Do you support the one world government movement?

[Bankotsu]

There are many groups and people around the world pushing for a one world government; global governance etc.

Some right wing groups in the U.S like John Birch Society, Alex Jones etc like to sell the one world government movement as a sinister elite conspiracy to destroy U.S sovereignty.

So, do you support the one world government movement?


Organisations and people pushing for one world government:



World Federalist Movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Federalist_Movement


New World Order political party Abolish the United Nations with the World Government.

Abolish the United Nations with the World Government.

http://www.newworldorderpoliticalparty.webs.com/


World Government Movement in Japan
http://www.w-g.jp/wgi/japan/move-j.htm


Manifesto for a New World Order
http://www.amazon.com/Manifesto-World-Order-George-Monbiot/dp/1595580395/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264829065&sr=8-16 (http://www.amazon.com/Manifesto-World-Order-George-Monbiot/dp/1595580395/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264829065&sr=8-16)

A Declaration of the Value of Global Governance
http://www.integralworldgovernment.org (http://www.integralworldgovernment.org/)

[The Red Next Door]

No, because will be run by corporations and the ruling class secret societies.

[Bankotsu]

No, because will be run by corporations and the ruling class secret societies.

That must be the CFR, Trilateral Commision, Bilderberg, Bohemian grove elite conspiracy rubbish pushed by U.S right wing groups such as John Birch society, G. Edward Griffin, Alex Jones, Jeff Rense and others. It's all complete rubbish.

Here's what Dr. Carroll Quigley has to say on such theories:





It is amusing to think that the fanatical Right Wing of American politics, like the John Birch Society, will use the success of this book as conclusive proof that the American system is controlled by a crypto-communist conspiracy, what they call the "Eastern Liberal Establishment", while the real secret is that it is not controlled by anybody, which is why it can be used by anyone and for any purpose, including its own destruction.

http://www.carrollquigley.net/book-reviews/On_the_Youth_Stage_of_American_Reality.htm

The far right-wingers claim that Dr. Quigley's l,348-page book, which sold some 8,000 copies and is now indefinitely out of stock, reveals the existence of a conspiracy by international capitalists on Wall Street and in London to take over the world and turn it over to the Communists. What's more, Dr. Quigley is an "insider" in the scheme, they charge.

The Georgetown historian says that's nonsense, that he never wrote as much, and that he is not, as the right-wingers charge, a member of this group of super rich and elite "pro-Communist insiders."

"Skousen's book is full of misrepresentations and factual errors," Professor Quigley said. "He claims that I have written of a conspiracy of the super-rich who are pro-Communist and wish to take over the world and that I'm a member of this group. But I never called it a conspiracy and don't regard it as such. "I'm not an 'insider' of these rich persons," Dr. Quigley continued, "although Skousen thinks so. I happen to know some of them and liked them, although I disagreed with some of the things they did before 1940."

Skousen also claims, Dr. Quigley believes, the influential group of Wall Street financiers still exists and controls the country. "I never said that," Dr. Quigley said flatly. "In fact, they never were in a position to 'control' it, merely to influence political events."

http://www.carrollquigley.net/biography/Making-Birchers-Bark.htm





None Dare Call It Conspiracy, using Quigley's data, attributed to the Round Table Group a lust for world domination. Its sympathies were pro-Communist, anti-Capitalist, said the Birch Society book.

"They thought Dr. Carroll Quigley proved everything." Quigley says. "For example, they constantly misquote me to this effect: that Lord Milner (the dominant trustee of the Cecil Rhodes Trust and a heavy in the Round Table Group) helped finance the Bolsheviks. I have been through the greater part of Milner's private papers and have found no evidence to support that.

http://www.carrollquigley.net/biography/The-Professor-Who-Knew-Too-Much.htm
The reality is that elite groups in U.S and elsewhere do form organisations and forums, to discuss and coordinate policies and tries to lobby and influence public policy and events.

But this is normal and shouldn't be presented in conspiracy fashion. That is nonsense and shows an amateurish understanding of politics and history.

[IcarusAngel]

Provided that social democracy is maintained around most of the world I wouldn't mind it. People "have the world to win," and I think it would be easier to knock over a world government than hundreds of nation-states.

Bottomline is that the current system of nation-states don't work. I have a hard time believing corporations could run the whole world as well.

