Pope Benedict weighed in on his vision of a New World Order recently when he called for a “world political authority”. This authority would “manage the global economy and [provide] for more government regulation of national economies to pull the world out of the current crisis and avoid a repeat.”
The Pope, acknowledging the fact that this New World Order will be run by the world’s corporate/financial interests through trade agreements and the use of regional and global institutions, has decided to speak out for his version of world governance, one in which these interests show more compassion for people and the environment and not base their actions on greed alone. (But that’s all they have.)
His 144 page encyclical rejected “unbridled capitalism and unregulated market forces, which he said had led to a ‘thoroughly destructive abuse of the system.'”
The Pope, from the encyclical, .67:
“In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.” (He’s talking about global governing institutions and formerly sovereign nations that would be harmonized and integrated into linked regions of the world, under international law.)
“One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity.”
“To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is the URGENT need of a true world political authority…Such an authority would need to be regulated by law…”
Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and to respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums…”
“The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization.They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.” See Pope’s encyclical.
In 1999, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan proposed a Compact with the corporate interests, concerned with the knowledge that the world was moving toward governance by these interests through regional trade agreements and global bureaucracies. Two examples are the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Ellen Paine of the Global Policy Forum “says that the UN leaders saw themselves as ‘realists’ ready to deal with slightly unsavory corporations in the same way they dealt with less-than-ideal governments. They believed that a corporate-dominated world was already a reality, and that if they did not accept this reality, the UN would be assured of irrelevance. Annan and his aides offered the corporations a strategic bargain: in return for curbing their appetite for accumulation and agree to some regulation and social protection, the UN would mobilize public support and legitimacy to defend corporations against their most critical opponents.”
In his 1999 speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Annan offered business a choice:
“We have to choose between a global market driven only by calculations of short-term profit, and one which has a human face. Between a world which condemns a quarter of the human race to starvation and squalor, and one which offers everyone at least a chance of prosperity, in a healthy environment. Between a selfish free-for-all in which we ignore the fate of the losers, and a future in which the strong and successful accept their responsibiities, showing global vision and leadership.
“I am sure you will make the right choice.”
Well, they didn’t and this last 10 years have resulted in an effort by corporations to do everything possible to lower workers wages in a “rush to the bottom.” The goal is to have a large mobile, global temporary workforce which can be easily accessed by corporations. They don’t have to deal with unions or benefits and can dictate the wages they will pay. In addition, they moved their factories from developed nations to the third world where workers put in 80 to 90 hours a week at wages of 14 to 50 cents per hour, and no overtime.
In America, government lack of regulation of banks and corporations also allowed these unrestrained capitalists to engage in illegal activities (bogus mortgages), causing a global collapse of the economy. And those in business and government responsible for these crimes are still walking free and using taxpayers dwindling dollars to reload and do it again. And some of them are now in charge of fixing the problems they caused.
To top it off, this process of converting the world to global governance, with governing institutions courtesy of Wal-Mart and friends, is moving right along. Those who rule are planning to make this a reality, including the Obama administration.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s policy and planning director is Anne-Marie Slaughter, former dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. She “is an advocate of global governance and is active in pursuing this goal. She is also the author of a scholarly work, ‘A New World Order’, published in 2004.”
In a speech to foreign service retirees, Clinton responded to a question about global governance and mentioned her assistant was working on it :
“We’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this…We do have a pretty clear idea of the kind of approach that we’re taking…” For more, see ‘Hillary Clinton on Plans for Global Governance’, May 13, 2009, archives, this blog.
Many Americans who are noted for their work in the service of our government are active proponents of ending the sovereign nation state. But they don’t mention that, with the loss of sovereignty, democracy can’t survive.
This statement, published on July 20, 1992 in Time Magazine, is the prevailing sentiment among our past and current leaders:
“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a good idea after all.” Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State.
It is a fact that global governance will be the reality since there is no opposition from those on the receiving end, who seem to be in a delusional state. They know that something is very wrong but can’t understand the problem. Others know but can’t accept the truth. It’s called cognitive dissonance, the inability to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time. To accept it would destroy everything they believe in.
Even the Pope supports the corporate takeover of the world as long it includes a “true world political authority” to insure they treat the peasants and environment with some compassion. The problem is these bankers and captains of industry can’t be relied on. It’s in their DNA. Perhaps he forgot something else. If so, this message is for the pontiff:
“And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee…for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by their sorceries were all nations deceived.”