In 1968, in Rome, a group of the world’s economic, political, financial, and social elite met to form the Club of Rome.
Over the years, the Club grew to include a virtual who’s who of the world’s leaders such as former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, David Rockefeller, former Canadian premier Pierre Trudeau, former Vice President Al Gore, former Mexican president Ernesto Zadillo, former Brazilian president Fernando Enrique Cardozo, and its ringleader and organizer Maurice Strong, a Canadian who went on to become the founding executive director of the United Nations Environment Program.
Four years later, the Club published its first book The Limits of Growth. It sold twelve million copies and won converts to its central argument that the survival of our planet depended on population control and judicious conservation of our natural resources.
But it was the Club’s next book, The First Global Revolution, that really laid out its agenda for global governance. It called for a globalist/socialist/radical environmentalist game plan to end free markets and replace democracy with experts who would rule wisely.
To achieve the Club of Rome’s goals — and to sweep aside the messy system of nation-states, national sovereignty, and democratic governments that stood in their way — they realized that they needed a common enemy against which they could unite the people of the Earth.
In their own words they had to identify “a common adversary, to [be able to] organize and act together.” They said, “such a motivation must be found to bring divided nations together to face an outside enemy.”
The enemy need not be real, they write. It “can be either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.” They explained that “this is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. New enemies, therefore, must be identified, new strategies developed, new weapons devised.”
The enemy they had posited in their first book, a population explosion, no longer stirred the blood. Population growth, particularly in China, had been brought largely under control, and the revolution in agricultural techniques sufficed to feed any population growth the future might hold.
They needed new global enemy to unite the world. Then, inspiration struck! In their book, The First Global Revolution, the Club of Rome recounted how “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea of pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fill the bill.”
They explained that “all these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” (A variation of the cartoonist Walt Kelly’s famous line in which his character Pogo exclaims: “we have met the enemy and he is us.”)
At the epicenter of the new movement stood billionaire David Rockefeller. He writes in his 2003 Memoirs that “some even believe that [my family and I] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it.”
The Club of Rome was quite clear that global governance aimed at solving our world’s problems — real or invented — would require jettisoning the outdated institutions of democracy. The Club of Rome conceded that “the old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the past two hundred years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complaisant stagnation with little evidence of real leadership or innovation.” (An interesting comment from a group that included most of the world’s leaders!)
“Democracy,” they warned “is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.”
Then, the Club give us a glimpse into its real opinion: “Sacrilegious as it may sound, democracy is not well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and technical nature of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
The central thesis of the proponents of global governance is that experts can do it so much better.
The most celebrated apostle of freedom, Fredrich Hayek, writing in his famous work, The Road to Serfdom, amid the rise of communism in the post-World War II era, warns of the potential for tyranny in a government of experts.
“The movement for planning owes its present strength largely to the fact that…it unites all the single-minded idealists, all the men and women who have devoted their lives to a single task. The hopes they place in planning are the result of great exaggeration of the ends they place foremost.”
Think of Dr. Fauci fighting COVID or the left preaching about the danger of global warming.
Hayek continues: “From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a single step. It is the resentment of the frustrated specialist which gives the demand for planning its strongest impetus. There could hardly be a more unbearable and more irrational world than one in which the most eminent specialists in each field were allowed to proceed, unchecked, with the realization of their ideals.”
Nothing could better describe the total lockdowns of the entire world in the face of COVID or the dedication of massive federal spending, financed by borrowing, to averting climate change.
The institution of government by experts has long been the tradition of European governance. Stung, in the nineteenth and twentieth century by the chaotic failure of democracy to govern effectively in France and Italy where governments fell every few months and in the twentieth by the rise of fascism and Nazism, Europeans began to think ill of democracy.
In nineteenth century, Germany, Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, facing a European-wide series of revolutions demanding democracy, protected the power of his ruler, Kaiser Wilhelm I, by striking a deal with the Christian Democratic politicians who dominated the German parliament. He secured their loyalty to the Kaiser and got them to turn aside from their proposals to temper his rule with a constitutional monarchy by advancing — and largely creating — a host of social benefits such as unemployment insurance, workers compensation, health insurance, old age pensions and the like.
The deal of social benefits as an alternative to democracy set the pattern for Germany and much of the European continent. Now it offers a template for the advocates of global governance.
If you ask an American whose views he would respect more those of an elected political leader or those of an expert, he’s likely to choose the politician since he represents the people. But most European would discount the views of an elected leader as just pandering to the will of the voters and, instead, turn to the expert for guidance.
To sweeten the deal, the globalists have cut in the third world by promising to redistribute wealth from the developed to the underdeveloped countries. Nominally to compensate poorer countries for the need to attenuate their industrialization due to the danger of climate change, the rich nations are seeking to turn over sources of revenue to the world’s dictators. No matter that the money will end up in corrupt Swiss bank accounts.
Meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt in November of 2022, negotiators from nearly two hundred countries agreed to create a fund that would, according to The New York Times, “help poor, vulnerable countries cope with climate disasters made worse by the pollution spewed by wealthy nations that is dangerously heating the planet.”
The Times reported that “for more than three decades, developing nations have pressed for loss and damage money, asking rich, industrialized countries to provide compensation for the costs of destructive storms, heat waves and droughts fueled by global warming.”
Ultimately, the poor nations’ goal is to divert entire sources of tax revenue from rich countries so that they can tap directly into revenue from the spigot. For example, the European Union has already agreed to divert excise tax revenue from trans-Atlantic air tickets to a special fund to help poorer nations fight global warming.
We must realize that the globalists have in mind far more than mere financial gain. They seek to use the fear of global warming — or pandemics or whatever the cause du jour happens to be — to accelerate the shift in power from the US and other democracies to United Nations, where the lone American vote can be offset by a tidal wave of votes from the third world.
Along with the geographic shift in power would come a massive shift from democratic to autocratic states and from freedom to tyranny.
Purchase The Return: Trump’s Big 2024 Comeback — CLICK HERE NOW!
Get Your FREE, Gold And Silver Precious Metals Investment Material. No Fee For Life IRA Program Now Available — CLICK HERE NOW!
SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE DICK’S VIDEOS & COLUMNS FOR FREE — CLICK HERE!
View Dick’s most recent videos in case you missed them!