“All truth passes through three stages.  First, it is ridiculed.  Second, it is violently opposed.  Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”  -Arthur Schopenhauer

I’ve been talking about “world government” for almost a decade now.  At first, I met a high degree of scepticism and disdain…people called me a conspiracy theorist or a nut.  Later on, it became a concept that was tangible to the people – they could see it, but outright denied it.  Now, it would seem that the people and the media have outright accepted it’s plausibility.

I have noticed an alarming trend, as of late, that these ideas of global governance are now being widely reported in the media.  People are seeing how we’re facing a near perfect storm for such a thing to come into the light.

I suppose the concept of global rule, to some regards, is nearly inevitable.  As our economic and social backgrounds become ever more blurred through the advancement of technology, it becomes logical, if not even sensible, to embrace others around this world in common cause.  Anyone who’s read H.G. Well’s, “The Open Conspiracy” has likely gotten a good dose of the human-centric idealism that a lot of pro “one worlders” have in the back of their minds.

When thinking through these concepts with a critical eye, however, one must recognize some serious faults with the destruction of nationalism.  Is a homogeneous culture really beneficial to human kind?  What happens if one power gains a foothold and turns sour?  Once we traverse into this realm of unified governance, how can the people resist an oppressive regime?    How do we avoid the inevitable political and social conflicts that such a plan will create?  What if a mistake is made…is it too much to affect the whole world?  These are just a handful of questions that come to mind.

The following article, from the highly respected Financial Times, is a must-read for anyone that cares to know what’s going on.  I felt it to be an honest investigation into the plausibility of the plan to create a new world.

And now for a world government

I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.

Related posts:

1. The Global Warming Band-Aid… While all these politicians and so-called experts doddle on what-ever-to-do...
2. Hello World… So it’s been forever since I’ve updated my blog. I’ve...
3. Letters To Congress – War With Iran April 28th, 2006 The Honorable Cathy McMorris United States House...

I recently read an article reporting that an internal Citigroup memo is predicting some pretty dire economic circumstances for 2009 and/or 2010.  The memo even suggests that civil disorder is likely to occur and also provides some visibility into the recent doubts over the credit stability of several S&P AAA rated nations.

On the flip side, they do (logically) project that gold prices could surge through $2,000 an ounce as world markets recover from severe inflationary injections or we continue the downward spiral into depression.

To those of us who are paying attention and have a realistic understanding of fiat currencies and credit based markets, this comes as no surprise.  It’s interesting to see the world come to grips with it, though.

Continue to read the whole article.

Citigroup says gold could rise above $2,000 next year as world unravels

Complete Article at Telegraph.co.uk.

Gold is poised for a dramatic surge and could blast through $2,000 an ounce by the end of next year as central banks flood the world’s monetary system with liquidity, according to an internal client note from the US bank Citigroup.

The bank said the damage caused by the financial excesses of the last quarter century was forcing the world’s authorities to take steps that had never been tried before.

This gamble was likely to end in one of two extreme ways: with either a resurgence of inflation; or a downward spiral into depression, civil disorder, and possibly wars. Both outcomes will cause a rush for gold.

“They are throwing the kitchen sink at this,” said Tom Fitzpatrick, the bank’s chief technical strategist.

“The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have done. When the dust settles this will either work, and the money they have pushed into the system will feed though into an inflation shock.

“Or it will not work because too much damage has already been done, and we will see continued financial deterioration, causing further economic deterioration, with the risk of a feedback loop. We don’t think this is the more likely outcome, but as each week and month passes, there is a growing danger of vicious circle as confidence erodes,” he said.

“This will lead to political instability. We are already seeing countries on the periphery of Europe under severe stress. Some leaders are now at record levels of unpopularity. There is a risk of domestic unrest, starting with strikes because people are feeling disenfranchised.”

“What happens if there is a meltdown in a country like Pakistan, which is a nuclear power. People react when they have their backs to the wall. We’re already seeing doubts emerge about the sovereign debts of developed AAA-rated countries, which is not something you can ignore,” he said.

Gold traders are playing close attention to reports from Beijing that the China is thinking of boosting its gold reserves from 600 tonnes to nearer 4,000 tonnes to diversify away from paper currencies. “If true, this is a very material change,” he said.

Mr Fitzpatrick said Britain had made a mistake selling off half its gold at the bottom of the market between 1999 to 2002. “People have started to question the value of government debt,” he said.

Citigroup said the blast-off was likely to occur within two years, and possibly as soon as 2009. Gold was trading yesterday at $812 an ounce. It is well off its all-time peak of $1,030 in February but has held up much better than other commodities over the last few months – reverting to is historical role as a safe-haven store of value and a de facto currency.

Gold has tripled in value over the last seven years, vastly outperforming Wall Street and European bourses.

Related posts:

1. The Beginning of Financial Collapse… Well, perhaps it's not the beginning - but some news...
2. US Economics – Crashin’ & Burnin’ Word is that mortgage giants, Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae...
3. Letters To Congress – Federal Reserve & The M3 April 21st, 2006 The Honorable Cathy McMorris United States House...

