Posted by bionic mosquito on 06/01/11 09:52 AM"One of the main tenets of Money Power is centralization. This is in fact its most important dominant social theme. The world needs global government. A New World Order. Western elites are not far from their goal actually."
DB is quite astute in pointing out that "Western elites are not far from their goal actually."
Global government is not in our future; it was implemented in our past. All the structures were put in place post WWII. The UN, IMF, and the World Bank are such structures. NATO is another. The US Dollar is another.
A legislative / executive body in the UN. A central bank in the IMF. A lending arm in the World Bank. NATO as the military arm. And the dollar as the world's currency.
The tumult of the first half of the 20th century was the revolution. With central banking and fiat money in force, two world wars to consolidate power and initiate the institutions necessary.
And post 1945? A continued consolidation via an "enemy" - first the Soviets, then the Muslims (consider the foresight of establishing Israel in 1948, a full forty years before it was needed. Consider the work needed to bring the world's support to the Jews, such that this action would be taken.). Wars fought via the US military (the anchor of NATO), authorized solely by the UN, with the congress sheepishly going along.
Consider instigating a financial crisis to bring the IMF and World Bank back to prominence, when (over the previous 10 - 20 years these institutions grew to be despised wherever they entered, even irrelevant).
World government is here. Much work was done before 1945 to make it so. Events since then can be understood simply as further consolidation of power - as DB often says, for control. Nothing more.
The region from Vietnam to the Caucasus was one of the last holdouts to this control. And consider where the physical battles have been fought, almost continuously, throughout this region.
It seems a few holdouts exist: Iran, Libya, and perhaps a few others. And what of powers such as China and Russia? It strikes me that they play the game, do the dance. Leaders there also have a lust for power, and take actions that keep their power in place. Many times these actions align with the desires of those behind global government, it seems.
World government is here, increasing its consolidation and control since 1945. It is a testament to the strength of the machine that the population of the west for the most part continues to fear that world government is a risk of the future, when in fact it has occurred in the past.
Fortunately, it will not work; centralization never can. There are too many vested interests for their own little kingdom of power; these won't go along so easily. Even more important: as force increasingly becomes the only tool left available to the elite, more people will rebel. As the promises of increased security in exchange for less liberty are broken, more people will rebel. When control relies on force instead of passive compliance, enough people will withdraw consent.
Unfortunately, it will be a painful transition.