Thread: Elitist Blueprint For World Government Revealed

New book written by insider - 6,000 globalists control the planet and plan to completely end national sovereignty, manifesto for dealing with "antiglobalist" resistors unveiled


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, May 1, 2008


A new book written by a leading globalist luminary provides a blueprint for how 6,000 elitists plan to completely end national sovereignty, impose a system of global governance, and how they will deal with an international network of people that resist their agenda.

Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making is a manifesto for how the elite plan to shape the course of the planet and impose a new world order while combating the inevitable "global network of antiglobalists" who will rise up against it.

The author of the book, David J. Rothkopf, is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and has previously served as the Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade during the administration of Bill Clinton before he became managing director of Kissinger and Associates in January 1996.

A Salon.com review alarmingly details the brazen premise of Rothkopf's book - a global elite now run the planet and have usurped the power of national governments while ensuring laws constrained by borders are all but obsolete.

"Each one of them is one in a million. They number six thousand on a planet of six billion. They run our governments, our largest corporations, the powerhouses of international finance, the media, world religions, and, from the shadows, the world’s most dangerous criminal and terrorist organizations. They are the global superclass, and they are shaping the history of our time," states the promo for the book.

The threadbare notion that Rothkopf's book is a critical and impartial investigation of the global elite can be rejected out of hand just by looking at the author's biography - in reality he is a cherished insider.

Throughout the book Rothkopf fawns over the global elite of which he too is a member. The Salon review notes his "palpable thrill" at "recognizing CEOs, oil company executives and Harvard professors on his way to a fondue restaurant," in the globalist enclave of Davos, Switzerland and his obsession with listing every banal "achievement" of each elitist he speaks with.

According to the article, the kind of elitist celebrated in Rothkopf's book "have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elite's global operations."

Rothkopf himself concurs that laws and regulations defined by borders and nation states are obsolete and need to be replaced not by a global government but by "global governance". The fact that the ultimate goals of the two - the total elimination of national sovereignty - are essentially identical is not lost on globalists who know that a more subtle imposition of centralized control needs to be enacted in order to con the serfs into sacrificing their identity. A sharply defined "world government" is too visceral a concept and would attract fierce opposition, therefore a method of forcing countries to adopt harmonized policies of "global governance" is the new approach that globalists have embarked on.

Rothkopf ominously expresses the plan to mandate the "Registration and management of Internet domain names (via a collection of organizations)" under a global umbrella, which the informed will recognize as a bastardized version of Internet 2, where individuals require government permits to operate a website under tight regulation.

The article concedes that, "Rational as it may sound to set up such systems, they just aren't directly answerable to the populace at large -- they're undemocratic," which Rothkopf admits will give rise to rebellions and pave the way for more people like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who he labels as being part of "the global network of antiglobalists," and a man who has "made political theater out of taunting and thwarting the global elite."

Rothkopf's answer to the inevitable antagonism that will be directed towards the globalists as their agenda unfolds is to hoodwink the commoners into thinking they have influence in the new world order that is being built around them - a method otherwise known as the Delphi Technique, which is universally recognized as an underhanded and unethical ploy of achieving consensus through deception.

According to Rothkopf the, "Superclass ought to be smart enough to foresee any such crisis and head it off by doing more to make the currently disenfranchised feel like "stakeholders" in the new global order."

The fact that the same elitists Rothkopf affords such sycophantic adulation are also personally responsible for the policies that result in the slaughter of untold millions and the misery of countless others across the globe matters little to Rothkopf, who also has no qualms about including Osama Bin Laden in a group of 6,000 "global elite" who now control the world and "whose connections to each other have become more significant than their ties to their home nations and governments."

Superclass maintains that the elite, who mainly comprise "older males of European descent who graduated from prestigious Western colleges," are "an improvement on those of the past," but this rings hollow when we consider the state of the planet that they have crafted.

A million-plus dead Iraqis since 2003, a global economy in chaos and individual freedom under attack in every corner of the world suggests the much-vaunted global elite - worshipped in Rothkopf's book as saviors of the Earth - are more accurately parasites and a cancer upon humanity.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ma ... eprint.htm

A sharply defined "world government" is too visceral a concept and would attract fierce opposition, therefore a method of forcing countries to adopt harmonized policies of "global governance" is the new approach that globalists have embarked on.

Sounds familiar....

I don't care what they want Im not giving away the United States of America to the rest of the world!

Originally Posted by PhredE

A sharply defined "world government" is too visceral a concept and would attract fierce opposition, therefore a method of forcing countries to adopt harmonized policies of "global governance" is the new approach that globalists have embarked on.

Sounds familiar....

It's been tried before, and failed miserably:

1. Leon Trotsky: thought that the entire world would come under the rule of a Communist global army; later executed by Stalin.

2. Josef Stalin: worked millions to death in Soviet Gulags, many forced to mix cement with their bare hands in sub-zero Arctic temperatures; died insane.

3. Adolf Hitler: thought that his tanks and bombers would force America and the rest of the world into the iron rule of a thousand year Reich; committed suicide, died insane.

4. Kofi Annan: thought the US would be turned into a "state of concern" ruled over by the UN; was made a laughingstock when it was discovered that his son stole UN money to buy a new car.

Who's going to be the next on the list?

Originally Posted by millere

Originally Posted by PhredE

A sharply defined "world government" is too visceral a concept and would attract fierce opposition, therefore a method of forcing countries to adopt harmonized policies of "global governance" is the new approach that globalists have embarked on.

Sounds familiar....

It's been tried before, and failed miserably:

1. Leon Trotsky: thought that the entire world would come under the rule of a Communist global army; later executed by Stalin.

2. Josef Stalin: worked millions to death in Soviet Gulags, many forced to mix cement with their bare hands in sub-zero Arctic temperatures; died insane.

3. Adolf Hitler: thought that his tanks and bombers would force America and the rest of the world into the iron rule of a thousand year Reich; committed suicide, died insane.

4. Kofi Annan: thought the US would be turned into a "state of concern" ruled over by the UN; was made a laughingstock when it was discovered that his son stole UN money to buy a new car.

Who's going to be the next on the list?

I find it interesting that insanity seems to play a very key role.

I'm thinking it would have to............

Originally Posted by azwreath

Originally Posted by millere

Originally Posted by PhredE

that his son stole UN money to buy a new car.

Who's going to be the next on the list?

I find it interesting that insanity seems to play a very key role.

I'm thinking it would have to............

Perhaps as a result of inbreeding?

It's been tried before, and failed miserably:

It didn't fail at all and you'll see why. Check this out from some excerpts from Pat Buchannan's book "Death of the West:"

Antonio Gramsci was an Italian Communist. After Mussolini's march on Rome in 1922 he fled to Russia. He was a sharp observer who saw that Bolshevism did not work. Only through terror could the regime compel obedience. He concluded that Leninism failed. The Russian people had not been converted to communism. They loathed it. Their land, faith, families,icons, and Mother Russia meant more to them than any international workers' solidarity. Gramsci concluded that the Soviets were deluding themselves. The Russian people had not changed. They were obedient only because resistance meant a knock on the door at midnight.

Gramsci concluded it was their Christian souls that prevented the Russian people from embracing Communism. Gramsci wrote," the civilized world had ben thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2000 years. A regime grounded in Judeo-Christian beliefs and values could not be overthrown UNTIL THOSE ROOTS WERE CUT." If Christianity was the heat shield of capitalism, then to capture the West, Marxists must first de-Christianize the West.

Rather than seize power first and impose a cultural revolution from above, Gramsci argued, Marxists in the West must FIRST CHANGE THE CULTURE - then power would fall in their laps like ripened fruit. But to change the culture would require a "long march through the institutions" - the arts, cinema, theater, schools, colleges, seminaries, newspapers, magazines, and the new electronic medium, radio. One by one, each had to be captured and converted and politicized into an agency of revolution. Then the people could be slowly educated to understand and even welcome the revolution. (SOUND FAMILIAR?)

