood as such, the first real attempts at world domination have been made via the great empires. A case in point would be a supposedly determined effort spearheaded by the genius of Cecil Rhodes and using the British Empire as a superstructure.

Lurking in the shadows between empires, rumours have constantly abounded of dark conspiracies aimed at shackling the world for the benefit of small cliques of faceless, immoral men. The more famous include the descendants of the Knight Templars, the Illuminati, the Masons, the Jews, but hard evidence has been sadly lacking. Besides, the logistics and practicalities prevailing during most of the time this scheming was alleged have been taking place would have severely hampered the gathering together of the nuts and bolts needed to anchor any of these schemes in reality. These 'conspiracies' may have belonged more under the heading of 'wishful thinking'.

This, in a nutshell is what separates earlier salivating at the thought of world domination, and the New International Economic Order (NIEO) we are currently being saddled with: lack of hard evidence and the probability of preclusion by practicalities. In regard to the former, the proof is everywhere we look - it is being rammed down our throats; the perpetrators gloat and boast about it. '... the nation-state as a fundamental unit of man's organised life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state,' said Zbigniew Brzezinski (1), of whom more later. Could it be any plainer? They never tire of proclaiming how 'we'll all be better off', because of it. (This must be a private joke. Irrepressible images arise of boardrooms full of men doubled over with laughter: 'if the idiots believe that, they'll believe anything'.)

In regard to the latter, we do not need to be told one more time about the 'global village'. Indeed, in financial terms, the world has shrunk to the size of a large casino, with trillions of dollars sloshing about the planet every day. Our sparkling technology isn't of course limited to the hyper efficient transfer of money; it has also taken communication to limits undreamed of just a few generations ago. 'Communication' can also be read as 'mind control'. Propaganda didn't die with Joseph Goebells - it was hardly even born! In the intervening sixty odd years it has been honed into a devastatingly effective weapon. And of course, should a little less subtlety be called for, war fighting technology has also improved exponentially - perhaps there are some misguided souls who do not fully appreciate the benefits of globalisation: the name given to the world domination that had to eventually become possible, and because it was possible ... well you know the rest.

What drives those who see their reason for existence as the corralling and domination of as many of their fellow humans as possible? Or put another way, what do you get for the man who has everything? Answer: more! And that more is brought more clearly into focus if distilled into two main elements, those being, MONEY and POWER. But we have to try and get our heads around the fact we are not dealing with ordinary men here.

As illuminated in The Global Elite: Who are they? , we are dealing here with men whose appetites are gargantuan, their lusting after the twin treasures of money and power so obsessive, so all consuming, so pathological, it is beyond the comprehension of those not similarly afflicted.

The first, real, great beacon of hope for men such as these was the United Nations. Here was embryonic world government, and after the world being in flames twice in little more than twenty years,with enough despair and enough optimism supporting it, the fulfillment of its potential brimmed with possibility. Indeed, this was the first time in the several centuries since the birth of the nation- state that such states would even consider voluntarily relinquishing even a modicum of sovereignty.

Quickly clustering about the UN, determined to use it as a tool for world governance suiting its own agenda was an organisation known as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Although sparkling with stars of the 'Eastern Elite' it failed for two main reasons: it became too large, diverse and unwieldy and, although immensely formidable, it represented only the elite of North America - much too limited in scope, ability and outlook for a truly global system.

The CFR failed as a grab for global power but as a shake-down exercise and dress-rehearsal for the real thing it was invaluable. The real thing was the Trilateral Commission. Launched in 1973 by the aforementioned Zbiginiew Brzezinski in partnership with David Rockefeller (land for the UN building in New York had been donated by the Rockefeller family), it was constructed according to a bold and ingenious plan.

Moving away from the relatively small pond of North America, it encompassed the three main engines of economic power: the US, Western Europe and Japan. Hence trilateral. After targeting the main areas of moving and shaking in these key chunks of the planet, which were corporate -Rockefeller's domain - academic -Brzezinski - and political - too numerous to list here, the talent scouting was on in earnest. In an ancillary position is the media which doesn't rate alongside the big three as it is dominated by all three. 'In general, the goals for globalisation are created by Corporate. Academic then provides studies and white papers that justify Corporate's goals. Political sells Academics arguments to the public [via the media] and if necessary, changes laws to accommodate and facilitate Corporate in getting what it wants.' (2)

Cherry picking the best and brightest, not to mention greediest and most lustful, advanced at a prodigious pace, attracting the most desired personnel apparently presenting no problem. In fact those tapped for inclusion seem to have positively flocked to the banner of what might arguably be termed the ultimate symbiosis. For example, '.. of the 54 original US members of the Trilateral Commission, Jimmy Carter was fronted to win the presidential election of 1976. Once inaugurated, Carter brought no less than 18 fellow members of the Commission into top- level cabinet and government agencies'. (3)

No US executive since the Carter administration has been free of Commission domination. Bearing in mind that Commission members - American as well as foreign - march to the sound of a different drummer than the one supposedly maintaining the beat of the US national interest, this obviously does not augur well for US sovereignty or democracy. And given that the US leads to 'free world', one can only wonder at the type of freedom that is enjoyed by those who follow the pied piper of globalisation.

As posited, all that has been delineated stands out in sharp relief to all that preceded, which rightly or wrongly belongs in the categorisation of conspiracy theory by virtue of the fact that we can see unfolding before our very eyes a perfectly executed plan that realises exactly all that could be desired by the megalomaniacs who now rule the roost.

For instance, it may just be a wild coincidence that the disease of multiculturalism broke out all over the Western world at almost exactly the same time that The Trilateral Commission was born - although it must be conceded that misguided zealots and ideologues had long struggled, albeit without much success to bring it about. Why would multiculturalism figure in the schemes of the Trilateralists? Simply because the nation- state and that central tenet of Western liberal democracy - individualism - would be the two main stumbling blocks to a world under new, globalist management. These open conspirators knew full well that both would be destroyed by multiracialism and multiculturalism.

Now in private hands, the world with its open borders and free flow of goods, capital and labour is in a 'race to the bottom'. The only logical conclusion is that when all wages have bottomed out around the level of what is paid to Indonesian coolies, and the great preponderance of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few and, with stampeding technology thrown into the mix, the 20/80 world has been entered - 20 percent of the world's population productive, 80 percent nothing but useless mouths to feed - that world won't be fit to live in.

The next time a party politician makes you a promise, you'd better ask him if he has permission to deliver on that promise. And remember, the only antidote to globalism is nationalism.


(1) Between Two Ages: The Technetronic Era, by Zbigniew Brzezinski, as quoted in The August Review, Vol 5, Issue 12

(2) The August Review, Vol5, Issue 12

(3) Ibid



No comments: