We can only hope that world leaders will do nothing more than enjoy a pleasant bicycle ride around the charming streets of Copenhagen come December. For if they actually manage to wring out an agreement based on the current draft text of the Copenhagen climate-change treaty, the world is in for some nasty surprises. Draft text, you say? If you haven't heard about it, that's because none of our otherwise talkative political leaders have bothered to tell us what the drafters have already cobbled together for leaders to consider. And neither have the media.
Enter Lord Christopher Monckton. The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher gave an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, earlier this month that made quite a splash. For the first time, the public heard about the 181 pages, dated Sept. 15, that comprise the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—a rough draft of what could be signed come December.
So far there have been more than a million hits on the YouTube post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a transnational "government" on a scale the world has never before seen.
The "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.
The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an "adaptation debt" to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]."
And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which provides for "a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties." Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.
To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as "alternatives" and "options" that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty.
Lord Monckton himself only became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend found an obscure U.N. Web site and searched through several layers of hyperlinks before discovering a document that isn't even called the draft "treaty." Instead, it's labelled a "Note by the Secretariat."
Interviewed by broadcaster Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday, Lord Monckton said "this is the first time I've ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a 'government.' But it's the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening." He added: "The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start—that's even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do."
Critics have admonished Lord Monckton for his colorful language. He has certainly been vigorous. In his exposé of the draft Copenhagen treaty in St. Paul, he warned Americans that "in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever." Yet his critics fail to deal with the substance of what he says.
Ask yourself this question: Given that our political leaders spend hundreds of hours talking about climate change and the need for a global consensus in Copenhagen, why have none of them talked openly about the details of this draft climate-change treaty? After all, the final treaty will bind signatories for years to come. What exactly are they hiding? Thanks to Lord Monckton we now know something of their plans.
Janos Pasztor, director of the Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, told reporters in New York Monday that with the U.S. Congress yet to pass a climate-change bill, a global climate-change treaty is now an unlikely outcome in Copenhagen. Let's hope he is right. And thank you, America.
Ms. Albrechtsen is a columnist for the Australian.
freedomclub, it is good that you are here, I found some new sources trashing conspiracy theories and distortions regarding Carroll Quigley's work.
None Dare Call It Conspiracy, using Quigley's data, attributed to the Round
Table Group a lust for world domination. Its sympathies were pro-Communist,
anti-Capitalist, said the Birch Society book.
"They thought Dr. Carroll Quigley proved everything." Quigley says. "For
example, they constantly misquote me to this effect: that Lord Milner (the
dominant trustee of the Cecil Rhodes Trust and a heavy in the Round Table Group)
helped finance the Bolsheviks. I have been through the greater part of Milner's
private papers and have found no evidence to support that.
http://www.carrollquigley.net/biography/The-Professor-Who-Knew-Too-Much.htm
One right-wing author, in particular, has been giving Dr. Quigley a hard time. He is W. Cleon Skousen, a teacher of religion at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, whose background, Dr, Quigley said, includes 16 years with the FBI, four years as Salt Lake City's police chief and 10 years as editorial director of the magazine LAW AND ORDER.
Professor Skousen, who wrote The Naked Communist in 1961, has followed it up with The Naked Capitalist: A Review and Commentary on Dr. Carroll Quigley's Book, Tragedy and Hope, a 121-page treatise which has 30 pages of direct quotations from Dr. Quigley's book.
"Skousen's book is full of misrepresentations and factual errors," Professor Quigley said. "He claims that I have written of a conspiracy of the super-rich who are pro-Communist and wish to take over the world and that I'm a member of this group. But I never called it a conspiracy and don't regard it as such. "I'm not an 'insider' of these rich persons," Dr. Quigley continued, "although Skousen thinks so. I happen to know some of them and liked them, although I disagreed with some of the things they did before 1940."
http://www.carrollquigley.net/biography/Making-Birchers-Bark.htm
http://www.carrollquigley.net/interviews.htm
The "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.
I read that the Czech's president is the last to stand in the way for a European's President. But last week, he caved in. Now, a European's President is coming, for sure.
But the above? WTF is that?
Originally posted by 4sg:
I read that the Czech's president is the last to stand in the way for a European's President. But last week, he caved in. Now, a European's President is coming, for sure.
But the above? WTF is that?
the new world order lah.
We need more information and cannot jump to conclusions.
We must also be wary of distortions.
the new world order lah.
I have researched this issue and so far I have found no evidence that supports the claims of conspiracy nuts online.
The evidence so far seems to show that there are a bunch of clowns with too much time using internet to spread nonsense.
Originally posted by angel3070:freedomclub, it is good that you are here, I found some new sources trashing conspiracy theories and distortions regarding Carroll Quigley's work.
