“We have invited such a renowned international figure to address us tonight because what he has to say is enormously important,” said Weiss, “…he exemplifies the type of visionary, transformative leadership which we hope the Oechsle Center will inspire — and prepare — our students to emulate as they engage with the world throughout their own lives and careers.”
“Transformation,” transformational,” and “transformative” are well-worn words in Mr. Gorbachev’s globalist lexicon, always signifying a supposed urgent need to deconstruct the current political/economic system of sovereign, independent nation states and the market-based economy and restructure (transform) it into a globalized, centralized, socialized “new world order” (NWO).
In his address to the Lafayette students and faculty members, Gorbachev lamented that “the opportunities that existed after the end of the Cold War … were not used properly. At that same time, we saw that the entire world situation did not develop positively. We saw deterioration where there should have been positive movement toward a new world order.”
But we still are facing the problem of building such a world order. We have crises: we are facing problems of the environment, of backwardness and poverty, of food shortages. All of these problems are because we do not have a system of global governance.
What does Gorbachev mean when he uses terms such as “new world order” and “global governance”? In a 1995 interview with the San Francisco Weekly, Jim Garrison, the executive director of the Gorbachev Foundation, USA explained matter of factly that Gorbachev envisioned nothing less than a world government.
"Over the next 20 to 30 years, we are going to end up with world government," he told the SF Weekly. "It's inevitable. It will happen and become just as normal to have a relationship with the rest of the world as we now have, say, if you are a Californian and you go to Vermont."
And Mr. Garrison made very clear that the Gorbachev Foundation envisioned this world government evolving and unfolding through an “empowered” United Nations. According to Garrison, there is a growing “recognition that we have to empower the United Nations and that we have to govern and regulate human interaction, because an ecological disaster in the Ukraine can radiate tomatoes in Italy."
Mr. Garrison made those statements in the SF Weekly interview prior to the Gorbachev Foundation’s 1995 State of the World Forum in San Francisco.
As an eyewitness at that particular grand soiree, as well as at subsequent State of the World Forums, this reporter has extensively documented similar statements by many of the luminaries who attend these star-studded events. It is also plainly evident, in the documents and publications of Gorbachev’s Green Cross International and his Climate Change Task Force, as well as his addresses to the Club of Rome, Club of Madrid, World Economic Forum and other venues, that the “visionary” Gorbachev envisions a future world that is ruled by the United Nations, under the superintending guidance of the a “global brain trust” (his term) or “Cabinet of Eminent Persons” (again, his term).
“Global governance is just a euphemism for global government”
Due to pushback from recalcitrant nationalists who reject the United Nations’ claims to moral authority and its agenda for global political hegemony, Gorbachev and his fellow one-worlders have frequently denied that their use of the term “global governance” implies global government. However, some of the globalists are (occasionally) candid about the rhetorical legerdemain involved in this word dodge. One such is Jacques Attali, the French socialist economist and former adviser to French President François Mitterrand. Attali, an all-out advocate for full-blown world government, says: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.”
Indeed, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion when one surveys the vast legislative, judicial and executive (including regulatory enforcement, military and police) powers Gorbachev and his fellow globalists propose bestowing on the UN, the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB) and other global institutions. However, knowing that this reality is completely at odds with their deceptive populist appeals to “de-centralization” and “local control,” they are forced to cover their true agenda with “euphemisms.”
Gorbachev’s fellow globalists, especially those associated with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) have been only too willing to aid this deception, providing him with non-stop bouquets of adulatory press coverage and a steady lineup of influential speaking venues and prestigious meetings with influential personages. That has been the case for the past three decades, but since this year marks his eightieth birthday, the man with the famous blotch on his forehead has been treated and feted with even greater fanfare than normal.
On March 31 he was the guest of honor for a concert at London’s Royal Albert Hall, where Hollywood sex goddess Sharon Stone and actor Kevin Spacey co-hosted a birthday bash extravaganza featuring billionaires, royalty, politicians, and celebrities, including: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Goldie Hawn, supermodel/actress Milla Jovovich, CNN founder Ted Turner, former Polish president Lech Walesa, and Israeli President Shimon Peres.
Befitting his supersized ego, a supersized image of Gorby’s visage graced the giant telescreen in Royal Albert Hall.
The Great One's image rotated with other images, such as the giant inscription that appeared behind and above co-hosts Stone and Spacey declaring Gorbachev “The Man Who Changed the World” (see here).
For many Gorby worshipers, the former Soviet dictator is not only “The Man Who Changed the World” but “The Man Who Saved the World.” David E. Hoffman, who writes for the influential Foreign Policy journal (published by the Washington Post) appears to be one of those. He wrote in a March 1, 2011 article that Gorbachev “may have saved the world.”
Gorbachev has gone the extra mile to cultivate this savior image, regularly comparing himself to Jesus Christ, making reference to Calvary and referring to the “crosses and suffering” and “crucifixion” he must bear. In an interview with the major German newspaper Spiegel he said that the break-up of the Soviet Union “is the pain and cross I shall have to bear until the end of my days.”
