Taking Stock of Globalization

STR/AFP/Getty Images

Taking Stock of Globalization

The trend in politics, in economics, even in international security, is to unify, consolidate, globalize. Will this trend really move the world toward peace? Or is it merely setting the stage for a new totalitarianism?
From the November 2000 Trumpet Print Edition

World events often seem ponderous, complex and confusing. In fact, most people do not even have an interest in following the really important trends which underpin the fashioning of political and economic events destined to shape their very lives.

The plain fact is, global forces are at work which will have seismic implications for your life, and neither the politicians nor news media are informing you about these cataclysmic events.

“Willing or not, ready or not, we are all involved in an all-out, no-holds-barred, three-way global competition” (Malachi Martin, The Keys of This Blood).

The late Dr. Martin, Jesuit, professor of the Vatican’s pontifical biblical institute, intelligence expert, was in a position to know! He reduced the globalization process of the late 20th century, which continues on into the 21st century as this year 2000 draws to a close, to a three-way affair. It is what he termed “a competition between the world’s only three internationally based power structures for truly global hegemony.” His deductions were totally congruent with those of Pope John Paul ii, whose vision of the world is based on what he terms the three internationales: The “Golden Internationale” being his shorthand term for the financial powers of the world—the transnationalist and internationalist globalist leaders of the West; the “Red Internationale” being Russia and its satellite nations.

“The third geopolitical contender—the Roman Catholic Church; the ‘Black Internationale’—was destined…to be the ultimate victor in any contention with those rivals” (ibid., p. 21; emphasis mine throughout).

Too little attention has been paid to Dr. Martin’s incisive judgments and assessments of what was taking place in the volatile final decade of the 20th century. As we enter the 21st century, his vision of the globalist competition is rapidly merging into reality.

“What these competitors are talking about, then, is the most profound and widespread modification of international, national and local life that the world has seen in a thousand years. And the competition they are engaged in can be described simply enough as the millennium endgame” (ibid., p. 16).

Dr. Martin had direct access to the intelligence networks of the world. His books describing the inner workings of the universalist Vatican are startling exposés of this consummate political Romish state. However, it is the conclusion which he draws, as to where these three globalist entities are headed, which is most chilling in its import: “Nobody who is acquainted with the plans of these three rivals has any doubt but that only one of them can win!… It would appear inescapable that their competition will end up as a confrontation” (ibid., p. 15).

Yet, as astute as Dr. Martin’s observations were, they miss the mark when it comes to the biblically prophesied outcome of this globalist race for world hegemony.

Dr. Martin failed to see the merging of the pope’s “Golden Internationale” with the “Black Internationale” aggressively forming into a singular conglomerate in Europe right now, taking advantage of both the Red Internationale’s temporary wounding through its present deep economic recession, and a United States seemingly oblivious to this threat.

In this article we take a close, behind-the-scenes look at the forces motivating the globalization phenomenon and show how two of these great globalist powers are merging into a singular great power which will seek to impose its religious, corporate, economic and political will upon the whole world.

Crunch Point

The cold war ceased when the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989. Thereafter, until the year 1999 dawned, the world experienced an interregnum, during which the Soviet Union disintegrated, the Eastern European states asserted their independence, and Japan’s economy crashed, triggering the East Asian financial meltdown and the resurgence of an assertive China. Meanwhile, the Latin American economic revival hiccuped along and the Middle East remained a hotbed of terrorism and anti-U.S. rhetoric. Threaded through this maze of geopolitical disruptions, Europe pressed on with its efforts to forge a federation out of what for many years was seen merely as a common commercial and trading entity, now known as the European Union.

Meanwhile, the United States, with Britain following along like a lackey, fought a limited war in Iraq—twice—got its nose bloodied in skirmishes with ragtag rebel armies in Rwanda and Somalia, and then, in April 1999, snubbing its nose at the United Nations, used the umbrella of nato to wage a dirty little war in Kosovo. The Kosovo war was the most extreme flash point in a year which was billed by one American think tank as heralding “a new and dangerous world.” In their annual forecast for 1999, Stratfor Systems had this to say: “1999 will see a more conventional, natural world, in which other great powers in the world will unite to try to block American power. In 1998 the United States worried about Serbia, Iraq and North Korea. In 1999, the United States will be much more concerned with Russia, China, France and Japan. The world will not yet be a truly dangerous place, but it will begin the long descent toward the inevitable struggle between great powers” (“1999 Annual Forecast”).

As this leading intelligence organization predicted, 1999 did see a rise in efforts by significant world powers to develop alliances which skirted the United States in a global climate increasingly resistant to America’s economic, political and military dominance. Stratfor concluded its 1999 forecast with these words: “1999 is the first of many years of increasing tension and conflict involving not only minor players, but also the world’s great powers. It is the beginning of what will prove to be a tense first decade in the 21st century” (ibid.).

We agree. If anything, we think this may even understate the true nature of what is emerging in this dangerous new world within the first decade of the 21st century.

A Process Year

Turning to the current year, in their year 2000 annual forecast Stratfor predicted that this would be “the year in which the world gets down to the business of creating the new epoch in world affairs: the serious business of great powers and their conflicts and alliances.” Forecasting a clear separation from 1999—the year of transition between the decade which followed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the formation of a new world epoch—Stratfor termed 2000 “a process year.” This inferred a year when “basic strategies will play themselves out.”

The year is not yet concluded, yet what is apparent to this point is that during the second half of the year in particular, much diplomatic shuttling back and forth occurred as concerns deepened about emerging world trends in the wake of the United States’ unerring failure to be any sort of continuing and effective arbiter in the world’s crisis centers.

In quick succession, the nations convened in the guise of the world’s various political and economic policy formulation and implementation bodies—United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Group of Seven, Group of Ten, Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (opec), World Economic Forum, Trilateral Commission, Association of South-East Asian Nations, Group of 21. Then there was the plethora of meetings and negotiations of representative bodies within the European Union, leading up to next month’s EU summit, seeking a further rewrite of the Treaty of European Union at Nice, France. In addition, those responsible for overseeing administration of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (gatt), North American Free Trade Agreement (nafta), mercosur (Southern Common Market) and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment continued to meet from time to time, in pursuit of the development of a global trade agenda, not to mention that rather shady enterprise, the Bilderburg group, which also met in the EU headquarters city of Brussels in June.

Every one of these organizations has one thing in common: the belief that international trade, commerce, politics, funding and security should come under some type of global oversight. Obviously, as part of this globalist strategy, every nation wishes to exploit the trend to globalism to further its own particular ends.

Amid all of the frenzy of globalization of trade and commerce, as Claremont’s Professor of Social Science Peter F. Drucker points out, “There are any number of signs that something is going on in the world economy that breaks the rules that have been at work for decades” (Foreign Affairs, Sept./Oct. 1997, p. 164). We are sailing in unchartered economic waters. That simply means we cannot be aware of the hazards. These economic waters do not chart the hazards of operating in the unprecedented current high-tech zone, where vast flows of capital transfer internationally at the touch of a button.

What Is Globalization?

The underlying thesis of globalism is not new. In fact, the belief (of which the current U.S. president is a confirmed apostle) that nations which trade with one another forgo war and conquest was espoused by none other than the ideological co-founder (with John Locke) of the American Constitution, the Baron de Montesquieu. He declared, “Two nations that trade with each other become reciprocally dependent; if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling, and all unions are founded on mutual needs” (Foreign Policy, Summer 2000, p. 32).

Yet, history itself proves the opposite. As one pundit explains, “History often beguiles us. The last great hoax played on the world was the carnage of the First World War. It had been preceded, we know, by a century of European peace, by the most benign of histories, some five or six decades into an age of economic globalization yet to be matched in its extent by this second age of globalization. A whole world and its faith in progress and chivalry then died in the trenches of the Western Front. Men thought they had killed the beast, but they hadn’t” (ibid., pp. 32-33).

