Liberty Maven

Image via Wikipedia

“We are being ripped off!” “There’s going to be a revolt in this country!”

These are the words of Gerald Celente on the latest Lew Rockwell podcast. Celente certainly has a sense for the melodramatic, but the interesting thing is that so many of the  predictions found in his Trends Journal newsletter have come true.

He claims that the panic of 2008 will become the collapse of 2009 and there’s going to be “the worst living conditions that we’ve ever faced in this country.” These words are quite scary and almost unthinkable for most of us.

I include myself among those skeptical of such claims, but every time I look at the writing on the wall it becomes more difficult to remain skeptical.

Read More »

I don’t exactly know how I feel about all this talk of a “New World Order”, or a world government.  Typically it’s discussed in the context of a mass conspiracy.  Personally, I have a low regard for such theories, mainly because they presuppose that the architects behind these conspiracies are incredibly brilliant and devious.  They would have to be, wouldn’t they?  If they mastermined economic collapses and planned and/or faked terrorist attacks, they would have to plan very carefully, and make sure that the unlimited amount of variables involved are just right in order to make it all work out.  But I think that’s giving these villains way too much credit.  I personally think it’s much more likely that the events that occur aren’t part of a mass conspiracy, but that those who do desire such a thing as a “world government” will naturally use such events as opportunities to seize more power, and, since governments are naturally inclined toward grabbing more and more power all the time, such a thing is very much in their comfort zone when opportunities rise.

In The Advocates for Self Government‘s most recent Liberator Online, James W. Harris brings up the subject since Gideon Rachman wrote in The Financial Times that “for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible” and then goes on to discuss how the European Union has doing their part to attempt to unify that part of the world, and how he feels it could easily be used as a model for the whole world.

“A ‘world government’ would involve much more than cooperation between nations,” Rachman says. “It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union [EU] has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.”

A world government, Rachman stresses, could not be created democratically, because we ignorant unwashed masses, lacking the wisdom and foresight of those who rule us, mostly hate the idea.

“Even in the EU — the heartland of law-based international government — the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for ‘ever closer union’ have been referred to the voters.

“In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians — and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters.

“International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.”

I find all this talk nauseating, but interesting nonetheless.  Read the whole of Harris’ article at The Advocates for Self Government.

This morning Glenn Beck ranted about the demise of the U.S. dollar making sure to claim he is no conspiracy theorist. Yet with each word of warning he sounds not all that different from Alex Jones.

I’m not saying this is a bad thing. I think it is good in fact. It shows there is someone who (at least on the economy) is out there in the main stream press saying what needs to be said. Beck is not ready to latch on to the “elites taking over the world” argument, and neither am I. Though with each passing piece of evidence suggesting we are deliberately devaluing our currency it becomes more difficult not to grab on to that line of thinking. It seems Glenn Beck is fighting the urge latch on.

He goes from talking of the dollar’s demise right into the worry about globalism saying he doesn’t want to “live in a milk toast world”. Finally, he laments that our “Constitution is damn near gone”. On these points I could not agree with him more.

Now if he’d change his neo-con ways a bit on foreign policy we’d have another ally for liberty. However, when people change their ways they aren’t immediately welcomed with red pill induced hugs. One need look no further than Bob Barr for evidence of that.

Listen to his rant here:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com takes on the new push for globalism by picking apart the Gideon Rachman article previously posted more effectively than I ever could. Raimondo points out the suspension of our better judgment in the face of crisis.

Number one is the globalization of the “crisis” mentality that our international elites have seized on as a rationale for extending their power, and not just over the economic meltdown, but also over global warming and “a global war on terror.”

He also points out the severe attack on liberty such a global system would bring:

Read More »

It is quite fascinating to add up the things Ron Paul was right about over the years. There is one thing I sincerely hope he is wrong about, and I suspect he hopes he is wrong about it too. He laments and warns of a continuing effort toward global governance. There is a potential for taking the idea of a one world global government to extremes, but extremism is not required to imagine its plausibility anymore.

In a thought provoking article in the Financial Times, Gideon Rachman explores the possibility, especially now that Barack Obama will be President.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

I’ve always marveled at the phrase “peacekeeping force”. Hmmm I wonder what percentage of the 50,000 would be American? I’m also curious if our government would be able to find enough volunteers for such a force. In fact I would expect there to be a well armed faction against such nonsense. It seems Rachman thinks so to…

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

Leaders do not hesitate to use crisis and unrest to help push their own agendas. We saw it from FDR during the Great Depression. We saw it with George W. Bush with Iraq. Now we may see it from Obama to help “solve” our economic problems. After all don’t we need a global governmental body to fix the global economic crisis?

For liberty’s sake, I certainly hope not.