Yes, it is true.
You may read this September 2010 report, courtesy of our Freedom of Information Act, at cia.gov.
Since the bulk of what this report discusses apparently has to do with international cooperation, why then, did they not choose that apparently appropriate phrase, instead of “Global Governance?”
“Global Governance” – in case you need to recheck your eyes and mind.
Here is an interesting and self-conflicted disclaimer, from its “Introduction,” page 1:
The term “global governance” as used in this paper includes all the institutions, regimes, processes, partnerships, and networks that contribute to collective action and problem solving at the international level. This definition subsumes formal and informal arrangements as well as the role of nonstate actors in transnational settings. Regional cooperation may also be regarded as an element of global governance insofar as it contributes to broader efforts. Governance differs from government, which implies sovereign prerogatives and hierarchical authority. Global governance does not equate to world government, which would be virtually impossible for the foreseeable future, if ever.
Are you saying, under your breath, “‘Governance differs from government…. Global governance does not equate to world government….’ Who are they trying to kid?”
How can any set of people practice governance when there is no effort of government in effect? Clearly, they wish to establish dependable, and enforceable arrangements, coordinated and administered between nations, hence their admission to the word “governance,” even though they create the distinction without a difference, between that word and “government.”
It is a natural and logical fact that if “global governance” is coordinated effectively, it must be done through an coordinating entity of some kind. But, we must not call that body any kind of “government” — is what they are saying.
And what is any difference again between the nouns-turned-adjectives, used in these terms? How exactly does “globe” differ from “world,” o United States’ National Intelligence Council (NIC) and European Union’s Institute for Security Studies (EUISS)? What color is the sky in your world, er, globe?
So, reader, is there a beacon flashing in your mind, “Orwellian. Orwellian. Orwellian…?” The term “global governance” may also be though of as an Hegelian (and Marxist) compromise, between thesis: international cooperation and antithesis: world government. For those that would like a summary of Hegelian philosophy and it’s implications for Karl Marx, it is a way of establishing revolution, plus a way of observing reality, then arguing impossibility, and then influencing people to believe they can “progress,” step by step, toward the unreal and impossible.
A bias for “world government” is apparent in this conflicted pseudo disclaimer, or they would not have admitted (as if forlornly kicking the dust with one shoe, hands in pockets) that “world government… would be virtually impossible for the foreseeable future, if ever.”
Your Sovereign expenditure of tax dollars at work, Sovereign Americans.
Exactly what entities orchestrated this? Only the present US administration and that of the EU (which, by the way, are called “governments”)? The major CFR, Bilder, Trilateralist, mega-financier, Marxist, fascist, and globalist movers and shakers down? All, likely, of the above? (Much of that list is redundant.) Any others?
And, if this is what is published, what associated intentions, plans, and implications are they holding back, as objectives for their (our) 2025 benchmark/deadline?
More to be published about this — including more excerpts — added to this Gulag Bound article, after further research.
by Arlen Williams & Tallulah Starr
h/t @PatriotWatchdog
Gulag Bound ^ | September 23, 2010 | Arlen Williams & Tallulah Starr
- New Food Rules: A guide to your government regulated diet - STORY
No comments:
Post a Comment