Minimal consensus exists on the meaning of the term globalization. However, a little investigation of the philosophies espoused by its many adherents reveals that its intentions are no newer than those which motivated the empires of old. It’s just that the inherent political motives of the forces driving the globalist juggernaut are not yet apparent to all. Globalism still appears to be an initiative of this world’s corporate moguls.

Perhaps one of the easier-understood descriptions of globalization is the one posed by Krishna Jayakar of the Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington: “denationalization of markets, laws and politics, in the sense of interlacing peoples and individuals for the sake of the common good.”

Europe’s Globalization Example

Now, if we were to look for a prime example of this “denationalization of markets, laws and politics” in action, where would we go? How about the European Union? This intriguing, developing Euro-empire, touted originally as a mere trading union, a “common market,” is quickly revealing the reason why it was brought into being in the first place. Scratch the surface and, as author Bernard Connolly has written, underneath is a global agenda. It is an agenda driven by a religious fervor, a fervor which inspires the disciples of globalism, in Catholic Europe in particular, to work by all means at their disposal for a centralized, universal control of this world’s systems of government, religion, education, commerce, finance, industry, capital and labor.

One of its prime movers is the influential, now retired, former managing director of the International Monetary Fund (imf), Michael Camdessus, who has worked at the very beating heart of the EU, influencing and guiding its monetary and economic policies for over 40 years. For over two decades he worked in the French treasury, rising to director in 1952. From 1966 to 1968 he served as France’s financial attaché to the European Economic Community (eec); from 1978 to 1984 he was chairman of the Paris Club of creditor nations; he also served as chairman of the eec’s monetary committee in the early 1980s. Appointed governor of the Bank of France in 1984, Camdessus was the sole representative from an industrialized country to call for global monetary reform at an imf meeting in 1986. In 1987 he assumed the office of managing director of the imf.

Camdessus has always been driven by a religious zeal. He literally sees globalization as the will of God. He has often stated that “globalization is the best way to improve the human condition throughout the world” (Foreign Policy, Sept./Oct. 2000, p. 34).

It is significant that one of the chief mentors who shaped the Camdessus globalist-Catholic economic philosophy is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Jesuit intellectual and scientist, who wrote that God reaches people through the unifying process of the universe—obviously through the global reach of the universalist Roman Catholic Church!

Camdessus took Teilhard de Chardin’s thinking and linked it to the current trend of globalization, of unifying human beings around the world. As he said in a recent interview, “I believe in this long-lasting trend of unification of the world. Globalization is only an acceleration of it…. You cannot denounce structural adjustment and be…against the structures of sin, to take the words of the Holy Father. If you are against the structures of sin that plague our world—corruption, nepotism, collusion, protectionism, rigidness of that kind—you must go for structural adjustment, like it or not” (ibid.).

Read between the lines. This religious zealot is really implying that globalization, driven by a universalist church, is the way that structural adjustment of this world’s political economy will be forced upon us—like it or not!

Backlash

Union boss Jay Mazur earlier this year declared his fear at the impact of globalization. “Globalization has reached a turning point. The future is a contested terrain of very public choices that will shape the world economy of the 21st century. The forces behind global economic change—which exalt deregulation, cater to corporations, undermine social structures and ignore popular concerns—cannot be sustained. Globalization is leaving perilous instability and rising inequality in its wake” (Foreign Affairs, Jan./Feb. 2000, p. 79).

Referring to the public protests which accompanied the wto meeting in Seattle a year ago, Mazur pointed out that the 1999 UN Development Report highlighted how globalization was widening the gulf between rich and poor, despite its success in connecting people internationally as never before.

Last September, riots in Melbourne, Australia, during the World Economic Forum, followed by a reported 11,000 protesters assembling and creating havoc in Prague during the recent imf-World Bank meetings, painted a vivid picture of public backlash to the globalization process.

As the corporate globalizers proceed at a hectic pace in efforts to universalize (in Michael Camdessus’ terms) the world economy, the World Bank reports that 200 million more people this year, compared to 1981, are living in abject poverty—i.e., on less than one dollar per day. One simply has to ask, What price globalism?

All of this poses a real conundrum to those who are driving the globalist push. How do they contend with the increasing perception of the public that globalization is working against them?

Eminent political scientist Samuel P. Huntington sees globalization as leading to a widespread backlash which, far from universalizing the political economies of the world, will rather lead to an identity crisis within nations, ethnic groups, religions and cultures to the point where they will react to assert their individuality.

This is exactly what happened as soon as cracks appeared in the dominant, universalist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Old nation-states, ethnicities, cultures and religions reasserted themselves in a great escape from the communist suppression of over half a century.

“The global religious revival, ‘the return to the sacred,’ is a response to people’s perception of the world as ‘a single place’” (Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, p. 68). This process of backlash against universal oppression, leading to an assertion of national, ethnic, cultural and religious individuality, then leads to what Huntington describes as “the clash of civilizations”—witness Bosnia, the Caucasus, Kosovo, Central Asia and Kashmir, not to mention the tribal conflicts in Africa. Historically, what follows such confusion? Simply the assertion of totalitarian rule!

As we write, cracks are appearing in the federationist European Union. Even in that nation which is supplying much of the power to drive the engine of European unity, Germany, divisions are evident as the German public and some state leaders within that country express concern at the possibility of losing their national identity to a universal Eurofederation. If this trend is exacerbated by an increase in social instability, watch out! That’s fertile ground for the rise of a totalitarian leadership in Germany which could override the whole union—and we know, only too well, the outcome of totalitarian rule in Germany!

Will we ever learn from history? History itself echoes a very loud no! Not until a power, superior to humankind, imposes itself to control and refine man’s innate inhumanity to man to the point where his aspirations for peace and unity, universally, became a reality.

Final Hand

Globalism and world war are children of the 20th century. During the 20th century the world broke with tradition. It was Carl von Clausewitz, the famous Prussian military thinker, who declared that, in traditional warfare, the strategic goal was “to destroy the enemy’s fighting forces.” Germany initiated and fought two world wars on Clausewitz’s theory. As the tide turned against them in 1943, the fascist intelligentsia realized that Clausewitz’s dictum had become outdated. War could now be fought on a global footing. They realized, also, that economics had global impact in the modern world, as exemplified in the Great Depression. The penny dropped in the Prussian mind. The rules were changed. Clausewitz’s teaching became history. The Nazis went underground and launched a new strategy for global conquest. The goal of warfare was redefined as destroying the enemy’s potential for waging war. This simply meant destroying the enemy’s economy.

Your Bible is replete with prophecies which indicate that there will be one more round—a third, final round of global warfare. It will be more horrendous than both previous world wars put together. Its projected carnage is beyond the comprehension of the human mind.

What is little realized is that the first stage of that war commenced when the Nazis went underground 57 years ago. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the unification of Germany in 1990, the pace of phase one of that strategy accelerated. Up to the outbreak of war in Bosnia and the subsequent fielding of German troops in the Balkans, stage one was in vogue—the dramatic economic revival of the German economy, together with the assertion of political, diplomatic and bureaucratic efforts to create a common market in Europe, in preparation for implementing a common European monetary unit.

Barely was the Berlin Wall razed and the ink dry on the instruments of unification when phase two of the battle plan was entered. This involved the forcing through by then German Chancellor Helmut Kohl of the acceptance of a federal currency—the euro—by a majority of EU member nations.

Phase two would be but mere preparation for phase three: the development of a common security and defense force, with the ultimate aim of enforcing European hegemony as far as possible around the globe, under, you guessed it, German leadership!

