Subscribe Here. http://www.theinternationalforecaster.com/order.php
The International Forecaster
by James Corbett corbettreport.com April 5, 2014 Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last month, you no doubt know about the Crimean status referendum that was held in March to determine the fate of the autonomous republic, until now a subdivision of Ukraine. The referendum gave Crimean’s the choice of joining the Russian Federation or reverting to the 1992 Crimean constitution, which gave the republic full sovereign power as a nominal part of Ukraine. The result was nearly unanimous, with 96.77% voting to join Russia.
The vote was naturally considered illegitimate by the NATO powers that had just successfully engineered a violent coup overthrowing the democratically-elected (if cronyish and thuggish) government of Viktor Yanukovych. They led the UN General Assembly to adopt a (typically non-binding, toothless, meaningless) resolution declaring the referendum invalid on the grounds that the vote had been carried out under Russian coercion and did not follow the procedures of the Ukrainian constitution in seeking formal secession from the country. This leads to the obvious retort that the coup in Kiev did not follow the Ukrainian constitution, either, but then again this is the type of argument put forward by the likes of John “you just don’t invade another country on a completely trumped-up pretext” Kerry, so it’s safe to assume that hypocrisy is not something these people are concerned about.
What you may not have caught under all the pomp and bluster of these first shots in the so-called “New Cold War” is that a very similar scene was taking place in southern Europe at nearly the same time. In a week-long unofficial referendum beginning March 15, citizens of Veneto-the region of Italy encompassing such cities as Padova, Vicenza and, most famously, Venice-voted on whether or not to secede from Italy. In a region of 3.8 million voters, organizers say nearly 2.36 million cast a vote, with a whopping 2.1 million voting for independence. The results of the very non-scientific poll are hotly contested, with critics alleging that some of the votes were being cast from overseas and others being counted twice, but Rome is taking it seriously enough: Earlier this week they arrested 24 independence activists, claiming that they were engaged in “terrorism” and even “fabricating weapons of war.” What weapons? Apparently Italian authorities seized a tractor that they claimed the activists had tried to convert into a tank.
As cartoonish as the would be “Repubblica Veneta” appears at this point, it’s part of a wider trend that’s spreading across the globe: a trend toward secession. The Venetian activists were inspired by a similar movement in Scotland, where independence advocates are looking forward to their own referendum this September on whether or not Scotland should become an independent country, either as a republic or as an independent Commonwealth realm under the crown a la Canada or Australia. In the Catalonian region of Spain and France, meanwhile, a strong contingent of citizens support the formation of an independent Catalan nation. Across the pond in Canada, the idea of Quebec’s separation is once again rearing its head in the provincial election cycle.
Likewise around the world, separatist movements in Algeria, China, Indonesia, Libya, Uzbekistan, and literally dozens of other countries continue to agitate for secession from their respective governments. Even the countries where one would least expect to find such sentiment harbor their own separatists, however marginalized: the Ainu in Japan; the Basque, Bretons, Corsicans, Normans, and others in France; the Zapatistas in Mexico. Whatever else may be said about the human condition, it seems the dream of sovereignty cuts across race, culture and social context.
But this is supposed to be an era of globalism, isn’t it? We live in an era of UNs and EUs and WTOs and TPPs and NAUs and APECs and SCOs and all sorts of other ominous acronyms that all stand for the same globalist ideology. They are all about bringing the world into a system of increasingly large and unaccountable globalist bodies that take power further away from the people.
So aren’t these independence movements the exact opposite phenomenon? Isn’t this about bringing power back down to the people, not to some national capital in some far off place but closer to home, among people we know and identify with? Isn’t this about decentralization and independence? Isn’t this the opposite of globalism?
Well, yes and no. “Yes” in the sense that separatist movements are fighting against the trend toward bigger and more distant governments. It’s about returning power to the local level, after all. But “no” in the sense that, as separatism is a desire to undermine the nation-state, it dovetails nicely with that part of the globalist game plan that relies on the undermining of the nation-state. Americans will never see themselves as citizens of the United Nations, after all. Try to sell them that and most people will salute the nearest flag and start humming the Star-Spangled Banner with their hands over their heart. But ask a Texan if he likes what the Congress critters in Washington are doing and you start to chip away at that sense of “nation.” Here we have the idea that separatist movements can be used as stepping stones toward a globalist endgame. Split the nations up and give the people their local governments, then stitch those local governments up with trade pacts and treaties until you have a world government of local, “autonomous” regions.
This idea was suggested by Daniel Estulin in his 2007 bestseller The True Story of the Bilderberg Group. According to Estulin:
“…it became known to me from deep undercover sources within the [Bilderberg] meeting that the 1996 conference was allegedly to be used as a staging ground for the imminent breakup of Canada. This was to be secured through a Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Quebec, to be launched in early 1997. The declaration would fragment Canada, with the aim of achieving ‘Continental Union’ with the U.S. by 2000, a date which has been pushed back at least twice since then.”
What seems paradoxical at first glance makes a twisted kind of sense upon further reflection. It’s much harder to merge Canada with the US and Mexico than it is to force Quebec and Cascadia and Texas and Chiapas and a bunch of other subdivided regions into a marriage of economic necessity. After all, it gives the people what they want (the appearance of local rule and sovereignty) even as it takes it away behind the scenes by enacting a bunch of ‘boring’ trade agreements and treaties.
This strategy is at play in the implementation of Agenda 21. This UN-led “sustainable development” monstrosity is seeking the creation of a system of inventory and control of the planet’s resources by the ruling oligarchy, which is why it has to hide behind feel-good terms like “sustainable development.” In order to forego the scrutiny (not to mention bureaucracy) that comes with trying to implement such a plan at the nation-state level, Agenda 21 is being introduced at the local level through organizations like ICLEI, the “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives” that boasts a membership of “12 mega-cities, 100 super-cities and urban regions, 450 large cities, 450 small and medium-sized cities and towns in 84 countries dedicated to sustainable development.” ICLEI provides the materials, resources and action plans for individual cities to enact, much like the Green Cities Campaign, the Global Mayors’ Forum, and a host of similar organizations. Again, people get to feel that the policies that are being enacted (increasing restrictions on land use, increasing concentration of “human habitation,” increasing clampdowns on the use of resources and on manufacturing activity, etc.) are all coming from spontaneous, local, grassroots groups in their own city without ever realizing that the agenda is being coordinated at the top.
So where does this leave us? Are all of these independence movements being secretly spearheaded by the globalists? Are all attempts at secession doomed to fall into the globalist trap? Should the Scots give up their quest for sovereignty? Or the Catalans, or the Venetians, or anyone else for that matter? Of course not. No one will deny that the urge for sovereignty and independence is the spontaneous expression of a heartfelt desire, one shared by people around the world and throughout the ages. But at the same time, does the process of decentralization end once we get a more local parliament? If so, why? What does “independence” really mean if the people are still subject to the decisions and policies of “lawmakers” in the seats of power? And where does the power and justification for these government come from in the first place? Will we ever escape the globalist trap if we continue to believe in the power of government to make our laws and sign our treaties and negotiate our economic agreements and regulate our money supply?
These are all big questions, and I won’t pretend to answer them here and now. But it’s something to keep in mind as the excitement over independence starts to pick up steam around the globe.
Recommended Reading and Viewing.
Recommended Reading US Gov Covertly Invented a “Cuban Twitter” to Create Revolution – LibertyBlitzkrieg CIA ‘misled public about interrogation techniques’ – Yahoo! News No global warming for 17 years 8 months – WattsUpWithThat
Recommended Listening Porkins Policy Radio ep. 19 Mathew Van Dyke: The CIA’s Favorite Mercenary
Recommended Viewing The New Trend: Allergy-Free Food and What You’re NOT Eating Police Shoot, Kill 80-Year-Old Man In His Own Bed The Secret Science Of Advertising