Showing posts with label American economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American economics. Show all posts

Sunday, April 17, 2011

The higher purpose of mankind - the world federation of the future

Is the future World Federation a Communitarian federation? It's the only political, social, economic, legal and religious theory that fills the entire bill.

It's the only fully integrated political bureaucracy that is replacing internal legal systems in nations around the world, right now. It's the only all encompassing economic system that claims power over every inch of resources on the planet. It's the only social theory taught at the university level, and the academic curriculum rarely includes criticisms. There is no public debate or voting on community development programs that promote sustainable changes in the U.S. It just is.

Nobody's asking the public whether their government has the power to sign treaties that eliminate individual rights and liberties protected under local, state, and national laws. There is no ongoing public debate over subjecting nations to communitarian supremacy of law. This is astonishing when considering the fact that the Supremacy Clause in the European Union contract is a stated, published Communitarian obligation. It's not astonishing when you consider who controls what the general "masses" see and hear.

Regional governance is built on the Community model. Community, when used by the govt or an NGO, is a codeword for communitarian agencies designed specifically to bypass outdated forms of local governance. Community Development is a program for introducing global communitarian standards, norms and laws. It's called Harmonization of Norms.

So here's the second biggest Q we're not supposed to ask: Does mankind have a higher purpose? Many people hold that it does. Even Friedrich List, who we obviously misunderstood when we wrote the Anti Communitarian Manifesto, included the idea in his 1841 book on national political economy. In the opening chapter, List recommended we not militate against the goal of a future world federation. And, he called it our Common Purpose.
"But this endeavor is legitimate and rational insofar as it furthers the economic development of the nation in question and does not militate against the higher purpose of mankind, -- the world federation of the future." Friedrich List 1841, Selected readings in international trade and tariff problems, edited by Frank William Taussig
As the real and verifiable world trade federation forms, I wonder how much of the emerging "rights" agenda was part of what our economic fathers understood to be part of that glorious world federation they dreamed for us. Our founders are often accused of establishing the U.S. as just another instrument for achieving global domination. There is merit to those accusations.

I don't know if this is the right question to ask, but was it also our founders dream for the Big Idea of an Environmental Ten Commandments? Did the Americans, along with the empires who colonized South America and the ME and Asia and the post Vatican II Catholic Priests all promote the same ultimate future for mankind? Do they now?

It was a sad time for me when I realized how many of the Community Development programs were pouring grant money into tribal coffers across the U.S. Already trained in a life of subsistence living (meaning HUD housing and food stamps), Natives were perfectly prepared tunnels for introducing the idea of Rebuilding Community as a legitimate mission. First the U.S. government reduced the tribes to complete dependents, took away their villages, forbade their religions and languages, and today, because the U.S. "evolved," we are making up for all that.

'Mother Earth' to be given same rights as humans under UN plan,
By Catherine Eade 12th April 2011
Niki's comments in brackets, in red

Bolivia is drawing up a draft UN treaty which would give Mother Earth the same rights as humans, including the right to life, to pure water and clean air.

{UN human rights include safe and affordable housing and social equity. Would this concept give Big Mother the right to sue the sun, the moon, rouge planets and falling meteorites in the future Universal Court?}

The South American country wants the UN to recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to 'dominate and exploit'.

{Again, with communitarian "rights" come communitarian responsibilities, so does this mean humans can sue Big Mother for unleashing hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, droughts and other violent acts against humans?}

It aims to establish 11 new rights for nature which include: the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered.

{Communitarian "logic" knows no bounds.}

Bolivia's large indigenous population is ruled by Latin America's first indigenous president Evo Morales, who was elected in 2006.

{Bolivia is an openly Communitarian State: http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2007/06/for-united-plurinational-communitarian.html}

Morales is an outspoken critic in the UN of countries which are not prepared to limit climate change by holding temperatures to a 1C rise.

{Chastisement is called "soft communitarianism", it seeks to shame the accused to comply. The next natural and globally harmonious step is hard communitarianism.}

Bolivia's ambassador to the UN, Pablo Salon, says his country seeks to achieve harmony with nature, and hinted that mining and other companies would come under greater scrutiny.

{Big Mother is watching you.}

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376244/South-American-countrys-treaty-giving-Mother-Earth-rights-citizens.html
This proposed treaty ties in very nicely with the objectives of the communitarian organizations active in my neck of the world. School of the Earth, WISE, the Copper River Watershed Org, the Wellwood Center, the studies of our watersheds and creeks, all adhere to the ideology of the "Salmon Nation" and eliminating all borders between people who live on salmon rivers! And their parent UN Biosphere regional expert NGO, Eco Trust, has it's hand in every pie out here.

What environmental standards are taught to youth trained to become young stewards of the earth? What perfect harmony is prayed for in public schools on Earth Day? What "god" does your child worship in school? Only the "enlightened" ones among us can comprehend it.

I like the wikipedia page called "World Government". It clarifies between the real information as opposed to the wiki page entitled "The New World Order," which is relegated to conspiracy theory. World Government is real, the New World Order is conspiracy theory. haha

Global map showing some supranational unions

"The only union generally recognized as having achieved the
status of a supranational union is the European Union.[11]

"The most relevant model for the incremental establishment
of a global federation may be the European Union, "

"Ulysses S. Grant commented, "I believe at some future day, the nations of the earth will agree on some sort of congress which will take cognizance of international questions of difficulty and whose decisions will be as binding as the decisions of the Supreme Court are upon us."[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government

U.S. President Harry Truman commented: "We must make the United Nations continue to work, and to be a going concern, to see that difficulties between nations may be settled just as we settle difficulties between States here in the United States. When Kansas and Colorado fall out over the waters in the Arkansas River, they don't go to war over it, they go to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the matter is settled in a just and honorable way. There is not a difficulty in the whole world that cannot be settled in exactly the same way in a world court." -- President Truman's remarks in Omaha, Nebraska on June 5, 1948, at the dedication of the War Memorial [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government

A quick google search for the keywords World Federation of the Future shows many interesting results. There are think tanks:
The World Futures Studies Federation emerged from the ideas and pioneering work of such persons as Igor Bestuzhev-Lada (Russia), Bertrand de Jouvenel (France, 1903-1987), Johan Galtung (Norway), Robert Jungk (Austria 1913-1994), John McHale (UK/USA, 1922-1978) and others who in the 1960s conceived of the concept of futures studies at the global level. This resulted in the organization of the first International Futures Research Conference in Oslo, Norway, in September 1967, for which Mankind 2000 was responsible in cooperation with the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo, and the Institut für Zukunftsfragen. A Continuing Committee was created, with headquarters in Paris.http://www.wfsf.org/
There are regular conferences:

WELCOME TO TAMPERE IN JUNE 2011!

The 13th International Conference organized by Finland Futures Research Centre and Finland Futures Academy at University of Turku will deal with the different dimensions of a sustainable future.

Sustainable development is an important theme in local, regional and global scales and requires multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral cooperation. Environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development can only be achieved by encouraging knowledge sharing and cooperation between various sectors and decision makers. The decision made today shapes our future.

The methods of futures studies include tools for describing possible, probable and desirable variations of the present and drafting possible images of the future. By looking at the variety of different possibilities, we can come closer to shaping the future – rather than predicting it. Future studies offer valuable tools to understand and shape the development of our societies. This conference aims to bring together the best experts from the fields of Futures Studies and Sustainable Development and let the scientific community to interact with policymakers and representatives of companies. By developing images of alternative futures, the goal of the conference is to give new viewpoints and novel ideas to decision-makers to assist them towards more feasible decisions and a sustainable development. http://conference2011.wordpress.com/
And there's more than one religious angle:

‘Work for your life as though you will live forever, and work for the Hereafter as though you will die tomorrow.’ The Holy Prophet (S)

"On the blessed occasion of the Wiladat of Sayyida Fatima (SA), The World Federation of KSIMC is pleased to announce the re-launch of the MULLA ASGHAR FOUNDATION FUND. This gift programme has been named after Marhum Mulla Asgharali M.M. Jaffer as a tribute to his dream which was to see the success of this fund benefitting the vision and mission of The World Federation of KSIMC." http://www.world-federation.org/Secretariat/Articles/Mulla_Asghar_Foundation_Fund_planning_our_future_as_community.htm

It is our non credentialed ACL thesis that communitarianism is the ultimate, final synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. Another perfectly valid theory has arisen that communitarianism is just another phase, and that Transcendence, as taught by the Master Illuminated ones, is the final objective. (See Bobby Garner's treatment of this subject).

