@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;82203 wrote:None of this is new. That is what must be understood - we've seen this same this occur in the west since the Renaissance. It's old politic at work...Yet sovereign nations persist. So, we have to ask, if we are to make credible this concern of international government, what has changed in these tactics and why do these changes make international government, ie the eradication of truly sovereign states, more likely?
What has made globalization possible? The world is smaller than is used to be. What, in my opinion, gave a new unity of purpose to the old politics of power and wealth was (in no particular order) 1) the improvements in communication and transportation, which have faciliated international cooperation and made members of the extreme upper class, already more loyal to one another than to their respective nations, increasingly untethered to any geographical unit, 2) the rise of modern science, including the social sciences, and especially behavioral psychology, which has allowed long-standing mechanisms for control of the masses to be employed far more efficiently and precisely, and ironically, 3) the awakening of the masses and their liberation from the old feudalist or absolutist systems, along with the rise of the concepts of democracy, marxism, etc. That last point requires futher explanation. Obviously, I recognize the end of feudalism or absolutism as a good thing. My point is that, if in fact we are still under the thumb of a sort of aristocracy, it has become much more difficult to extricate ourselves from that than it was for our forebearers to rid themselves of a more visible aristocracy. As Goethe so wisely said, 'no people are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.' The most pernicious sort of tyranny might be one of which the oppressed are unaware; it cannot be overthrown if it is not ackowledged to exist.
Quote:And we must also consider contemporary factors outside of big business and international treaty. Namely, the nature of the foremost nation states. Do you imagine, for instance, that China is approaching unification in some international conspiratorial government? And if so, upon what evidence?
I think you fundementally misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't believe there is some dark room filled with brandy quaffing Mr. Burns look-a-likes in every country in the world trying to execute a single master plan. Far from it. What I am trying to describe is more of a loose cabal, a private club of sorts with certain annual events, certain official meeting places, officers of a sort, general goals and common interests, which decides, as a group, what to do, and those decisions change with events, and there are disagreements, etc. A word from finance might be most appropriate: consortium. I see no evidence that China is approaching union in some world state. I have little doubt that the people attempting to create a supra-national political and economic union of north America (the same people who have created a supra-national political and economic union of Europe) would like to eventually incorporate China, or India, or Morroco for that matter, but they aren't all-powerful or omnipresent. I can only object to the moves that I can see. The people who criticize so called 'conspiracy theories' seem, in my experience, to have the wildest and most fantastic ideas about what constitutes a conspiracy. If it's not everywhere and infinitely menacing and strong, it's not actually a conspiracy, and if someone would claim that is those things, that person is nuts.
Quote:Yes, I am familiar with this history. However, given the history, it seems more than a stretch to suggest that this trend leads to international government and the dissolution of effective nation states (not necessarily the states themselves, but their ability to govern)...One serious problem with this international government via treaty thesis is the consistency of nation states ignoring their international treaties - The US and China are habitually engaged in practices that stand in direct opposition to their international agreements...This is an important part of conspiratorial politic that cannot be overlooked: that parties practice and ignore aspects of agreement at will.
Taken alone, the fact that private interests control the major central banks of the world does not, as you say, prove the existance of a conspiracy to create a world collectivist state. Obviously not. However, when one then proves that these same financial interests are advocating in articles, books, etc. the creation of an international state, and likewise appluading and funding totalitarianism all over the world, one should begin asking serious questions, such as 'who is running the government and for what purpose?'
As I said, these people aren't deities. The U.S. and China do indeed violate agreements, but would you say that the U.S. is more or less bound to internatiional agreements than it was 10 years ago, 20, 30, 40? There is a progression.
Quote:Again, I have not entirely discounted Quigley as an historian. What I have done is advance the remarkably conservative claim that when a work is based purely on esoteric "evidence", that there is absolutely no reason to accept the claims. Unless those supposed secret documents are made available for further study, any claims relying on those supposed documents must not be accepted by people who are interested in an accurate portrayal of history. Conspiracy was a minor facet of Quigley's work, hence I do not entirely discount him as an historian. As for his conspiratorial bent, you can check the Wikipedia: "Quigley's views are particularly notable because the majority of reputable academic historians profess skepticism about conspiracy theories." Historians are a cautious group, as they should be. Quigley went too far when he wrote "history" based on unproduced documentation. You have to have evidence in history, and he could offer none for his conspiracy theories. And evidence remains the crux of our debate, here.
I quite understand why most historians would discount Quigley's account of the anglo-american establishment. That obviously doesn't prove he's incorrect. I'm not asking that you provide proof of a negative, that would be silly and intellectually dishonest. What I am asking is for you to tell me, or quote me someone who has already thought the matter through, why Quigley would simply invent all this? Why? For what reason? Also, I ask you to take a quick look through Tragedy and Hope if you never have. I can't believe that someone as meticulous and Q. would write about something so important based on a hunch or an untrustworhty source, as opposed to the documents of the organizations in question, as he claimed. I don't blame historians for not believing him, but I don't agree with them.
Quote:None, because publications had to be sanctioned by the Church. The printing industry of that period is not analogous to the same industry of today. However, there were many works of the period that allude to those practices, particularly in the works of that brilliant satirist of the time, Erasmus. The intrigues were common knowledge, just as it is common knowledge today that big business uses dubious practices to promote their own wealth and power. All you have to do is look at the extensive notes taken down by Papal recorders and other chroniclers of the period...And if you do, you'll get a remarkably clear picture of the extent of the intrigues. Barbara Tuchman in The March of Folly, which is a great book by the way, covers this remarkable period.
My point exactly. There is some coverage in contemporary texts of the various plots and intrigues, but mostly a common knowledge and inference. What is different today with regard to this new conspiracy? There is no less evidence. You simply find the Italian writers, and Erasmus, more believable than the various, respectable, people who have written books documenting the modern conspiracy. Time lends credibility.
Quote:And here you over extend your claim: there is no doubt that groups, not a singular one but many, work to create a more integrated system of worldwide finance, and that they do this for the purposes of extending their wealth and power. That's big business, always has been. To say they want a global collectivist state is simply beyond any evidence, unless you take seriously the claims of Quigley who makes such claims based on evidence no one else has ever seen, which is not a practice a serious historian engages in.
Let's set Quigley aside for now, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.Testimony presented in a congressional hearing has no value as evidence? Testimony which explicitly states that the goal, among others, of the foundations was to move the U.S. in the direction of collectivism so that it could be merged with the society of the USSR? Or books written by people involved in investigations of the matter? Rene Wormser was in fact an avowed socialist and a critic of the goals of the Reese Commission, and yet she came to the same conclusions as Dodd and the rest of them. How do you explain that? Why would she invent such a thing?
Quote:Dodd's testimony is directed at a particular group, and does not support some worldwide conspiracy of international finance for the sake of a worldwide collectivist state.
Dodd reaches the the conlcusion that all three of the major tax except foundations have this same goal and that they are a 'highly efficient, functioning whole.' You realize that means Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie? That's a pretty good slice of international finance and industry.
Quote:This is an essentially American group, with some European influence. Further, this American group, while small and elite, does not exercise the sort of control necessary to get even close to the goals you ascribe to them.
Again, not so small a segment of global wealth and power is represented here, and this is only one aspect of the 'case.' Dodd also testified, or presentred in his report, that these foundations actively sought to place 'their men' in positions of political and intellectual power, included but not limited to secretaries of state, secretaries of defense, ambassadors and dimplomats, deans of major east coast universities, chairmen of important NGO's involving education and public policy, editors of newspapers, journals, publishing companies, etc. Look at the revolving door between wall street and washington. The present and former secretaries of the treasury came from Goldman Sachs for god sakes!
Most of the work toward international government in this hemisphere is done by the Council of the Americas, Americas Society, Forum of the Americas, Institute for International Economics, Trilateral Commission, and the Council of Foreign Relations. David Rockefeller either founded, chairs, or sits on the board of every one of those organizations. Read afew of their reports. There are two notable things in them. First, they all favor increased international cooperation, standardization of eocnomic regulations, an increased role for supranational organizations, etc. Second, very often one will find a proposal in some report which shortly thereafter becomes law, or fact. Curious, no? I'm sure it's all coincidental..
So no, there isn't definitive proof. It's not 1+1=2, but it is 1+x=2. What do think x is?