Phase three was quietly implemented with little fuss or fanfare. This involved the creation of conflict in the Balkans. Thus followed the German-Vatican recognition of Croatia and Slovenia as separate states in the Balkans and their ceding from the old Yugoslav federation. With the Balkans destabilized, phase three of the plan for German domination of Europe swung into play.

German troops went into combat on foreign soil for the first time since the overwhelming defeat of the Nazi war machine. Following that, the rest was easy. The Kosovo conflict ended with a German general heading up the peacekeeping effort, actually commanding British troops that make up part of a “peacekeeping” force.

This military phase of the Prussian strategy for success, the third time around, will soon be cemented into place within the terms of the next EU Treaty when it is signed next month in Nice, France. In the meantime the EU rapid reaction force is proceeding well ahead of schedule, with its command structure due to be in place by March. Interestingly, the initial figure of 60,000 troops which was given as the ceiling for the size of this force has suddenly leapt to 230,000! The entire force is due to be combat-ready for any foreseeable theater of war, either within or outside of Europe, by 2003. Yet, with Javier Solana indicating that, in terms of EU institutional progress, development of the rapid reaction force is moving “at the speed of light,” this target could be advanced significantly.

The Master Strategy

The master stroke in all this is the overarching aggression of German global corporatism! You thought that globalization was empowered by the mighty U.S. economy? Think again! The U.S. economy is being used as a convenient tool to significantly contribute to the driving of the global economy while the unerring, masterful globalist strategy of those old Nazis reaches out to ultimately render the economies of Britain and the U.S., in particular, immobile!

That master strategy took a powerful leap forward in 1996 when German takeovers of international businesses doubled. Not only that, but they doubled again in 1998. The German globalist juggernaut is on a roll!

The Western political economies are in decline. Britain and the U.S. are putting up little resistance to the onslaught of the Catholic-universalist/corporate-globalist attack by the European Union. As Professor Fouad Ajami said, about the Great War, “men thought they had killed the beast, but they hadn’t.” That beast was sorely wounded, but certainly not annihilated, in 1939-45. It rises before our very eyes, materializing as it sheds its corporatist sheep’s clothing to increasingly reveal the militaristic tendencies of its true beastly form! (Rev. 13:1-2, 7).

Trouble on the Horizon

The liberal democracies of the West are failing at their moral heart! Their balloon economies only require a major reversal of the boom trends of past decades to collapse beyond the scope of any routine market correction. There’s trouble on the horizon, and the financial, corporate and oil cartels of the world know it! That’s why the flurry of meetings of the financial, economic, corporate, industrial and political gurus this past half-year.

But there is a backlash emerging from the public that could cause a feeling of insecurity and ripple around the Western democracies. Kosovo has not gone away, Saddam is still on his puppet throne, Bosnia steams, the Irish problem bubbles under the surface. Jerusalem seethes with violence, Indonesia continues to implode, and Russia lumbers up from its stricken repose to assert itself once again in the world political agenda—then there is oil! And underneath all of this bubbling global cauldron are the Third World problems, some of them seemingly beyond help. It is hardly a time to relax.

Liberal democracy is on the brink of failure—final failure! Arthur Schlesinger Jr. said, “If liberal democracy fails in the 21st century, as it failed in the 20th, to construct a humane, prosperous and peaceful world, it will invite the rise of alternative creeds apt to be based, like fascism and communism, on flight from freedom and surrender to authority” (Foreign Affairs, Sept./Oct. 1997, p. 4). That’s totalitarian authority in human hands—a sure recipe for disaster!

Watch the European Union! Watch the Vatican! Watch the EU Treaty of Nice meetings in France, December 7-8! Watch for Austrian fascist sympathizer Jörg Haider to meet with the pope in December. Continue to watch Jerusalem. Listen to the final papal message for the Vatican jubilee year 2000 on December 25 and read between the lines. And as you watch, heed the words of Jesus Christ to His chosen disciples: “Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh…Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch” (Mark 13:35-37).