White House Pushed for World Government

White House Announces World Economic Community (1972)

On February 7, 1972, there was held a White House Conference on the Industrial World Ahead, which was called:

“A Look at Business in 1990.”

On May 18, 1972, Roy Ash (Chairman of the President’s Advisory Council on Executive Organization) and his fellow White House panelists — multinational industrialists, international bankers, government appointees — tell American businessmen that a [B]World Economic Community will be in operation by 1990, that “some aspects of national sovereignty will be given over to supranational authority,” that the IMF will be “the source of all of the primary reserves of all of the banking systems of the world,” and that the Socialist countries of the world will join in the creation of this New World Society, and finally, that this is “natural, inexorable, and beneficial.”

On September 1, 1972, the Wall Street Journal of published a leading editorial which labeled as fantasy, hallucination and big lie, the charge that there is “a long-time conspiracy financed by the Rockefeller family and programmed through the Council on Foreign Relations, aimed at imposing a one-world Socialist government.”

On September 8, 1972, Don Bell reported in his weekly commentary what Roy Ash told the Los Angeles conference audience regarding the White House directives (excerpt of Ash’s speech is quoted below).

The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce,
in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Commerce
and the White House Staff, is presenting The White House Conference.

The world Ahead, A Look at Business in 1990.
Thursday, May 18, 1972.
Los Angeles Hilton.
3 :00-6:30 p.m.

It’s a privilege to be with you this afternoon and, together, to peer into the future toward 1990. Some of you may have wondered why the White House conferees were advised to direct their prognostications to the year 1990, rather than to some other specific date in the decades ahead. Unfortunately, there is little I can provide in the way of edification; I rather wondered about it myself. Alright, I reasoned, George Orwell long ago appropriated 1984. Herman Kahn more recently laid claim to 2000. So there were not many good numbers left. Possibly 1990 was selected for the benef it of the panelists. They will all be retired and safe from harm if their predictions are wrong.

At the White House conference held earlier this year my fellow panelists and I discussed the subject of world business and the economy of 1990. Our particular panel, I should add, was comprised of Jean Frere, Managing Partner of Banque Lambert, Brussels, Belgium; Robert V. Roosa, partner of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., United States; Roberto Campos, president of the International Bank, Sao Paulo, Brazil; and Peter G. Peterson, then Assistant to President Nixon for International Economic Affairs and Executive Director of the Council on International Economic Policy, and now the Secretary of Commerce.

While we did not always achieve unanimity, our conclusions on the general subject of the future of world business tended, for the most part, to be strikingly similar. In the time alloted me today, I will attempt to summarize those conclusions . However, in all fairness to Messrs. Frere, Roosa, Campos and Peterson — none of whom are here to cry foul if their panel chairman goes astray — I will hedge by saying that what follows represents essentially my own views, reinforced where appropriate with their comments .

The threshhold question is, why is world business so important to us anyway? Why don’t we just concentrate on improving the U .S. business and economy? Isn’t that enough challenge?

The answer is that increasing economic and business interdependence among nations is the keynote of the next two decades of world business — decades that will see major steps toward a single world economy evolve out of today’s increasingly interacting, but still separate, national economies. As city, state and regional economies in this country have become melded into a single and highly interacting national economy, so individual national economies will meld into a single world economic system . And as the economic development of the United States made obsolete self-contained U .S. state, or even regional, economies, so the natural development of the world between now and 1990 will make obsolete a free standing French economy, a Japanese one, and even a U.S. economy in isolation from others.

Such an evolution is natural and inexorable — and beneficial. For an intelligent civilization always has and always will seek more and more efficient, and thus productive, means of converting its limited resources, energy and manpower into useful products and services. More highly integrated economic structures — based on specialization of its many elements and on interdependency among the specialized parts-is the inevitable answer. A single world economy is that higher order integration for the decades ahead.

The obstacles and hazards in the way of realizing a beneficially functioning single world economy are many. More effective multilateral governmental institutions must be developed and brought into operation. Some aspects of individual sovereignty will be given over to supranational authority. Even as critical, the relative roles of the world’s governments, on the one hand, and of globe circling business enterprises on the other, need to be worked out. Some have likened the upcoming issues between sovereign nations and multinational business to the test of earlier times between church and state.

We need only look at the long road the European Common Market countries have taken, and are still on, as they step by step reconcile national interests with the mutual advantages of a more broadly based economy, and as they embrace the activities of multinational business, to visualize the even more complex issues as we move toward a single world economy. But the Common Market countries are all industrialized and all operate under the private enterprise system. In embracing all the countries of the world, special attention needs to be given to the less industrialized countries and how they relate to the already industrialized ones, and to the place of the socialist countries in a developing world economy.

