Tuesday, July 21, 2009

[global governance] gore comes out with his new idea

These people have appointed themselves your leaders - did you vote for them?


Oh dear, here it is; it's happening at last. Martin reports:

Al Gore has called for 'global governance'.

Just read the language in that report, if you would, the Gore-speak. He, of course, approaches it from the global warming angle. Global warming = totalitarian world state. Somewhere in the grotesque furniture in his brain, he is sitting comfortably and dreaming this stuff up or rather parroting a very old line.

Note these:

1829 - British illuminist and early feminist Frances "Fanny" Wright gives a series of lectures in the United States. She announces that various subversives and revolutionaries are to be united in a movement that will be called "Communism." She explains that the movement is to be made more acceptable to the public by professing to support "equal opportunity" and "equal rights."

Feb. 5, 1891 - Rhodes joins his group from Oxford with a similar group from Cambridge headed by ardent social reformer William Stead. Rhodes and Stead are members of the inner "Circle of Initiates" of the secret society which they found. There is also an outer circle known as the "Association of Helpers." This moved on to the Round Table Groups.

1909-1913 - Lord Alfred Milner organizes the "Association of Helpers" into various Round Table Groups in the British dependencies and the United States.

This is a possible source
on Milner but from the rhetoric, I'm not sure who the authors are. However, each assertion can be checked out in itself.

1912 - Colonel Edward M. House, a close advisor of President Woodrow Wilson, publishes Phillip Dru: Administrator, in which he promotes "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."

1916, Woodrow Wilson:

We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

This quote, at least most of it, can be found on page 185 of "The New Freedom" Woodrow Wilson (1913, Doubleday, Page & Co). In the preface, Wilson describes this book as "the result of the literary skill of Mr William Bayard Hale, who has put together here in their right sequences the more suggestive of my campaign speeches.......I have left the sentences in the form in which they were stenographically reported". You can find the quote without the first few sentences in chapter 8. Also chapter 9 has more. You can find a free e-copy on www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811.

May 30, 1919 - Prominent British and American personalities establish the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England and the Institute of International Affairs in the U.S. at a meeting arranged by Col. House; attended by various Fabian socialists, including noted economist John Maynard Keynes [idealist, labelled by free market economists as socialist].

1921 - Col. House reorganizes the American branch of the Institute of International Affairs into the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

December 15, 1922 - The CFR endorses World Government in its magazine "Foreign Affairs." Author Philip Kerr states:

"Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind as long as the earth remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states, until some kind of international system is created. The real problem today is that of world government."

October 28, 1939 - In an address by John Foster Dulles [later U.S. Secretary of State], he proposes that America lead the transition to a new order of less independent, semi-sovereign states bound together by a league or federal union.

1940 - "The New World Order" is published by the Carnegie Endowment for Peace and contains a select list of references on regional and world federation, together with some special plans for world order after the war.

June 28, 1945 - President Truman endorses world government in a speech:

"It will be just as easy for nations to get along in a republic of the world as it is for us to get along in a republic of the United States."

October 24, 1945 - The United Nations Charter becomes effective.

Feb. 7, 1950 - International financier and CFR member James Warburg tells a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee: "We shall have world government whether or not you like it - by conquest or consent."

April 12, 1952 - CFR member John Foster Dulles [who later became Secretary of State, in speaking before the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky, says:

"Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights."

The significance of this focus on treaties is especially relevant to China and Russia, the former using treaties as a prime political tool to re-order the world. Treaties have not altered the United States as yet as far as sovereignty goes but when it comes time to change the American Constitution, it will be through a crisis, a melting pot and the necessity to honour existing treaties. That's how World War I got under way.

1953 - Rowan Gaither, President of the Ford Foundation, tells a Congressional commission investigating tax-exempt foundations:

"We at the executive level here were active in either the OSS [forerunner of the CIA], the State Department, or the European Economic Administration. During those times, and without exception, we operated under directives issued by the White House. We are continuing to be guided by just such directives, the substance of which were to the effect that we should make every effort to so alter life in the United States as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union."

