Article: The Case For A Global Currency

It was interesting to run across this recent article on Salon.com that attempts to mak the case for a single global currency.
It actually reminds me of this financial times article "And Now For World Government", which spelled out a case for having a single global government.

This thng of single world currency is a big deal. The US dollar has been the defacto world standard for many years, but the world is losing confidence in the US dollar and US economy as a whole, largely due to America's staggering and unsustainable debt levels. Talk of establishing a world currency has been batted about for years by economists and political leaders, and you can be sure such talk will get louder as time goes on.

The simple question is, if there is a global currency established, wouldn't there have to be a global authority to manage it? In essence, a global central bank to issue this currency, and to implement monetary policy concerning this world currency? Certainly.

Real simple, it comes down to this: global community... global economy... single global currency... global central bank... global government. All these concepts are inextricably linked. The push toward a single global currency is just one more step toward the One World Government that prophecy watchers have talked about for years. The world is being pushed in this direction for a reason, and the citizens of the world will end up accepting this, not really knowing who/what is behind it.

The Devil is building his One World kingdom, one brick at a time. The people of God had better pay close attention to whats going on.
===
Excerpt:

The Case For A Global Currency

This article was adapted from the upcoming book, "The End of Money," in bookstores Feb. 14 from Da Capo Press.

In the age of globalization, what does it mean, really, to be from one country and not another? We have some easy answers, along the lines of language, shared history, cultural references, and geography. I grew up cheering for the Red Sox, not the Hiroshima Carp, so that adds to my American-ness. I had to learn about the Federalist Papers in high school. I pay taxes and vote here. All of these things, some minor, some major, contribute to my sense of being part of this country.

Greenbacks do too, whether I like it or not. The coins and banknotes of a place are one of the few remaining touch-points of national identity left in our increasingly digital world. The monuments, symbols, and famous people splashed on them help reinforce this sense of nationhood. But as representations of the currency, they do more than that, because the currency is both the fabric of the economy and the stitching of the state. Even Marco Polo saw this in China, as the currency pulled a vast kingdom together under one umbrella of economic organization.

In recent times, though, having a national currency, at least for smaller countries, is looking more and more anachronistic. At the minimum it should be up for debate. Benn Steil, an economist at the Council on Foreign Relations, told me that when he lived in Europe in the 1990s, the old saying was that to be a country you needed an airline, a stock exchange, and a currency. By the twenty-first century, that was hardly the case: airlines had merged or gone bankrupt, stock exchanges had consolidated, and the euro had become the dominant currency of the continent. In the years ahead, more and more small countries may decide to quit their currencies and adopt that of a more powerful neighbor (the Australian dollar in parts of Oceania, for instance), band together with nearby countries to form a currency block (e.g., the East African Monetary Union), or jump aboard an international powerhouse like the U.S. dollar or the euro.

All kinds of factors could sway this decision: runaway inflation, fear of currency crises, too little infrastructure to manage the cash supply, an unexpected rash of counterfeits, hope of greater competitiveness in global trade, and the wish to put an end to potentially dangerous speculation about the currency’s worth next week or next year.

Full article here.

See also: And Now For A World Government (Financial Times Arcticle)

Huffington Post Article on "One Global Government"... (plus a flashback to Dec. 2008)

Huffington Post writer Patrick Takahashi gives his thoughts regarding the merits of the world one day uniting under a One World Government. (excerpt below). Little by little, this concept, once seemingly mostly discussed by Conservative Christians, conspiracy theorists, and "right wing extremists" is gradually getting more attention in the mainstream media. Look for more mainstream websites and publications to discuss the issue as the biblically prophesied Kingdom of Antichrist begins to take shape in our world.


An excerpt from the Huffington Post article:

The trend, though, is clear. First a G3, then a universal government. This already is happening with one global economy. We are inextricably linked on one Planet Earth and our common environment. World peace will only come when there is one global government.

Let's for the sake of discussion say that someday the world has one government. Won't this be like the United Nations, but worse? Well, linear thinking would come to that conclusion. Let us surprise ourselves and be smarter this next time. Let us design a system that works.