Roberto Campos, of the panel, maintains that great strains will arise in embracing within a single world economy countries of widely disparate development levels . He sees a strong bipolarity of interests and objectives. One of the bilateral poles of the future, as he sees it, will be comprised of emerging post-industrial, mass consumption societies — the largely developed societies — by 1990 perhaps 30 per cent of the world’s population when taken together. The industrial-transitional and pre-industrial societies, representing over 70 per cent of the world’s population, would constitute the other pole. And, as he notes, these two groups will greatly differ in the nature of their priorities and in the range of options available, thus a continuing source of international tension. Campos foresees, in the post-industrial societies, a humanistic revolt against technology and the surfeit of materialism it has produced; and in the developing nations, a technological revolt against hedonistic humanism — because for them the most urgent concern is the eradication of poverty — through stepped up “materialism.”

As importantly, international agreements between the socialist and the private property economies add a different dimension to the problems for which solutions need be found over the years ahead. But as Jean Frere forecasts, the socialist countries will take major steps toward joining the world economy by 1990 . He goes so far as to see them becoming members of the International Monetary Fund, the sine qua non for effective participation in multilateral commerce. Then also, by 1990 an imaginative variety of contractual arrangements will have been devised and put into operation by which the socialist countries and the private capital countries will be doing considerable business together, neither being required to abandon its base ideology. (The economic theories of Adam Smith and Karl Marx are not without their common points.)

These special dimensions of the next economy — the economy of the world, as it first permeates the industrial countries and then reaches out to embrace both the pre-industrial and socialistic ones — present challenging tasks for the next two or more decades. . . .

The industrial world ahead . . . will turn increasingly on the use of massive amounts of capital, the development and application of a cascading flow of new technologies, and highly professionalized management . Yet these relatively scarce resources are not equally available to all the world’s countries. Thus the role for the multinational company.

For, the fundamental reasons the multinational corporations are here to stay and will conduct much of the world’s business of the future, are simple ones. These powerful factors of production — that is, capital, technology and management — will be fully mobile, neither contained nor containable within national borders. They can be employed wherever in the world they will be most productive . World-wide transportation systems — extensive, economic and rapid — will make the world smaller in 1990 than California was in 1920. New management techniques, aided by computer processed data and instant communications, will allow as effective direction and control of world-around business activities in 1990 as a fifty man factory was controlled by the on-the-floor visual supervision of 1920.

The multinational corporation will be the natural outgrowth of the driving force of industrial enterprise that continually seeks out ways of producing and distributing more goods at lower cost to the consumer. Having a world perspective and operating in conducive national environments, it will combine labor, materials, capital, technology and management in the most productive combinations and distribute the fruits of this combination to world markets . Such maximum efficiency in the use of all the world’s productive resources is essential for the demanding period ahead . The multinational corporation — domestic in all countries, foreign in none — will become the mechanism to realize the potentials of world business for all the world’s citizens.

Yet the very scale and dimension of the multi- national corporation will require new forms of relationships between business and national governments. To reflect this need for reconciling the roles of sovereign nations and multinational corporations, Robert Roosa is convinced we are going to have to develop and apply clear “rules of the road.” It cannot now be predicted whether they will come about from case by case development in the courts of international law or by treaty among major nations. In any event, effective international rules of the road are as essential for the world economy ahead as they are for Los Angeles traffic.

As a framework for their development and application will be the establishment of more effective supranational institutions to deal with intergovernmental matters, and matters between governments and world industry . A key intergovernmental institution that needs to work well in a world economy is the International Monetary Fund. Roosa predicts that the IMF will reach new capabilities and dimensions. It will become, in Bob’s words, the most advanced embodiment of the aspirations that so many have for a world society, a world economy. The IMF, he forecasts for 1990, is going to be the source of all of the primary reserves of all the banking systems of the world.

Jean Frere observes that monetary stability is going to be as critical for the 1990 world economy as the finer standards for distance, weight and time that are now required by modern technology. To bring this about is no small task; inflation must be licked and gold restored its rule; he concludes.

It would be my own forecast that within two decades the institutional framework for a World Economic Community will be in place and operating just as today’s European Economic Community structure provides the strong supranational framework for the European economy.

So, as we look ahead to the world economy of 1990 we already see some parts falling into their places. World business already is rapidly increasing. Multinational corporations are increasingly a fact of world business. Governments are beginning to perceive the meaning, problems and opportunities of a world economy. High on official agendas, world-around between now and then, will be programs to reconcile national interests, the forces of world business, and international objectives.

For, in the final analysis, we are commanded by the fact that the economies of the major countries of the world will be interlocked. And since major economic matters in all countries are also important political matters in and between countries, the inevitable consequence of these propositions in that the broader and total destinies — economic, political and social — of all the world’s nations are closely interlocked. We are clearly at that point where economic issues and their related effects can be considered only in terms of a total world destiny, not just separate national destinies, and certainly not just a separate go-it-alone destiny for the United States.

In simpler words: We shall have World Government whether we like it or not. And the oligarch’s who say this know whereof they speak; because they have their plan, it has been put into operation, and it is now working and being worked at every level of society: international, national, regional and at State, County, City and Community levels.

Thinking Dialectically: Roots of Sound Rational Thinking

Dialectics: Which Dialectic is Which?

If the fate of the mankind were to hang on one philosophical term, it would be the word ‘dialectic’. This is because the dialectic a thinker endorses is the key to the inner rooms of his hidden intentions and true values. From this point of view, the safety and sanity of the world hangs on which dialectical system a society underwrites.

There is no denying the importance of the term dialectic but scholarship in this area is fraught with confusion. We rarely discuss the issue. In conversation — even among educated people — the subject is taboo. People in the academic world talk at cross purposes while we, the lay public, remain virtually unaware of the role The Dialectic plays in shaping the fortunes of our families. Vast numbers of ordinary citizens are blindly unaware of how their lives are influenced by various dialectical movements.

Some few are in on the secret. An elite pool of super thinkers know the power of The Dialectic. These worthies can discuss dialectical differences among Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Sorel, Sartre and relate past theories to modern trends. To this handful, it is no secret that The Dialectic is the hinge on which the philosophical enterprise swings.

However, the number of those who genuinely appreciate the significance of dialectical theory is small indeed. As we mentally play with nuclear weapons and flirt with doom, most of us muddle class Americans are blissfully ignorant of the importance The Dialectic exerts on our lives. Even worse, we are critically unaware of how much our future rides on the choice we make as to which dialectical style we lend our support.

Isn’t this intriguing? The most important happening of our day is a secret known only to a few. It stays that way because it is a forbidden subject of conversation. Even though our society is technically advanced beyond dreams of bygone days, most of us stubbornly refuse to examine the motor we use to drive our society? What is the answer to this mystery?

After stewing over dialectical conundrums for years, I see two solutions, one simple and one complex. The simple solution is to continue as we are and drive by “the seat of our pants”. Perhaps our native commonsense and good will holds enough power to bring civil discourse into dominance in the land.

We could. We, the moderate middle, have the power, by sheer numbers, to subdue the nefarious force of radical negative dialectics and demand that cultivated logical commonsense and fair play become the dominating method of political discourse. If we keep our feet on the ground, our head on our shoulders, and our heart in the right place we could squeeze out totalitarian propensities of social manipulators and not let the crazies in our society spoil the good life. This is a simple solution.

However, this simple solution does not always work. If the millions of tortured victims of Soviet Dialectic could speak, they would say it takes more than workaday commonsense to stand against the mesmerization of sophistic imperial dialectic once it penetrates the engines of power. Using the power of Radical Negative Dialectic, a deft autocrat can gain control behind the backs of the many and grab the wheel. If the dead victims of despotic dialectics could speak, they would tell us that there is an ever present danger, even in societies that claim to be free.

When logical intuition and rational commonsense are not enough to meet the challenge, we must have the courage to enter the realm of critical philosophy and intellectually study the matter. This brings us to my second answer, the complex solution. If we are to introduce a measure of intelligent control over powerful dialectical trends, then we must intellectually study the situation and make a conscious choice about which dialectic we prefer. This takes time and effort.

To gain a notion of the power of the term dialectic, we need to go back in time and learn how the idea has been used in the past. This means opening history books and at least glance at the role of the dialectic in history. If we do this, we will find that the power of the dialectic comes not only from its present role in directing our lives but also from the role it has played in years gone by.

The Roots of Sound Rational Thinking is a full length book that explores elemental ways to cultivate commonsense and advance our abilities to progress in peace.

Is Max Keiser Shilling for the Globalists?

During the first 15 minutes of Max & Stacy’s June 13th podcast, while discussing the recent arrest of two men travelling with $134B in bonds in a double-bottom briefcase, they present the concept that “no one does global accounting on CUSIP Numbers” (ie. Bonds) so therefore “peek-a-boo accounting” games can continue unabaited at corporations across the globe seeking to mislead auditors as to the strength of their corporate balance sheets. What is needed to stop this and other financial frauds is a “global accounting system,” proclaims Keiser.

Play Max & Stacy’s June 13th Podcast

Download Audio (MP3)

What Max & Stacy are doing is helping to strengthen the establishment’s creation of a global dialectic, whereby the problem (ie. affirmation) is an unregulated global system and the response (ie. negation) is destablization, fraud, theft, global poverty, etc. The solution Max & Stacy propose (ie. negation of the negation) is a globlal system of checks and balances.

In fact, Max goes so far as to say, “if you are against the global system you are against global accounting.” The setup is now complete and the appropriate frames (ie. dialectics) established. Hence, if the public wants to clean up this global financial mess, irrespective of who created it, there is only ONE way, and that is to establish a global accounting and auditing system. To be against this solution is to be for continued fraud, theft, poverty and destabilization of society.

It’s a perfect setup! The public must now support a global infrastructure of checks and balances in order to stop the economic madness. We’re now just one more step closer to a full spectrum globalist system. But doesn’t that support the global oligarchs, and I though Max and Stacy were for the public and opposed to the global oligarchs? Hmmm.

Aristotle said…

“People that can’t think dialectically aren’t really human beings at all, they just look like human beings.”

Perhaps it is time for the public to heed and respond to Artistotle.

Henry C.K. Liu Interview on the Economy

Excellent interview on the history behind the economic condition in the USA (just make sure to fast forward during the commercials and the interviewer).

Play Interview

[Audio http://www.filefreak.com/files/19803_monqx/Henry%20Liu%20Interview%2C%202009-06-09.mp3]

Download Audio