The cunning of Oligarchs
The power of the lie
The lie is the chief foundation of the so-called totalitarian states, and without an organising lie they could never have been created. The lie is conceived of, as a sacred duty, a duty in regard to the chosen race, in regard to the might of the state, in regard to the chosen class. It is not regard as a lie -- that which intensifies dynamism, that which serves to the growth of life, that which gives strength to the struggle. The lie can even seem the sole truth. The “cunning of reason”, about which Hegel speaks, renders itself in conscious practise as the useful lie. With Hegel there was already the danger of the relativisation of truth, subordinating it to the relativeness of history. Berdyaev
The last 3 years of Pandemic theater are proof that lying is a success for the nascent global super State. Between WHO and the Club of Rome the nation state is to be obsolete and humanity shall be as well.
The urge for global governance came into focus after WW1. By the end of the 20th century the work of building it was well under way. The American academic Anne-Marie Slaughter argues in the Guardian that Covid-19 encourage us to make that order even stronger.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/nov/22/the-big-idea-is-world-government-possible
Past great catastrophes made us think differently. New ways of managing international relations came out of the Napoleonic wars and the two world wars. world governance involves far more than formal institutions. Rather, it exists in the thickening networks of special agencies and interest groups from police forces to charitable NGOs that operate across and in spite of borders. Whether they are fighting crime, managing international flows of capital or helping refugees, such networks are sustaining a global order, even spreading shared values and norms.
We had better do so quickly, for we face more pandemics, more global turbulence and, above all, the existential threat of climate change. Can we start, as Richard Haass and Charles Kupchan recently suggested in an article for Foreign Affairs, with a new Concert of Powers, with the limited goal of maintaining stability? The obstacles are formidable. Rogue nations defy world opinion. Regional rivalries threaten to spill over into war. Powerful leaders act as if there is no tomorrow, leaving long-term damage. Donald Trump betrayed and insulted allies. Britain continues to alienate its neighbours and biggest trading partners. “Donnez-moi un break” is not going to bridge the gulf that has opened up with the French.
You have to be an optimist at the moment to believe in a world government built on cooperation and shared values. If Hobbes and his followers are right, a state of anarchy among nations is all we can hope for. Or does the future hold one of those other models? A Concert of Great Powers, or something else? We thought the age of empires was over; maybe it has merely been resting. Margaret MacMillan is Engelsberg chair in history and international affairs at LSE IDEAS and author of War: How Conflict Shaped Us.
Green ideology and Pandemic dry runs for the NWO join together at WHO. German government report names the pandemic as a precedent for environmental policy, says lockdowns show that behavioural restrictions are possible & can win majority support with the right messaging
https://ko-fi.com/thejournaloflingeringsanity
But where has sovereignty gone? It had become the keyword to indicate the antiglobal, postnationalist right and to distinguish it from transversal populism. The social and national right had fallen in love with it, and with them the identity movements, such as the Lega in Italy. It was a great promise, not only in Europe, of a climate that was changing. The political dogma of globalization was being questioned for the first time. The arrival of an outsider like Donald Trump in the White House, of Brexit in Great Britain, the success of Le Pen in France, of Salvini and then of Meloni in Italy, the popular affirmation in Hungary and Poland, the successes in Austria and in northern Europe, they left the distinct impression that something was changing. And that democracy, politics, was becoming "contestable" again; that is, the path of the future was not already written, something would have called into question the sick Europe, the American intrusiveness, the global structures. From the East, albeit in the form of an autocracy, something new and old could be seen in Putin's Russia…And from India to the Philippines, in Brazil something was changing. The games seemed to have reopened.
Then came the pandemic, the lockdown, the health emergency. And then came the war emergency, Putin went on the wrong side and became an invader; then the economic emergency, and the environmental one. The world framework was distorted, perhaps there was an inadvertent restoration, however an alternative line of development was broken. Hopes fell one by one, or simply returned to the normo-globality.
In this changed framework, more recently, a leader and a party who defined themselves as sovereigns, or who in any case agitated issues centered on national sovereignty, took office in our country.
But in the meantime sovereignty has disappeared, already in the political lexicon. It's not used anymore, anywhere, or almost. Who replaced him? We said it: the emergency.
Words come and go, it is useless to cling to skins and definitions, it is harmful to cling to ideologies; however the basic issues concerning sovereignty remain standing, urgent and unanswered. Sovereignty alludes to the political form, to the territory, to the sovereign states. There is popular sovereignty expressed through democracy; there is national sovereignty which is expressed through territorial independence and the protection of borders; there is political sovereignty over the domination of the economy and finance, technocracy and bureaucracy; there is economic sovereignty which indicates the autonomy of the country system from supranational economic powers; there is identity sovereignty, which concerns the traditions and social cohesion of peoples…
Sovereignty is decision and participation, it is authority and consensus; she can never be absolute, but she already has within herself her limits and her banks from which she cannot overflow. Just as the division between powers – legislative, judicial and executive – is fundamental, so sovereignty is exercised in the dialectic between political-economic, national and popular sovereignty; one places limits on the other. The source of legitimacy of sovereignty comes from three different sources: experience, competence and the majority. Experience is the history of a people, the culture of a society, its traditions, customs, common feeling, its unwritten laws; competence is the quality of the ruling classes and pertains to the responsibility of those who assume the leadership of a state and a community; the majority is the prevailing will freely expressed through a universal vote. We govern starting from these three sources of legitimacy: the best government is the one in which the sources converge or at least a good government is when they do not diverge; or when the legitimacy to exercise sovereignty is drawn preferably from two of the three sources, or at least from one but is not denied by the other two.
What about all this? There are comforting cases and examples, there are moments or aspects in which a yearning for sovereignty resurfaces, and then there are many flags on secondary if not marginal implications that are used as a symbolic compensation. But sovereignty is going through a rather critical moment, in Italy, in Europe, in the West.
In Europe the only sovereignty often mentioned and still in force is the Sovereign Debt; but it has the opposite meaning to that of sovereignty, because it is rather the weapon to keep peoples and states, with their economies, in check. Debt is sovereign, but the state, the people, the nation are its subjects. The impossible autarchy of states, the interdependence of economic, technological and military systems, the hegemony of superpowers or the constraints imposed by transnational powers make sovereignty difficult, if not impracticable. Instead, it would be nice to think of a sovereign state at home and in the international arena participating in a continental, European sovereignty. That is, capable of dealing with the other powers of the world and of guaranteeing independence in law and in fact to the peoples who compose it.
But not only is it far from the reality we live in; but even the intention to found it is remote, the subjects capable of proposing it and carrying it forward are not seen. Therefore it is not only unreal in its present state, but it is also impracticable in its potential state.
Which of the aforementioned sovereignties are we referring to?Not to one or the other but to sovereignty tout court, because it is not possible to have – so to speak – national sovereignty without popular sovereignty, or true political sovereignty without economic sovereignty. Thus we are left with only the rhetoric of sovereignty. If we leave the realm of appearances, sovereignty becomes only the rhetorical superstructure of the bare power of an oligarchy and a pall of powers that derive from none of the sources of legitimacy indicated above. A power as an establishment, as an arrangement neither decided nor controlled by a transparent exercise of sovereignty, without alternation or exchanges, which does not respond to a people, a nation, a state, a culture or a tradition. How long can a society without sovereignty survive?
(The Borghese, May 2023)
https://vaccineimpact.com/2023/get-ready-for-world-id-and-worldcoin-universal-basic-income-offering-free-money-in-exchange-for-your-eyeball-scan/