Globalism in History: Internationalism and Her Law

Number Six 
Activist Post

As Eric Blair put it, in order for one to understand present events, those of yesteryear must be spelled out. Daily, the populace is bombarded with revisionist propaganda and so citizens must frequently instill themselves with past truths, so as not to forget. 

Seeds of 19th Century Internationalism

What is called “globalism” today emanated from “internationalism” a century prior. The dictionary defines the latter as “principle cooperation among nations, for the promotion of their common good”.

It is dated back to 1850 and culturally defined as accepting the arbitration of nation states by supranational international organizations.[1]

 
The best step toward unification of nation states has always been the legal advance: the arbitration of and submission to an international court. 17th century writer Émeric Crucé drew up the principal proposal. There are two general approaches to the unification of nations (regionalism): through force or by peace. Henry IV wanted to use force, just as Hitler, to unify Europe. Legalism is the slow, peaceful method (as witnessed in the European unification process, commencing in the 1940s). The 1899 Hague Conference was one of the early moves in setting up such a system.   

Association for International Conciliation

In 1905 a French diplomat and future Nobel Peace Prize winner set up the Association for International Conciliation, which also consisted of the American Association for International Conciliation among other hydra heads. Founder Paul Henri Benjamin Balluet, Baron d’Estournelles de Constant de Rebecque was a “Radical-Socialist” who sought a European union.[2] It included the likes of Cecil Rhodes trustees and magnate Andrew Carnegie. The baron also was head of Carnegie’s European Center. 

The goal was the establishment of an International Congress, on a global scale, called the “Council of Nations”.

Agents of Change: Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian)
The workers behind the global movement for “peace” and “justice” worked largely behind the scenes via eight global Round Table groups.[3] One of these enigmatic figures was Philip Kerr or Lord Lothian. He questioned “whether the kind of picture of the new world” they drew in 1920 “was really as good a picture” as they thought. The problem he states was the “belief that it was possible to build a peace system upon national sovereignty. In 1920 there was no possibility of either world or European federation.”[4]
 

First, he states “democratic cooperation” is the “bedrock” upon which “the new world system must be built.” However, he then goes on to declare that “the permanent foundation for a world peace system cannot be democracy, for world numbers are too great…but must be the willingness of civilised peoples to obey the decisions of the courts.”[5] This new system would have to “command, legislate, judge and tax” as national sovereignty was “demonic.”[6] The necessary universal treaty must include the whole human family, which no longer can be organized in separate groups.

This sounds much like what socialists proposed at a conference whose proceedings were published in International Conciliation. “For it would establish that which closely resembles a super-state. The Legislature shall contain representatives of every civilized State and is empowered to make binding laws.” Regions populated by “backward peoples incapable of self-government” would be administered by the world court.[7]
 
He fails to mention who would run the courts. If the corruption of courts today is any indication, there is no explanation as to how one would take a few bags (nation states) of corrupt judicial systems, put them into a single bag (world state) and come out with a wholly honest world court. 

The “Christian” Fruits of the Conciliation Tree

Though universal peace through world government may seem a noble undertaking, one must also be critical of placing such absolute power and unprecedented reach in the hands of a few aristocrats. The proponents of this movement are oft cited as being of a Judeo-Christian nature. As Quigley noted in his book review, Lord Lothian shifted from “Catholicism to Christian Science.” The baron writes, “There sits the divinest conclave that ever graced the earth, judged by its mission, which is the fulfillment of the prophecy, ‘When man shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks, nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”[8]
 
The Burge Memorial Trust from 1926 sought to unify the international so-called “obligations” of Christians. The coming years would see the British Council of Churches develop and finally the World Council of Churches, which included members of the Round Table, who were pro-Nazi. This could be because they sought European unification and Hitler was the man of the hour. Foster and Alice Bailey, one of the founders of the 1920s Lucifer Publishing Company also supported Hitler both in this regard as well as the “New Age” Nazi philosophy. It is telling that the proponents of global government were simultaneously establishing the foundations for a world religion.

The only problem with the “obligation” of establishing world government for peace is that if one weighs some of the Round Table’s outward Christian belief to the Bible itself, there remains a stark inconsistency. The Scripture as a historical text clearly reveals that the temporary ruler of this earth is the one called Satan who wields the power of the principalities of the air (Ephesians 6:12), even as he offers Jesus world rule during his forty days in the desert. It establishes that world peace, though “peacemaking” be blessed, will not be achieved until the return of Jesus Christ. Where peace is declared, war follows. It never specifies that Christians should work toward a material world government. On the contrary, the Book of Revelation, one of whose manuscripts dates back to the 4th century, establishes that there will indeed be a world authority or government and that it will be one of horrific nature. So what then were these men really working toward?

The association’s papers state that the young Cecil Rhodes formulated his life’s vision early on. This included the “betterment of the human race” through the “furtherance of the British Empire” to “end all wars.”[9] Rhodes saw the nation as simply a stepping stone to world government and the “brotherhood of man.” The only problem with this is the atrocious record of the British Empire. “The British oligarchs of the day, like their successors after 1989, were convinced that they could run wild, violating the laws of nature without penalty, for nothing could now stand against them.”[10] From the bloody exploitation of natural resources in Africa (Boer Wars) to the mass drugging of China (Opium Wars), one would have to wonder what type of heaven this new world British utopia would be.

Indeed, this paradox can still be seen at present with the declaration of new international norms in the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine and the subsequent invasion and massacre of a nation which did no wrong (Libya) at the behest of the same imperial powers.[11] This implies nations must join this international system or die, even having done no wrong. By hook or by crook.

The other contradiction was the nature of the method to establish global government. Even for those not of Judeo-Christian background, a common denominator can be agreed upon, that good works are done openly in light, whilst evil deeds are done secretly in the dark. Does one really think these aristocrats with blood stained hands are constantly thinking of the “commoner” and giddily building this world government in secret, only to surprisingly unveil it as their life’s work, lovingly dedicated to the hoi polloi? 

A Secret Society Modeled on a Secret Society

In 1877, the year his will had been drawn up, Rhodes devoted all of his riches toward the establishment of this world government. To bring this about he suggested “the formation of a secret society after the Jesuit model, co-extensive with the British Empire, preaching imperial ideas, and effecting its objects through the control of education.”[12]
 
There was something about the Jesuits as the 18th century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati, founded by Jesuit educated Adam Weishapt, modeled his order on that same formula.[13] Rhodes, a Freemason, sought the total wealth of the world to be absorbed for this world government. Strikingly, and a matter of fact, 19th century arch Freemason, Albert Pike, revealed Lucifer as the supreme being of their organization in his writings (Morals and Dogma). 

Institutional Brainwashing: The Rhodes Scholarship
 
“The British have learned from the Venetians that the greatest force in history is the force of ideas, and that if you can control culture, you can control the way people think, and then statesmen and fleets and armies will bend to your will.” – Webster Tarpley

Going through the list of Rhodes Scholars, one can easily trace the unbroken chain of this movement. They include: CIA terrorist James Woolsey, military commander and neocon Wesley Clark who led the faux “Global War On Terror”, Strobe Talbott with his infamous articles on world government, Bill Clinton’s oversight of Yugo disintegration (and current reintegration into the New European Soviet) and Susan Rice, proponent for the unconstitutional UN sanctioned invasion of Libya, illegal under international law. 

Trailblazing America

The French baron saw the 1908 Pan-American Scientific Conference as one of the countless steps toward integration. Latin America was to work closely with the Anglo-American Establishment by aligning its thinking via higher education. This would serve to bring “solidarity” to the Pan-American or Latin American continent as eerily found in today’s Unasur (Union of South American Nations), whose “regional integration experiences…can contribute to the world order and economic development.”[14] This then would be able to assist America in the move toward world government or as they put it, the “ideals of international justice.”[15]

“We Americans have a peculiar responsibility toward the political organization of the world. Whether we recognize it or not we are universally looked to, if not to lead in this undertaking.”[16] Per the status quo, anyone who questions the international justice being served upon Libya needs to have their head reexamined. 

Outlook of Internationalism

The internationalist movement in words, believes in a supranational international organization for the legal arbitration of sovereign nation states and the establishment of a world court which would technically have power over all the nations of the earth. They say they stand for peace, justice and service in the brotherhood of man.

Their deeds dictate discreet labor amidst secret societies and the pillaging of nation states for their wealth, leaving behind death and destruction.

The exploits of global governance are frequently written about in a sugary manner, with many who have swallowed the bonbon still demanding to know why global government is such a bad idea. As G. Edward Griffin once said, it is not globalization or subsequent global government that is inherently evil, the question is what kind of global management it will be. If past and current events form future trends, then a dangerous picture can be painted of any type of global domination, especially by the Rhodesian outfit and their ilk.

Notes:

This article first appeared at Global Governance Archive, an information war desk which seeks to aid researchers both new and old in sifting through the most important material on everything from economy to the architecture of global government which is now being built.