EU President: 2009 to be First Year of Global Governance

On November 19, 2009, European Union president Herman Van Rompuy stated the following in his inaugural speech:

We're living through exceptionally difficult times: the financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival, a period of anxiety, uncertainty, and lack of confidence. Yet these problems can be overcome by a joint effort between our countries. 2009 is also the first year of Global Governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis, the climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.

Repeating from the conclusion of Wednesdays bog entry, An “Inconvenient Truth:” Climate Change and Scientific Fraud,

I close by quoting again from last month's review of Lord Monckton's presentation:


Lack of fidelity to truth is necessarily followed by fundamental immorality – which reasonably follows given that questions are asked, and answers are sought, for the sake of guidance in our thoughts and deeds. False foundation for thinking and acting naturally results in wrong thinking and acting. Governments and large organizations cannot act ethically by deliberately mis-handling the truth – immorality on a grand scale is the tragic result.

Heralded by its organizers as a significant step toward Global Governance, Copenhagen was to be the beginning of a legally-binding realignment of world powers. A realignment founded on falsehood and deceit on a grand scale, it would have created a new global governing body, overtly requiring that members hand over their sovereignty as independent nations, for the purpose of transferring capital between these member nations based on carbon usage, subject to international enforcement. That's


1. a new global government
2. with enforcement powers (a military, or access to internal economic controls for punitive purposes, perhaps), that
3. manages the flow of capital between member nations on the basis of factors directly related to a nation's economic success (production/transportation of goods and services).

Manages the flow of capital between member nations on the basis of factors directly related to a nation's economic success. Not only is this merely "redistribution of wealth," it is redistribution that penalizes productive nations on the basis of measures of their productivity, that confiscates the financial proceeds of their success and gives it to the demonstrably unproductive. It is a scheme for enforcing financial equity of outcome on a global scale, and as such, it is strident Marxism.

Marxism: Recipe for the whole of society
Marxism isn't just another political ideology. It is (1) a political ideology, (2) an economic ideology, and (3) a social ideology, flawed at the foundation with a wrong view of human nature. Relying on the notion that mankind is basically good, and is therefore naturally cooperative, Marxism is an ideology which offers a solution for the totality of human action and interaction which will bring about man's supposedly natural inclinations across society. Yet, the foundations, and therefore the conclusions, of Marxism are false. While mankind is naturally gregarious, he is not basically good, but basically evil, and is not naturally cooperative, but naturally competitive.

Scripture Teaches the Depravity of Man, and his need for a Saviour on this basis
The Bible, of course, teaches the depravity of mankind in his fallen state -- the natural, or unregenerate, man, being destitute of merit before a perfectly Just and Righteous God, is incapable of pleasing Him or of atoning for his own sin. Mankind is thus estranged from God, and by definition, is in open rebellion against God. Being perfectly Just, God demands that this rebellion be punished -- dooming unregenerate man to an eternity under God's wrath. This is why mankind needs a Saviour: to do for man what man cannot do for himself -- live perfectly under God's Law (perfect righteousness) and reconcile man into a relationship with God by satisfying his debt of sin. Jesus Christ, being both fully Man and fully God, lived this perfect live on behalf of makind; and being perfectly Loving, took upon Himself the sin of the World, voluntarily suffering for man on the Cross the penalty of man's sin: death and separation from God. Thus Atoning for man's sin, He was raised to life, demonstrating God's satisfaction with the payment and proving that Jesus is who He said He is -- God incarnate -- and that His promises can therefore be believed: that through faith, we are given new spiritual life (made spiritually alive, or regenerated), we are given His perfect righteousness to bear before God (not our own righteousness), our sins are forgiven, and we are no longer estranged from God, no longer his enemy, but are restored to a relationship with Him as His children and as brothers of Christ.

The Depravity of Man, Observed
But we don't need the Bible to see that man is depraved. Anyone who has been an engaged parent for more than six-months understands this perfectly well. The fact is, humans are born with an incurable self-centeredness and callous disregard for others that makes them entirely unfit for entrance into society. Thus, the primary job of a parent -- indeed, one's obligation as a parent to the whole of society -- is one of continuous correction in order to break a child of the most egregious of uncivilized propensities, to make him at least minimally fit for productive life in society. In the Civilized World, this, along with formal education, officially takes 16 to 18 years of rigorous training -- with most in the West, it seems, agreeing that children aren't truly "adult" until nearly age thirty.

Even with such preparation, Civilized Society requires Laws. Requires them. Millions of them. Why? Because despite such preparation for civil life, mankind still excels at criminally exploiting his neighbor for his own benefit. This happens on a small-scale in every-day life, as at each moment each person in society considers his actions with respect to others to create advantage for himself -- whether strangers, neighbors, friends, employers, or institutions like businesses, schools and governments. And it often happens on a grand-scale. Climategate is only one recent example. Enron is another. The exploits of Bernie Madoff is a third. If people were basically good, the need for laws and the need for government would scarcely exist. Yet the dire need for such things is universally acknowledged, particularly among those who espouse Marxism in the Western World, as their zeal for regulating the minutiae of individual life is unparalleled in its insatiableness.

