The globalists hope to see nation states stuffed into regional blocs that are given ever-increasing authority, as a prelude to world government. The UN has been pursuing regionalism for quite some time, but what has not been reported is how regionalism is now baked into UN Agenda 2030 (sustainable development goals), the climate agreement recently reached in Paris and its ‘climate justice’ fund. The Truth will report on all this during January. We start with a regionalism primer:
The United Nations and the forces hoping to keep strengthening it are using regional integration and regional governance as a stepping stone toward what they call “global governance.” Examples of these regional governments abound. The European Union, of course, is the most prominent, but hardly the only one. The African Union, Vladimir Putin’s Eurasian Union, the Union of South American States, and many more regional integration schemes are all in various stages of development.
Behind it all is the UN and various internationalists such as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who recently released a book titled World Order. “The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another,” he explains in the book (emphasis in original). And that, in a nutshell, appears to be what is taking place worldwide.
It is not a new idea. In 1962, internationalist Lincoln Bloomfield prepared a report for the U.S. State Department entitled “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations.” In it, he explained how competition or even wars between regional super-regimes could dramatically accelerate the quest for global government. “A ‘normal’ historical process, in which ever-larger units evolve through customs unions, confederation, regionalism, etc., until ultimately the larger units coalesce under a global umbrella, could take up to two hundred years, on past performance figures, and even this may be optimistic,” wrote Bloomfield. “I have suggested that an alternative road may bypass the main path of history, short-circuiting the organic stages of consensus, value formation, and the experiences of common enterprise generally believed to underlie political community.” The plan, he said, “relies on a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose.” Using such plotting, the “order” could “be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks,” Bloomfield explained. “Thus a hypothetical model can be constructed, fulfilling the characteristics of ‘a world effectively controlled by the United Nations.’ … We concluded that in theory it could come about in the short, medium, or long run by a brink of war — or a war — combined with the development of evolutionary trends that might favor it as the time span stretches out.” In other words, divide the world up into regions, then use various crises and even potentially war to encourage faster and deeper surrender of sovereignty.
The UN has been supporting the process every step of the way, with each of the regional unions, while purportedly independent, acknowledging the UN as being at the top. The regionalization of the planet into a handful of supranational regimes loyal to the UN is not an organic development. The UN has trained African officials on how to launch a continental “free trade” (i.e., supranationally managed trade) regime. Such regimes have typically served as the nucleus for regional governance. (The EU came from the European Free Trade Agreement, and so on).
Writer Alex Newman has been chronicling UN regionalization moves for years.