The Professor Who Knew Too Much
http://www.carrollquigley.net/biography/The-Professor-Who-Knew-Too-Much.htm
“Quigley . . . making Birchers bark”
http://www.carrollquigley.net/biography/Making-Birchers-Bark.htm
Audio Taped Interview trashing right wing conspiracy nuts
http://www.carrollquigley.net/interviews.htm
Yes! People like him can always bring fresh insight and perpective here!
Originally posted by angel3070:freedomclub, it is good that you are here, I found some new sources trashing conspiracy theories and distortions regarding Carroll Quigley's work.
The Professor Who Knew Too Much
http://www.carrollquigley.net/biography/The-Professor-Who-Knew-Too-Much.htm
“Quigley . . . making Birchers bark”
http://www.carrollquigley.net/biography/Making-Birchers-Bark.htm
Audio Taped Interview trashing right wing conspiracy nuts
http://www.carrollquigley.net/interviews.htm
What does Quigley have to do with what I posted?
Originally posted by freedomclub:What does Quigley have to do with what I posted?
Nothing, just pointing out how some nuts distort his work to serve their own propaganda agenda.
Some naive people may fall for the false propaganda of these internet nuts.
Originally posted by angel3070:Nothing, just pointing out how some nuts distort his work to serve their own propaganda agenda.
Some naive people may fall for the false propaganda of these internet nuts.
Alright. Just making sure you dont confuse "false propaganda" with what is really going on.
Originally posted by freedomclub:Alright. Just making sure you dont confuse "false propaganda" with what is really going on.
So what's really going on?
Ever noticed that the greatest fear of a world government seems to be from America?
Ever considered the possibility that the fear is from Americans afraid of the loss of their dominance, rather than that of a tyrannical government?
Or from the Christian fear that the Anti Christ would form the world government?
I find the reasoning for the fear of this world government to have little basis. It's no more likely to be tyrannical than any other form of governing body right now.
Is the fear of this world government body because it would geninuely be tyrannical or simply that it could force the West to be on the same level as the rest of the world ?
Originally posted by Stevenson101:Ever noticed that the greatest fear of a world government seems to be from America?
Ever considered the possibility that the fear is from Americans afraid of the loss of their dominance, rather than that of a tyrannical government?
Or from the Christian fear that the Anti Christ would form the world government?
I find the reasoning for the fear of this world government to have little basis. It's no more likely to be tyrannical than any other form of governing body right now.
Is the fear of this world government body because it would geninuely be tyrannical or simply that it could force the West to be on the same level as the rest of the world ?
I don't believe that the majority of Americans are proud of or concerned about American dominance in the world. They're just like us, ordinary people who are struggling just as hard, probably harder in today's economic context, in order to feed themselves and their families.
Fear of a world government is not only an American sentiment just because this article comes from an American source. Surely there're people in other countries who are alarmed by such a trend. But as you mentioned, since America has a strong Christian tradition, fear of the AntiChrist probably factors in as well.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. More government is never a good thing. I believe any sufficiently informed person would also be wary of concentrating more power into a single entity.
Originally posted by freedomclub:I believe any sufficiently informed person would also be wary of concentrating more power into a single entity.
There are many small obscure political groups all over the world pushing for world government. I don't think they have much support for their aims.
http://newworldorderpoliticalparty.webs.com/
World Government Movement in Japan
http://www.w-g.jp/wgi/japan/move-j.htm
DEMOCRATIC WORLD GOVERNMENT
http://www.voteworldgovernment.org/
A Declaration of the Value of Global Governance
http://www.integralworldgovernment.org/
http://www.amazon.com/World-Government-Ready-Garry-Davis
http://www.amazon.com/One-World-Democracy-Progressive
http://www.amazon.com/Manifesto-World
For some unknown reason, some right wing groups and conspiracy nuts in the USA like to mix this world government movement into some sort of conspiracy theory involving secret groups and write stupid books filled with nonsense and make films to sell their propaganda.
They will go and distort other people's work and twist it to suit their weird agendas.
I oppose that.
" Skousen's book is full of misrepresentations and factual errors," Professor Quigley said. "He claims that I have written of a conspiracy of the super-rich who are pro-Communist and wish to take over the world and that I'm a member of this group.
But I never called it a conspiracy and don't regard it as such.
"I'm not an 'insider' of these rich persons," Dr. Quigley continued, "although Skousen thinks so. I happen to know some of them and liked them, although I disagreed with some of the things they did before 1940."
Skousen also claims, Dr. Quigley believes, the influential group of Wall Street financiers still exists and controls the country. "I never said that," Dr. Quigley said flatly. "In fact, they never were in a position to 'control' it, merely to influence political events."
Blame the zionist Jews.
Can it be streamlined or summarized?
Seriously I have a hard time reading it.
Dr. Carroll Quigley's comments have been misquoted or misrepresented for more than 3 decades by the extreme right in the United States.