This White House brought in the Patriot Act.

To continue:

Nov. 25, 1959 - Council on Foreign Relations Study Number 7 calls for a

"...new international order which must be responsive to world aspirations for peace, for social and economic change...an international order...including states labeling themselves as 'socialist' [communist]."

Now note that one - these are the people who have the ear of the White House, e.g. March 23rd, 2005.

To continue:

1959 - "The Mid-Century Challenge to U.S. Foreign Policy" is published, sponsored by the Rockefeller Brothers' Fund. It explains that the U.S.:

"cannot escape, and indeed should welcome...the task which history has imposed upon us. This is the task of helping to shape a new world order in all its dimensions - spiritual, economic, political, social."

1961 - The U.S. State Department issues Document 7277, entitled "Freedom From War: The U.S. Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World." It details a three-stage plan to disarm all nations and arm the U.N. with the final stage in which "no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force."

1962 - "The Future of Federalism" by Nelson Rockefeller claims that current events compellingly demand a "new world order." He says there is:

"A fever of nationalism...but the nation-state is becoming less and less competent to perform its international political tasks...These are some of the reasons pressing us to lead vigorously toward the true building of a new world order...Sooner perhaps than we may realize...there will evolve the bases for a federal structure of the free world."

1968 - Joy Elmer Morgan, former editor of the "NEA Journal," publishes "The American Citizen's Handbook" in which he says:

"The coming of the United Nations and the urgent necessity that it evolve into a more comprehensive form of world government places upon the citizens of the United States an increased obligation to make the most of their citizenship which now widens into active world citizenship."

July 26, 1968 - Nelson Rockefeller pledges that as President, he would work toward international creation of a new world order.

May 18, 1972 - In speaking of the coming world government, Roy M. Ash, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, declares that:

"...within two decades the institutional framework for a world economic community will be in place...and aspects of individual sovereignty will be given over to a supernational authority."

1973 - The Club of Rome issues a report entitled "Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System," dividing the world into ten kingdoms.

April 1974 - Former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Trilateral and CFR member Richard Gardner's article "The Hard Road to World Order" is published in the CFR's "Foreign Affairs," where he states that:

"...the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."

1975 - In Congress, 32 Senators and 92 Representatives sign "A Declaration of Interdependence," which states that:

"we must join with others to bring forth a new world order...Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation."

Congresswoman Marjorie Holt refuses to sign the Declaration saying:

"It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a 'new world order' that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people."

1975 - Retired Navy Admiral Chester Ward, former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy and former CFR member, writes in a critique that the goal of the CFR is the:

"...submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all powerful one-world government..."

I'm placing the next quote by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn here because there is no date to it but much of his work was around this time. He is reported to have said:

...there also exists another alliance — at first glance a strange one, a surprising one—but if you think about it, in fact, one which is well — grounded and easy to understand. This is the alliance between our Communist leaders and your capitalists. This alliance is not new. The very famous Armand Hammer, who is flourishing here today, laid the basis for this when he made the first exploratory trip into Russia, still in Lenin's time, in the very first years of the Revolution.

1977 - "The Third Try at World Order" is published. Author Harlan Cleveland of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies calls for:

"...changing Americans' attitudes and institutions" for "complete disarmament (except for international soldiers)" and "for individual entitlement to food, health and education."

1977 - Carter signs UN charter removing US. sovereignty under UN military command.

1979 - Barry Goldwater, retiring Republican Senator from Arizona, publishes his autobiography "With No Apologies." He writes:

"In my view the Trilateral Commission represents a skilful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power - political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical. All this is to be done in the interest of creating a more peaceful, more productive world community."

Sept. 1980 - At a "Prelude to Victory" party given by Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, Mr. Reagan is photographed with the place of honor, immediately to Reagan's right, given to David Rockefeller, the leader of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

1981 - Congressman Larry McDonald calls for comprehensive congressional investigation of the CFR and Trilateral Commission. Congress is urged to investigate these organizations.

1983 - Larry McDonald is killed along with 268 other passengers on Korean Air Lines (KAL) flight 007, shot down over Sakhalin Island in the Sea of Japan.

1987 - "The Secret Constitution and the Need for Constitutional Change" is sponsored in part by the Rockefeller Foundation. In it, author Arthur S. Miller says:

"...a pervasive system of thought control exists in the United States...the citizenry is indoctrinated by employment of the mass media and the system of public education...people are told what to think about...a new vision is required to plan and manage the future, a global vision that will transcend national boundaries and eliminate the poison of nationalistic solutions...a new Constitution is necessary."
How many more quotes are needed?

Before the detractors begin

Please don't trot out 'conspiracy theorist', 'truther', 'right-wingnut' or whatever. You think the above is a theory? That these people didn't say or write those things at that time? Please tell me which of the above were never actually said and quote your sources as to why you think they were not said, as I've done, in saying that they were said.

"Well, it sounds implausible," I'm afraid, just won't wash. I need hard data as to which of the above was not said or written.

As to you yourself, the person saying I'm a right wingnut - what are your own antecents [or are you hiding behind the Anonymous tag]? I'm happy to tell you who I am and what my politics are.

Here ya go.

Question

So, Gore has trotted out his "global governance" again. He is not a man noted for his inventiveness or imagination. He is in with these people and look at their kooky background. Please, please, dear reader - take the time, devote some time to reading just that post if you haven't the time to read any others on this blog.

Gore trots out what he's been spoonfed and is not only a good globalist but he's also a fruitcake, as set out in that post. My question is this:

If I, James Higham, support the Constitution of the United States in its present form, the sovereignty of that nation and the right of its people to self-determination, if I support the right of our own country here to exist without falling under the EU yolk, if I support the right to free enterprise, the right to order my life as I wish within the rule of law, if I support our Christian roots, then what does that make me - a patriot or a subversive traitor?

Now please apply that question to the so-called "leadership" of the so-called "free world", as evidenced in the quotes above. What does that make them - patriots or traitors? What are Gore, Rockefeller, Mandelson and Brown/Blair?

I'll tell you what they are - they're traitors to their nation, if those nations are the United States of America or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As for the question of England, it's even worse.

I'd also like to call them "vermin" but that would hardly be scholastic, would it?
.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't worry yourself too much about these vapourings.

Can you see the Chinese agreeing to anything like this? Or any of the stronger Muslim nations?

Of course not.

Such a thing, if it comes about, will affect only the emasculated pansies of the West, whose day is almost over in any case. Between refusal to defend their civilisation, and determination to bankrupt themselves in the ridiculous cause of global "warming", they are pretty much finished.

It really doesn't matter if they invent a pretend world government and pretend to bow down to it.

xlbrl said...

When is not a conspiracy a conspiracy? We expect from a conspiracy an effort to remain hidden. But the socialist conspiracy has almost always been hidden in plain sight, as you have recounted. Their greatest success comes when they do not unduly alarm the people. That was Roosevelt's great acheivment. Saul Alinsky learned from that, and strongly advocated giving up the bombs and rhetoric within their revolutionary dreams, instead entering the old form of society like the hagfish to devour it from the inside. The Hagfish has finally eaten through its host, and is preparing to sit on Mt. Rushmore with the others.

James Higham said...

The trouble is, these nutters have their hands on the button.

Gracchi said...

James- there is a great story about Max Bethe the physicist that I'd invite you to ponder. One of Bethe's students came to him and said look at these slides- the movement of the atoms prove that I have discovered a new law in quantum mechanics. Bethe sat back in his chair looked at the slides and realised- each slide illustrated not one general principle but an individual circumstance. In one the atom had moved because there was a bolt in the projector, in another an electrical charge had attracted the atom, in a third a speck of dust had interfered with the slide- and so on.

