Here Come The Black Helicopters Part 3

And that's why the globalists at the United Nations want to take the power to govern our own country on environmental and other issues.

Because it's not feasible that we will adopt the crazy policies that they want.

And it's also not feasible that we will change our system of government to accommodate them.

That's why our existence is such a threat-because we refuse to conform to their view of the world and they cannot stand that.

Global governance is a menace to our nation's liberty, democracy, and sovereignty. Although the ongoing attempts to formalize global governance have heightened recently, the mainstream media has paid little or no attention to what is unfolding. Because of that, this scary scheme is advancing in stealth. Perhaps the media have not connected the dots. This ma.s.sive power grab by the United Nations is scarcely attracting any comment, much less any opposition. Yet the threat is imminent and immediate.

This book will connect the dots. It will spell out the carefully ch.o.r.eographed plan to empower the unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable United Nations as the director of the new global governance.

The blueprint for this was drawn many years ago and it is only recently that the socialists' dream has come close to fruition.

For all of us, it is urgent that we act now.

Before it's too late.

Because, right now, right in front of us, there is a frightening worldwide movement-spearheaded by liberals, socialists, globalists, and radical environmentalists. They want to dominate us globally by seriously limiting our freedom, forcibly changing our lifestyles, emasculating our democratic inst.i.tutions, redistributing our wealth, a.s.sets, and technology to poorer countries, and subjecting us to an international rule of law imposed by the United Nations.

A rule of law that will be directed by faceless and unaccountable bureaucrats.

A rule of law that is ant.i.thetical to our representative system of government.

A rule of law that is based on a socialist philosophy.

A rule of law that stems from an anti-American bias.

A rule of law that we cannot tolerate.

In short, these globalists and socialists want to reorganize the world into an easily managed and cohesive group of nations who willingly cede their sovereignty to a series of international organizations a.s.sociated with the United Nations. That is exactly what they intend to do.

And it's just around the corner. So is the end of freedom if they succeed.

Global governance, at its core, is a process of decision making that is intended to systematically undermine the sovereignty and authority of productive and successful nations like the United States and j.a.pan. That's what it's all about.

The central organizing tool for the imposition of one-world global governance has been the worldwide environmental movement to overcome the a.s.sumed dangers of climate change.

Whether you subscribe to the existence of global warming and the need to protect the planet is not relevant to this threat. Nor is the issue of whether climate change is man-made. Those are not the issues today. What is the issue is that, since its inception, many of the most important leaders of the planetary global warming movement have capitalized on widespread fear of the consequences of global warming (fears that, for the most part, were created by them) to systematically and aggressively advance their goal of global governance and scare people into believing their new international system is the only hope for the future of the planet.

Advancing in the name of environmentalism, social justice, and sustainability, the globalists and socialists-who run the United Nations-are proceeding apace with their far-reaching game plan to end national sovereignty and subsume all nations under global governance. Focusing on what they have identified as "planetary" environmental problems, such as climate change and ocean acidification, they are determined to implement an agenda of socialist central planning to curb the power of democratic electorates and the sovereignty of nation-states, and force them into a global regulatory scheme.

Their stated goals are to reverse climate change, reduce carbon emissions, increase living standards in the impoverished Southern Hemisphere, and make development sustainable in an era of limited and diminis.h.i.+ng natural resources.

But it's a mask.

However much the globalists believe in environmental reforms, their real goal is to establish a one-world government-dominated by self-selected elites-that will preempt nations and their electorates and force them to abide by regulations promulgated by rulers over whom they have no say or control. Just as Karl Marx called for a global government of the working cla.s.s, so they want one of economists, social scientists, environmentalists, and other self-chosen quasi-academic elites. Just as Marx used the poverty of the labor force in nineteenth-century capitalism as his touchstone in formulating his plans, so they use the supposed threats to the global environment as theirs.

Broadly, there are two political philosophy camps in the world: those who believe in free markets and individual liberty and those who believe in central planning and dictation from above. The believers in freedom root their conviction that free people, free markets, and free compet.i.tion will steer the world in the right direction, with public education subst.i.tuting for central planning and direction. To the freedom advocates, it is through economic and political freedom that progress is possible. To the top-down globalists and planners, it is an impediment that gets in the way of wiser heads directing the planet.

The apostle of economic and political liberty, Friedrich Hayek, described in his famous work, The Road to Serfdom, at the end of World War II a dichotomy in which he lumped communism, socialism, fascism, and n.a.z.ism together as the opponents of liberal democratic freedom. His contrast between planning and compet.i.tion, centralization and freedom, were valid then and are even more so today.

As Hayek put it, "We have seen before how the separation of economic and political aims is an essential guarantee of individual freedom and how it is consequently attacked by all collectivists. To this we must now add the 'subst.i.tution of political for economic power' now so often demanded means necessarily the subst.i.tution of power from which there is no escape for power which is always limited."17

Hayek was prescient in foreseeing the result of collectivism, planning, and total political power: "What is called economic power, while it can be an instrument of coercion, is, in the hands of private individuals, never exclusive or complete power, never power over the whole life of a person. But centralized as an instrument of political power, it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery."18

Hayek predicted that the forces of tyranny would advance by wrapping their l.u.s.t for power in a sacred cause. Citing the requisites of that objective, they would insist that all conform to their plans to advance it, overriding individual choice and market economics.