[Bankotsu]

Provided that social democracy is maintained around most of the world I wouldn't mind it.

Some right wing groups in the U.S would firmly oppose any movement or effort towards world government seeing it as a conspiracy towards a plot to destroy the U.S and enslaving people.




For the New World Order, a world government is just the beginning. Once in place they can engage their plan to exterminate 80% of the world's population, while enabling the "elites" to live forever with the aid of advanced technology. For the first time, crusading filmmaker ALEX JONES reveals their secret plan for humanity's extermination: Operation ENDGAME.

Jones chronicles the history of the global elite's bloody rise to power and reveals how they have funded dictators and financed the bloodiest wars—creating order out of chaos to pave the way for the first true world empire.


Watch as Jones and his team track the elusive Bilderberg Group to Ottawa and Istanbul to document their secret summits, allowing you to witness global kingpins setting the world's agenda and instigating World War III.
Learn about the formation of the North America transportation control grid, which will end U.S. sovereignty forever.
Discover how the practitioners of the pseudo-science eugenics have taken control of governments worldwide as a means to carry out depopulation.
View the progress of the coming collapse of the United States and the formation of the North American Union.

http://www.endgamethemovie.com/images/frontcover.jpg (http://www.endgamethemovie.com/images/frontcoverlarge.jpg) http://www.endgamethemovie.com/images/backcover.jpg (http://www.endgamethemovie.com/images/backcoverlarge.jpg) Never before has a documentary assembled all the pieces of the globalists' dark agenda. Endgame's compelling look at past atrocities committed by those attempting to steer the future delivers information that the controlling media has meticulously censored for over 60 years.


It fully reveals the elite's program to dominate the earth and carry out the wicked plan in all of human history.
Endgame is not conspiracy theory, it is documented fact in the elite's own words.

http://www.endgamethemovie.com/

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm not sure what the point would be. If a world government existed, capitalists would have difficulty exploiting countries the way they do now. I suppose they could exploit "states" or something, but I haven't heard much about that. It probably occurs.

A global government would either require a significant delegation of power to regional authorities, and thus would be similar to how things are now, or it would require massive centralization.

A delegation of power alongside a global identity could decrease conflict and promote a sense of community that could be beneficial. A centralized global government makes me somewhat wary. Theoretically, it might make a sort of "socialist" takeover easier. Lenin Jr. takes control of the centralized government. He has all the buttons and levers to make communism happen. I'm skeptical of centralization, but it might be more consistent with a Marxist than anarchist analysis.

A global government would be like the UN with the ability to enforce rules across all its nations. This would require a military. I suppose this might work if everyone gave their military to the global government, but that's going to give you a lot of centralization and abuse potential.

I don't think a global government would ever happen anytime soon unless some sort of sci-fi like threat unites us all against a common enemy.

[newsocialism]

I do not support one government, because I believe it is against diversity and the laws of human nature. My philosophy is construction, destruction and the balance in between. Imagine that all the diplomatic relations are built upon the balance of power and bureaucracy among the supper powers, unions, federations...etc. If there is a one government, this will be the collapse of diplomacy. What will be the system like? What will be it's government style? How true it will be? How progressive it will be? or what will be the position of a certain land, ethnicity...etc? It seems some kind of fantasy to me.

[Revy]

I support the principle of a world socialist federation. In that sense, I am part of this movement. "My country is the Earth, I am a citizen of the world", that's what Eugene V. Debss said, and he was one of the most notable socialists of his era alongside Lenin.

I don't know if a human federation could ever happen under capitalism. It's clear to everyone with a brain that the noble idea of the UN failed miserably. War is still raging all over the world, some wars the UN participated in under the euphemism of "peacekeeping".

A few quotes from Luxemburg's "Peace Utopias".



The Social Democrats, on the other hand, must consider it their duty in this matter, just as in all matters of social criticism, to expose the bourgeois attempts to restrain militarism as pitiful half-measures, and the expressions of such sentiments on the part of the governing circles as diplomatic make-believe, and to oppose the bourgeois claims and pretences with the ruthless analysis of capitalist reality.
[...]

To explain this to the masses, ruthlessly to scatter all illusions with regard to attempts made at peace on the part of the bourgeoisie and to declare the proletarian revolution as the first and only step toward world peace – that is the task of the Social Democrats with regard to all disarmament trickeries, whether they are invented in Petersburg, London or Berlin.

