As most of you are aware, I hold the view that much of western history may be viewed as a kind of oligarchical "conspiracy," though that is a loaded and highly problematical term. But it is perhaps a better viewpoint than the bland assurances of modern western historiography that the historical process is much too complex to be reduced to conspiracies. I agree. It is. But that doesn't mean there aren't people in every generation willing to try. If you think that, then you're simply ignoring the work of academics like James H. Billington (Fire in the Minds of Men), or Carroll Quigley(The Anglo-American Establishment; Tragedy and Hope), or even C. Wright Mills (The Power Elite). With those men in mind, I have no difficulty entertaining the possibility that it may be older than the oldest Enlightenment roots posited by Billington.
In that context, then, consider this from that American right-wing magazine, The New American:
Now normally I do not like to such sources, but here I do so because of the interesting list presented in the article, and for the thesis. First, the list:
Friends of the Earth
Humane Society of the U.S./ Humane Society International
Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch
Consumer Federation of America
Public Citizen's Global Access to Medicines Program
Center for Science in the Public Interest
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
National Manufacturing Association
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
Grocery Manufacturers Association
Computer & Communications Industry Association
American Association of Exporters & Importers
This list is accompanied by the usual anti-left commentary that one would expect from a right-wing publication, but this is not my concern here. My concern is the thesis being advocated:
"While many of the players in this supposedly diverse cast will hold clashing opinions on a multitude of issues, they tend to agree on one fundamental issue: global governance, which is merely a euphemism for global government. The one side wants to see a global regime that would enforce global environmental and social policy, while the other seeks the alleged benefits of a global regime that would make regulations uniform and easier for businesses to navigate."
Now I am no friend to the end of national sovereignties nor to globaloney. If you think your government leviathan is unresponsive now, just wait until it goes global. My quibble here is that we may not be looking so much as an attempt to create a global federal government, but rather, under the cover of that, to perpetuate and expand the power of the post-Cold War Anglo-American unipolar world and its oligarchy. And the real goal, it would seem to me, is less about achieving a global government, than it is about maintaining Europe as a firmly and closely held "ally" of the USA, i.e., to make it even more a puppet client than it is now, by a vast "Americanization" of its regulatory policies, laws, patents, and so on, a process my co-author in Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas and I noted with the expansion of American concepts in patent law into the World Trade Organization, the very concepts giving agribusiness corporate giants a heavy advantage in those markets adhering to such standards.
It is, in a way, an old game: that of making everyone "speak the same language," creating a kind of Tower of Babel Moment of History. The real question posed by such an observation is obvious: Why is it so necessary to do so? Weren't we interdependent before? Why the need for absolute uniformity, which inevitably dooms such schemes? I suspect that the answer may lie in the various versions of the legends associated with our previous arrival at such a stage in history.
See you on the flip side.