How Globalism Went Global
The meetings this week in Davos, Switzerland where the elites of the planet meet to coordinate, plot and plan, hobnob and be seen, is just the latest step in the most significant danger democracy faces in the world today: Globalism.
The current drive for one world governance began in 1968, in Rome, when a group of the world’s economic, political, financial, and social elites met to form the Club of Rome, the precursor of the Davos meetings. Over the years, the Club grew to include a virtual who’s who of the world’s former but still powerful leaders such as former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, David Rockefeller, former Canadian premier Pierre Trudeau, former Vice President Al Gore, former Mexican president Ernesto Zadillo, former Brazilian president Fernando Enrique Cardozo, and its ringleader and organizer Maurice Strong, a Canadian who went on to become the founding executive director of the United Nations Environment Program.
Four years later, the Club published its first book The Limits of Growth. It sold twelve million copies and won converts to its central argument: That the survival of our planet depended on population control and judicious conservation of our natural resources.
But it was the Club’s next book, The First Global Revolution, that really laid out its agenda for global governance. It called for a globalist/socialist/radical environmentalist government to end free markets and replace democracy with experts who could be trusted to be disinterested and rule wisely.
To achieve the Club of Rome’s goals — and to sweep aside the messy system of nation — states, national sovereignty, and democratic governments that stood in their way — they realized that they needed a common enemy against which they could unite the people of the Earth. In their own words they had to identify “a common adversary, to [be able to] organize and act together.” They said “such a motivation must be found to bring divided nations together to face an outside enemy.”
The enemy need not be real, they write. It “can be either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.” They explained that “this is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. New enemies, therefore, must be identified, new strategies developed, new weapons devised.”
The enemy they had posited in their first book, a population explosion, no longer stirred the blood. Population growth, particularly in China, had been brought largely under control, and the revolution in agricultural techniques sufficed to feed any population growth the future might hold.
They needed a new global enemy to unite the world. Then, inspiration struck! In their book, The First Global Revolution, the Club of Rome recounted how “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea of pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fill the bill.” They explained that “all these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” (A variation of the cartoonist Walt Kelly’s famous line in which his character Pogo exclaims: “we have met the enemy and he is us.”)
At the epicenter of the new movement stood billionaire David Rockefeller. He wrote in his 2003 Memoirs that “some even believe that [my family and I] 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.”
The Club of Rome was quite clear that global governance aimed at solving our world’s problems — real or invented — would require jettisoning the outdated institutions of democracy. The Club of Rome grudgingly conceded that “the old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the past two hundred years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complaisant stagnation with little evidence of real leadership or innovation.” (An interesting comment from a group that included most of the world’s leaders!)
“Democracy,” they warned “is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.”
Then, the Club give us a glimpse of its real opinion: “Sacrilegious as it may sound, democracy is not well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and technical nature of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
The central thesis of the proponents of global governance is that experts can do it so much better.
One of the most celebrated apostles of freedom, Fredrich Hayek, wrote his landmark work The Road to Serfdom amid the rise of communism in the immediate aftermath of World War II. He warns of the potential for tyranny in a government of experts.
“The movement for planning owes its present strength largely to the fact that…it unites all the single-minded idealists, all the men and women who have devoted their lives to a single task. The hopes they place in planning are the result of great exaggeration of the ends they place foremost.”
Think of Dr. Fauci fighting COVID or the left preaching about the danger of global warming.
Hayek continues: “From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a single step. It is the resentment of the frustrated specialist which gives the demand for planning its strongest impetus. There could hardly be a more unbearable and more irrational world than one in which the most eminent specialists in each field were allowed to proceed, unchecked, with the realization of their ideals.”
Nothing could better describe the total lockdown of the entire world in the face of COVID or the dedication of massive federal spending, financed by borrowing, to averting climate change.
Government by experts has long been traditional in Europe. Stung, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by the chaotic failure of democracy to govern, Europeans came to think ill of the system. In France and Italy governments fell every few months and in twentieth century Europe, fascism and Nazism seized power brushing aside democracy.
