A Modern Declaration of Independence

A real revolution starting in our own backyards. 

Taking back your sovereignty is the real revolution.

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer

Activist Post

Bangkok, Thailand May 25, 2011 - The current system, domineered by corrupt, career politicians and the corporations and banks that manage them like a troupe of actors, seeks to monopolize power on all levels. We are witnessing a "global government" taking shape, with "global institutions" that make decrees, laws, and even war not based on the greater good of humanity, but for the greater good of a corporate-financier oligarchy seeking to spread their power and influence to the four corners of the globe. They have done so under the poorly dressed guise of "human rights," "freedom," and "democracy." As the cheap veneer that covers their true designs peels away, we are outraged but perhaps at a loss of what to do.

We are witnessing the destruction and despoiling of Libya, US-funded uprisings creating unmitigated chaos across Syria, a fake-revolution destabilizing and threatening the future of 80 million Egyptians at the hands of a US International Crisis Group stooge, Mohamed ElBaradei. And while disingenuous pundits still try to convince us that these are real revolutions and that real change is around the corner, we are on a road that leads to nothing more than absolute subjugation, exploitation, and inevitably much worse.

We have been convinced through a lifetime of lying manipulative media and our sabotaged education system that change comes only through a ballot box, hoisting up placards, and street mobs. In reality, elections are rigged - and whether the actually mechanics of the elections are rigged or not makes little difference when all the candidates are sponsored by the same corporate-financier interests. 

"Crisis is an Opportunity": Engineering a Global Depression to Create a Global Government

Andrew Gavin Marshall

Global Research

Problem, Reaction, Solution: “Crisis is an Opportunity”

In May of 2010, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the IMF, stated that, “crisis is an opportunity,” and called for “a new global currency issued by a global central bank, with robust governance and institutional features,” and that the “global central bank could also serve as a lender of last resort.” However, he stated, “I fear we are still very far from that level of global collaboration.”[1] Well, perhaps not so far as it might seem.

            

The notion of global governance has taken an evolutionary path to the present day, with the principle global political and economic actors and institutions incrementally constructing the apparatus of a global government. In the modern world, global governance is an inter-lapping, intersecting, and intertwined web of international organizations, think tanks, multinational corporations, nations, NGOs, philanthropic foundations, military alliances, intelligence agencies, banks and interest groups. Globalization – a term which was popularized in the late 1980s to refer to the global spread of multinational corporations – has laid the principle ideological and institutional foundations for this process. Global social, economic and political integration do not occur at an equal pace; rather, economic integration and governance on a global level has and will continue to be ahead of the other sectors of human social interaction, in both the pace and degree of integration. In short, global economic governance will set the pace for social and political global governance to follow.

In 1885, Friedrich List, a German mercantilist economic theorist wrote that when it came to the integration of a “universal union or confederation of nations,” that “all examples which history can show are those in which the political union has led the way, and the commercial union has followed. Not a single instance can be adduced in which the latter has taken the lead, and the former has grown up from it.”[2] The twentieth century thus changed the historical trend, with undertaking economic integration – union – which is then followed by political integration. The best example of this is the European Union, which started out as a series of trade agreements (1951), eventually leading to an economic community (1957), followed by an economic union (1993), followed by a currency union (2002), and with the recent Lisbon Treaty, is now in the process of implementing the apparatus of a political union (2009). While this same regional governance model is occurring on a global scale in Africa, South America, East Asia, the Gulf Arab states, and with North American and Euro-American integration, it is simultaneously taking place on a global level. With the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, global trade systems were institutionally integrated, while the major global economic institutions of the IMF and World Bank, as well as others including the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), accelerated their management of the global economy.

            

The process of globalization has firmly established a globally integrated economic system, and now the global economic crisis is facilitating the implementation of global economic governance: to create the economic apparatus of a global government, including a global central bank and a global currency. This process is exponentially accelerated through economic crises, which create the need, desire, urgency and means of establishing a structure of global economic governance, purportedly under the guise of “preventing economic crises” and “maintaining” the global economy.

            

The same institutions and actors responsible for creating the crisis, are then given the job of determining the solution, and are then given the power and means of implementing it: problem, reaction, solution. They create a problem to incur a particular reaction for which they then propose a predetermined solution. When pressure needs to be applied to individual states that are not following dictates of the institutions of global governance, the market is turned against them in a barrage of economic warfare, often in the form of currency speculation and derivatives trading. The result of this economic warfare against a nation is that it must then turn to these same global institutions to come to its rescue: problem, reaction, solution.

