Theory....Global Terror = Trojan Horse for "Global Union"

[cthrumatrix]

This came to me as I watched Clinton and Dole on CSPAN last night. Clinton was talking about the benefits of Global Union (shared values, individual country roles..etc). His comments were quite brief on this area ...near the end of the program.

However, his words of "global" made me take note of what I have heard before from others who have been "discredited"...like a David Icke who has shared that "Global Union" is their "end state"...why? Global Control.

Icke always has shared that "they" get things done with using "problem / solution"..meaning "they" create a problem with their solution to be implemented. You can look back at how the US has been provoked many time to go to war...how we take action AFTER events etc....

"Global Terror" is the trojan horse that cannot be seen, cannot be catured, does not have a home and wreaks chaos...we would all agree on this I hope. The issue is how do you get the US to participate in this "global union"...we don't need anybody.

However, if the US was fallible, no longer the premiere power, vulnerbale in it's: curency, loss of manufacturing, social systems, etc....then you create an enevironment where we would be open to a promise of "global harmony" with one army, one currency, a global political UN-like rule.

IF things were bad enough here...we would go for it. I could seem many other 3rd world countries obviously supporting the idea. It would be sold as a "global solution"...social systems, safety, jobs..no longer hostage to North Korea etc...

This is a long term vision that has come about. Witness the European Union...the strenght of the Euro ...the wish for an "American Union" with north and central america's by 2005 (Cheney has already said this).

If you subcribe to "corporatism" running the world and our political systems or the elite who believe in: power, control ...etc ... then it layers with all that we see happening today.

The US is "at war" for it's independence to this union. Our proud military stretched to an invisble enemy. Our manufacturing excellence lost to third world countries, our jobs shipped overseas by coproration wanting better profits etc.

For those of you that don't believe or flame away I can accept your opinions and it's a healthy debate. At the same time...you can't deny the state of our country.

For those that would welcome a "global union"...can you imagine the thought of global terroe still deployed...think of a "global patriot act"...enough said.

I welcome your opinions.

[cthrumatrix]

1. next time I should write about Hannity's tie choice...to get a reply

We are obessed with the smaller picture and righting wrongs. It's the larger picure of "why" and "where are things going"?

[Stanchetalarooni]

2. I am in agreement with you.

Nation states are but tools for other "organizing entities" within the human genome.

Defining the qualities of these "organizing entities" is somewhat difficult in that one must take into account the nature and identity of the definer.


All things are not knowable to each of us but what we cannot know we can infer.

It is sort of like a left/right brain dilemma. The left brain knows little of what the right brain is up to and vice versa.

My sense is that in order to understand this "global" phenomena one must move beyond the habitual ways of studying power and politics and religion and nationalism.

Neurological advances in the last 20 yrs or so is a good place to start.

These "organizing entities" have much in common on a neurological level.

If one can ignore their skin color, their nationality, their overt behaviors, then one can then begin to attend to the outcomes of their covert behaviors.

You are definately on to something, cthrumatrix.

After all, in some ways we are nothing more than 6 billion contained within a spherical petrie dish?

Let us study ourselves as such and see what we shall see as well as what we cannot see.

[JewelDigger]

3. Some thoughts

I have thought about this some myself. The part I always get 'stuck' on though is this:

"they" get things done with using "problem / solution"..meaning "they" create a problem with their solution to be implemented. You can look back at how the US has been provoked many time to go to war...how we take action AFTER events etc....

I believe that this is true. But if people don't want to/or shouldn't go down the path that 'they' are offering, WHAT is a better alternative? People have been trying to create 'Utopia' since the dawn of history without success. But if we don't like this 'global solution', what WOULD be a better vision? It's important to think about because as Forrest Gump said, "If you don't know where you're going, you probably won't get there." Which direction SHOULD we be heading in?

[JackRiddler]

4. please let's leave Icke out of this...

We have a global system already. It has evolved over centuries and came into its present broad outlines at the end of WWII. It prevailed against the major competing-system challenge of the Soviets.

Its logic is near irresistible, but it works best when most of the people inside it pretend not to notice it and instead believes they are in charge of their own lives, making independent decisions. At the top, a bunch of people really think they are in charge of the world.

The "U.S. plus EU/UK plus Asian/Arab investors" corporate power elite is at the top of this system. We're talking a global handful, 10,000 families or less who "own" most of the resources productive and raw and who pull the main strings through spook networks, states, corps and institutions like IMF/WTO/NATO/UN/ETC.

"They" are in competing factions but generally define themselves through the common interest of keeping this power over the rest.*

The practical details of how their will to power is to be explained, justified and implemented is defined largely by hired and loyal intellectuals and showpersons in the foundations, think tanks, academies and media. These guys are the ones you tend to see as the representatives of power, but they are usually more representative than powerful.

"They" are (of necessity) in the middle of a long crisis/transformation to a more open version of their rule. (This crisis is in some ways perpetual; the system has evolved more through its crises than through anything else.)