Spiegel reports that “he compared his journey to Jesus's journey to Calvary, when once before, ‘people had spat on their redeemer.’ ”
He is greatly pained, reportedly because though he is celebrated like a rock star throughout most of the world, he is rejected and scorned by most of his Russian countrymen. According to Spiegel:
He concealed his pain with a dash of megalomania. A painting by Russian artist Andrei Myagkov hung in Gorbachev's dacha outside Moscow where only a few friends were welcome. It showed Gorbachev as a shadow of the savior: Jesus has Gorby's birthmark on his right hand, which is bleeding.
Jesus, of course, did not jet about the globe socializing with media moguls, corporate titans, central bankers, royalty and celebrities. He did not have his image splashed across magazine covers and television screens, or receive awards and homage from the high and mighty of this world. He was not interested in the worldly power with which Gorbachev and his globalist brethren are obsessed.
In a four-part series entitled “The Mystery of Mikhail: Gorbachev's Ambiguous Legacy,” Spiegel reporters Christian Neef and Matthias Schepp write concerning Gorbachev’s lust for power and his sense of loss when he was no longer head of state of the Soviet Union:
“He loved power,” his confidant Aleksandr Yakovlev, one of the masterminds behind perestroika, said at the time, “and now he's suffering at having lost it.” The pain was such that Gorbachev would still claim to be having “negotiations” whenever he met leading politicians in Bonn. But there was nothing left to negotiate. He flew ceaselessly to Washington, Berlin and London, as if a full diary might create the impression that he was still the leader of a superpower. He would accept honorary doctorates and dozens of prizes in the following years...
Of course, what Yakovlev describes as a loss of power was actually a transformation of power; while Gorbachev may no longer exercise the raw political power of a head of state, he arguably wields more power as an “Eminent Person” and guru of globalism.
As just one example, consider that he was the co-founder, along with UN Earth Summit Chairman Maurice Strong, of the Earth Charter Initiative, an immense propaganda campaign which is busy spreading the green theology of earth worship and “green jobs,” “green energy,” “green economy” — “green” everything — throughout our schools, our communities, our work places, our churches, our government, and the media. The Earth Charter campaign will take on increasing visibility and influence in the coming months as we move toward the twentieth anniversary of the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Gorbachev was a big wheel at that confab and will, no doubt, be canonized as the world’s top elder statesman at the UN’s Rio+20 extravaganza, which is set to take place in Rio in June 2012. (To find out more about the Earth Charter, Gorbachev’s role in authoring and promoting it, and the dangers it presents by advancing the UN’s radical environmental agenda for global control, read the author's article, "The New World Religion.")
Prior to his visit to Lafayette College, Gorbachev penned an October 9 column, “A Farewell to Nuclear Arms,” for Project Syndicate, a Soros-funded “independent media” outlet that boasts membership of 462 leading newspapers in more than 150 countries.
On October 12, Gorbachev was at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the alma mater of Alger Hiss, who went on to become president at Carnegie after a career of treason as a Soviet agent in the U.S. State Department. In a video interview with Carnegie’s Lilia Shevtsova, Grobachev is asked if he regrets the demise of the Soviet Union (which competes with Communist China for the title of the most murderous police state in the history of the world). “Yes, I do regret it very much,” he responds.
On October 14, Gorbachev was the celebrated speaker at the University of Wyoming.
Following his speech (and the glory, laud and honor accompanying it), he was treated to more reverent encomiums from Wyoming’s former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson and a playful Q&A session with Simpson
Then it was on to El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, where Gorbachev was the top speaker on October 17 at the Juarez Competiva, a conference aimed at pulling the embattled Mexican city from the edge of destruction, as it faces the ongoing violence from the wars between the drug cartels.
At none of the above-mentioned events, or any of the other similar events, has Gorbachev ever been asked to express remorse for, let alone atone for, his past innumerable and heinous crimes. He is not even asked any embarrassing questions.
He is not called to account, for instance, for the following facts:
- That he was raised to the apex of power in the Soviet Union by his predecessor and bloody-handed mentor, Yuri Andropov, former head of the KGB, and that he continued to use the KGB in its traditional role as the terrible hammer of Communist rule;
- That he presided over the Soviet occupation of, and genocide against, Afghanistan;
- That he ordered the murderous assault of Soviet troops on unarmed civilians at Vilnius’ television station, Lithuania’s equivalent of the Tiananmen Square massacre;
- That he hid the documents showing Soviet responsibility for the Katyn Woods massacre of 15,000 Polish military officers.
- He supported Ethiopian Communist dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam’s torture, genocide, and forced famine;
- That he was one of the top Politburo officials who signed the orders for the 1981 assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II, carried out by Mehmet Ali Agca through Moscow’s “subcontractors,” Communist Bulgaria’s intelligence service.
The above list barely scratches the surface of the catalog of crimes attributable to Gorbachev. It is probably unrealistic to expect that college students still in their late teens and early twenties, who have grown up on stories of the glories of Gorbachev, would be possessed of the ability critically to challenge the avalanche of propaganda deifying him. But the adult politicians and journalists hyping him have no such excuse. However, it is unlikely that any of the “journalists” in his adoring media choir will sound any discordant notes. It’s not in their script.
Related articles:The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline