Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Damning Documents - Part 4: Global Governance 2025

   Reading between the lines is sometimes the only way to get an idea of the bigger picture… the hidden agenda, as it were. Such is the case with the 2010 document: “Global Governance 2025: At A Critical Juncture” . This curiosity is the brain child of a collaboration between representatives of the US National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the European Union’s Institute For Security Studies (EUISS). The former is very important, not only because it falls under the  control of the US President, but also due to the direct connections it has with the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, the National Intelligence Program and numerous branches of the US intelligence community. The latter is also hugely influential in matters of European security, defence and intelligence.

   “Global Governance” also had extensive input from the Atlantic Council of the US (ACUS), The Trans-Atlantic Policy Network (TPN), The US State Department, The Committee On Foreign Relations of The European Parliament, The Centre on International Co-Operation (New York University), The World Economic Forum, PFC Energy  and contributions from 8 different multi-national organisations involved in international affairs, media, research, strategy and security studies. So “Global Governance” is no hoax document!

   Despite being largely unknown to many and almost totally ignored by mainstream media, the document is totally unclassified and easily downloadable from the internet. In fact, it has been estimated that there are over 5.5 million articles written on the net about “Global Governance”. So what is the significance of this opus?

   Upon initial reading, there appears little that is damning about the contents. However this impression is extremely misleading. The report represents one of the first ‘official’ partnerships between US and European institutions, although anybody who knows anything about the history of The Bilderberg Group (for example) knows that that a document like this is simply building upon what has been a long established collaboration… and a, just as long, established agenda for global affairs. Like many other “damning documents”, it also makes use of a complex system of forecasting (or creating) trends and future shocks.

   The report was created “to assess the framework and long term prospects of a global governance process”. It makes numerous references to an “international agenda” applied with “mutually agreed instruments”. However, it also goes out of it’s way to stress that it is not a proposal for ‘Global Government’, which the authors claim is a totally different and undesired outcome. What is being said here is technically true.

   For a long time, I have been frustrated with certain notions that The New World Order or Agenda is a plan for a single government, single authority, single currency, etc. and taken, by some, literally. I have always believed that the agenda is a multi-tentacled beast, with no obvious face and certainly not wielding such obvious and blunt weapons as a global ‘whatever’…

   In line with my belief, “Global Governance” seems to confirm this. With a universal agenda, it doesn’t matter how many faces there are, they’ll all be ultimately dancing to the same tune. The report states that “the main risk to be averted is the creation of different formats that mirror competing geopolitical conditions. Such a development would defeat much of the basic purpose”. It asserts that “a needed precondition is for all the stakeholders to trust the system, commit to collective action, and accept stronger perogatives of international institutions over their domestic governance”.

   Initial to the process are organisations such as the G8 and G20, The BRIC countries, the IEA, OPEC, the OECD, the IMF, the Federal Reserve, The World Bank, etc. Regarding the perceived idea of G20 currently being centred on economic matters, the report states: “as issues become challenging or crisis driven, common interests may expand beyond facilitating an economic recovery, requiring the G20 to expand it’s AGENDA further”. You don’t have to be labelled a “conspiracy theorist” to see this happening right now.

   Key also, is the involvement of NGOs (Non Government Organisations) and embracing “hybrid, public-private partnership (PPPs)… emerging as an important feature of global governance innovation”. Under the proposed ‘agenda’, it is interesting to see that the report notes: “There is institutional Darwinism and we will see the survival of the fittest institutions”.  The rhetorical question should be asked, who sets the standard of ‘the fittest’? Those dictating the agenda presumably…

   It also strangely refers to other institutions such as international business, big pharma, security agencies, the media and crisis management outfits like WHO and FEMA, as integral to the overall process. In relation to this, “Global Governance” hammers home this idea of ‘global threats’. Terrorism is obviously discussed, but also ‘Climate Change’, energy security, overpopulation and migration, dwindling resources, threats from biotechnology, infectious diseases and pandemics. This is where the report seems to have an epiphany of multiple “new pearl harbour” musings. An air of foreboding and fear is created in these discussions, however one conclusion is reached in relation to all these aspects: being able to control the outcome would ultimately advance the agenda.

   On the matter of terrorism, security and potential state conflicts, a “proactive management of state fragility” is proposed. Including “political intervention” and “the threat of or use of military force”. This one speaks for itself really. The Japanese participant in the report, tellingly reveals “the world will be a sad place if by 2025 we have not legalised quick military intervention for humanitarian causes in case of failing states. We will need a new legal system for sending quick military intervention squads”. Humanitarian my arse! It’s just an excuse for quick regime change in those regions that won’t capitulate to the agenda.

   Regarding ‘climate change’ (or more accurately, the myth of it), there is another example of seizing opportunities (engineered or otherwise): “a crisis such as an environmental catastrophe… could spark co-operation”. As for an event triggered by a bio weapon: “ a biological attack has a psychological impact that outstrips lethality, placing democratic governments under severe pressure to respond forcefully”. Is this a false flag event in the making?! Notice the emphasis on “psychological impact”…

   In relation to the health of the population, “Global Governance” praises the work of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their work with the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunizations. Firstly, I wouldn’t touch Bill Gates with a barge pole and I trust vaccination programs even less. Never the less, the report does mention flu pandemics and emerging diseases on several occasions… and emphasises that prevention is paramount.

   The report also mentions that “rapidly falling costs will bring biotechnology within reach of the hacker community”. A remark presumably designed to point out that such advances can only be safe in the hands of the ‘agenda’ players. However, I don’t feel very safe when they make comments like: “future capabilities open the possibilities for designing humans with unique physical, emotional or cognitive abilities”. Sounds like The Borg to me!

   One thing that all “Damning Documents” have in common, is the crucial role that modern communications and media outlets will play in shaping the agenda.  “Widespread use of the internet - probably has been the most important vehicle spurring the expanded role of civil society groups and public opinion at large in ‘agenda setting’”. The report spells it out clearly with the following: “persuasion and legitimacy (require) as much attention as military, economic and political weight”.

   What gives “Global Governance” an edge in the ‘damning documents’ stakes, is the inclusion of several “fictionalised scenarios”. These take place between now and 2025 and are used to highlight the preferred outcome of a global agenda in the future. The scenarios are real oddities though, given that they include events such as food shortages, pandemics, economic breakdown, the rise of China as the dominant superpower, the threat of a nuclear conflict between the US and China and huge tidal waves that wipe out millions of people.

The significance of these doomsday scenarios remains unclear. Are they shock tactics leading us to conclude they can only be avoided if the agenda exists? Are they subtle warnings of false flag events to come? Who knows.

   What I have presented here is only a brief overview of a handful of the main “Damning Documents“ that relate to a global agenda for the future of mankind.. To really makes sense of any document that paints a suspicious picture, I suggest you seek them out and read them for yourself.

If nothing else, they confirm what we see around us everyday.
When presented with the facts, it becomes harder to dismiss these perceptions as the musings of paranoid nutters.
I could easily be called a nutter!
But I’m a nutter in the know!!
Knowledge is power.
Till Next Time…
The Truth Seeker’s Guide.


Unknown said...

Interesting reading. This document is very similar to the 'Scenarios'. It is very likely full of disinformation and also bits of truth here and there. Finding out which is which is the hardest part for the uninitiated.

The Truth Seeker's Guide said...

I imagine most of these documents are, but when you look at what is unfolding in the world it does make you wonder: Which came first - unpredictable situations or the proposal to create / steer said situations...
All the best.
Carl (The 'Guide)