This is exactly what has happened in the global governance movement. The push for a one-world order has been wrapped around saving the planet from the effects of global warming.

To some, the objective of central planning was national honor and military victory. Others, justified totalitarian rule by saying it aimed for the global victory of the working cla.s.s (but it became increasingly evident that the objectives were traditional imperialism and the expansion of national power).

The modern-day globalists and greens use the cause of reversing climate change and "saving" our planetary environment as their justification for global planning and control.

But their objective, too, is quite clear: global control and power. And just like their forebears, their real enemy is not climate change or carbon emissions but the liberal, free market democracies and the rule of sovereign electorates. Like them, they must organize all in the name of their cause to make democratic rule irrelevant and obsolete.

Hayek specifically warns about such prophets:

The movement for planning owes its present strength largely to the fact that ... it unites almost all the single minded idealists, all the men and women who have devoted their lives to a single task. The hopes they place in planning, however, are the result ... of great exaggeration of the importance of the ends they place foremost... . From the saintly and single minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a single step. It is the resentment of the frustrated specialist which gives the demand for planning its strongest impetus. There could hardly be a more unbearable and more irrational world than one in which the most eminent specialists in each field were allowed to proceed unchecked with the realization of their ideals.19

Hayek's description fits today's radical environmentalists to a T. Obsessed by their conviction that the planet is coming to an end, they insist that all nations, states, localities, communities, families, and people submit to a discipline they would impose on every aspect of their lives in order to save us from destruction. But what they end up doing is canceling out both free will for the individual and democratic determination of policies for the nation. Only their fetish has priority. Nothing else matters. All must fall in line behind their plan for the world.

Our modern-day globalists/socialists/radical environmentalists have laid out a program of worldwide change to achieve "sustainability." By that they mean an end to the man-made causes of global climate change on the one hand and a transfer of wealth from developed to developing nations on the other. By linking the two causes, they try to enlist the support of the green enthusiasts in rich countries and the backing of the autocracies and dictators.h.i.+ps that dominate the third world.

The organizing path that followed was revealed in 1991 in The First Global Revolution, published by the Club of Rome. Among the Club's notable members are many of the world's foremost leaders, including David Rockefeller, former president Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the king of Spain Juan Carlos, former Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau, former Brazilian president Fernando Enrique Cardozo, former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, and Maurice Strong.20

The Club, founded in 1968, describes itself as "an informal a.s.sociation of independent leading personalities from politics, business and science ... [who] share a common concern for the future of humanity and the planet."21 That's an understatement.

In 1972, the Club published The Limits of Growth, a provocative book that painted a drastic picture of the inability of the planet to sustain itself unless the world population was seriously curtailed and natural resources preserved. Based on computer models of the future, the book caught the attention of the world, selling more than 12 million copies, and marked the beginning of the international focus on the need to protect the environment.

It also scared people to death with its message of gloom and doom and the end of the planet. In retrospect, that was the plan-to frighten people about the need for population control and the shepherding of resources so that global governance could emerge.

In The First Global Revolution, the authors presented a clear, unabashed outline of the globalist/socialist/radical environmentalist game plan to end free markets and replace democracy by hyping-and inventing-environmental concerns. It was in this book that the authors articulated the strategic need to create a common enemy to unite diverse peoples behind a worldwide cause.

They concluded that we need common enemies to motivate us to make big changes: "a common adversary, to organize and act together ... such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy... ."22

This enemy need not be real, the authors postulate. It can be "either a real one or else one invented for the purpose... . This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind's encounter with the planet. New enemies therefore have to be identified. New strategies imagined, new weapons devised."23

Then they report-as if a lightbulb went off in their minds-that they have reached a consensus on what the new enemy is to be: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed att.i.tudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."24

This was the beginning of the use of the movement for climate change to achieve global governance.

It's worth noting that the character of the Club of Rome, its members, and its work on global governance practically invites speculation about conspiracy theories. It presents all the elements of a Robert Ludlum book or a James Bond movie. All that's missing is the white cat from the James Bond movies. Consider this: The Club was founded at a villa outside Rome, purportedly owned by David Rockefeller, one of its original members. His father, John D. Rockefeller Jr., donated the land where the United Nations sits in New York City. David, the billionaire banker, philanthropist, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and founder of the Trilateral Commission, was a longtime advocate of global governance, as he discloses in his memoirs:

For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic inst.i.tutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.25

Rockefeller's friends.h.i.+p with Henry Kissinger, Gorbachev, Maurice Strong, and other globalists, as well as his well-doc.u.mented support for a one-world order, led to rampant conspiracy theories about the group and its work.

Because the Club of Rome was certainly proposing global governance. Alas, according to The First Global Revolution, the requisites of the moment will force us to discard the old-fas.h.i.+oned notion of democracy and consent of the governed: "The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leaders.h.i.+p and innovation."