One point which many people do not realize is that the Quigley book (Tragedy and Hope) most often cited by the extreme right as "proof" of whatever dire statements they wish to make has no footnotes or bibliography. Consequently, there is no way for anyone to verify "documentation" because there is none. But that doesn't prevent the extreme right from proposing that Quigley is entirely accurate in all of his assertions.
The primary organization in the United States which cites Quigley's book is the John Birch Society (JBS). The Federal Bureau of Investigation under J. Edgar Hoover concluded that the JBS was "extremist", "irrational", "irresponsible", "lunatic fringe" and "fanatics".
For a 91-page report on the JBS which is based, primarily, upon first-time-released FBI files and documents, see:
With respect to former FBI Special Agent W. Cleon Skousen who wrote a book (The Naked Capitalist) which supposedly analyzed Dr. Quigley's book, Tragedy and Hope, it is significant that:
Both Cleon Skousen (and his admirers) misrepresented Skousen's FBI background and inflated his credentials.
Some, like the John Birch Society, claim that Skousen was a "top aide for many years" to J. Edgar Hoover [See, for example, JBS Bulletin, January 1968, page 1] OR that Skousen was an "administrative assistant" to Hoover.
Others claim that Skousen had extensive investigative experience while he served in the FBI -- particularly with respect to internal security-related matters.
But ALL of these claims are utter falsehoods.
Furthermore, senior FBI officials expressed very derogatory judgments about Skousen's post-FBI endeavors.
In fact, they scornfully described Skousen as someone who allied himself with "professional anti-communists" who represented the "extreme right" in the United States and FBI officials thought Skousen was mis-using his FBI service to falsely claim expertise in subject matters which he did not possess.
For a detailed 26-page report (recently updated) on Skousen which is based, primarily, upon his FBI personnel file, see the following -- which includes scanned copies of actual FBI memos on Skousen:
Ernie1241, I have a question, why is the radical right in the U.S likes to use the issue of world government as a bogeyman to scare people?
We have people like Alex Jones keep on ranting about the hidden agenda of world government for over 10 years now and his followers have increased.
There are also a few followers of him in Singapore.
Well, Angel, ultimately the answer to your question is based upon the predicate that government is, by definition, always a force for evil.
Some elements within the right-wing (particularly the John Birch Society) propose that we adopt a new understanding of a political spectrum.
The basic premise of the new spectrum is that history proves that government is evil and dangerous and it always diminishes freedom and facilitates tyranny.
Therefore, the more government activism or intervention within a society -- the less freedom exists in society. Consequently, the new proposed spectrum places anarchy [no government] on the extreme right and totalitarian dictatorships [total government] on the extreme left.
Then---groups whose ideology we currently consider “extreme right” (such as the Birch Society) place themselves in the CENTER of the new spectrum because they claim to favor "limited government".
It is a rather transparent attempt to pretend that everything despicable, dishonorable, frightening and dangerous originates exclusively from the LEFT side of the spectrum whereas everything decent, honorable, moral, and desirable may be found exclusively in the center and center-right side of the spectrum.
Furthermore, the new "middle" or "center" (Birchers et al) propose that liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, nazism are ALL forms of "collectivism" or "statism" (aka PRO-government activism) and, consequently, they inevitably produce tyranny – so not much point in making fastidious distinctions between or among them.
Consequently, "world government" would merely amplify the inherent danger which ANY government represents.
Originally posted by Ernie1241:The basic premise of the new spectrum is that history proves that government is evil and dangerous and it always diminishes freedom and facilitates tyranny.
Therefore, the more government activism or intervention within a society -- the less freedom exists in society. Consequently, the new proposed spectrum places anarchy [no government] on the extreme right and totalitarian dictatorships [total government] on the extreme left.
This form of thinking is quite shallow political thinking.
These bunch of right wing clowns in the U.S, hell bent on selling their rubbish agenda and conspiracy crap. I am totally opposed to them.
Let me give you a few examples of how the lack of adequate paradigms blocks our
understanding of the history of our subject.
The area of political action in our society is a circle in which at least four
actors may intervene: the government, individuals, communities, and voluntary
associations, especially corporations.
Yet, for the last century, discussion of political actions, and especially the controversies arising out of such actions, have been carried on in terms of only two actors, the government and the individual. Nineteenth century books often assumed a polarization of the individual versus the state, while many twentieth century books seek to portray the state as the solution of most individuals' problems.
Conservatives, from von Hayek to Ayn Rand, now try to curtail government in the excuse that this will give more freedom to individuals, while liberals try to destroy communities with the aim of making all individuals identical, including boys and girls.
And since what we get in history is never what any one individual or group is struggling for, but is the resultant of diverse groups struggling, the area of political action will be increasingly reduced to an arena where the individual, detached from any sustaining community, is faced by gigantic and irresponsible corporations.
http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The-State-of-Communities-AD-976-1576.htm
I won't allow U.S consipracy morons to come and mislead people in Singapore with their propaganda filth.