Greatest Criminals Ever Seen?
By Staff News & Analysis - June 27, 2011

Interconnectedness Dooms Nations and Their Arbitrary Borders … Nations are understood to be free to do what they perceive they must to defend "interests." The present orders – erroneously called the international "system" – are designed to defend and, if possible, maximize the interests of the system's fractured collection of parts. Systems – biological or social – that lack effective feedback loops do not survive. Slow adaptors fail in any evolutionary and competitive environment. This is also the case with world orders. – Epoch Times

Dominant Social Theme: The unwinding of nation-states is inevitable and modern history proves why.

Free-Market Analysis: The Epoch Times is a publication of the Chinese, anti-communist movement called Falun Gong. It recently carried an article entitled "Interconnectedness Dooms Nations and Their Arbitrary Borders" that we want to examine today. The article is notable for its boldness and forthright statements about a "new world order."

We've noticed the Western elites seemingly behind the conspiracy of one world government are starting to use a blunter rhetoric; this article is evidence of this trend. It endorses concepts long ridiculed as "conspiracy theory."

Bo Ekman, founder and chairman of the Tällberg Foundation, wrote the article. It apparently first appeared in a post at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization on May 31. In further tracing the provenance after writing our analysis, we saw the article was picked up and posted elsewhere as well, not just as Epoch Times. It seems to have achieved some popularity, though Tällberg is a somewhat mysterious entity – to us, anyway. A fairly elaborate website makes clear the Foundation is devoted to globalism.

The Tällberg website is well put together and appears to have significant support. Ekman himself exudes confidence in this article. He seems certain of where the world is headed and sees a one world order as almost pre-determined. Opponents of such, he notes, do not fully account for the inter-connectedness of the modern world.

The present world-order embodied by the patchwork of the UN, the IMF, the WTO, the EU, NATO, the ASEAN, the G20, OPEC and many more is based on the principles of national sovereignty, non-intervention and mind your own business. Globalization, however, evolves by dissolving state barriers, in effect a process of denationalization.

His larger point is that the current system of nation states is not a stable one. He compares it to Newton's mechanistic worldview and explains that the Newtonian world-as-a-clockwork model is behind the West's assumption that the futures of nation states are calculable and predictable. He believes this scientific model still influences people's ideas about politics.

Ekman then rehearses the mainstream historical narrative of how we came to this place in time. He makes the point that as the certainties about the divine rights of kings subsided, the concept of the nation state itself as a kind of divinity emerged. This new perspective supported the evolving Age of Enlightenment with its emphasis on the perfectibility of societies designed by scientific and technological experts.

He runs quickly through the next hundred years, mentioning Napoleon, the Napoleonic Wars and the post-Napoleonic world created by the Vienna Congress and how that world order came to its end with World War I and 20 million deaths. This was followed by the "naivety" of the 1919 peace treaties negotiated in Paris, which eventually crushed "U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's dreams about a world built on the principles of nations' democratic self determination."

Instead of Wilson's dream, the world got renewed war, an outcome of cruel "European egotism, rising fascism and American isolationism." Nonetheless, with war a reality, "U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt gathered trusted members of his administration within a week after the December 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor attack. He asked them to start thinking how to organize the peace after victory."

Roosevelt's foresight led to a brand new economic system that emerged from the Bretton Woods conference, Yalta and Potsdam, etc. The signing of the UN Charter in San Francisco in 1945 was another element of what Ekman himself calls the "new world order." He then mentions the Nuremberg trials, which "set standards for crimes against humanity."

He sees the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed December 10, 1948, as a fundament of globalism, introducing a "common value base for human behavior." Slowly, he writes, governance started to adapt to the rapidly increasing interdependence and ever-deepening complexity of human affairs.

The rest of the narrative is aimed at describing the fall of the West – and of the nationalist model. "Fast, massive technological transformation and a shifting center of gravity ended the certitude of Western dominance." The economic crisis of 2008, coming on the heels of this trend, reveals the outline of this brave, new world while highlighting the failures of the old.

There is much insecurity in the world today, he points out. There is doubt about whether natural resources will feed consumption; investments seem uncertain; the security of a population soon to number more than nine billion is surely at risk. It is imperative that old ways of thinking must give way to a sense of interconnectedness and flexibility. Here is his conclusion:

The present order is bound to fail, as predictably as its predecessors failed. The deficits fuel the dynamics of the bottom-up revolutions of the Mid-East and Northern Africa. Stagnation proved not to equal stability. A long period of harsh adjustments is in store for Europe, the Arab world and the U.S. The breaking of a system will be followed by the codification of the new.

The next will follow on the "breaking of nations," to borrow a term from EU diplomat Robert Cooper. Required for a new order is a practical platform for providing fundamental social and physical needs of people— empathetic solidarity, freedom, justice, equality, security, and respect, eternal parts of the human spirit and nature. The platform would secure sustainability, defining duties and rights in securing ecosystems and creating a global order to deal with interconnected systems and interdependent global issues.

In the last and main purpose lies limitless hope. In preparing for a new world order, we must ignore warnings about the end of the world and instead imagine 9 billion well-educated, creative cooperating humans. That is a promise of hope, not threat. We need leadership of the whole, not of fragmented interests. Fellowship must be based on the wisdom of the interest of the commons.

It is an alarming article to us because it seems to establish a new historical narrative, one we have never seen before that justifies the immanence of world government. In fact, from our perspective, it's a little like reading a condensed version of Animal Farm with a Newtonian overlay.