Enforced Fraternity
Of what use are Laws to to the Marxist? To force man into communal cooperativeness. Why is it necessary to force him? Because man is not naturally cooperative, but naturally competitive. Moreover, each man is unequal to another in his God-given faculties, which are necessary for his use as he executes the duties of his various vocations. It is entirely against human nature to enforce his fraternity with others, and a rank deprivation of his liberty and of his service to God to constrain or penalize his free use of human faculty. Innovation only comes from such free use; human society can only regress when it is constrained or penalized. In 1850, French assemblyman Frédéric Bastiat, a classical liberal, political economist and celebrated polemicist who wrote convincingly against the positions of Socialism, had much to say concerning Enforced Fraternity, and its relationship to liberty, in his iconic essay, The LAW:

Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty
Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: “Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity.” I answered him: “The second half of your program will destroy the first.”

In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.

Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.

At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I mean by the word plunder [spoliation].

Plunder Violates Ownership
I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain, approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific acceptance — as expressing the idea opposite to that of property [wages, land, money, or whatever]. When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it — without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud — to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.

I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this act that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still committed, and I add that from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse. In this case of legal plunder, however, the person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself. Therein lies the political danger.

...

Three Systems of Plunder
The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, socialism, and communism is not here questioned. Any writer who would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a political fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. All that can be said is that legal plunder is more visible in communism because it is complete plunder; and in protectionism because the plunder is limited to specific groups and industries. Thus it follows that, of the three systems, socialism is the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, consequently, the most sincere stage of development.

But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plunder is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false philanthropy.

With this explanation, let us examine the value — the origin and the tendency — of this popular aspiration which claims to accomplish the general welfare by general plunder.

Law Is Force
Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion. Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.

When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.

Law Is a Negative Concept
The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.

As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed—then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.

That Enforced Fraternity is scandalously unjust, even in a strictly social context, and can only result in dramatic failure, need not rely purely upon theorizing. One only needs to make note of one recent and horrific example of its outcome: the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Under the iron rule of Tito, incongruous ethnic peoples of mutually-exclusive religious convictions were forced into the fictitious mould of a harmonious communal society. Yugoslavia was considered a model of ethnic and religious social integration. But it was enforced. Under the calm surface of this contained society, division and conflict fermented, producing such social pressure, that, soon after the death of Tito, open ethnic war erupted with volcanic force. The breadth of its atrocity is now well-known. Birds of a feather flock together, but blackbirds and crows don't seem to get along.

Marxism leads to Utopia, for some
The Depravity of Man and the scandal of Enforced Fraternity, are not new concepts. They are long-known and easily deduced through the honest use of Reason. While Special Revelation provides deeper insight into these truths, General Revelation, or Natural Law, produces them with sufficient basis to establish sound political and economic ideology and public policy. Free-market Capitalism admits man's fatal flaws, but instead of ruinously working against them, it recognizes and works with them. Mankind is gregarious yet competitive. Capitalism alone provides a framework within which these basic truths of human nature can flourish in a way that benefits everyone, by redirecting man's competitiveness away from destructive conflict toward productive associations in the interest of his fellow man's wants and needs. This is accomplished by a system of liberty, the overriding incentive to engage in legitimate, productive and peaceful labor being provided by the freedom to not only engage the full free use of one's faculties but to enjoy full ownership of the result. It is not without some need of containment, yet deprivation of freedom only presents man, in his competitive nature, with incentive to seek his advantage in other ways, in the old barbaric ways of open bloody conflict and exploitation of human life.

Marxism, in the end, will never lead to a classless society. The upper classes -- the ruling class -- will never allow it, will never divest themselves of advantage. Rather, as if dangling the carrot of social equity before asses, the ruling class serves their fantasy of Utopian Society to secure their own advantage, by using their power to regulate the middle class out of existence while otherwise duping the labour class into relinquishing the only means they have of working themselves into their own relative positions of advantage: the free use of their faculties and ownership of their property. In a Utopian Society, the upper class still needs minions to provide labor -- to grow food, to sweep streets, to weed the gardens, and to polish golden toilets. This is a truism: there will never be fewer than two classes of people in any society.

Conclusion
EU President Herman Van Rompuy laments our current "period of anxiety, uncertainty, and lack of confidence", and cites two causes: (1) the so-called climate crisis, and (2) the financial crisis. The solution being pursued by the EU, according to Rompuy, is a system of Global Governance which heels to Marxist principles: i.e., From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. In the case of the Global Government being created in Copenhagen, ability and need are determined by measurement of relative CO2 output -- which is directly proportional to a nation's productivity.

We now know that the "Climate Crisis" is not only scientifically false, but a manufactured fraud. It has, however, served its political purposes: along with recent financial woes, it has brought us to the brink of worldwide Marxism. Is anyone taking bets that the Financial Crisis was an orchestration of strategically placed ideological zealots? After all, the Financial Crisis can only be explained by approximately a decade-and-a-half of irrational and obviously destructive investment practices, along with foolish monetary and fiscal policy, beginning about the same time as Climategate, according to now-public documentation. I'm suspicious.

Nopenhagen: Fata Morgana Fades in the Brilliant Light of the Truth -->

<-- An “Inconvenient Truth:” Climate Change and Scientific Fraud