Yet, it remains unclear what will trigger this ultimate consolidation. Certainly, the United Nation (UN) will not morph into this leading role. As the EU has 27 members, should the U.S. then have 50, not one vote? If you've ever had to work with this organization, you can only agree with me that the UN has perfected paralysis by analysis. Thus, the UN cannot be that unifying force.

So what is the simple solution on how, exactly, to attain one world government and Peace on Earth? I really don't know. Perhaps someone out there has a clue.

Full article here: "One Global Government"

----------
 
However, probably one of the most noteworthy articles in recent memory that speaks favorably of One World Government was when Financial Times writer Gideon Rachman's wrote his article "And Now For a World Government".  That was back in December 2008, and the article gathered a whole lot of attention and was one of the most downloaded and most commented-on pieces in the website's history. For those who've never seen it, take a look below.

Excerpt here:

I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.

Full article: "And Now For A World Government."

James Delingpole of the British-based Telegraph newspaper makes some interesting observations regarding the recent Copenhagen climate change summit sponsored by the United Nations.

Keep in mind that this is a stated strategy by the one-world elites for decades: incrementalism - step by step progress rather than trying to do it all at once. Consider this 1974 quote by Richard Gardner of the Council on Foreign Relations:

"The 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than the top down, ..."It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion' ... but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.... [F]or political as well as administrative reasons, some of these specialized arrangements should be brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the UN system."

or these two from way back in 1931...

"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands....

-Professor /Historian Arnold Toynbee, in a June l931 speech before the Institute for the Study of International Affairs in Copenhagen.

"If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands."

-Dr. Augustus O. Thomas, president of the World Federation of Education Associations (August 1927), quoted in the book International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World (1931)

or, a bit more recently ...

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."

- Strobe Talbott, Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton administration, 1992

and...

"Today, I say that no nation in the world need be left out of the global system we are constructing."

--Madeleine Albright, Harvard University commencement., June 5, 1997

“Throughout the world, there is a clamor for change. That desire was evident in November, in an event that could become both a symbol of this need for change and a real catalyst for that change. Given the special role the United States continues to play in the world, the election of Barack Obama could have consequences that go far beyond that country…

Mikhail Gorbachev, the former head of state of the USSR, January 1, 2009,

--------
Frankly, it amazes me that people who are otherwise intelligent and informed will look at you today and deny that the push toward world government really exists or should be taken seriously. Truly, “ignorance is bliss”, as they say.

Anyway... back to the news article in question:
===========
from the Telegraph(UK)

Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government?

You have to be careful when talking about “One World Government.” Sooner than you can say “Bilderberg”, you’ll find yourself bracketed with all the crazies, and conspiracy theorists and 9/11 Truthers. But I don’t think you need to be mad to be concerned about the issues raised by Lord Monckton in this speech.

Monckton believes that climate change hysteria is being exploited by the green liberal left – watermelons, as they’re nicknamed: green on the outside; red on the inside – to usher in a form of one world government. He claims to have seen evidence of this in a draft treaty due to be signed off by world leaders at this December’s Copenhagen climate change conference.

It will, he believes, in rich nations having as much as 2 per cent of their GDP diverted to third world countries – supposedly to compensate them for the evils wrought by two centuries or so of Western industrialisation; and tough new climate change rules to be imposed on Western economies by UN bureaucrats over which sovereign nations (and their electorates) will have no control.

I don’t know how accurate he is on the specific details, but Monckton is certainly right in principle. The climate fear industry is, I believe, the single greatest threat to national sovereignty (as we’ve already seen under the EU, with its directives on carbon emissions, landfill etc) and individual liberty of our era.

Full article here:

The Walter Cronkite Few Americans Knew

The media is saddened by the passing a few days ago of Walter Cronkite. He was certainly a legend in broadcast journalism. But there was also a radical side to him that few Americans knew, and that the mainstream media didn't talk about. In particular, Cronkite was an ardent supporter of a future World Government, as shown in a recent wnd.com article.

-------

In 1999, he appeared at the United Nations to accept the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award from the World Federalists Association. He told those assembled, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, that the first step toward achieving a one-world government- his personal dream – is to strengthen the United Nations.