Members of the German Communist party and other intellectuals set up Frankfurt University, an Institute for Marxism. But in 1933, Hitler ascended into power in Berlin, and as the leading lights of the school were Jewish and Marxist, they were not a good fit for the Third Reich. So the Frankfurt School packed its ideology and fled to America.

With the assistance of Columbia University, they set up their new Frankfurt school in NYC and redirected their energies to undermining the culture of the country that had given them refuge.

So if you think about it, they planted the seeds in the 1930's and these ideas began to flower in the United States in the 1960s. I'd say they did not fail at all. Look at our educational system today. This was an evil yet brilliant strategy. If you can't conquor a people with violence, then do it from within their culture and institutions. The people will submit without even knowing it.

Originally Posted by chloe24

So if you think about it, they planted the seeds in the 1930's and these ideas began to flower in the United States in the 1960s. I'd say they did not fail at all. Look at our educational system today. This was an evil yet brilliant strategy. If you can't conquor a people with violence, then do it from within their culture and institutions. The people will submit without even knowing it.

I just erased the start of a huge rant; suffice to say what I was angrily writing about explains why Detroit is in such bad shape. We have been taken over by the Leninists.

I'd say we are under attack.

In order to get their agenda in, they know they have to get people away from common sense thinking, they do this with Political Correctness thinking, then try to claim its how people ought to think when its the farthest thing from the truth.

PC really stands for Pefect Communism, it their way of trying to convince people that the world can be perfect with their agenda when in reality if there is to be a perfect world it will arrive through common sense and truthful thinking, not PCism.

We all know there is no such thing as a perfect world. There is no such thing as equality and that is why the majority is supposed to rule, because at least then most of the people are happy. Thats the way it should be. There will always be discrimination and preferences, thats life, thats how God made us. There is nothing wrong with it. The politicians have tried to make us feel guilty about who we are just because we want to support our own kind or countrymen.

The reason the elites want to destroy America, and they have done a great job so far, is because when divided, we fall. And we have fallen. America used to be a place that supported one another as Americans. America used to be a place of brothers and sisters that would help another out and we used to vote on things as a group, meaning America first. 50 years ago you wouldn't have seen the illegals get jobs or be accepted in masses, the employers were Pro-American and Pro country.
Now its like there is not One America but millions of America's. It used to be America pretty much meant the same to every American but now America means something different to each individual and that is because of PCism and greed.

First the politicians devide us which basically isolates us from one another. Then the TV and computer has everyone devided into little groups most of which never even think, wonder or give a care about the state ofthings, as long as they have their little toy or fixation on whatever turns them on, leading to more isolation from each other.

I remember the last interview Bill Gates did with Charlie Rose. Charlie asked Bill Gates if the computer was making the masses more isolated and less social, he went on to say how he loves playing chess with people around the world on Sundays and went on to say how he loved communicating online. But Gates totally missed the point of the question from Charlie, Charlie meant doesn't the internet make people less social in real life, as in people spending real time together, not in the virtual world. That just goes to show most of these people are complete isolationist themselves, they don't know how to function among people more than an hour or two because they live in a totally different world and while they are isolated they come up with these big ideas to cure the worlds ills that are nothing more than shadows in their brians.

In order to solve problems, you have to live the problems, not look at them for 5 seconds through a glass door. When I worked in manufaturing the management always tried to make life better for the "Workers" and most time they made it more difficult and worse, because they tried to bring ideas that weren't relevant to the workers, instead of listening to the workers to learn how to make their jobs better and at the same time reap more production. This is the same thing Politicians do, they think they know what the problems are and how to fix them but just make them worse, when they could just listen to the people and make things better, but then they might feel useless, when in reality their job is to listen to the people, not their hair brained ideas.

Excellent post Chexfive. I think the first step toward unifying Americans, is to stop identifying one's self as either a Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. The media and the politicians us this as a strategy to divide and conquor us. It's just "group think" and in my opinion very detrimental to independent thought.