‘Monnet Method’: Template for World Order out of Chaos                                          By Tim Porter, Dec. 2, 2012
The latest economic crisis, a “fiscal cliff,” looms for the U.S. economy in 2013, with consequences for the entire global financial system. Clearly, this fiscal cliff is the result of dereliction in Washington. But this dereliction is not only because of mere incompetence, stalemate from blind adherence to a polarizing political philosophy, or payback from ambitious politicians to some obviously greedy, power-hungry special interests.

All of the above is certainly true, but the real problem in Washington is that many of these politicians from both major political parties, along with their special-interest backers, are also collaborators in a Machiavellian, crisis-creating process patterned after the European Union’s “Monnet method.” Their aim is to incrementally erode confidence in national economies, currencies and sovereignty, to be superseded by what many of them consider a noble (albeit illusory) utopian dream – a New World Order of geopolitical regions, each patterned after the EU.

Now, you won’t find this writer or CircumspectNews.com exclaiming that a “one-world government” or a “one-world currency” is at hand. In the incremental, pragmatic world of the globalists, that monolithic idea is unrealistic and unsustainable, at least in the near term. It’s hard enough these days to herd independent-minded nations into the various geopolitical regions of the world.

Current talk of “world government” only plays into the hands of those who cite such rhetoric to discredit the exposure of their immediate objective, which is the deeper integration of nations within multilateral, regional trade organizations. Even now these regional organizations are being incrementally transformed into political jurisdictions of governance, following the pattern of the EU from its days as the European “Common Market.” Indeed, world-government talk is used as an “antithesis” (a “way-out” opposite) to the nation-state “thesis” (the current reality) when confusing and diverting attention from the desired “synthesis,” the real goal of a regional structure.

Such was the tactic of Henry Kissinger, in his January 12, 2008 New York Times op-ed “The Chance for a New World Order.” Kissinger, Secretary of State in the Nixon and Ford administrations, wrote that the then-new Obama administration would represent a “unique opportunity” to transform the 2008 economic crisis into a “vision of hope” by spearheading the development of a grandiose “international political regulatory system,” (i.e., governance by global regulation of national policies and economies) a de facto world government. But “if protectionism grows….Such a return to mercantilism and 19th-century diplomacy would divide the world into competing regional units with dangerous long-term consequences.”  Aw, shucks, says Henry, feigning regret. The world would then have to settle for – not the current nation-states, mind you, but the emergence of competing regional units – the “synthesis” objective that had been planned all along, and for which the infrastructure is currently being built (complete with its own future “competition” crisis). Two steps forward for globalism, one back.

Although the United Nations, often the focal point of such world-government talk, has assumed a self-proclaimed mandate to authorize and direct regional development, the nuts and bolts process is being carried out – with varying degrees of effectiveness – within the regions. All the while the UN is being derided as impotent and irrelevant. This is the very diversion process that Richard N. Gardner projected in his “Hard Road to World Order” article in the globalist Council on Foreign Relations journal, Foreign Affairs, in April, 1974:

“The hope for the foreseeable future lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership [like the UN] and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war [World War II], but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis….In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”  

 Robert Pastor, the so-called “father of the North American Idea,” continues the ruse by proclaiming that he does not advocate a “North American parliament,” but for years his Center for International Studies at American University promoted a student-led “Triumvirate” model North American parliament at universities and forums throughout the continent. Pastor himself is a de facto follower of the “relative truth” Monnet method, the crisis-creating incremental process by which Jean Monnet, the “father of the European Union,” could deny favoring a European political union with a common currency, when that was not his near-term goal at the time.

In reality, Monnet was a deceiver, just as many of our politicians and advocates of Pastor’s “North American Idea” are today.