What that story's point is is that you can often find a sequence of events but you have to treat them sceptically and look at each one individually. I don't have the time to look at everyone of your instances but a couple of look suspicious to me. When Milner founded his round table societies he wasn't looking towards world government but towards an Anglo Saxon empire (much like Churchill in his history of the English Speaking peoples), Wilson was talking about global capitalism (strange if he had been warning of this conspiracy and then employed House!) and the corruptness of the Republican party (its electioneering!), Foster Dulles was advocating the league of nations- a principle that is as old as the Christian church, Dulles in 52 is electioneering- my guess is about the US Communist party because of the date- he made that speech at the height of the McCarthy moment, the Rockefeller foundation would be in 1959 attempting to influence the Kennedy administration- the new world order is just a slogan what it means is wahtever they were crazy about at that moment it does not neccessarily mean world government, Nelson Rockefeller in 1968 will have been talking about a deal with the Soviets to get out of Vietnam- that is much more plausible given the context, Richard Gardner I'd suggest is talking abotu ways to end the cold war and from the bottom up as well as the top down, the Congressmen and Senators yeah are talking about the UN but about such subjects as the law of the sea- not really that revolutionary, Carter removes US miltiary direction AFTER THE US GOVERNMENT HAS AGREED to put US troops under a UN command (bit silly if they are not, otherwise if there was a UN force they might go one way and everyone else the other way- didn't seem to make much difference in desert storm either) and as for Reagen I'm sure I can find many dinners in which he sat next to Goldwater who you cite approvingly below.

I don't say that there aren't people who want a world governmetn or like world institutions- but there is no centuries old conspiracy- nor is it as sinister or as competent as you imagine.

James Higham said...

1 Tiberius, you have come in and done precisely what I asked people not to do - come in and made blanket statements about there being no evidence of collusion without either having read the quotes, without having patiently researched them and without being able to debunk any one point.

I did my research and for that reason, discovered that a Lenin quote many people use was actually made by Solzhenitsyn.

I don't appreciate my research being dismissed in such an offhand manner becasue it doesn't accord with someones "feeling" about it.

You mention Milner but even there you need to get that straight. Initially, the Circle was for the promotion of ties with the colonies and then broadened its scope.

Rhodes, Stead and Milner variously came into contact with elements of the same underground which later spawned Warburg and House, the same malcontents who created the grain shortage and blackened the name of Marie-Antoinette for purely political reasons and who spawned the Jacobins.

This disparate set of moneyed people and their ambitious and cynical hangers on were commented on by Jackson, Wilson, Churchill and Senator Jenner, not to mention Eisenhower.

By saying there is no collusion, you are effectively saying these men were either liars or delusional, men who made these points over so many decades. You are saying they never made these points.

This is no better or worse than Holocaust denial.

It matters not if it "troubles" anyone - the statements were made, the pieces written. The evidence is there and the dots easily connected without any requirement for creativity.

I went to great pains to ensure that the research was sound so you are also disparaging my professional skill.

James Higham said...

2 On the Wilson quote, one article denied he had ever said it. A commenter said he did and named the book. The writer retorted that he had the book [just happened to have it there in his hands, it seems] and there was no mention.

This was a straight denial.

The commenter came back with chapter and page, so the denier left that and went on to deny something else.

He was an agent provocateur and what was worse, he was unacademic in his approach [which I find unforgivable and have little time for], he made balnket statements without a shred of proof being offered and he hardly contributed to the debate.

In debate, one needs to ahve facts at hand, not blanket statments and semi-truths like the one about Milner, conveniently ignoring the later history where the Circle became the Round Table.

You don't explain how it entered America and why later, it was publicly replaced by the scholarships but still kept itself together in skeleton form.

You don't address any of this nor any of what was quoted in the post, except with "I guess" and then it does not negate the thrust of the quote but introduces other elements.

For example, the McCarthy era. Yes .... and what? How does that negate what was said?

You said:

"the new world order is just a slogan what it means is wahtever they were crazy about at that moment it does not neccessarily mean world government"

Bollocks. You have ignored our Fanny, you have ignored "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx", "The real problem today is that of world government", "that America lead the transition to a new order of less independent, semi-sovereign states bound together by a league or federal union", "We shall have world government whether or not you like it - by conquest or consent" or "Sooner perhaps than we may realize...there will evolve the bases for a federal structure of the free world."

These are unequivocal. They are not "whatever they were crazy about at the time" but they are a consistent statement through the decades by people at the reins of power.

Assuming you can read the English language and that "world government" means "world government", then it is quite shoddy to pretend to address these quotes by vague expressions designed to sow doubts where there are simply bald statements.

That is a very socialist thing to do. I'm not accusing you of being socialist but this is the way they operate, making black and white seem multi-coloured.

You could do better than that - you certainly do in your own field of interest.

xlbrl said...

It's a great list. I was not aware of much of it, but even so, nothing surprises.

I believe what we are seeing is that people are generally terrified of what people are capable of, not without reason, and seek to make everyone the same so they might have less to fear. But people are not the same, and cultures are never the same, so all that effort not only goes to waste, but to hell.

Always we hear what a virtue it is to acheive togetherness, sameness, unity. The American Constitution was designed for the opposite; to keep men apart that wished to be kept apart,and to take stength from it; to take the great majority of subjects out of political discussion or the reach of government. That afforded a tremdous empowerment of liberty.

That seems to be over.

Anonymous said...

Detailed financial movements back up James.

Gracchi, you're wrong. And ineffectual. And pompous.

Gracchi said...

Oh shut up Anonymous.

James I'm not totally dismissing your research I don't have the time to properly investigate everything you write but take each statement individually and work out what each means. The problem is that you are linking together things without demonstrating the links between them- people can use the same language and not mean the same thing.

To analyse these speeches properly you need to see the context of the phrases- nowhere in this article do you link to a single phrase in context. How can you understand what those sentences mean unless they are in context? James you vaunt your research- fine show it to us- show me where on the internet I can find the complete document for Wilson's speech, Dulles's speech, House's speech, Truman's speech etc.

That is vital because then we can understand where those lines fit into that speech. Dulles for example in context I believe said what he said campaigning about communism in 1953- I cannot prove that nor can you disprove it without hte complete text of what he said- I may be wrong, but so may you be without the complete text and where it fitted into the arguments that were had.

I'm not saying that noone has ever believed in world government- but I just find your construction of these individual sentences into a global conspiracy unconvincing. You commend my historical posts- well I try and cite my sources there- where are your sources for the entire speeches and contexts in which these things were said- for example what was the question to which Rowan Gaither replied in congress?

I agree with you lastly that it is only on particulars that we can judge a theory- that is why I want to see your sources and see what evidence lies behind this. (Incidentally the Milner source does not cite the full speech either)

James Higham said...

"The problem is that you are linking together things without demonstrating the links between them- people can use the same language and not mean the same thing."


No, I placed the quotes sequentially to show a historical consistency which is obvious to everyone but you.

It's absolute rubbish to say that they are capable of interpretation or have shades of meaning - these quotes stand by themselves without the need for any more explanation.

It's exactly the same as if I put a quote, "This coffee cup is blue," and you say, "Well, you know, it all depends who was using the cup at the time and precisely what we mean by 'cup'. Cup has meant diferent things in different eras."

World government means precisely that and it has been spoken of by both people in power and those close to them for centuries. There have been attempts to implement it by their own admission.

There is no conspiracy here, which you are so desperate to charge - there are quotes.

What you are doing is mischievous, to no good purpose and beneath you.

The most annoying thing is that you know you are being mischievous because you are supposedly an academic. It could be forgiven in a non-academic but not in someone who knows what he's doing.

Enough of this rubbish.