Things aren’t so hot on the US economic front these days.  Word is that mortgage giants, Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae – the largest backers of US mortgages – are facing serious finanical troubles.  Just as with Bear Stearns, a major investment banker, the Federal Reserve is being asked to make up the shortfall.  Don’t misunderstand, such an act will have a devastating impact to our economy and will send us into a downward spiral that will last for years to come.

Where the Bear Stearns bailout alarmed me with billions of US taxpayer’s dollars going towards preventing assured destruction of the US economy (from systemic collapse), this latest bailout has me in an absolute state of panic.  These two mortgage firms financially back nearly half of all US mortgages – trillions upon trillions of dollars of investment dollars.  We’re talking a multi-TRILLION dollar bailout here with the capacity to nearly double the US national debt overnight.  Yes, folks, that means our money will be worth nearly HALF as much once the trickle effect of that money being spent into the world’s economy is felt.

Oddly, after the news of the Federal Reserve backing the failed mortgage firms came out, the US dollar rallied back up.  This is completely counter-intuitive and clearly shows how well the market is manipulated and misinformed.  With multiple trillions being induced into the economy, the only *logical* result is for the value of the dollar to go DOWN.  More money in the economy, unbacked by anything of value EQUALS inflation.  Yet, mark my words, it will fall…and it’s gonna fall harder than I ever expected.

News reports are also saying that this bailout marks the last and final we will see from the Federal Reserve.  On one hand, that’s good news because US taxpayers are footing the bill – but on the other hand, it means that systemic collapse is a very real risk.  Once the collapse begins to occur, there is no stopping it – and we WILL feel an economic recession that makes the 1920′s look like child’s play.

As was expected, gold and silver rallied back up to levels seen several months ago – a surefire indication that things are in trouble.  I only expect these to continue their upward trend, despite being heavily manipulated.  Those who control the market can only do so much.  These two investments will be one of the few that can survive the up and coming disaster that is looming on our doorstep.

Have a great week. 

Related posts:

1. What You Need To Know About Economics… It's kind of funny...when I hear media puppets talk about...
2. The Beginning of Financial Collapse… Well, perhaps it's not the beginning - but some news...
3. Canadian Dollar Surpasses US Dollar… Every Canadian can start doing the happy dance now -...

So, I’ve been seeing a lot about water powered vehicles lately. This technology has been around for some time (I have copies of patents going back to the early 80′s), but somehow the technology just simply wasn’t allowed to exist. Probably because it seriously threatens major oil profiteers and other interests that have billions of dollars to insure that you don’t hear about it. The cat’s out of the bag these days, though…we got it on video!

Click here to view the video!

I was also thinking about this global warming problem, right? Now, I’ve researched both sides of the arguments and it’s clear that no one has any idea what’s going on. One side says there’s no evidence of humans causing global warming…and another side says, oh my God, look out, we’re all gonna die. Some even say there is no global warming, and yet even others would forget to breathe if it weren’t pre-programmed into our brains. While all these politicians and so-called experts doddle on what-ever-to-do about this supposed problem, I came up with a band-aid.

The world’s oil consumption is somewhere around 87 million barrels per day, or approximately 3.65 billion gallons *per day*. The proposed major problem with global warming is that sea levels might rise and cause major flooding of coastal towns, right?

So, to band-aid the earth of all it’s supposed global warming woes, all we gotta do is switch to water powered vehicles, start sucking that 3+ billion gallons of water per day out of the sea and we’ll neutralize the global warming threat. And since there’s about 326 million trillion gallons of water on earth, that’ll last us for the next 244 million years, plus or minus a couple years.

This method has some major benefits, aside from the obvious of using a clean fuel.

We can keep doing whatever the heck we want to do without worry…like driving our ten wheel diesel trucks to pull obscenely oversized RV’s, pumping cubic foot after foot of putrid nastiness into the air, and God-forbid, we can keep breathing without having to pay a tax just to be alive. To boot, we’ll eventually get more real estate to solve our burgeoning population problem. We’ll also get better weather unless you live in Arizona or Dubai – in which case, I hate to break it to you, but people were not designed to survive living in a desert.

Related posts:

1. Global Warming And It’s Fallout I’ve been noticing a steadily increasing rise in news and...
2. Internet 2 In 2012? I’ve been hearing about I2, or “Internet 2″ for several...
3. How Democratic Representation Works… Have you ever had a feeling that you pretty much...

I’ve been hearing about I2, or “Internet 2″ for several years now. Basically, the concept is a revolutionary redesign of the internet and it has been headed up by a consortium of universities, technology leaders, government officials and corporations. Critics fear that this somewhat obscure group could be responsible for regulatory acts over the internet in order to bring about systems of taxation, further surveillance and and greater control exercised over the global internet.

One arm of this has been the Net Neutrality legislation that has recently been discussed by congress. Essentially, net neutrality is the idea behind giving certain precedence to some websites over others, based on the ability of the service provider to pay the proper fees. So, for example, Google could afford to pay for massive usage and get fast speeds – whereas my site would be slow (or completely unavailable) because I am unwilling to pay or can’t afford such usage fees. This is bad stuff for the internet as it will completely favor large corporations and cause smaller, less-popular websites to suffer viewership because of such regulation.

Another branch of this is the technology aspects of Internet 2. There is great question over what this could encompass, however, concern is placed over what technologies would be allowed to exist over such a network. Most people think of the internet as “the web” – but it’s much larger than that. For example, IRC (internet relay chat) is a sub technology, like “the web,” that rides over the internet. Another example might be a voice-over-IP telephone connection. Little is truly known about what Internet 2 might actually look like from the technology perspective.

Now, I’ve been hearing “crying wolf” stories about the regulation of the internet so many times that I’ve almost become numb to it. However, just recently, another alarm has gone off on this front and I feel obliged to reveal it to you. Sources have uncovered what may be leaked information about some of the potential design aspects of this new internet technology, informally termed Internet 2.

Essentially, leaked information suggests that internet service providers may go to a “pay per view” model, as early as 2012, where users are charged based for their internet usage habits. Going even further, the information also suggests that a certain list of “approved sites” would be readily available for anyone to access, however, the millions of *other* websites out there would require pay-per-view type access accounts and/or a more costly tier of service to access them.

There is no doubt that a move like this would radically transform the look, feel and freedom of the internet. Many of the sites and things that we enjoy on the internet could be significantly threatened if a business model like this is allowed to come to fruition.

I’m still waiting for several independent sources to confirm this information and awaiting further investigation to be released, but this latest threat appears to be somewhat credible with the news that has been released so far.

This is bad stuff, folks. Please feel free to watch these videos to get some more information about the subject matter. There are also several web articles out there.

I Power Net Neutrality Analysis:

Click here to view the video!

Alex Jones Analysis:

Click here to view the video!

Click here to view the video!

Related posts:

1. Why I Don’t MySpace… I've learned of disreputable MySpace censoring tactics. I don't like...
2. Something About Me… My name is Jeff Whiteside and I am currently living...
3. Got “Real ID?” As a result of the Real ID Act of 2005,...

I’ve been noticing a steadily increasing rise in news and information about global warming. It seems the majority is waking up to the matrix of the world and is beginning to understand our ecological footprint. In an ever increasing trend, I’m seeing news suggesting that “people” are the cause for this ever increasing disaster. While yes, the term “people” is technically correct, we must realize that “people” also means corporations and other for-profit enterprises.The world is about to come to an epic realization that we, as a society, need to change – both significantly and rapidly. People are finally coming to realize the ultimate flaw of capitalism; the unsustainable concept of unlimited growth potential. There simply are not infinite resources for infinite growth and as more countries adopt capitalism, industrialization and world trade agreements, the smaller and smaller the resource pool becomes. We must realize that we are at the crossroad of two choices: Either we change and push hard for and achieve sustainability or we face the consequences of a worldwide mass extermination of people. I hate to be blunt, but follow the logic.

As an American and reluctantly a consumer, I recognize that I have a fairly significant environmental impact as an individual. Even though I go out of my way to recycle, buy from “green” companies as much as possible, support organic farmers and so on…I still throw away a lot and produce a constant supply of carbon dioxide. I contribute to ecological decline, perhaps much less so than the majority of Americans – but I still have a significant impact, especially over the entire course of my lifetime.

I have a feeling, however, that this self recognition will be slammed down our throats and will justify additional taxation as well as rising prices in the years to come. It will unfairly put the burden and cost of sustainability on the consumer. I say “unfairly” because corporations have advanced beyond fulfilling the needs of society into creating needs, manipulating our desires and otherwise encouraging us to consume.

Corporations have made decisions based on the flawed theories of capitalism and complete disregard for anything other than profit and growth. These corporate entities have continually plundered the world for their benefit and purposefully, perhaps ignorantly, created unsustainable conditions. The ecological footprint of the corporation, no matter how you look at it, is far larger than that of the individual. They have made no effort to inform you of their unsustainable practices and have mislead people into believing that consumption is good. Their ultimate goal has been, and will continue to be, to have us consume more and more – that is, until we either face doom or revolutionize our concepts of capitalism, profit and growth.

The introduction of globalization, global trade and the creation of private interests that direct these concepts have insured that this system is growing increasingly larger and complex. Our government has not just paved the way for these unsustainable empires to exist and profit, but have also ignorantly perpetuated the “infinite growth”myth. Congress is just now waking up to ecological decline and they’re grasping at straws for the solutions.

My protest is not that we need “green” corporations, albeit this is of certain importance – but it’s one that I believe corporations should absorb the primary burden of ecological sustainability from their profit and gains. Corporations and their stakeholders are ultimately responsible for the continued advancement of natural deficit consumerism in America and across the globe. It is their very nature that has created the conditions we face and things are not going to really change until we make them responsible for their actions.

Forcing people to pay the tax of sustainability only allows the corporation to sustain it’s profitability and continued growth. I say we need to look at this from a much more fundamental level and that is, “Can the need be filled by sustainable technology ?” and subsequently, “Should we allow the unsustainable corporation to exist?” By creating a capitalist environment that is hostile to anti-sustainable means, we insure innovation of sustainable technology at a much more rapid pace.

No related posts.