The global economic crisis, really having only just begun, will in years to come spiral into a Great Global Debt Depression, plunging the entire world into the greatest economic catastrophe ever known. This will be the ultimate catalyst, the most pervasive crisis, and most commanding ‘opportunity’ to implement the formation of a global government. In 1988, the Economist ran an article entitled, “Get Ready for the Phoenix,” in which it postulated that by the year 2018, there will be a global currency, which it termed the “Phoenix.” The mention of a phoenix is not to go unnoticed, as symbolically, a phoenix dies and from its ashes a new phoenix emerges. It is the symbol of destruction as a form of creation; the ultimate incarnation of crisis as an opportunity. The article in the Economist acknowledged this meaning, with the idea that economic and monetary collapse will likely lead to the formation of a global currency, stating that, “several more big exchange-rate upsets, a few more stockmarket crashes and probably a slump or two will be needed before politicians are willing to face squarely up to that choice.” Further:

As time passes, the damage caused by currency instability is gradually going to mount; and the very trends that will make it mount are making the utopia of monetary union feasible... The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.[3]

This further reinforces the notion of crisis as an opportunity, and established the desire to form a global currency far before any crises that prompted official calls for one. In 2000, Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, stated that, “if we are to have a truly global economy, a single world currency makes sense,” and a European Central Bank executive stated that, “we might one day have a single world currency,” in “a step towards the ideal situation of a fully integrated world.”[4] In 1998, Jeffrey Garten, , former Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade in the Clinton administration, former Managing Director at Lehman Brothers and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote an article for the New York Times in which he called for the creation of a “global Fed” and said that, “the world needs an institution that has a hand on the economic rudder when the seas become stormy. It needs a global central bank.”[5]

Read Full Article


RELATED ARTICLE:
7 Mega-Cartels That Kill Free Markets and Our Sovereignty

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

IMF Tax Tribunals Coming to America Soon?

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
October 31, 2010

In Greece, the bankster loan sharking operation popularly known as the International Monetary Fund has proposed creating special courts and tribunals to prosecute tax evaders. Greek’s finance minister, George Papaconstantinou, a socialist Bilderberg member and a graduate of the London School of Economics, has “suggested the effective management of whistle-blowing” to protect people who rat out tax scofflaws.

	Once upon a time, federal officials were tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail in response to confiscatory taxation.Illustration: Western Pennsylvanians protest a tax on whiskey in 1794.

“The idea of tax courts concerns either the setting up of special tribunals that would deal with tax cases without having to go through normal courts or the appointment of an adequate number of specialized judges to the existing structure of administrative courts who would deal exclusively with tax cases,” reports Kathimerini, a supplement to the International Herald Tribune in Greece.

The IMF also calls for “exhaustive checks regarding the payment of value-added tax.” Bankers and their cronies in government love the VAT because it legalizes theft at every stage of product manufacture and distribution. It disproportionately raises taxes on middle- and low-income earners. It is a sledgehammer used to wreck societies.

It will get ugly in Greece because the banksters will not get blood out of a stone. Austerity of the sort now imposed on Greece erodes tax revenues. But then the plan is not to raise tax revenue. It is to destroy nations and usher in world government.

Greece went crawling to the globalist loan sharking operation after its economy was imploded through a “monetarist” debt policy. In other words, after Greece joined the eurozone bankers manipulated the country’s money supply and then destroyed the supports with hedge funds and other bankster speculation schemes designed to level national economies.

In April, Greek’s socialist government begged the EU and the IMF for high interest loans. The following month the IMF made demands for “austerity measures” — slash and then freeze public-sector wages, raise taxes, increase value-added taxes, impose new taxes on businesses, cut pension payments and raise retirement ages — in order to pay back the loans issued at high interest and thus impoverish the average Greek.

Soon thereafter, the planned IMF riotsoccurred in Greece with predictable result, including death.

Monetary and fiscal austerity are designed to implement privatization and so-called “liberalization,” a nice word for removing restrictions on the inflow and outflow of international capital as well as restrictions on what transnational corporations and banks are allowed to buy, own, and operate in foreign countries. Banksters accomplish this by stacking up debt and then demanding “structural readjustment” that results in fire sales and the selling off of national treasures and assets to the bankster vulture class. In June, the Greek government put some of its 6,000 islands on the market.

“Debt is an efficient tool. It ensures access to other peoples’ raw materials and infrastructure on the cheapest possible terms,” writes Susan George in A Fate Worse Than Debt.

“The huge multinational banks and corporations in particular love the IMF,” writes Ron Paul. “Big corporations obtain lucrative contracts for a wide variety of construction projects funded with IMF loans. It’s a familiar game in Washington, where corporate welfare is disguised as compassion for the poor.” Most “recipient nations face huge debts they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability,” Paul adds.

Now the IMF has set its sights on the Big Kahuna, the United States, and its analysts have “estimated a series of probabilities regarding the amount of increased debt a country might be able to sustain without hitting its projected point of no return,” the Washington Post reported in September. “In the case of the U.S., the fund said the odds were roughly three out of four that the country could increase its total debt to some degree without being penalized by investors.”

According to the IMF’s calculations, the United States finished 2009 with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 85%. “The current trend projects the United States to finish 2010 at 94% and 2011 at 98%. The 90% level has become the IMF’s make-or-break point for countries hoping to grow their way out of debt. If the government debt load climbs above 90% of GDP, economic growth slows so much that growth is no longer a viable solution for reducing that debt, and the IMF insists on austerity measures,” notes Activist Post.

It looks like austerity measures and new tax schemes are in the works for America. Glenn Beck and the RINO intelligentsia are all for squeezing more money out of the workers to pay off a never-ending bankster debt. Beck is in agreement with the former Fed mob boss Paul Volckerand Obama’s Goldman Sachs dominated Economic Recovery Advisory Board. It is our duty to pay the bankers.

It looks like, as well, the U.S. will ultimately get the same sort of tax courts and tribunals the IMF proposes for Greece since there is no shortage of tax scofflaws in America and no shortage of state-worshiping bureaucrats eager to fill the prisons and coming-soon slave labor penal workhouses with a fresh crop of victims.

–

Kurt Nimmo edits Infowars.com. He is the author of Another Day in the Empire: Life In Neoconservative America.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

From Global Depression to Global Governance

The role of the corporate elites' secretive global think tanks

Andrew Gavin Marshall
Global Research

The following is the text of Andrew Gavin Marshall's presentation at the book launch of The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century", Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall (Editors). September 29, 2010, Montreal, Canada.

We now stand at the edge of the global financial abyss of a ‘Great Global Debt Depression,’ where nations, mired in extreme debt, are beginning to implement ‘fiscal austerity’ measures to reduce their deficits, which will ultimately result in systematic global social genocide, as the middle classes vanish and the social foundations upon which our nations rest are swept away. How did we get here? Who brought us here? Where is this road leading? These are questions I will briefly attempt to answer.


At the heart of the global political economy is the central banking system. Central banks are responsible for printing a nation’s currency and setting interest rates, thus determining the value of the currency. This should no doubt be the prerogative of a national government, however, central banks are of a particularly deceptive nature, in which while being imbued with governmental authority, they are in fact privately owned by the world’s major global banks, and are thus profit-seeking institutions. How do central banks make a profit? The answer is simple: how do all banks make a profit? Interest on debt. Loans are made, interest rates are set, and profits are made. It is a system of debt, imperial economics at its finest.
    
In the United States, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, creating the Federal Reserve System, with the Board located in Washington, appointed by the President, but where true power rested in the 12 regional banks, most notably among them, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The regional Fed banks were private banks, owned in shares by the major banks in each region, which elected the board members to represent them, and who would then share power with the Federal Reserve Board in Washington.
    
In the early 1920s, the Council on Foreign Relations was formed in the United States as the premier foreign policy think tank, dominated by powerful banking interests. In 1930, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) was created to manage German reparations payments, but it also had another role, which was much less known, but much more significant. It was to act as a “coordinator of the operations of central banks around the world.” Essentially, it is the central bank for the world’s central banks, whose operations are kept ‘strictly confidential.’ As historian Carroll Quigley wrote:

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations."
        
In 1954, the Bilderberg Group was formed as a secretive global think tank, comprising intellectual, financial, corporate, political, military and media elites from Western Europe and North America, with prominent bankers such as David Rockefeller, as well as European royalty, such as the Dutch royal family, who are the largest shareholders in Royal Dutch Shell, whose CEO attends every meeting. This group of roughly 130 elites meets every year in secret to discuss and debate global affairs, and to set general goals and undertake broad agendas at various meetings. The group was initially formed to promote European integration. The 1956 meeting discussed European integration and a common currency. In fact, the current Chairman of the Bilderberg Group told European media last year that the euro was debated at the Bilderberg Group.
        
In 1973, David Rockefeller, Chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank, Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and a member of the Steering Committee of the Blderberg Group, formed the Trilateral Commission with CFR academic Zbigniew Brzezinski.  That same year, the oil price shocks created a wealth of oil money, which was discussed at that years Bilderberg meeting 5 months prior to the oil shocks, and the money was funneled through western banks, which loaned it to ‘third world’ nations desperately in need of loans to finance industrialization.

Read Full Article

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

UN Policy Paper Describes Incremental Steps Toward World Government

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
September 30, 2010

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster”

Richard Sandbrook, Closing the Circle: Democratization and Development in Africa, Zed Books limited, London, 2000.

	Self-described ‘ecosocioeconomist’ professor Ignacy Sachs.

A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by self-described ‘ecosocioeconomist’ professor Ignacy Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship. As the professor states in the paper:

“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.”

In his paper “The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global”, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:

“In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.”

In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of the years to come, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a “virtuous green world”. The professor:

“The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”

“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.”

“The bolder the steps taken in the near future”, Sachs asserts, “the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income.”

Sachs points to the political difficulties of such proposals being implemented (because free humanity tends to distrust any national government let alone transnational government to redistribute its well-earned wealth). He therefore proposes these measures to be implemented gradually, following a meticulously planned strategy:

“The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades.”

In the second sub-chapter “The Five Dimensions of Ecodevelopment”, professor Sachs sums up the main dimensions of this carefully outlined move to make Agenda 21 a very real future prospect. The first dimension he touches upon is “Social Sustainability”:

“The aim is to build a civilization of being within greater equity in asset and income distribution, so as to improve substantially the entitlements of the broad masses of population and of reduce the gap in standards of living between the have and the have nots.”

This of course means, reducing the standards of living in “The North” (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing nations (“The South and The East”). This would have to be realized through what Sachs calls “Economic Sustainability”: “made possible by a more efficient allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private investment.”

The third dimension described by the professor is “Ecological Sustainability” which, among other things, limits “the consumption of fossile fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of the privileged social strata all over the world;”

In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the need of “defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies.”

Dimension 4: “Spatial Sustainability”:

“directed at achieving a more balanced rural-urban configuration and a better territorial distribution of human settlements and economic activities (…)”.

The fifth and last dimension described in the UN policy paper is “Cultural Sustainability”: “looking for the endogenous roots of the modernization processes, seeking change within cultural continuity, translating the normative concept of ecodevelopment into a plurality of local, ecosystem-specific, culture-specific and site-specific solutions.”

But to realize such a dramatic new direction for the world, Sachs once again stresses the importance of incremental implementation. A matter of boiling the frog slowly as opposed to throwing the poor animal into a boiling-hot cooking pan:

“Even if we know where we want to get, the operational question is how do we proceed to put humankind on the virtuous path of genuine development, socially responsible and in harmony with nature. It is submitted that UNCED 92 should give considerable attention to the formulation of transition strategies that could become the central piece of the Agenda 21.”

This is the word- Agenda 21: the UN strategy for redistributing the wealth accumulated by the “North” in order to create a completely “balanced” world society- under auspices of the United Nations of course and the private central banks controlling it. This can only come about by destroying the middle-class. A sudden redistribution and industrialization would not do- for the middle-class would undoubtedly rise in defiance against it. Therefore, Sachs argues for an incremental and carefully planned dissolution of the middle-class phase by phase:

“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span. The retooling of industries, even in periods of rapid growth, requires ten to twenty years. The restructuration and the expansion of the infrastructures requires several decades and this is a crucially important sector from the point of view of environment.”

Then Sachs plunges into his most shocking statement:

“However, the single most important reason to consider the transition strategies over a minimum of thirty-five to forty years stems from the non-linearity of these strategies; they should be devised as a succession of changing priorities over time. A good illustration is provided by the population transition. In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.”

Sachs argues that “an accelerated programme of social and economic development of the rural areas should be the outmost priority in the first phase of a realistic population stabilization scheme.”

Who or what is to coordinate all this, according to Sachs, and how exactly is the UN to take control?

“The solutions”, says Sachs, “can vary in terms of their boldness and take the form of global, multilateral or bilateral arrangements.” These arrangements should as far as Sachs is concerned ensure “at least partially the automacity of financial transfers by some form of fiscal mechanisms, be it a small income tax or an array of indirect taxes on goods and services whose production and consumption has significant environmental impacts.”

Over time, gradually, these taxes should increase:

“Starting the operation with a one per ten thousand tax and increasing it so as to reach one per thousand in ten to twenty years seems a fairly realistic proposal, the more so that the scheme creates an interesting market for the private enterprises involved in R and D.”

