– Council on Foreign Relations Plan for Global Governance in 2013 (Activist Post, Dec 29, 2012):
It is incredible that mention of a one-world government in many circles is still considered to be conspiracy talk. Fortunately, the global political awakening that arch-globalist Zbigniew Brzezinski has referred to is forcing ever-increasing justifications for their use of globalist language.
One would hope that a relatively new Council on Foreign Relations initiative that is expanding can lay to rest any debate about the desire to form a global government in the name of supposedly solving global problems.
The initiative called The Council of Councils was featured in a recent round table discussion of the central problems facing the world that they believe require multilateral cooperation. The discussions and recommendations released from this convention of experts is important to keep available the next time you hear the label conspiracy theorist hurled in your direction. The title of the round table was Challenges for Global Governance in 2013.
Just as we have seen from other think tanks such as the Project For a New American Century, The Royal Society, and the Brookings Institution, among others; their thoughts translate to reality on a less-than-coincidental frequency, so we would do well to listen to what they are saying.
The Council of Councils initiative was announced in March, 2012 and clearly identifies a strategy for forming alliances across a series of shared concerns as set forth by the CFR. It is important to note from the beginning that the CFR bills itself as non-partisan; and here is where the uninitiated can immediately be tripped up. Non-partisan sounds like a good thing, going beyond typical party divisions, while striking a note that rings of independence and an objective search for the truth.
However, when one understands that in their own words, “The founding membership of the Council of Councils includes leading institutions from nineteen countries, roughly tracking the composition of the Group of Twenty (G20),” we begin to get an inkling that their version of non-partisan means that they are flexible in their use of whatever political language is expedient to get results that go beyond any concept of nationalism.
The party of the CFR is the One World Party.
There have been many predictions for 2013: political, economic, and environmental. These predictions take a large step toward confirmation when we read the writings of elite think tanks; they tell us explicitly what the plan is. The conferences themselves illustrate much of what we can expect on the globalist agenda for 2013, and it seems to line up perfectly with events that would benefit those in favor of a one world system and centralized control.
From the CFR website:
December 12, 2012—December 13, 2012
On December 12-13, 2012, CFR convened the second Council of Councils regional conference: “Russia, Europe, and the Future of Global Governance.”
Participants discussed four major themes:
• Russia’s G20 chairmanship
• The eurozone crisis and global economy
• Syria and the function of the UN Security Council
• Cybersecurity and institutional reforms
October 30, 2012—October 31, 2012
On October 30-31, 2012, CFR convened the first Council of Councils regional conference: “Asia at the Crossroad: Regional Priorities for the Twenty First Century.”
Participants discussed five major themes:
• Stabilizing the global financial system
• Advancing trade liberalization
• Strengthening maritime security and freedom of navigation
• Assessing the proliferation threat in Asia
• The future of Asian security cooperation
March 12, 2012—March 13, 2012
CFR convened the inaugural Council of Councils conference on March 12-13 in Washington, DC. Participants tackled four major themes:
• The overall state of global governance and multilateral cooperation
• The status of the nuclear nonproliferation regime (with a focus on Iran)
• The dollar’s future as the world’s reserve currency
• The criteria for humanitarian intervention, in the wake of regime change in Libya, and an ongoing crisis in Syria.
The documents above are ponderous reading to say the least, but they echo what we see currently playing out on the world stage to such an extent that they are better understood as a blueprint.
The themes above can best be distilled into the following 5 directives:
- Managing global economic collapse and the loss of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency (stabilizing the global financial system).
- Managing “humanitarian intervention” through UN representation (fulfilling the narrative of abusive dictators in need of regime change).
- Managing Eurasia, i.e. China’s economic influence and Russia’s political influence (Asia trade liberalization and Russian G20 chairmanship).
- Managing nuclear “rogue states” (Iran and North Korea – “proliferation”).
- Managing the Internet (Cybersecurity and related institutions).
To understand how crisis managers like the CFR operate, we must look at their false premises. Every single point that they cite as an urgent need for reform was created well in advance, so that they could hold conferences offering wide-ranging solutions.
Economic Collapse: Think tanks like the CFR would like us to believe that the economic issues we are currently facing just simply happened, perhaps from bad policy, or lack of regulation within rogue nation states. However, the economic collapse we have seen is the direct result of the consolidation of the world’s banking system into 6 mega-banks that are now above the law. Global governance will only enhance this problem, as it goes even further toward consolidation into a global banking system lorded over by the very same entities that looted the planet to begin with. There also seems to be a concerted effort to impose a private banking system in any country that controls its currency: central banks are the real target for West’s imperial wars.