[...]
The Utopianism of the standpoint which expects an era of peace and retrenchment of militarism in the present social order is plainly revealed in the fact that it is having recourse to project making. For it is typical of Utopian strivings that, in order to demonstrate their practicability, they hatch “practical” recipes with the greatest possible details.

[Raúl Duke]

Under capitalism, I'm doubtful that out-right world government would occur...
Not that capitalism is diametrically opposed (interest-wise) to this but that it's not exactly very interested in it either.

What happens instead are certain international organizations such as the IMF/world bank, etc are able to influence laws in other countries towards those that are beneficial for capitalists (or more specifically imperialism and foreign capitalists).

[Sasha]

sure, but then again, being jewish i would run it :lol:

[gorillafuck]

Bottomline is that the current system of nation-states don't work. I have a hard time believing corporations could run the whole world as well.
You have a hard time believing that?

Newsflash: They already do.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I voted yes, I'd like to see a movement towards a world government, but I don't support the one-world government, primarily because it doesn't exist. Globalisation exists in many forms but to say that there is one secret group of crypto-communists controlling it all is rubbish, as most people know. What I would like to see is something along the lines of the EU only global.

[IcarusAngel]

You have a hard time believing that?

Newsflash: They already do.

This comes as a surprise to me. Sure they play a vital part, but they are not the only actor. Government exists to protject corporations.

Without government, there is no way corporations or "companies" of any kind could exist. The whole idea of capitalism is based around a systems and ideas that took centuries of government reform and management to put into place. That's why the idea of a "free-market" government or society (or whatever) is so ridiculous.

Many reforms of corporations came from government, like the unsafe automobiles that were being produced to being one of the most regulated industries in US industry (and the death rate declining), to again being deregulated. Granted these reforms comes from public pressure but the government could end capitalism if it really wanted to in a few sentences.

The idea that we should go around knocking nation after nation away from capitalism is what got leftists into such a mess in the first place.

If corporatists and politicans want to have a world government where it is easier for them to trade among nations, let them. Many people want to have world government as a way to knock down nations and reduce ethnic conflicts. The idea that you are identified by your "nationality" alone is idiotic and even fascist (fascism being based around the nation and the economic system of capitalism). Rather, you are identified by your culture, which doesn't have to mean nation and many "nations" that exist today are recent and were drawn up by Western imperialism.

Furthermore, Marx said that Capitalists would start creating the conditions for their own extinction. By having a world government, that means only one government needs to be reformed or knocked over. I think that would be the beginning of capitalists giving the workers the rope to hang themselves with.

Bottomline is if workers aren't ready to overthrow capitalism (such as right now, exception being in a few third world countries) then they should at least let capitalism move to a higher stage, where trade is more common and people's standards are lifted.

[gorillafuck]

You're right, they don't run the world. But they have ludicrous amounts of power and control over the governments that do run the world.

[Ovi]

Provided that social democracy is maintained around most of the world I wouldn't mind it. People "have the world to win," and I think it would be easier to knock over a world government than hundreds of nation-states.

It's easier to knock out a world government than a small one? Since I doubt a world socialist revolution is going to happen at exactly the same time everywhere in this world, aren't smaller and weaker governments easier to abolish and help spread the movement?

[IcarusAngel]

No. The United States is way too powerful. The United States is not getting weaker (well, it wasn't during the prosperous democratic administration, it has been getting weaker due to the boneheadedness of Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama consistency, but it is still the most powerful country in history). The United States is so powerful it can crush revolutions happening in other countries and force even other large nations into despotism.

A big reason rightists are afraid of world government is that it will weaken the United States, or even abolish it theoretically. This to me is a good thing. Then the UN will supposedly implement population control but there is no evidence that they would do this or that it's even feasible. It all takes place in the imagination.

A revolution must happen world wide or at least in various parts of the world at the same time. Modern science has made communication among countries happen in a matter of seconds, rather than a matter of months. The science is there, and unless it gets privatized (in the hands of government or corporations) it's a boon to the workers.

There are other benefits of a world government as shown from the world federation movement.

Granted, I imagine there would be some leftist concenrs, but the idea that we have a "nationality" we must respect is not leftist in the least. I don't consider myself an "American nationality" for example.

Racism, Nationalism, ethnic superiority. Flat out racism:

3uysdwTf3zU

Pay attention to the movie exceprt.

[Ovi]

No. The United States is way too powerful. The United States is not getting weaker (well, it wasn't during the prosperous democratic administration, it has been getting weaker due to the boneheadedness of Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama consistency, but it is still the most powerful country in history). The United States is so powerful it can crush revolutions happening in other countries and force even other large nations into despotism.

My impression of a world government is world subordonation to the ruling elites. It means that an imperialist government no longer needs to attack other states for their own material benefit, they can take it at will since it's theirs in the first place. They would no longer need to convince any allies in crushing an uprising, they have the whole army of the world to do it. I don't see anything positive in this.


A big reason rightists are afraid of world government is that it will weaken the United States, or even abolish it theoretically. This to me is a good thing.

I haven't really given much thought about a world government, but I think the opposite would be true. All the military power of the world at the fingertips of a single government.


Granted, I imagine there would be some leftist concenrs, but the idea that we have a "nationality" we must respect is not leftist in the least. I don't consider myself an "American nationality" for example.

Racism, Nationalism, ethnic superiority. Flat out racism:
Pay attention to the movie exceprt.
I'm not sure where you're getting at. I don't support nation states; nationalism is a reactionary ideology aimed at keeping us apart. But I don't see a world government as an internationalist ideal either.

[ComradeMan]

sure, but then again, being jewish i would run it :lol:


I'll bring the latkes. ;)

Seriously, all of this New World Order crap- do people really believe it? Next thing the reptilians....

[mikelepore]

I'll vote yes, but the words "the" and "movement" which appear in the question imply that one general plan exists, and currently there are many separate plans.

I'll vote yes because national boundaries are nothing but arbitrary lines drawn on maps, and those random squiggley lines mean nothing to me. I'll vote yes because any form of economic or scientific competition is wasteful. Yes because policies related to technology have to be standardized -- if you pollute the ecosystem in any one part of the world then people on the opposite side of the world will have to breathe and drink your pollution. Yes because the socialist changes that the world needs will be easier to achieve without regional jurisdictions.

As a person who has been a Marxist since the 1960s, I used to say that class rule is the cause of war. Now I believe that the fracture of the world into sovereign territories is a more fundamental cause of war. Even a world of classless and worker-controlled countries would still have international competition for raw materials and trade routes, and would therefore be likely to have wars.

However, I believe the following compromise is necessary if we are to to see a world government established. All countries that join the world government should be permitted to continue with their borders unchanged, and continue to determine most of the details of their own political and economic systems, for an additional predetermined period, such as 150 years. After that period of time, the global jurisdiction would override any forms of local jurisdictions. The one kind of sovereignty that all participating countries should have to give up immediately is the power to have military forces, a chore that they should be eager to give up, since the world government could provide all necessary protection of the constituent parts.

[ComradeMan]

I don't see how an anarchist could support one world government or super-state, the greater of evils if you like.:D

[Uppercut]

There's no way I would support a one-world government. Maybe an international proletarian dictatorship, but not a world government run by a corporate/political elite.

The New World Order is a reality, but it's a shame that most people see it only as a "right-wing conspiracy theory". I don't agree with everything Alex Jones says, but he gets the point across with some solid facts and information. I watched the Obama Deception a while ago and it really goes into depth on how Obama was funded and propagated by the same people that promoted Bush.

Just look at his cabinet! It's all Wall-street! And people call him a socialist...

[Bankotsu]

The New World Order is a reality, but it's a shame that most people see it only as a "right-wing conspiracy theory".

Which New world order is a reality? There are so many versions of New World Order.

I support China and Russia's view of the New World Order for 21st century.



China-Russia statement on new world order

MOSCOW -- China and Russia here Friday issued a joint statement on a new world order in the 21st century, setting forth their common stand on major international issues, such as UN reforms, globalization, North-South cooperation, and world economy and trade...

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-07/02/content_456571.htm


As for the other new world order of a single world government, that is too outlandish for me.

Manifesto for a New World Order


http://www.amazon.com/Manifesto-World-Order-George-Monbiot/dp/1565849086 (http://www.amazon.com/Manifesto-World-Order-George-Monbiot/dp/1565849086)

[IcarusAngel]

I am pro New World Order. I would rather have the NWO, even as Alex Jones describes it, then the Libertarian social order of right-Libertarians.

The Libertarian social order is anti-science, anti-logic, anti-reason, anti-reality. It basically destroys human beings in a way in which they may never be able to recover. There are things worse than current capitalism and that is the Libertarian social order (it's not even really capitalism but complete dominance of free-market theory that abolishes social responsibility and civic engagement altogether).

The world government advocated by some also would mean eliminating all national boundries.

[bailey_187]

Theres a couple people who come speakers corner every month or so making speeches in favour of this etc

I signed their petition, i dont really care though too much

[dubaba]

I really dont think that it is possible, unless no one knows about it besides the leaders.

[ComradeMan]

I really dont think that it is possible, unless no one knows about it besides the leaders.

I think it is a pretty far out idea too.

Imagine an even bigger version of the EU.....:crying:

[IcarusAngel]

How is the EU worse than what occurred during the 20th century? Prior to the formation of unions among states, Europe had almost killed itself off due to internal wars. Once the League of Nations failed (likely because the US refused to join), WWII occurred.

Nation states and capitalism have led to the deaths of over 300 million people.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Small governments are oppressive so lets create a giant one so everyone can be oppressed by the same people.

[apawllo]

I don't really understand why people like Alex Jones think corporations would push for a one world government. Corporations benefit extensively from the established nation-state system where poor, relatively un-tapped nations are home to workers and resources who can be exploited for cheap by corporations who have already established wealth in rich nations. This would most certainly be far more difficult if there were a single government. Of course I suppose that's where the "it would be a self-serving tyrannical government hell bent on the preservation of the system" argument comes in. And it certainly might. The point is, it seems like a far-fetched idea, generally based on ethnocentrism and typical conservative fear tactics. There really aren't any facts to back anything up aside from some "documentaries" with limited accreditation and creepy music and imagery in the background. It seems to me like capitalists are doing alright as it is, and while I wouldn't doubt that Bilderberg and groups of the like have meetings at which capitalist issues are discussed, I tend to doubt these are related to a one world government.

Also, I have to say I question any leftist who is co-signing Alex Jones. The man is a self-described paleoconservative, meaning he's completely and utterly anti-communist, and in my personal opinion should be viewed around here the way most members seem to view Glenn Beck. My feeling is that Jones currently is to confused leftists as Ron Paul was to confused liberals during the 2008 election.

[Uppercut]

I am pro New World Order. I would rather have the NWO, even as Alex Jones describes it, then the Libertarian social order of right-Libertarians.

The Libertarian social order is anti-science, anti-logic, anti-reason, anti-reality. It basically destroys human beings in a way in which they may never be able to recover. There are things worse than current capitalism and that is the Libertarian social order (it's not even really capitalism but complete dominance of free-market theory that abolishes social responsibility and civic engagement altogether).

The world government advocated by some also would mean eliminating all national boundries.

You would be ok with global enslavement and global monopoly capitalism? Some of the most powerful people in the world (Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Bilderberg Group, Skull and Bones, etc.) are behind this and are working hard to misinform people on who the real enemy is.

Of course, if there was a revolution, I'm guessing most of these people would be hanged anyway. The NWO just gives us another reason to revolt.

[Bankotsu]

You would be ok with global enslavement and global monopoly capitalism? Some of the most powerful people in the world (Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Bilderberg Group, Skull and Bones, etc.) are behind this and are working hard to misinform people on who the real enemy is.

Of course, if there was a revolution, I'm guessing most of these people would be hanged anyway. The NWO just gives us another reason to revolt.

Brzezinski on CFR, Bilderberg, and Trilateral Commission
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOk6ENxyAh0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKq_rpFPidw

[Uppercut]

Brzezinski on CFR, Bilderberg, and Trilateral Commission
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOk6ENxyAh0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKq_rpFPidw

Yup, there's puppet Brzezinski, doing his best to lie his way out of things...

[Bankotsu]

Yup, there's puppet Brzezinski, doing his best to lie his way out of things...

Puppet of who?

[Uppercut]

Puppet of who?

It's obvious his connections with these groups leads one to speculate what his purpose is. I know Chomsky calls them "empty organizations", but why would some of the world's most influential capitalists, bureaucrats, news correspondents, and military men need to meet together? It's pretty obvious there's dirty work going on here.The AP may publish an article pertaining to their yearly meeting but nothing more (no mention of the topics discussed).

What's more, the CIA, Mossad, and MI6 attend every meeting to ensure there is no chance of infiltration. Apparently, these people are too important to lose.

[Bankotsu]

It's pretty obvious there's dirty work going on here. The AP may publish an article pertaining to their yearly meeting but nothing more (no mention of the topics discussed).

These meetings to me are more of policy discussions, policy coordination and for lobbying activities etc. We have our grassroots organisations, meetings and the elites have their trilateral commissions, bilderbergs, bohemian groves etc.


Here is an alleged leaked document from bilderberg:

Leaked minutes from Bilderberg meeting 1999, Sintra, Portugal

http://www.bilderberg.org/1999mins.htm



As for the various crackpot theories flooding the internet on these elite groups, so far I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that they are true.

[Uppercut]

These meetings to me are more of policy discussions, policy coordination and for lobbying activities etc. We have our grassroots organisations, meetings and the elites have their trilateral commissions, bilderbergs, bohemian groves etc.

The elite certainly do have their own organizations. But I think it's naive to think they only discuss "policy coordination" and nothing pertaining to how they can enslave us even more. Just think about it, these organizations simply reek of corruption!

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
David Rockefeller, Memoirs, 2002


"America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defence of vested interests. She now stands for what Rome stood for: Rome consistently supported the rich against the poor . . . and since the poor, so far, have always and everywhere been far more numerous than the rich, Rome's policy made for inequality, for injustice, and for the least happiness of the greatest number."
British historian Arnold J. Toynbee




"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
George Bush Senior speaking in an interview with
Sarah McClendon in December 1992


http://www.hermes-press.com/cabal_index.htm

[Bankotsu]

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
David Rockefeller, Memoirs, 2002



That sounds like the comintern agenda.

David Rockefeller founded the Trilateral commission in 1973 to integrate and coordinate the economies of the U.S, europe and Japan as that period saw growing european and Japanese economic power and trade frictions. Don't know whether that can be described as internationalist.

More like a capitalist trouble shooter to bind the three industrial areas against the Soviet Union and the third world.


The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 by private citizens of Japan, Europe (European Union countries), and North America (United States and Canada) to foster closer cooperation among these core democratic industrialized areas of the world with shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system. Originally established for three years, our work has been renewed for successive triennia (three-year periods), most recently for a triennium to be completed in 2012.


When the first triennium of the Trilateral Commission was launched in 1973, the most immediate purpose was to draw together—at a time of considerable friction among governments—the highest-level unofficial group possible to look together at the key common problems facing our three areas. At a deeper level, there was a sense that the United States was no longer in such a singular leadership position as it had been in earlier post-World War II years, and that a more shared form of leadership—including Europe and Japan in particular—would be needed for the international system to navigate successfully the major challenges of the coming years.

http://www.trilateral.org/about.htm


Notice the timing of the founding of trilateral commission in 1973 and the Third World assault against the industrial north with the NIEO agenda in 1974.


The term was derived from the Declaration for the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1974, and referred to a wide range of trade, financial, commodity, and debt-related issues (1 May 1974, A/RES/S-6/3201).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Economic_Order


It wouldn't surprise me at all if Rockefeller helped to influence events from behind the scenes to undermine the NIEO.

[Hexen]

"New World Order" is basically a bourgeoisie euphemism for "One World Capitalism" by translation.

[Bankotsu]

When the United States first realized circa 1970 that its hegemonic dominance was being threatened by the growing economic (and hence geopolitical) strength of western Europe and Japan, it changed its posture, seeking to prevent western Europe and Japan from taking too independent a position in world affairs.

The United States said in effect, although not in words: Up to now, we have been treating you as satellites, required to follow our lead without question on the world scene. But you are stronger now.

So we invite you to be partners, junior partners, who will share in the collective decision-making, provided only you don't stray too far on your own. This new U.S. policy was institutionalized in multiple ways - notably the creation of the G-7, the establishment of the Trilateral Commission, and the invention of the World Economic Forum of Davos as a meeting-ground of the "friendly" world elite.