In nineteenth century, Germany, Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, facing a European-wide series of revolutions in 1848, demanding democracy, moved to protect the power of his ruler and patron, Kaiser Wilhelm I, by striking a deal with the Christian Democratic politicians who dominated the Prussian parliament. He secured their loyalty to the Kaiser and got them to turn aside from their proposals to temper his rule with a constitutional monarchy by advancing — and largely creating — a host of social benefits such as unemployment insurance, workers compensation, health insurance, old age pensions and the like.
The deal of social benefits as an alternative to democracy set the pattern for Germany and much of the European continent. Now it offers a template for the advocates of global governance.
Experts are more respected than politicians in Europe. Most Europeans discount the views of elected leaders as political pandering and, instead, turn to the experts for guidance. But Americans tend to belittle the views of self-selected experts, asking sarcastically who elected them. Rather they are more likely to respect the opinions of elected political leaders as representing the will of the people.
So the European Union (EU) is based on a foundation of government by prominent experts from the best schools, a heritage of the continent’s residual respect for aristocracy as the best form of governance.
The EU is governed by experts and elected leaders have little power. The voters in continental Europe vote for a party, not a candidate, and the party leaders then name the legislators who will fill the seats their party won at the most recent election. The prime ministers and premiers they choose meet in the Council of Ministers and set policy for the EU. But their opinions are heavily guided and leveraged by unelected civil servants who act in their name.
By the time the bureaucracy decides, the original will of the voters is but a distant memory. Democracy is not practiced here.
The Brexit rebellion by the voters of the UK, who momentarily escaped the control of their betters, was a rare outbreak of obsolete democratic sentiment.
In the U.S., the media establishment is totally in the pockets of the globalists. What is said over outdoor tables for two at the left bank cafes count for everything in articulating global “opinion.” By contrast, the elites and their media allies hold the views of ruffians like Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump in low regard.
The globalists have won support for their form of government by cutting third world dictators in on the deal. In the name of “compensating” poorer countries for their late industrialization and to get them to temper their growth to slow climate change, the rich nations are seeking to turn over entire sources of revenue to the world’s dictators redistributing wealth from the developed to the underdeveloped countries. Of course, this money will end up in corrupt Swiss bank accounts.
Meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt in November of 2022, negotiators from nearly two hundred countries agreed to create a fund that would, according to The New York Times, “help poor, vulnerable countries cope with climate disasters made worse by the pollution spewed by wealthy nations that is dangerously heating the planet.”
The Times reported that “for more than three decades, developing nations have pressed for loss and damage money, asking rich, industrialized countries to provide compensation for the costs of destructive storms, heat waves and droughts fueled by global warming.”
Ultimately, the poor nations’ goal is to divert revenue streams from rich countries so that they can tap directly into the money spigot. For example, the European Union has already agreed to divert excise tax revenue from trans-Atlantic air tickets to a special fund to help poorer nations fight global warming.
We must realize that the globalists have in mind far more than mere financial gain. They seek to use the fear of global warming — or pandemics or whatever the cause du jour happens to be — to accelerate the shift in power from the U.S. and other democracies to United Nations, where the lone American voice can be offset by a tidal wave of votes from the third world.
Along with the geographic shift in power comes a massive redistribution of wealth from democratic to autocratic states and from freedom to tyranny. With the UN Security Council paralyzed by the vetoes of Russia and China, it is the General Assembly, where each nation casts one vote, from which the impetus for global governance stems. And the General Assembly is dominated by small, often tiny nations (like Pacific islands) voting in unison to bleed the major western democracies of their power and money.
Even as the police state in China, the militarists in Russia, the theocrats in Iran and the dictator in North Korea each represent a threat to peace, freedom, and democracy, global governance poses the greater ultimate danger to our freedom.
Purchase The Return: Trump’s Big 2024 Comeback — CLICK HERE NOW!
Get Your FREE, Gold And Silver Precious Metals Investment Material. No Fee For Life IRA Program Now Available — CLICK HERE NOW!
SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE DICK’S VIDEOS & COLUMNS FOR FREE — CLICK HERE!
View Dick’s most recent videos in case you missed them!
The Success Of The Volunteer Military – Dick Morris TV: History Video!
Poll Shows Surge In Trump Favorability – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
The Dynamics Of A Trump/DeSantis Race – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
How Hunter Funneled Money To Joe – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
 |
