October 22, 2011 By Joseph P. Farrell

In case you haven't heard, some of the Occupy Wall Street "leadership" is now calling for "global democracy", according to the website of Alex Jones'

OWS Call for “Global Governance”

While I've long been a fan of Noam Chomsky's linguistics, and even of some of his political commentary, needless to say I am not on the global government bandwagon, though not so much because I find the idea philosophically abhorrent, but because in any version in which the idea has been advanced, it is not the panacea that either the elites promoting it, or its popular backers, think it to be. The two paragraphs that concern me are the final two:

"OWS supporters in the United States should not be calling for “global democracy” – in other words, surrendering national sovereignty for globalist micromanaged mob rule – but should be calling instead for the end of the Federal Reserve, a return to honest money not controlled by the global elite and the international bankers, and the reinstitution of a constitutionally limited republic as originally envisioned by the founders.

"If the larger OWS accepts “global federalism” it will be accepting the agenda outlined by the very global elite responsible for the Federal Reserve, the IMF, the WTO, global markets, multinational banks, the G8/G20, the European Central Bank and the UN security council criticized in the manifesto published in the establishment newspaper, The Guardian ."

The first problem we must understand is that the return to debt free money, which is the implicit call behind the end of the Federal Reserve, would itself be prone to dangers, if not handled properly. The fact of the matter is, that the debt securities issued by the government - US treasuries - in response to the Fed's loaning monetized debt into circulation, means that a shock would inevitably be introduced into the world economic and monetary system, since so many countries are holders of that debt. It would, in short, be an economic shock with enormous geopolitical consequences. While I have long been an advocate of the return to real money issued directly by a nation-state against the goods and services of the country, a country must have goods and services to begin with on which to issue such money. IN short, a nation must manufacture. So any such return must, in my opinion, be accompanied by a return of manufacturing jobs to this country. And therein lies the rub, for both the Dummycrooks and Republithugs have been advocating the notorious free trade policies and high corporate tax rates that have gutted this nation's once mighty manufacturing base. So the paragraph I have highlighted indicates a lurking problem within the "economic political right": a return to debt free money alone, or an end to the Fed alone, is not an economic panacea.

But the two paragraphs also highlight another implicit problem, one pointed out long ago in a book by Gary Kah entitled Enroute to Global Occupation, namely, that in any scheme of global government, there must be a "divided space," regions of competition, even of conflict. In this case, the conflict or competition is to be manged by the global elites, only in a much more coordinated fashion than now. In short, the idea of "global governance" is a recipe, not for the establishment of peace and economic stability, but for the very opposite: endless conflicts, tensions, staged wars and crises.

In short, it would be the same system as we have now... only on steroids.