This is what "globalism" is about: a new version of the OLD WORLD ORDER. Certain "conservatives" fail to see this and call it the "New World Order" because their psychology relies on nostalgia about a mythical past and the essential goodness of a fictional nation so they don't want to admit that both were heading logically towards the present moment and therefore always contained the seeds of what the conservative now diagnoses as rot. Certain "progressives" fail to see this and rely on the term "globalism" because they want an easy enemy to oppose today; often they fear historical analysis, in part because they think it hinders them in their effort to acquire a popular image and turn people on to their views.

The power obeys the logic of the system, that it may survive.

The logic of this system is in many ways simple but veiled by layers of denial and indoctrination. Keep expanding. Keep moving. Use chaos as strength. Divide and conquer your opponents. Switch and bait. Keep your finger in every pie. Bread and circuses. Most of the principles are ancient, the present-day implementation is scientifically sophisticated thanks to the modern psychological disciplines and the mass technologies.

One important element of keeping people satisfied in countries like the United States is to give them the regular illusion of change. Democrats are there to fatten the people up and make them feel good. They fill treasuries. Republicans are there to scare them and shear them like sheep. They plunder treasuries. (It's important to rotate between these options at the right times, and mistakes can be made, at any rate "mistakes" from the perspective of the systemic logic.)

Again, the process does not require anything near a majority understanding it in this way. It works best when people believe they're actually working for what they believe in (and get some of it).

The process is imperfect and can produce leaders and activists who actually believe in the label they wear. It's important to destroy or recuperate these.

A lot of people are confused or else intentionally mystify these issues by failing to see systems and their ruling classes as anything other than "conspiracies" (in which one may believe or disbelieve), and by confusing the way that power serves the obvious long-term logic of the system (which I like to call capitalism, but you can pick your own name for it) with a single, long-term master plan.

Which does not exclude the possibility of making and pursuing such long-term plans... but perhaps also of long-term plans that undo the system.

In the end, there will be an open global system. This is an unavoidable, given the size of the planet and the frothing power of our species. It need not be the nightmare that is planned by the elites, in which nations, identities, cultures and particularities are ultimately destroyed in the process.

---------

* i.e., they tend not to be spiritualists in the sense that they suddenly decide to define themselves through asceticism or good works or pleasure as opposed to power, actions that would cause them to fall from the top. I am merely noting the psychological dimension of how values are defined.)

[cthrumatrix]

5. Thank you ...and a question

If the US is being lead to this Global Union (purposefully or not)...would you not agree that people in this country would "resist change" unless they saw no alternative.

We see the US as strong and powerful in many ways. Take away that aura of invincibility, weaker currency, job lossess, decaying social systems or $$$ for health care....and people would say "I am open to something better".

If that is the case...then the US may be in for some rough sledding so "these people" get their way and the US agrees to such a movement.

Thoughts?

[JackRiddler]

6. U.S. power became unsustainable long ago.

I don't invest much in the notion of a secret plan to destroy the nation to make way for global union because the power of this nation already has been in decline due to obvious economic factors for at least 30 years, and most of the "secret plans" I know of are actually designed to maintain that power against the reality of its decline. The currency lost its moorings long ago and is now based on fiat, on the ability to bomb distant nations, on the fact that the rest of the world is stuck with it. The industrial base left for cheaper shores, the national economy runs on debt, the debt levels in all categories have reached historic highs. Was a one-world conspiracy supporting these trends? Maybe, but more important surely is that they made sense in the context of capitalist development. Paradoxically the extent of U.S. power has never seemed greater or more unlimited (at least until 2001), but the base of that power has been undermined... mainly by the objective economic trends (here "objective" is a function of capital and the dream economics of unlimited growth).

You say, "Take away that aura of invincibility, weaker currency, job lossess, decaying social systems or $$$ for health care..." as though one needs to "take it away." Actually, the reality of invincibility, strong currency and prosperity is already gone. The aura still remains - it's even twice as bright! - but one day will follow the reality. We will have what Krugman recently called our "Wile E. Coyote" moment, when we notice we are standing on nothing but air, over a cliff. The U.S. as nation is simply much weaker than it once was relative to the other nations, although paradoxically it still serves as the superpowerful overlord of the world system. The "globalist controllers" insofar as they pursue a coordinated strategy would (I expect) prefer to keep U.S. power as their stabilizer, even as they prepare plans for the inevitable. I expect "they" don't really have to destroy this nation; "they" are more worried about how to preserve their power in the period that follows the acknowledgement of its decline. I further expect that the globalist dream will fail miserably once its American center is removed.

What follows? A return to nation-statism? Of what kind? In the long run of centuries, these thoughts almost give me hope... that a just and global system in which particularity remains vital and essential is the likeliest outcome, simply because the kind of global domination imagined by the globalists (and their detractors) will prove no match for the atavism of nation; whereas the nation alone is no match for the globality of problems; so that some conscious balance must be found, or else it all ends in one big radioactive pile. (What good this possible future time of justice and enlightenment will do for us in the now and here is another matter.)