The irony of the situation is that the actual solution for humankind is exactly opposite to the one that Ekman proposes. The hope for humanity is to return to small, disconnected environments competing with one another. History shows us that such a paradigm provided the best and happiest sanctuaries, where culture and technology flourished. If an environment became too oppressive, people could move elsewhere, often nearby, without disrupting their families and lifestyle.

We can see this playing out historically. Always, the basis for what modern history sees as "great" civilizations were smaller, individual ones: the Seven Hills of Rome; the Greek city states; the city states of the Italian Renaissance; the 13 states of America, etc. In each case, mainstream history confuses (purposefully?) the results with the cause. The initial greatness was not empire but the separateness that PRECEEDED empire.

Why does Ekman, then, believe that a single world government would prove benevolent and hopeful? Why does he, a grown man with an understanding of life and how people interact, believe that a "new world order" would be anything but an invitation to the bloodiest genocide the world has ever seen?

Ekman is purveying a dominant social theme in our view, one that contains its own faux-reality. Ekman will express it no matter what. In fact, the people he so admires apparently seek a kind of genocide, though in some cases they call it population control. In any event, the current Anglosphere elites have made it clear that they want massive population reduction.

One of the results of a new world order might be the ability to put this final solution into practice. The public rhetoric is one of benevolence and concern; the private rhetoric involves methodologies of clinical extermination.

Human history is relatively old. Tribal and clan formulations were stable enough to last for thousands of years. What Ekman casts as the inevitable unwinding of the system of nation states is an artificial phenomenon, a promotion, where certain results are made to look inevitable.

He pays special attention to the 20th century because it was in this century that the current elite conspiracy reached its height. As we have pointed out, the 20th century was the one where Money Power almost entirely had its way. The impact of the Gutenberg Press had finally been mitigated and controlled. The mainstream media was apparently entirely manipulated by Western powers-that-be.

One could conclude – and we are increasingly tempted to do so – that the 20th century was an exercise is what a DB feedbacker just recently called Directed History (a term perhaps preferable to Conspiratorial History).

The Directed History of the world in the 20th century was all about setting up the basics of global governance. This government, inevitably, would be run out of City of London with its appurtenances in Tel Aviv and Washington DC. It was to be implemented via fear-based dominant social themes.

The evidence revealed to us during the process of the Internet Reformation seems to make these patterns obvious. The Communist Revolution, as we know now from historical evidence, was partially funded by Wall Street, as was Hitler's rise to power. The Treaty of Versailles that horribly penalized Germany and arose from World War I was supposedly a "mistake," but why should we believe it?

No, these accords were likely designed to create another war – World War II. Hitler, perhaps, was created to wage it. After World War II came Bretton Woods and the architecture of the "new world order" evident for anyone to see. Along with an economic new world order came a political one. The results of Yalta and the meetings of Winston Churchill, FDR and Stalin split the Western world in two and produced the Cold War.

Churchill was shocked by how FDR yielded to Stalin. But isn't this faux-history? Churchill was an insider, too. Was it merely a case of "good guy-bad guy" on a global scale? Just as the Paris accords created World War II, so the agreements reached at Yalta created the Cold War. Austrian economist Murray Rothbard was possibly correct. The Cold War was a charade.

Perhaps it was all a charade. The fall of democratic China and Mao's long march to communist power. Was this too in some sense accommodated by Western elites? This is in keeping with the way Money Power likes to work: thesis, antithesis … synthesis.

The USSR was the antithesis of the "free" United States, and now with the fall of the USSR, we are in the synthesis stage where the US is absorbing a good many of the authoritarian traits of the former Soviet Union. Exactly the same sort of occurrences have taken place in China which has on the surface become more "free market" though how much of this really credible is anybody's guess.

If things go according to the evident plan, soon there may be little difference between the Chinese, Soviet and American systems. Every aspect was predicted by George Orwell, the elites' brilliant and peculiar amanuensis.

What do we make of this? Here's one conclusion, assuming the above version of Directed History is accurate: The impossibly wealthy banking families of the Western world, along with their corporate, military and religious apologists and enablers, are perhaps the greatest criminals ever known. They participated in a century of looting, bloodletting and war with the justification that they were building something better …

Now, as Money Power erodes and the ability to promote fear-based dominant social themes declines, we can see the strategy for what it was. As the tide runs out, we can view the ruins. We think we can see how it occurred. Such speculations, unfortunately, are discouraging and ultimately horrifying. Were the Western powers-that-be actually BEHIND the savagery of the Soviet Union and of Hitler's Germany and finally China with its genocidal Great Leap Forward? Did they plan to CREATE the world wars of the 20th century in order to trigger global governance from the chaos?

Certainly, as regards such worldwide governance, the Anglosphere elites set up the necessary systems at Bretton Woods and in Turtle Bay. This much (and more) is incontrovertible. And now, again, in the 21st century the powers-that-be are apparently – deliberately – creating chaos around the world to usher in its formalities via CIA sponsored youth movements and "color" revolutions – see AYM.

Why believe any mainstream meme? What is shocking as REAL history gradually reveals itself via what we have taken to calling the Internet Reformation, is the seeming utter ruthlessness of the modern conspiracy when it comes to establishing the building blocks of their globalist enterprise.

In possibly supporting the Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, Chinese Communism, two World Wars and the Cold War, Money Power was responsible – if we agree with the seeming truth-telling of the Internet – collectively, for the murders, displacements and impoverishment of hundreds of millions.

After Thoughts

Here, then, is another fundamental question: If the elites do manage to achieve a new world order, do we have any illusions that there will not be bloodletting that will make the 20th century look moderate? Or that their paid apologists will not seek to justify it and even rewrite history to make it seem palatable and necessary?

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap