Founded in 1998, the Quebec-based Forum for Democratic Global Governance (FIM) claims to know what you and I need. In a word, we need producers to provide for non-producers. To flesh out what that entails, this purportedly non-advocacy, non-partisan, and non-governmental organization is hosting an event in Sao Paulo this March (2013).

In Brazil, UN-empowered special interest groups (civil society) will be afforded increased authority to regulate good, global citizens. The guiding principle of socialist, government-managed development, called sustainable development, calls for revamping the very infrastructure of nations away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of national zoning systems. To ensure adequate oversight, folks need to be herded out of the suburbs and into urban clusters. You know, for the common good.

Our Global Community: All Equal, but Some More So Than Others

In 1928, former Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells published The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution. In Wells’ view, before the shadowy new order’s character is “plainly displayed,” existing governments first must be “weakened, effaced, incorporated, and superseded.”

Decades later, the UN-funded 1995 Commission on Global Governance published Our Global Neighborhood, detailing how to advance this global agenda by means of international treaties, conventions, and environmental regulation.1Having arisen in favorable response to this Commission, the FIM purposes to influence the United Nations by strengthening the role of civil society (NGOs). In the end, national constitutions will yield to enforceable international law holding world citizens accountable for rapid transition to community sustainability. Again, for the common good.

Civil Society Democratizing the United Nations – i.e., “Nongovernmental” Governance

Management behind the UN concept of sustainable development, NGOs (nongovernmental organizations, or civil society) sets the ideological agenda to save the earth, empower women, protect children, eradicate poverty, and feed the poor. So, then, what’s not to like?

• Unconstitutional, Non-elected, But Locally-Enforced Authoritarianism

First off, NGOs are nongovernmental and non-elected private organizations. The operative word is “non-elected.” Make no mistake. The United Nations alone designates official NGOs, whose legal status of “management” spans all levels of government – international, national, state, and (yes) local. Even now, the UN is designating NGOs in every community (yours, too) to serve as watchdogs for violators of UN treaties that threaten to supersede even the supreme law of our land, the US Constitution.

Next, totalitarian control is the only way for non-elected, nongovernmental organizations to enforce laws needed to prevent greedy capitalists from forging ahead and messing up biodiversity. Unfortunately, what naturally follows is (1) breakdown of traditional values (as defined by the Judeo-Christian ethic); (2) population control (managed death options as abortion; childless lesbianism; eugenics); (3) non-voluntary wealth redistribution; and (4) forced quotas. In short, complete paradigm shift to a new world order.

• Global Taxation

True, planetary environmental governance is propelled by notable ideals of inclusion, democratization, pluralism, flexibility, education, and innovation; but no less than a world parliament, international law and taxation will suffice in order to ensure the “collective security” we ostensibly need. Recall that in 1997, Hillary Clinton flew to Stockholm, where she lobbied for a UN tax to grow the United Nations even bigger. Before displaying a “Hillary 2016” bumper sticker, remember this: Global taxation is tantamount to one-world government (not what our founding fathers had in mind).

“Impartial” Preference for the Global South

Follow the money, folks. The FIM receives funding from governments (as the government of Norway), multilateral organizations (as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the League of Arab States), NGOs (as the Arab NGO Network for Development), and foundations that believe in its mission (Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund). Not necessarily friendly to “the land of the free and home of the brave,” shared issues include Millennium Development Goals, diversity, public-private partnerships (civil society), and (of course) sustainable development.

While the FIM claims not to speak on behalf of any specific group or issue, the Forum clearly gives overwhelming priority to the world’s poor, women, and people of color. It’s no coincidence that most of its Board of Directors represent areas of the world suffering from unacceptable levels of poverty, political marginalization, oppression, and socio-economic injustice – namely, the Global South (Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, South-East Asia). Actively committed to long-term goals of eradicating poverty, injustice, and inequality, civil society organizations clearly focus on their “missing voices.”

Opaque “Transparency”

It’s planned that, by 2015, these eight lofty goals will have been fully addressed: (1) end of poverty and hunger, (2) universal education, (3) gender equality, (4) child health, (5) maternal health, (6) eradication of HIV/AIDS, (7) environmental sustainability, and (8) global partnership. The process, we’re told, demands thoughtful communications among official representatives of government and/ or civil society groups.

NGO activists and practitioners share with academics, donor representatives, multilateral/trade union/government officials, and parliamentarians a collective vision for a “more just world” via global welfare (International Monetary Fund) and redistribution of wealth (sustainable development). Including the UN, Commonwealth Secretariat, G20, League of Arab States, and the World Bank, the FIM network is regional, national, and global in scope.

Multiple countries working in cooperation (called multilateralism) claim to be transparent, but off-the-record diplomacy tells yet another story. Through peaceful means, so-called “Quiet Diplomacy” applauds “openness,” yet exchange of information among hundreds of groups remains behind-the-scenes and away-from-the-public-eye. Truth be told, secrecy drives the agenda. To provide anonymity to speakers, the FIM employs the Chatham House Rule whereby participants may use information received, but neither the identity, nor the affiliation of speakers/ participants may be revealed.

Exemplifying what I mean by “opaque transparency,” a speech delivered at the Institute for the Study of International Affairs at Copenhagen by historian Arnold Toynbee documented high-level “discreet workings” to wrest sovereignty out of the clutches of local nation-states, all the while denying with one’s lips what is being done with one’s hands.

Enter, the mainstream media. At a Bilderberg Society meeting in Baden, Germany, David Rockefeller thanked attendees from the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other distinguished publications. For nearly forty years, he gushed, these friends of global governance had “respected their promises of discretion.” Now that the world is adequately primed, globalists are free to go public. This, too, is by design.

Conclusion

With little regard for “we, the people” of the United States of America, the Forum for Democratic Global Governance (FIM) presumes to identify “The Future We Need.” The Chatham House Rule conceals “an open conspiracy.” Transparent, it’s not; nor is it impartial. Despite claims to the contrary, new order multilateral Futurists bully, emasculate and, then, presume to exact resources from those rightly described as the world’s “producers.” At the peril of developed countries, the FIM’s end goal is to “give voice” and “preferential treatment” to the Global South.

With great passion, civil society demands that interdependent economic justice be administered globally. Problem is, in the real world, “power concedes nothing without a demand,” and “we are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."