"It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace," he said. "To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order."

In his acceptance speech, Cronkite added, "Pat Robertson has written in a book a few years ago that we should have a world government, but only when the Messiah arrives. He wrote, literally, any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the devil. Well, join me. I'm glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan."

Later, in an interview with the BBC, Cronkite described this new order as something that sounded like a militaristic world dictatorship.

"I wouldn't give up on the U.N. yet," he said. "I think we are realizing that we are going to have to have an international rule of law. We need not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to enforce that law and the judicial system to bring the criminals to justice before they have the opportunity to build military forces that use these horrid weapons that rogue nations and movements can get hold of – germs and atomic weapons."

He spoke openly about the need for America to give up its national sovereignty.

"American people are going to begin to realize they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law, and I think that's going to come to other people as well," he said. "It's a fair distance to get there, but we are not ever going to get there unless we keep trying to push ourselves onto the road."

Full article here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104399

-------
The poor man was so sadly deceived, as are all these politicians and activists pushing for a one world government, not knowing they've been snookered into helping build the Devil's endtime kingdom of the Antichrist.

And by the way, I think it's interesting to note that the person who gave the introductory remarks at the 1999 World Federalist Association event (when Cronkite picked up his Global Governance award) was none other than the woman who is now our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Medvedev Unveils “World Currency” Coin At G8

Russian President shows reporters example of “united future world currency”

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, July 10, 2009

In a highly symbolic moment at the G8 summit in Italy today, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev unveiled to reporters a coin representing a “united future world currency”.

“We are discussing both the use of other national currencies, including the ruble, as a reserve currency, as well as supranational currencies,” the Russian leader said at a news conference.

However, those who have downplayed the formulation of a world currency by dismissing it as merely a progression of SDR’s (Special Drawing Rights) and not something that would physically be used by citizens in a system of world government, were contradicted when Medvedev clearly outlined that the new currency would be “used for payment” by citizens as a “united future world currency”.

“This is a symbol of our unity and our desire to settle such issues jointly,” Medvedev said.

Full article here.

Also from a Bloomberg.com article:

For Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, the monetary future is now. At his closing press conference, Medvedev held up a golden coin bearing the words “united future world currency,” which he said was minted in Belgium and handed to G-8 attendees.

“Even the mints” are thinking about a post-dollar world, Medvedev said. The test coin “means they’re getting ready.”

----------------------

So once again, we see that the mainstream media buries the important stories, while overloading the American sheeple with the stuff that's much less important. Our so-called "major media" felt it was important to give us wall-to-wall Michael Jackson coverage for almost two weeks... but they're largely ignoring this story.

I'm no genius, but let's think this through here:
Who would issue this "united future world currency" that Medvedev is proposing? ... a united future world central bank?
And who would/could have the authority to administer such a central bank of the world?... a united future world government? Hmmm?

This thing is coming out of the shadows more and more. Truly, Satan is busy, building his endtime kingdom for the coming Antichrist. But still, most of the world is sleeping -- thanks in large part to a compliant media that has decided that the world government movement is not something that's important for the rest of us to know about. (Unfortunately, there are a lot of Christians too, who are oblivious to whats' going on, which is pretty sad in itself.)

Thank God for the internet, and for the fact that we dont have to rely on the major news outlets any more, to know what's really going on in our world.

RELATED LINK: www.FutureWorldCurrency.com

Hannity, Morris Agree with Conspiracy People About New World Order

Bible-prophecy watchers and so called "conspiracy theorists" have warned about the coming World Government for decades. As we've shown on this site for some time now, the whole "one world government" idea is now coming out of the shadows, and into the mainstream.

Another example of this was on the Fox News Channel, where Conservative commentator Sean Hannity and political analyst Dick Morris recently spoke about the Obama's role in pushing America toward world government.

Obama and the Coming Global Government

Joseph Farah's article on WorldNetDaily.com begs a simple question: Why is there little or no media attention being paid to Barack Obama's call for a global regime? 

Here is the quote, made in Prague on April 5th, 2009 : "All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. That’s why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course."

The Random House dictionary defines regime as:

1. a mode or system of rule or government: a dictatorial regime. 
2. a ruling or prevailing system. 
3. a government in power. 
4. the period during which a particular government or ruling system is in power.

Thus, in this context, the meaning is fairly straightforward -- a global regime is a global system of government. These words are as significant as President George Bush's words in 1991 calling for a New World Order.

"Now, we can see a new world coming into view – a world in which there is the very real prospect of a New World Order." 

Yet, Obama calls for a "stronger global regime", and the media is strangely silent. It just shows again that we can't wait for the media to be our watchdog. The fact is, they'll emphasize what they want to emphasize, and ignore what they want to ignore. We have to pay attention ourselves to what's going on. 

I fully expect to hear more globalist/New World Order talk in the coming years from Obama and his administration. 

Global Currency on the Way?

Interestingly, decades ago, when prophecy experts were talking about the likelihood of a one-world currency to come, they were often ridiculed and the idea considered preposterous. Not I guess the idea isnt so preposterous after all. The idea of one world currency is one that is being discussed more and more by governments and monetary experts all around the world.

March 11th:
Herald Sun (Australia)

Nobel-prize winner backs world currency

KAZAKH President Nursultan Nazarbayev has won backing for his plan for a single world currency from an intellectual architect of the euro currency, Nobel-prize winner Professor Robert Mundell.

Nazarbayev, speaking at an economic forum in the glitzy new capital he has built on the Kazakh steppe, defended his proposal for the "acmetal'' world currency saying it might "look kind of funny'' but was not.

And he received intellectual support from the Canadian economist Prof Mundell, who helped lay the intellectual groundwork for Europe's single currency.

Full Article: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25173126-23109,00.html

....and now today, March 17th, news comes out that the Kremlin wants to push for a world currency:

Moscow Times

At G20, Kremlin to Pitch New Currency

By Ira Iosebashvili / The Moscow TimesThe Kremlin published its priorities Monday for an upcoming meeting of the G20, calling for the creation of a supranational reserve currency to be issued by international institutions as part of a reform of the global financial system.

Full Article: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/600/42/375364.htm

I think we should all stay tuned to see how this all plays out.

Interestingly, Fox News personality Glenn Beck mentioned the global currency concept in a segment on his show yesterday:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509534,00.html

"BECK : OK. So Steven, here is the problem. I mean, help me explain this or make this fear go away. You have Germany, you have France — I think Tony Blair has said it, you have had China say it, the G-20 is coming up. They're all talking about having a new reserve currency, a new global currency to replace the current global reserve currency, which would be the dollar.

If that would happen, it would just destroy the United States. Are we seriously — is this some sort of game that everybody is playing? What is the end-game here? What is really going on? "

To me, this is clearly just another step toward world unity and the coming One World Government. It's that simple. Some might say that idea is crazy. But then again, those same people probably also thought the idea of a one world currency was crazy too.

So the sheeple keep sleeping.... and the Devil keeps building.
And the church? Well, it's just time for us to rise up and be counted -- and the sooner, the better.

Africa, South America Marching Toward World Govt.

Just saw in the news today that rock singer and human rights activist Bono is calling for a United States of Africa.

I find this interesting, especially since African nations have been talking openly about unifying their nations, to create a stronger African Union similar to the European Union, with its own flag, military, and currency. Article here.

And recently, South Americans governments recently agreed to form a Union of South American Nations very similar to - you guessed it - the European Union. Article here.

And of course lets not forget the North American Union, which some would like to pattern after... what else?... the European Union.

Regionalization as a step toward globalization. Regional governments as a step toward One World Government. The picture is getting clearer every day.

It's amazing to me that people still try to deny this is really happening.

Here comes the Amero! (and the North American Union)

The skeptics have said for years that the upcoming North American Union was a myth. The Amero, the single unified currency was also a myth, they said.

Well, lets see what Steve Previs of the global investment bank Jeffries International, a guest on the CNBC network, has to say about it.

I've said it for a while now... The North American Union is coming. The Amero is coming. And so is the one world government. The cynics can scoff all they want. But its coming, whether people choose to believe it or not.

Hillary Clinton meeting wanting a 'new world order' 1984

I hope someone brings this up during the 2008 election season. Hillary Clinton is a blatant proponent of world government. It's been documented in several books, and here on video, that she was a vocal supporter of the World Federalist Association, now known as Citizens For Global Solutions , an organization that strongly proposes world government.

Does American want someone like this to be president? I want to see if one reporter anywhere will ask her about this meeting, and this video.

Interestingly, the group's website has taken on a softer tone than it has in the past. But I, for one, am not fooled!! I've been to their website many times over the years. They're trying to tone down the more radical-sounding rhetoric to make them more acceptable to the mainstream. But the fact is, they are wolves in sheeps' clothing, as are so many others in the World Government movement.

Are they just ignorant, or deceitful, or both??

In reading up on the Pat Buchanan quote I just posted about in my previous article, I see that People for the American Way, in their "Right Wing Watch" website, refer to the North American Union as "mythical" . The quote: "Previously, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Virginia) made the connection between the current immigration bill and the mythical “North American Union” plot."

So to them its a mythical plot. OK, fine. Then in another article they mock the idea further by attempting to marginalize it as just a silly right wing "plot". I couldnt help but wonder, are they just clueless and ignorant to what's happening on this issue, or are they just deceiving their readers about the true nature of the North American Union? And this goes for the mainstream media as a whole. Apart from Lou Dobbs of CNN, almost nobody in the media is really talking about this.

If People for the American Way had bothered to do any research at all, they would see that the Council of Foreign Relations, hardly a bastion of right wing thought, is strongly pushing the idea, as are many leftists and liberals. I cant help but think that there's a certain level of deception here, which goes something like this: "let's just sweep the issue under the rug as long as we can; by the time the American people see whats really going on, it'll be too late to stop it anyway!"

I wonder what PFAW and others will say when the North American Union actually materializes? I guess they'll just hope that by then we'll forget everything they're saying now.

Meanwhile, the American sheeple continue to sleep.

Video: Global Governance - The Quiet War Against American Independence

Creeping Toward World Government

The Council on Foreign Relations is promoting a new report called Building a North American Community. If that has a familiar ring to it, just think of the words "European Community", and remember what that led to. First there was the European Community, which became the European Common Market, which later became the European Union, which is on it's way to becoming a superstate and a superpower in its own right.

Their report is available online. Interestingly it proposes on single passport for North American nations, and has other proposals dealing with security, military cooperation, labor and trade, education, mutual economic development, and more. Cooperation and integration are the name of the game, and the European Union (EU) pattern clearly seems to be something they had in mind when they put this togeher. This is the same EU whose leaders have gone on record as saying they see today's EU as a revival of the old Roman Empire. We're on the way to the New World Order. The books of Daniel and Revelation talk about this. People need to wake up and see what's happening.

First NAFTA, then the Free Trade Area of the Americas, now the North American Community? I'ts clear that there are people above us who have a clear direction of where they want this thing to go. Where is this all heading? And when one keeps in mind the African Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and other regional groups, and it's becoming clearer and clearer that the world is moving from nationalism to regionalism. I expect a North American Community to become like the EU eventually. I look for a regional bloc to develop in South America too, as well as other regional blocs around the world. Just one more step toward world government.

Deanna Spingola has a good commentary on the North American Community here. Clearly she feels the powers that be are "selling America". And I think she's right.

Skeptics might say this is just some fundamentalist "one world government" conspiracy babble, with no basis in fact. Skeptics will always be skeptics, so we cant let that deter us. Keep in mind though a quote from a EU/UN report called "The New World Order After September 11" : "We could order the world on the basis of existing regional cooperation organizations: the European Union, ASEAN, Mercosur, NAFTA, the African Union, the Arab League and SAARC in southern Asia. In this context, we should also include countries like China, Russia and Japan, and the whole of Oceania. We need to take a first step down the path towards a global form of federalism, a structure where the reality of an increasingly interactive world is finally made a political reality too. In fact, a structure of this kind was already planned when the United Nations was created in 1945, but was never implemented after the Cold War."