While much of the Christian and post-Christian worlds were busy rushing about in last-minute preparations for Christmas celebrations, an important event took place in Brussels, Belgium, that went largely unnoticed and unreported. Leaders of the European Union and Russia met in Brussels on December 20 and 21 for the 30th EU-Russia Summit, continuing a process of convergence and interdependence that is leading toward political, economic, and social merger.
In his remarks at the conclusion of the summit, Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, made repeated reference to progress toward the goal of “global governance,” which has always been code in globalist circles for world government. Van Rompuy stated:
By working together, the EU and Russia can make a decisive contribution to global governance and regional conflict resolution, to global economic governance in the G 8 and G 20, and to a broad range of international and regional issues. I would like to congratulate President Putin for taking over the presidency of G 20.
As we have reported in this magazine many times, the term “global governance” is an intentionally deceptive term, used by political ruling elites because it is more vague and mushy and sounds less threatening than “global government” or “world government.” Hence, there will be less political opposition mounted to “global governance” than “world government.”
“Global governance” came into vogue in the late 1990s, following the publication in 1995 of Our Global Neighborhood, a report of the UN-appointed Commission on Global Governance. That report attempted emphatically to assure readers that they had nothing to fear; they were not proposing world government. It claimed:
Global governance is not global government. No misunderstanding should arise from the similarity of the terms. We are not proposing movement towards world government.
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan practiced the same semantic sleight-of-hand and false assurance at the UN Millennium Summit in New York City in 2000. In his report We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, Annan called for “new forms of global governance,” “a new ethic of global stewardship,” “global norms,” and “global rules” — all of which assume a role for the UN as global legislator.
Then Annan addressed the rational apprehension that many people would harbor concerning these new proposals for restructuring the world. “What do we mean by ‘governance’ when applied to the international realm?” he asked. “In the minds of some,” he said, “the term still conjures up images of world government, of centralized bureaucratic behemoths trampling on the rights of people and states.” These fearful conjurations, he assured us, have no basis in reality. “Nothing is less desirable” than world government, said Annan, insisting that “the very notion of centralizing hierarchies is itself an anachronism in our fluid, highly dynamic and extensively networked world — an outmoded remnant of nineteenth century mindsets.”
However, only months prior to the Millennium Summit and Kofi Annan’s report, on February 26, 1999, Sir Shridath Ramphal, a co-chairman of the Commission on Global Governance, addressed the Commission’s meeting in Barcelona, Spain, and gave a very different take on the matter. Ramphal stated:
The point I am making is that when we talk of “governance” and “democracy,” we have to look beyond governance within countries and democracy within states. We have to look to Global Governance and Democracy within the Global State.
A Global “State” with a capital “S” signifies a world “State,” a world government. And Ramphal emphasized that in the conclusion of his talk by celebrating the end of the “Nation State.” He declared:
As the Century of the Nation State ends, however, to a far greater degree than their governments, people recognize … they understand that the roads to justice and survival are conjoined; that the task is to bring the mutual interests and the moral impulses of mankind together.
Many of the political elites who formerly dismissed concerns that “global governance” is a ruse for “global government,” now matter-of-factly admit that they are one and the same. Jacques Attali, an ardent globalist and an adviser to former President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, for instance, has said: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.”
Van Rompuy — Tapped by Bilderbergers
Attali is a veteran attendee of the annual meetings of the super-secret, super-elite Bilderberg Group. Which brings us back to Herman Van Rompuy, frequently referred to as “Bilderberg Van Rompuy,” a reference to his having received his current job title through the actions and influence of the Bilderbergers. In a November 17, 2009 article for the U.K.’s Guardian, entitled “Who speaks for Europe? Criticism of ‘shambolic’ process to fill key jobs,” Ian Traynor wrote:
Van Rompuy met Kissinger at a closed session of international policymakers and industrialists chaired by Viscount Etienne Davignon, a discreetly powerful figure in Brussels who was vice-president of the European commission in the 1980s. The viscount currently chairs the Bilderberg Group, the shadowy global freemasonry of politicians and bankers who meet to discuss world affairs in the strictest privacy, spawning innumerable conspiracy theories. Van Rompuy, it seems, attended the Bilderberg session to audition for the European job, calling for a new system of levies to fund the EU and replace the perennial EU budget battles.
Jon Ronson, another reporter at the Guardian, interviewed Lord Denis Healey, one of the founders of the Bilderberg Group, for a 2001 article entitled, “Who Pulls the Strings?” Although Lord Healey insisted the group was not conspiratorial at all, he confirmed that they are working in the direction of world government. Ronson wrote:
This is how Denis Healey described a Bilderberg person to me: “To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.”
He said, “Bilderberg is a way of bringing together politicians, industrialists, financiers and journalists. Politics should involve people who aren’t politicians. We make a point of getting along younger politicians who are obviously rising, to bring them together with financiers and industrialists who offer them wise words. It increases the chance of having a sensible global policy.”
David Rockefeller, a longtime leader at Bilderberg conclaves, was even more explicit when addressing the 1991 meeting of the Bilderberg group. Rockefeller stated:
We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.
That statement and other remarks from the Bilderberg meeting were obtained by French intelligence agents, who were tasked with monitoring the gathering, because of the obvious implications for French national interests and security. The information was then leaked to two French publications. Hilaire du Berrier, a contributing editor to The New American, verified the authenticity of the reports through his friend, former head of French intelligence, Count Alexander de Marenches, and other sources, and provided the first account in English in his Monaco-based monthly HduB Reportsin September 1991. It was then published shortly thereafter in The New American. What seemed outlandish to many people at the time, and was frequently dismissed as kooky “conspiracy theory,” is being confirmed daily in unfolding events — and admissions from those who are causing the events to happen.