Whatever it ends up being, the final synthesis is supposed to be so "perfect" it will give rise to no opposition. The ACL was used by us to prove communitarianism is not perfect, and the fact that we even objected to it meant their whole dialectically based "conclusion" was flawed. It also, by default, made our work another side in a dialectical argument. Has humanity advanced to the next stage of forced evolution? If we are indeed moving into the next dialectical stage of human social evolution, then it's time to reassess the ACL "mission.' One thing is certain. The Communitarian stage of evolution is here, now. So if there is a next stage, Transcendence is next.

Over a decade has passed since I began attempting to think outside the dialectic. I know there are still parts of me that cling to dialectical tricks, and it's hard to feel very smart when some of them have been right in front of your "critical gaze" for a long time. I've learned so much more about the plan for global governance over the years. I really should do a complete revision and update of the Manifesto, maybe even add a political or social agenda of our own to the mix!

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Obama facing dilemma over protectionism

Here's a neat twist. Obama is being attacked in the left wing press for the Patriot Employers Act. Is it possible that American Democrats have a plan to subvert our free trade agreements with Canada and Australia? (Will this lead to a "stronger" contract/court of law in future agreements?) The Act includes using American made steel for the big public works programs Obama is planning. What could be the purpose of that for people openly committed to communitarian principles?

How likely is it that Obama is really a protectionist? Didn't Putin just warn the world against this very thing in his speech at the World Economic Forum? What is protectionism in the US? Who does it protect? How did economist Friedrich List describe it in 1846? Is there any remnant of 19th century protectionism in this Act? And as horrible as this sounds, didn't Hitler also combine his socialism/fascism with protectionism and call it National Socialism? I'm thinking the idea of a protected local economy is a great sell to the general public anywhere, especially to ones who thinks it means local goods and services will benefit from local made and local hire conditions. I've never met an Alaskan who wasn't happy with the local hiring laws up here. I think this Act will contribute to Obama's image in the US, and give the internationalists a great topic for their circular academic debates.
(9) Obama facing dilemma over protectionism

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i4s37Co-txUki3IUqyBr7vLSbr3AD96291VO0

Obama facing dilemma over protectionism

By DESMOND BUTLER

Associated Press January 31, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — Protection language in the stimulus bill presents President Barack Obama with a dilemma: Backing the provisions could set off a trade war, but opposing them could mean a backlash from his supporters.

The "buy American" provisions would require major public works projects to favor U.S. steel, iron and manufacturing over imports.

U.S. allies and trading partners warn that favoring U.S. companies would breach Washington's trade commitments and could set off tit-for-tat countermeasures around the world.

The two largest U.S. trading partners have spoken out. On Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed concern and the European Union warned that it would not "stand idly by" if such measures were passed. On Friday, Brazil's president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva also made critical comments.

In November, world leaders who gathered in Washington for the G-20 summit to consider how to help the global economy pledged to avoid protectionism. But since taking office Jan. 20, Obama has said little on trade and has yet to nominate a trade representative. While campaigning, he argued that the Bush administration's strong support of free trade agreements should be moderated by including environmental and labor protections.

"The jury is out on how this administration is going on trade policy," said Steven Schrage, an international business analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "This will be a key test."

Asked about the protective provisions Friday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs would say only that the administration was reviewing them.

The provisions are likely to find support among Americans outraged that money from a stimulus package likely to top $800 billion could go to foreign competitors of U.S. companies.

"I believe that when taxpayer dollars are used, they should support the things produced here at home," Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., author of one of the provisions, said in a statement.

Many analysts say the measures reflect the interests of small sectors over the larger economy, which could suffer from reduced trade and higher steel prices.

"The result, according to my calculations, is that the U.S. will lose more jobs than it will gain," said Gary Hufbauer, an economist with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington think tank. "We are going to poison the wells of world commerce if we do this."

The provisions are in a bill already approved by the House and a different version under consideration in the Senate. The Senate version states that none of the funds from the stimulus may be used for a project "unless all of the iron, steel and manufactured goods used in the projects are produced in the United States." The House version leaves out manufactured goods.

Obama, who has argued that stimulus measures are urgent, is unlikely to block passage of any bill approved by the Congress. But he could press lawmakers to remove the protectionist measures before it is passed.

"The problem is that Obama has not said anything yet," said Dan Ikenson of the libertarian Cato Institute.

Both versions of the bill include language that would allow the president to waive the protectionist measures if he decides that would be in the economic interests of the United States. But passage of the measures could in itself unnerve trading partners and encourage other countries to take similar protective action.
Hosted by

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Friday, March 14, 2008

A New Economic Order -- Washington Post opinion

A new economic order in the USA did not "have" to happen. Regardless of what the textbooks imply, economic systems do not "evolve." One of the main fallacies of the New Economic Order folks is that every change they make to our status as free human beings was "inevtitable." It's happening now because this is the plan set out by the defeated British Empire and their cronies. (Don't be misled by the leadership role assumed by the EU...there was never any doubt of HRH Queen Elizabeth's and Sir Evelyn de Rothschild's role in the New Economic Order)

Sustainable development is the UN term that justifies a globally managed economic order. When the U.S. Congress made their committment to uphold the goals laid out in Local Agenda 21, they embraced the concept that the American lifestyle is "unsustainable." According to Neil Irwin, a Washington Post Staff Writer, the bad news yesterday were only: "small pieces of a much bigger reversal in a series of imbalances that made Americans feel richer than they were and created unsustainable distortions in the world economy that are now righting themselves."

The much "bigger reversal" Irwin is referring to refers to all the legislation passed in the USA that laid the ground work for the communitarian political and legal system that sustains the New Global Communitarian Economic Order.

"Unsustainable distortions" is preparing us for the Marxist ideology of the "need" for a redistribution of wealth. The Fabians have always made it appear as if the American worker (whose taxes support communitarian wars and rebuilding the world plans) owns more than his "fair" share of the world's "wealth." It doesn't matter that the workers in every nation are the ones who create wealth, nor does it matter that the global corporations go around the world stealing that wealth from the workers. Nooooo. What matters more is that the hardest workers of the world should have to cough up a global tax to help eat their debts and "spread the wealth."

Social injustice is a favorite globalist phrase that implies Americans have an obligation to assume repsonsibility for mistakes and crimes perpertrated by the British-Zionist empire and their White House corporate affiliates. These unsustainable distortions are now "righting themselves." Now, why is it that I know for a fact that as a bonifide "poor" person I will never benefit from this global redistribution of wealth?

Will the private corporate IRS be responsible for collecting the Global Poverty Tax too? Didn't the IRS become a partner with the DEA and INS and Community Policing and FEMA and DHS? What happens when Americans refuse to go along with this portion of the scam?
ANALYSIS
A New Economic Order
Why the Downturn Had to Happen


By Neil Irwin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 14, 2008; Page D01

Retail sales plummeting. The dollar at a new low against other world currencies. A 60 percent jump in U.S. home foreclosures. A major investment fund going kaput.

This is what a reordering of the world economy looks like in real time.

Don't think of yesterday's economic news as discrete events. They are small pieces of a much bigger reversal in a series of imbalances that made Americans feel richer than they were and created unsustainable distortions in the world economy that are now righting themselves.

Americans are consuming less, and their houses and other assets are becoming less valuable. Painful as they may be, in the long run, both trends must happen to restore sustainable growth. But in the short run, they are wrenching changes that are probably causing a recession.

The weaker U.S. economy, combined with low interest rates due to Federal Reserve rate cuts, has made traders around the world less inclined to buy dollars. Thus, the value of a dollar fell below 100 yen yesterday for the first time since 1995, and slumped to a new low against the euro. Unpleasant as that is for people planning European vacations, it should help cushion the blow to the economy by making U.S. exporters more competitive.

more here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031303916.html

Thanks again to Chris Bieber for spending his few days off researching things for us!

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Politicans & Banking - What they need to know - Richard Cook

As most of my regular readers know, I do not support or endorse either progressives or conservatives. I can't; I identify all modern "sides" in political debates as potential tools that can be used to help bring on the final Hegelian synthesis, called communitarianism. But that doesn't mean I can't find and use valuable research produced by every "side." And, for what it's worth, the progressive left, in my opinion, usually comes the closest to seeing through the globalists' Hegelian ruse. Richard C. Cook is a great example of this. These monetary and historical banking concepts are the KEY to understanding why the Plan is so successful. We learned very early on in our ACL research that if we didn't study the banking system then we couldn't possibly understand the globalist's plans.

So we spent years trying to understand why the economic system decided upon by President Washington and Alexander Hamilton, i.e "The American System" is so obscured or, if mentioned, scorned and ridiculed. A. Hamilton is accused of having ties to European banks and discarded as an "imperialist," yet Thomas Jefferson (the father of "democracy" who introduced the two-party system) is the one who appointed Swiss banker and eugenicist Albert Gallatin as Secretary of the Treasury. It was Jefferson's Vice-President, Aaron Burr who killed Hamilton in a "duel," for reasons that still remain unknown to us. What's more, the only political party that appears to understand Friedrich List (The National System of Political Economy) and the American system are the communist inspired cult followers called LaRouche Democrats.

Will there ever be a history lesson on American economics that isn't influenced by party propaganda? What was the original American system, and is it even remotely possible we can retrieve it before our entire system collapses? Why was it so important to destroy our National Banking system only to replace it with the private corporation called the Federal Reserve?

From Blackheath Books via Peter Myer's elist:

The 2008 Presidential Election: Concepts Progressives Must Know About
Monetary Policy and History

by Richard C. Cook
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7613

Global Research, December 14, 2007

highlights:

* The main justification for laissez-faire economics is the unsupported assertion found in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations that a hidden hand—“Hand, the Invisible”—will benefit the common welfare if individuals within the economic system pursue their own individual interests. This fallacy is the basis of so-called “classical” or “liberal” economics and is also a part of the ideology of the conservative branch of the Republican Party and the theology of its fundamentalist constituency. It is reflected in the view of the “Austrian School” of economics and was the basis for the monetarist policies of the 1970s and the “Reagan Revolution” of the 1980s. It has been disproved countless times by progressive economists. The main problem is that money in a complex economy is so easily manipulated by insiders.

* Opposing laissez-faire economics was what was called in the nineteenth century the “American System.” This was based on Renaissance ideas of nationalism, reflected in Europe by the German and Italian cameralists, who said that the central government had the right and obligation to regulate economic and financial affairs for the benefit of the nation. The most cogent expression of these views was Emmerich Vattel’s The Law of Nations, used as a manual of government at the First Continental Congress in 1775. The New Deal, which created the modern American physical economy until it was wrecked by the Federal Reserve-induced recession of 1979-83 and the “Reagan Revolution,” was a modern expression of the American System.

* The American System was based on actions by government to direct investment into infrastructure development, including health and education. This included government purchase of shares in development corporations and direct funding of projects through tax revenues and
government borrowing.

* During the early to mid-19th century, the American System was funded at the state level of government and saw the building of canals and railroads, improvement of waterways and harbors, turnpikes, etc. The federal government first became involved with infrastructure through the Army Corps of Engineers, then, during the Civil War, with the building of the transcontinental railroad and funding of land-grant colleges. The American System was copied in Germany, Japan, China, and Russia and elsewhere around the world. It was viewed as completely contrary to the British imperialist model.

* The American System as manifested through the New Deal saw the TVA, WPA, CCC, Hoover Dam, funding of school and hospital construction, public water and sewer systems, municipal gas and electric systems, rural electrification, etc. More recent examples were the interstate highway system, R&D investment, the manned space program, and creation of the internet. Today there are no more such projects serving as economic drivers for the U.S.

So if the American System developed by Hamiliton and Washington was viewed as "completely contrary to the British imperialist model," then what was Jefferson's system?