Let's see if this works, had to mess with some code to keep it from throwing our margins off. Regarding the link to chemtrails....who know's this just shows that where the U.N is involved I wouldn't put anything untoward past the globalist freaks.
I don't know much about the author Lew Rockwell, but it doesn't much matter the fact is most of the evidential links are to the U.N's website. I don't think this thread much belongs in the science forum but here's the article anyway.
The
UN’s Non-Conspiracy for World Government and Global Taxation
by
Suppose,
loyal reader, you and I were to work together in secret and hatch
a plan that would affect others – perhaps a lot of others –
without their knowledge or consent. Would we or would we not be
launching a conspiracy? I think we would have to say, Yes.
Now
suppose we do the same thing, but instead of keeping it secret we
put our agenda on the World Wide Web where anyone with a computer,
a modem and an ISP can access it. Never mind that we’ve written
it in mindnumbing bureaucratese. Never mind that most of the public
is more interested in sports, the Oscars or the latest Survivor
series. Never mind that its reporting by the mainstream media is
minimal and focused on side issues. The point is, our machinations
would be available to any literate person who has the will and the
know-how to seek them out.
I
doubt we could still call it a conspiracy. What would be the point?
But
that is the state of affairs with the UN’s latest confab, the International
Conference on Financing for Development (FfD) in Monterrey, Mexico,
held from 18 – 22 March, 2002. This meeting continued the agenda
set forth in Our Global
Neighborhood issued by the Commission on Global Governance in
1995, restated in the Millennium
Declaration, and now incorporated into the Monterrey
Consensus agreement. Except for the Internet, of course, media
reporting was skimpy, even though representatives of 171 nations
signed the agreement. The meeting was attended by hundreds of other
luminaries, from leaders of non-governmental organizations to CEOs
of multinational corporations who attended an International Business
Forum on "public / private partnerships."
The
Monterrey Consensus is fairly tough slogging. The phrase mindnumbing
bureaucratese pays the document a compliment. There are abundant
phrases like global partnerships, sustainable development,
good governance, appropriate policy and regulatory frameworks,
involving all stakeholders and so on and so on, for 16 pages
(73 paragraphs) of small print. One suspects that its writers wanted
to discourage prying eyes. Most people indeed will lose interest
before they get to the second page. Much the same may be said for
the UN website itself. It is a disorganized, hard-to-navigate mess;
finding specific information on it is challenging even for experienced
Web-hounds.
But
there is enough in this document to give away the game when translated
into plain, words-mean-things English – for those who persevere.
For example, in the very first paragraph of the Consensus is the
overall goal of the meeting: "… to eradicate poverty, achieve
sustained economic growth and promote sustainable development as
we advance to a fully inclusive and equitable global economic system."
In the next breath (paragraph 2): "We note with concern current
estimates of dramatic shortfalls in resources required to achieve
the internationally agreed development goals, including those contained
in the United Nations Millennium Declaration." Thus the need
for "[m]obilizing and increasing the effective use of financial
resources and achieving the national and international economic
conditions" needed to achieve the goals; this "demands
a new partnership between developed and developing nations. We commit
ourselves to sound policies, good governance at all levels and the
rule of law" (paragraph 4).
Okay,
time out. Once translated from bureaucratese, is this or is this
not a recipe for global socialism, under the auspices of a global
superelite? (Superelite here means: an elite operating freely
at an international of a national level, with the additional clout
and resources this implies.) Is it or is it not a call for massive
redistribution of the wealth from "developed" nations
(i.e., the U.S.) to "developing ones" (i.e., much of the
rest of the world). What, finally, is the cash value of the last
sentence in the above quote? The UN steadfastly denies any commitment
to setting up a world government. According to Our Global Neighborhood,
"global governance … does not imply world government or world
federalism." But then what in blazes does it imply?
Congressman
Ron Paul (R-TX) has
accused the UN of planning to institute a global tax to finance
its agenda. One searches the Monterrey Consensus in vain for any
direct reference to such a tax. However, the material quoted above
continues. Again, even untranslated from bureaucratese, the language
is suggestive: "We also commit ourselves to mobilizing domestic
resources, attracting international flows, promoting international
trade as an engine for development, increasing international financial
and technical cooperation for development, sustainable debt financing
and external debt relief, and enhancing the coherence and consistency
of the international monetary, financial and trading systems" [emphasis
mine]. A bit further in the document, this is expanded upon: "In
our common pursuit of growth, poverty eradication and sustainable
development, a critical challenge is to ensure the necessary internal
conditions for mobilizing domestic savings, both public and private….
