Collectivism is used to dehumanize its victims so as to more easily dominate them. One form this takes is known as globalism, which maintains that nations cannot manage their own affairs and thus the self-determination of their various communities must be subjected to the whims of a world state. A favorite technique of the collectivistic globalists is to manufacture imaginary crises in the minds of the public and then offer their prepackaged solutions to fix the problem, which is something they had wanted to do anyway even before the problem came into being in the first place.
Overpopulation is a convenient excuse used by tyrants to impose despotic measures upon the population. Despite the fact that overpopulation is a myth, the authors insist that it is an integral part of the tapestry that comprises “global interdependency,” what they call, “the world problematique.” They further stress that capitalism and laissez-faire markets are responsible for unmitigated growth, which they assert is disastrous to humanity and the planet alike. Even though they assert that, “The global revolution has no ideological basis,” they go on to describe the necessity for a universal morality that promotes the “solidarity” of the entire human species.
Intermixed between fretting about alleged food shortages and the virtues of disarmament, the Club of Rome revealed their equal opportunity disgust for humanity. Invoking the neo-conservative political theories of Leo Strauss by implication:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designing these dangers as the enemy, we fall into a trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
Well, that would explain a lot about their demeanor, wouldn’t it?
The Club of Rome proposes what they call a “world resolutique,” that is, “a new methodology or a new and purposeful analysis intended to be an answer to the world problematique.” They go on to state that:
“What are the values and goals on which action must be based? The world resolutique includes the need for adopting certain values founded on the collective values of humanity, that are sketchily emerging as a moral code for action and behaviour. Such codes and values have to constitute the basis of international relations and the source of inspirations for decisions made by the main actors on this planet, with due regard for cultural diversity and pluralism.”
Wait a minute, didn’t they just say that humanity is the real enemy? If so, then why does the “world resolutique” need to be fundamentally based on the so-called “collective values of humanity?” Methinks that the globalists can’t even keep their lies straight, unless they actually like practicing doublethink.
I also enjoyed their begrudging statements regarding the viability of the free market, but it did not come across to me that they thought the spontaneous order of laissez-faire capitalism would be embraced as a welcomed component of their “world resolutique.” Their criticisms were that:
“The market is ill adapted to deal with long-term effects, inter-generational responsibilities and common property resources. It responds essentially to short-term signals and thus its indications can be gravely misleading if applied to long-term needs. The system of the market economy is based on competition and is motivated by self-interest and ultimately by greed. In the absence of all restraints, the operation of the market forces could lead to exploitation, neglect of social needs, environmental destruction, and the unchecked consumption of resources essential for the future. However, society demands and industry and commerce accept that there has to be an agreed system of ethics, within which the market is operated; the system is thus self-regulating to some extent.”
It’s almost as if some random Keynesian economist came up with this. Technically, it would be more accurate to replace “the market” with “the State” in that paragraph, but I digress. What is significant about this is that the Club of Rome denigrates the free market while simultaneously recognizing how it can be manipulated into serving their ends (hence the rise of the corporatocracy).
Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider’s The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome is an unsettling yet realistic look into the minds of the globalists. Although they claim that “[t]he whole of this book is a call for world solidarity,” it begs the question of solidarity for what, exactly? Constantly throughout this report, NGOs and IGOs such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the European Union are treated in a positive light while the “native ways” of local populations are spat upon, albeit in the quasi-polite tone of a faux intelligentsia. If for no other reason, The First Global Revolution is a good starting point for truly understanding the motivations behind the actions of the Establishment.