Humanitarian Intervention: One can employ euphemisms all they want, but there is no such thing as a love bomb; yet, this is what is suggested time and again. The CFR specifically cites such intervention following the destruction and dismantling of Libya – previously the most economically and socially rich country in North Africa, and now fractured and left in the hands of a brutal campaign of genocide. Syria is now on the chopping block to be saved through NATO bombing campaigns, the arming of Al Qaeda terrorists as the opposition, and mass propaganda campaigns that are aimed to convince the global community – yet again – that WMDs are being used by the current regime against its own citizens. It, too, will likely fall and a sectarian genocide is bound to follow.
Middle East Destabilization: This is the heavy-handed version which results in outright declaration of war. The wars in the Middle East began with lies, and every action thereafter has been a deliberate fog primarily centered around the threat of WMDs. There is slight lip service paid to the “poor oppressed people of (fill in the blank)” but we have seen the death of over 1 million Iraq civilians, Afghan civilians, and increasing civilian casualties from drone strikes across the Middle East and Africa. The crippling sanctions levied against Iran is the first salvo of outright war on that country that could result in untold millions perishing. This increasing destabilization is built into the globalist system, not something that they desire to avoid.
Geopolitical Reorganization: This could also be called global hegemony. From all of the chaos comes order, according to think tanks like the CFR. The elimination of “rogue nations” is at the heart of the globalist agenda, which seeks consolidation into the hands of a few powerful regions.
Brzezinski’s response in 1974 to the question, What is The New World Order? is telling:
We need to change the international system for a global system in which new, active, and creative forces — recently developed — should be integrated.
This has been used to great effect by the U.S. to start wars where “terrorist” regimes can be subverted or dismantled, and their flags (resources) captured. Likewise, financial wars create the need for reorganization. As stated in the Prospects For The Russian Chairmanship of the G20:
Generally speaking, the authors would like to see the G20 emerge from merely a crisis committee to become a more enduring steering group for the global economy…
A more ruthless approach to who gets to participate at the top table and the number of formal presentations made during the meetings would be another important contribution to Russia’s aim of getting back to basics. (emphasis added)
There are indeed many moving pieces on The Grand Chessboard, but there does appear to be an urgency to make 2013 a transformative year within the “Great Game” which could lead to a WWIII scenario as the final consolidation both political and economic comes to fruition.
Internet Control: China has just implemented name registration of its Internet users. If over 1 billion people can be made to comply with such a mandate, how will the U.S. be able to resist? However, the U.S. is not used to an overt, centrally managed system such as China, so it needs false flag terror to implement such draconian policies. The writing is on the wall with the announcement of state-sponsored viruses like Stuxnet and its offspring, as well as a dire warning coming from McAfee about an almost certain Project Blitzkrieg, which should be fully realized in 2013 with the intent to attack financial institutions.
The agenda of global governance exits, and the move toward a one world government is being executed. The solutions being discussed at think tank conferences in a wide range of disciplines from geopolitics, to science, to health, to economics and communications are all beginning to coalesce into an overall agenda of centralized control. This fusion is manifesting at an accelerated pace in tandem with the rapid awakening of humanity to its condition of increasing servitude. We are, as Brzezinski titled his 1970 book, Between Two Ages. It is the age of power mad control mechanisms locked in a battle of the ages with the spirit of that which refuses to be fully controlled.
2013 seems to be the threshold where we will discover which force has the momentum to decide the unwritten future beyond.
Here are some excerpts selected by an Amazon.com reviewer of Between Two Ages (with comments added by the reviewer [parentheses] and myself [bold]) which should illustrate that Brzezinski is either a legitimate prophet, or has been instrumental in a top-to-bottom think tank orchestration of what we have seen come to pass.
Between Two Ages was published in 1970.
“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.” (This was an excellent prediction although it is slightly worse now.) – Warrantless wiretapping was approved for another five years, putting no restraints on what will be done by the NSA’s new facility set to open in September, 2013
“In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.” (Fox CNN and Facebook?) – Social media and the control exercised by effectively privatizing free speech. The recent Facebook shutdown of political dissidents only hints at how this aggregation mechanism can become a tool of government suppression.
“Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites … [Whose] ties cut across national boundaries …It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook … The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty… Further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position.” – Precisely what is sought after in Challenges to Global Governance 2013, as outlined above.
Interesting on page 57 “By the year 2018, technology will make available to the leaders of the major nations, a variety of techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised. One nation may attack a competitor covertly by bacteriological means, thoroughly weakening the population (though with a minimum of fatalities) before taking over with its own armed forces. Alternatively, techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm…” (Has the world already gone way beyond this?) — Yes it has: the “bare minimum of security forces” can be seen in drone warfare. One only needs to look at the battlefield of 2017, as created by General Atomic’s next generation of Predator C Avenger designed specifically to reduce human numbers. Oh, and it will use a “death ray” — also referred to on page 57. Weather modification and its use in warfare is explicitly covered in the 1996 Air Force report: Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025.
Other sources for this article:
– Hillary Clinton at the Council on Foreign Relations: We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future:
Foreign Policy Address at the Council on Foreign Relations
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
July 15, 2009
“Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
Source: U.S. Department of State