An enabling domestic environment is vital for mobilizing domestic
resources" [all emphases mine]. Language that suggests global taxation
and massive redistribution of wealth and resources is supplemented
by language suggestive of global welfare-statism, involving both
massive amounts of corporate welfare (which have euphemistically
been called investments for some time). Finally (this is in paragraph
15): "An effective, efficient, transparent and accountable system
for mobilizing public resources and managing their use by governments
is essential. We recognize the need to secure fiscal sustainability,
along with equitable and efficient tax systems and administration…"
[emphasis mine]. This is as close as the Monterrey Consensus gets
to a statement of intent to set up a global tax system.
In
related documents, the long-term intent is clear. Consider the Report
of the High-Level Panel on Financing for Development, Executive
Summary. It also notes "the task of mobilizing the financial
resources needed," observes that the FfD confab "will be a key event
in agreeing a strategy [sic.] for better resource mobilization."
Then, once we have waded through several more pages of bureaucratese,
we come to the following:
The international community should consider whether the common
interest would be furthered by providing stable and contractual
resources for these purposes. Politically, taxing for the solution
of global problems will be much more difficult than taxing for
purely domestic purposes. If only out of self interest, new sources
of finance should be considered without prejudice by all parties
involved. In particular, a currency transactions tax (otherwise
known as the Tobin tax)
have [sic.] often been proposed as a new source of finance.
There,
lest there be any doubt, is the call for a UN-sponsored global tax
– on the UN’s website, not a site put up by a "conspiracy
theorist." The document calls for "further rigorous technical
study" of the Tobin tax, named for the Yale University professor
who came up with the idea. It is true that the Tobin tax would only
lay taxes on cross-border currency transactions, and so would not
affect those uninvolved in international business. But a door would
be opened, and we might never be able to close it again. The UN
would have been granted taxing authority to pay for its agenda,
and this authority would quickly expand. Also being kicked around,
after all, are ideas of taxing carbon emissions, air travel, the
Internet and so on. None of these are specifically cross-border.
But as UN operations become more expansive and expensive, the need
to hire and pay more bureaucrats will grow. This is the way power
centers operate, after all. Look at the history of our own tax system.
The
Report accordingly concludes with a specific recommendation for
the FfD confab:
The
Financing for Development conference should explore the desirability
of securing an adequate international tax source to finance
the supply of global public goods….
The
Panel proposes that the international community should consider
the potential benefits of an International Tax Organisation.
This could address many needs that have arisen as globalization
has progressively undermined the territoriality principle on
which traditional tax codes are based. Developing countries
would stand to benefit especially from technical assistance
in tax administration, tax information sharing that permits
the taxation of flight capital, unitary taxation to thwart the
misuse of transfer pricing, and taxation of emigrant income.
[Emboldenments in original.]
There,
in black and white, is the proposal for the specific outfit that
would be empowered to lay and collect the global tax. An International
Tax Organization, whether called that or something bureaucratic
like the International Resource Mobilization Organization (gasp!),
would assume its place alongside the World Bank, the International
Monetery Fund, the World Trade Organization and other contemporary
behemoths of globalist centralization. Presumably I hardly need
point out that territoriality principle is a euphemism for
national sovereignty, and by globalization the authors
hardly mean global free trade in open markets but trade micromanaged
at the highest levels under the auspices of governments, megacorporations
involved in "public / private partnerships" and the World
Trade Organization.
The
Monterrey Consensus, along with other critical UN documents, uses
the phrase rule of law. This sounds good, of course. But one can
be assured that no one is referring to the concept freedom believers
understand – that of law to which kings and governments are no less
subject to than ordinary mortals. When the superelites use the phrase
rule of law you can guarantee they mean law established by them,
imposed through international agreements designed to control economic
activity through "investments" and "partnerships" of various sorts.
A political
structure of enforcement is in the works, involving an expanded
UN Security Council, a new Economic Security Council (ESC) (under
whose authority the World Trade Organization and the International
Labor Organization would operate) and an expanded UN International
Law Commission. The superelites already have their International
Criminal Court. The ESC is central to the UN’s strategy for
micromanaging the global economy. According to Our Global Neighborhood,
"[t]he ESC is designed to centralize and consolidate policy making
for not only world trade, but also for the international monetary
system and world development." Its own documents leave no doubt
that UN superelites plan eventually to have their own army, police
force, branches of international courts, hundreds of offices charged
with micromanaging American communities large and small to ensure
"sustainable growth patterns," and so on.
At
what point, asks Sovereignty
International chairman Henry Lamb in a recent
WorldNetDaily article, does all this become world government.
The UN agenda has been in the making since 1945, the year of its
Charter.
Since the early 1990s, the UN effort to dominate the world’s political
and economic systems has accelerated. It has drawn on every available
cause ranging from radical environmentalism to radical feminism.
In the first case, we are all aware of the Rio Summit of 1992, the
Kyoto Protocol and the hysterical proclamations about global warming.
Regarding the latter, the Monterrey Consensus makes perhaps a dozen
references to "gender-sensitive development," "gender equality,"
"empowering women," "gender budget policies," "mainstream[ing] the
gender perspective," and so on. Speaking of what radical feminists
in the globalist movement want, a separate "women’s declaration
– a rough draft apparently no longer on the UN site – openly proposed
"the establishment of a tax upon foreign financial transactions,
with a percentage that increases in times of crisis.…"
Most
people do not realize how much influence the UN now has, even at
the level of local politics and the local school board. Buzzwords
such as sustainable communities and reinventing government, not
uncommon at the local level, amount to UN-speak – the former traceable
to Agenda 21,
the UN’s radical environmentalist program launched in 1992 at the
Rio Summit. Goals 2000 and the School-To-Work movement are products
of UN-think, standing as evidence of UN efforts toward transforming
children into "global citizens" through a global curriculum one
can guarantee wouldn’t emphasize the Declaration of Independence.
President
Bush rejected the global tax. But his actions were very equivocal.
He had already promised a 50 percent increase in foreign aid over
the next three years (around $5 billion), to be financed by our
homeland tax serfdom. With this, he basically conceded the UN’s
major premise: the poverty of "developing nations" is "caused" by
"American wealth" and that the U.S. government is obliged to do
something about it. He also held a meeting with his buddy, Mexican
president Vicente Fox, who happens to be one of the leading proponents
of a global tax (also of unlimited
immigration and, with his predecessor Ernesto Zedillo, eventually
dissolving the border so that the American Southwest can rejoin
Mexico). So who knows what Bush’s true motives are, or what
he will do next go around?
The
confab in Mexico concluded without the UN getting its global tax.
But no one in his right mind believes the superelites will give
up. The FfD confab created a new commission to monitor "progress";
the Consensus ends by calling for a "followup international
conference to review the implementation of the Monterrey Consensus."
The march toward world government will therefore go on, despite
the occasional bump in the road. The UN holds its next World Summit
on Sustainable Development in August in Johannesburg, South Africa,
and will no doubt renew the same calls – and no doubt, also,
we will hear sharp criticisms of the U.S. for refusing to allow
the UN to serve as the agent of its redistribute-the-wealth programs.
It
is important that we be clear as we can about what we are dealing
with. We have seen that despite the bureaucratese, the message comes
through the loud and clear; for example: "Upholding the Charter
of the United Nations and building upon the values of the Millennium
Declaration, we commit ourselves to promoting national and global
economic systems based on the principles of justice, equity, democracy,
participation, transparency, accountability and inclusion"
(paragraph 9 of the Monterrey Consensus). Taken in aggregate, and
to answer our earlier question, this is indeed a call for global
socialism – massive redistribution of the wealth to be financed
through a global tax paid by everyone who works for a living. The
UN clearly sees itself as an emerging world government.
This,
I repeat and emphasize, is not a conspiracy as conspiracies are
usually defined. It may have started that way, but now, there it
is, on the UN’s website. Conspiracy or not by some formal definition,
this ought to lay to rest once and for all whether or not there
really is a superelite bent on dominating the world and transforming
the rest of us "commoners" into global serfs tied to trades
and specialties where we will never see the big picture. American
politicians lack both the principle and the will to resist indefinitely.
And so the question remains: will American citizens get informed
and organized against the UN agenda, or will they continue to indulge
the soma offered by sports, the Oscars and the latest Survivor
series? After all, once a "Mobilization of Domestic Financial
Resources for Int’l Development" withholding starts showing
up on every working American’s paycheck, it will be too late.
March
30, 2002
oops forgot the link to the orginal...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates51.html
[Edited 1 times, lastly by FLKook on 08-10-2003]
Login