The main U.S. objective was to slow down the decline of its geopolitical power. The new policy worked for perhaps twenty years...

http://fbc.binghamton.edu/274en.htm



This was the period in which the U.S. was losing the war in Vietnam, which took a serious toll on the U.S. geopolitical position. The combination of this political-military setback, combined with the emergence of Western Europe and Japan as major economic competitors, meant the end of unquestioned U.S. hegemony in the world-system and the beginning of a slow decline. It required a major shift in U.S. foreign policy from the simple outright dominance of the earlier period. The shift started with Nixon - détente with the Soviet Union, and more importantly the trip to Beijing and the transformation of U.S.-China relations. Nixon initiated the policy of what I call soft multilateralism," a policy that would be pursued by every successive U.S. president from Nixon to Clinton, including Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

In terms of Europe, the main consideration was how to slow down what seemed to be a growing trend towards European political autonomy.

To do this, the U.S. offered Europe geopolitical "partnership" (that is, a degree of political consultation) on two fronts - the continuing Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the political-economic struggles of the North versus the South.

This was supposed to be implemented by a multitude of institutions - among others, the Trilateral Commission, the meetings of the G-7, and the World Economic Forum at Davos.

The program on the Cold War resulted in the Helsinki agreements. The North-South program resulted in the drive against nuclear proliferation, the Washington Consensus (in favor of neo-liberalism, against developmentalism), and the construction of the World Trade Organization...

http://fbc.binghamton.edu/137en.htm


In the 1970s with U.S bogged down in war in Vietnam and economic growth slowing down and with europe and Japan getting stronger and more independent, some elites in the U.S feared that Europe and Japan might slip out of U.S influence and make separate deals with the USSR or the third world so they came up with various schemes to tie up the policies of the three regions together through various mechanisms, among others, the Trilateral Commission, the meetings of the G-7, and the World Economic Forum at Davos.

Third World saw the weakness of the U.S in Vietnam and tried to instigate a New International Economic Order against the Capitalist bloc but failed.


1 May 1974


Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly

3202 (S-VI). Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order
http://www.un-documents.net/clear.gif http://www.un-documents.net/clear.gif http://www.un-documents.net/clear.gifThe General Assembly http://www.un-documents.net/clear.gifAdopts the following Programme of Action:

Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order

http://www.un-documents.net/s6r3202.htm

[Bankotsu]

http://www.hermes-press.com/cabal_index.htm

The above site is one of the classic rubbish conspiracy junk websites floating around the web.

Nothing but complete baseless garbage. The writing, the research material, the analysis is so poor and lacking in any fact or evidence that it clear that the creator is a moron.


http://www.hermes-press.com/committee300.gif

One of the typical meaningless horseshit diagrams from these filth websites. A form of pornography if you ask me.

[Orange Juche]

I chose "unsure," because it all depends on what you mean by a "one world government."

If it is a federal institution that holds the bulk of the power and is a lawmaking entity (just as the United States federal government does over smaller governments in the USA), then no, I am not for it. I would be wholly opposed to it - that much power consolidated to span its rule across the entire Earth would be detrimental to direct democracy and the interests of communities.

If it is more of a confederated union comprised of different representatives of different communities all over the world, who come together simply to ensure common interests, deal with issues of trade, etc - then yes, I would be for something along those lines.

I believe power has to primarily rest in local communities, through direct democracy.

[Bankotsu]

I don't know if there's been a discussion on this before, but I came across an article called "Red Symphony" that tells the story of a comintern member being interrogated by the NKVD. The man describes who he is working for, who funded Lenin, what's Trotsky's objectives were, and that Stalin was more of a nationalist/bonapartist, rather than a communist.

It really scares me, as it shakes the foundations of my marxist-leninist beliefs. I've tried to block out these so-called "conspiracy theories", but this one really hit me. I don't know how to go around it.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/red_symphony.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/red_symphony.htm)

The intro at the top screams "Christian-fundamentalist" and "far-right", which is true, concerning the personal beliefs of the author. But once you read the actual article, you'll see why I'm shocked by this find. This "Red Symphony" is another one of the all time classic horseshit texts used by conspiracy crackpots.

It's complete rubbish.

The above link even cites Henry Makow, a seriously deranged nut.

Really, mentally ill people shouldn't be allowed to have access to internet to spread their zany delusions.