Reading all this, the question as to what entity should take charge is not difficult to answer. Sachs:

“In order to generate maximum synergies between the national strategies and global action, the United Nations should create a forum for the periodical discussion and evaluation of these strategies and a research, monitoring and flexible planning facility to put them in a global perspective.(…). The forum should have a fair representation of all the main actors involved: governments, parliaments, citizen movements and the business world. Given its importance, it should be lifted from specialized agencies to a central place in the UN system.”

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

The “fair representation” Sachs is talking about is of course only a pretext to get everybody on board. As the “Danish Text”, drafted for the Copenhagen conference in late 2009, clearly illustrates, the IMF and World Bank will always have final say in the construction of any international system.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Intelligence Report Envisions “Designing Humans With Unique Abilities” Under Global Governance Regime

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
September 25, 2010

Recently a document was disclosed by the grace of the Freedom of Information Act entitled Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture. The document, written by the American National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), outlines the agenda from now to 2025 for global government. It discusses the many obstacles in the quest for achieving global government and discusses the possibility, the desirability, of “designing humans with unique physical, emotional, or cognitive abilities.”

The American National Intelligence Council and the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies outline the agenda from now to 2025 for global government.

The American National Intelligence Council and the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies outline the agenda from now to 2025 for global government.

“While not being policy prescriptive, the report shares a strong belief—as exemplified by multilateralist approaches of the US and EU governments to resolving global problems such as the recent financial crisis—that global challenges will require global solutions.”, the document reads.

Stressing that issues such as proliferation and cybersecurity are already subject to sufficient international cooperation, the document states:

“(…) we focus on such issues as intrastate conflict, resource management, migration, and biotechnology. Although recognized by many as ongoing challenges, we believe the long-term impact of these issues on the strength of the international order has not been fully appreciated.”

Recognizing that the push for global governance (which is a euphemism for global government) is meeting with increasing resistance worldwide, the authors blame a “multipolar world” for this fact:

“Diverse perspectives and suspicions about global governance, which is seen as a Western concept, will add to the difficulties of effectively mastering the growing number of challenges.”

The document also recognizes international unease with large-scale military adventures- “if (…) driven by the “West””. Furthermore, it proposes an “overall framework to manage the interrelated problems of food, water and energy.”

“Other over-the-horizon issues”, the document goes on to say, “—migration, the potential opening of the Arctic, and risks associated with the biotechnology revolution—are likely to rise in importance and demand a higher level of cooperation. These issues are difficult ones for multilateral cooperation because they involve more preventive action. Under current circumstances, greater cooperation on those issues in which the risks are not clear-cut will be especially difficult to achieve.”

The document goes on to outline several “potential scenarios” of future developments that may threaten the “international system”, the first being that “formal institutions remain largely unreformed and Western states probably must shoulder a disproportionate share of “global governance” as developing countries prevent disruptions at home. This future is not sustainable over the longer term as it depends on no crisis being so unmanageable as to overwhelm the international system.”

The second scenario projected is that of “fragmentation”, or “Powerful states and regions try to wall themselves off from outside threats.”

The third scenario is the most worrisome- not according to the authors of the document, but to all of free humanity:

“Under this scenario, severe threats to the international system—possibly a looming environmental disaster or a conflict that risks spreading—prompt greater cooperation on solving global problems. Significant reform of the international system becomes possible. Although less likely than the first two scenarios in the immediate future, such a scenario might prove the best outcome over the longer term, building a resilient international system that would step up the level of overall cooperation on an array of problems. The US increasingly shares power while China and India increase their burden sharing and the EU takes on a bigger global role. A stable concert could also occur incrementally over a long period in which economic gaps shrink and per capita income converges.”

Mentioning the possibility- even desirability- of a “looming environmental disaster” or conflictas a means to establish world government is the preferred path ahead, according to the authors. But, even more disturbing that global governance to “combat” looming threats, is the possibility and desirability of “designing humans with unique physical, emotional, or cognitive abilities”, pondered upon by the US and EU intelligence councils.” Here is the quote in full:

“In addition, biotechnology—which the OECD thinks will potentially boost the GDPs of its members—can drive new forms of human behavior and association, creating profound cross cultural ethical questions that will be increasingly politically contentious. Few experts believe that current governance instruments are adequate for those challenges. For example, direct modification of DNA at fertilization is widely researched with a goal of removing defective genes; however, discussions of future capabilities open the possibility for designing humans with unique physical, emotional, or cognitive abilities.”

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

There it is. The document is upfront about it. “Current governance instruments” are insufficient for the goals of the global elite. To facilitate “designing humans with unique physical, emotional, or cognitive abilities” a global framework is needed.

RELATED VIDEO

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page