Susanne Posel
The idea behind global governance is that “there does not exist any serious environmental problem which cannot be solved through minimizing of energy and material consumption.”
Choosing “the creation of a global society with global democracy” will “improve the function of global financial markets” and “environmental quality.”
George Soros suggests in The Crisis of Global Capitalism that a “worldwide alliance will operate in promoting principles of international law.” However, there is little concern in the globalist Elite’s view of local markets.
Soros goes on to explain the globalist perspective:
To stabilize and regulate a truly global economy, we need some global system of political decision making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy. A global society does not mean a global state.
To abolish the existence of states is neither feasible nor desirable; but insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions. Interestingly, the greatest opposition to this idea is coming from the United States, which, as the sole remaining superpower, is unwilling to subordinate itself to any international authority.
The United States faces a crisis of identity: Does it want to be a solitary superpower or the leader of the free world? The two roles could be blurred as long as the free world was confronting an ‘evil empire’, but the choice now presents itself in much starker terms. Unfortunately we have not even started to consider it. The popular inclination in the United States is to go it alone, but that would deprive the world of the leadership it so badly needs. Isolationism could be justified only if the market fundamentalists were right and the global economy could sustain itself without a global society.
By empowering such international institutions such as the World Bank , the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) to become powerful economic institutions; as well as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) there will be a congruence of international institutions that govern all activity on the planet.
One example of global governance superseding sovereign nation states was when the US Marine Mammal Protection Act banned tuna imports from nations that utilized fishing methods that killed dolphins, the WTO overrode the US, saying that they could not impose such a ban on countries.
Global governance assumes that the purpose of economics is the “assure the preservation of nature and natural resources with minimal cost.” This agenda serves to allow the UN to control how independent governments use their economy. It also gives the UN over-reaching power for specific economic allocation of funds as defined by international mandate.
The valuation techniques of the UN are reserved for the benefit of preservation, not independent countries' ability to govern themselves. Essentially, under the control of the UN, if the economic solution does not “give complete insurance against the non-achievement of sustainability” it is strictly prohibited. Through the propaganda threat of catastrophic outcomes, government officials can be coerced into submission of the rules and regulations set forth by the UN.
Ideals and modes of thought are manipulate-able resources of essential mind control. By using the inference of intelligent institutions, the UN can successfully gain control over the social meme of individual governments.
Institutionalists become enforcers of global “cooperation” by demanding stronger international institutions.
Bioenvironmentalists become eco-terrorists that advocate protection nature from the all-encompassing consumerism of humanity.
Market Liberals can be allocated to ensure global markets function under the thumb of UN mandates for international reform.
Social Greens ensure that the UN’s definition of environmental injustice replaces other definitions in an all-out propaganda campaign resembling “grassroots efforts.”
Sustainable development becomes the over-reaching institution that governs the economy, information and public interest. Elected officials who create laws will be forced to take the UN’s international laws into account before preserving the rights of their individual countries. Propaganda spread throughout the general public of any given nation secures that the UN’s ideals are enforced.
The covert nature of pro-UN propaganda is through the cover of environmentalism. By claiming to preserve the Earth’s natural cycles and eco-systems, they can easily inject ideals of a one-world government into the societies of established nations worldwide.
They use negative feedback to refine their agendas by supplying a constant flow of information into the social construct through stealth. This information appears to be rational on the surface, yet, in the end, leads to a removal of assured independence on the individual and governmental levels.The decision-making control is transferred to the UN, which imbues power to governments to enact their directives.
Contrary to the UN’s agenda, global markets are not an “inevitable consequence of historical development”. It is an over-reaching outcome of “restriction of state governance”. Under the UN’s control there will be a global constitution which defines itself by:
• UN Earth Charter
• Global Community
• Earth Government
• EU Constitution
These objectives are only achieved through the control of minds, thoughts and ideals of individuals. Societal conditioning remaining status quo ensures the global Elite will continue to regulate human thinking.
Link:
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/07/global-eco-constitution-of-un-explained.html
No comments:
Post a Comment