Monday, April 30, 2007

Well Known Global Artists

Suzanne Else Baumann
Swiss artist, author

Suzanne Else Baumann born in Zürich 02.04.1942, as the third of four children, two older sisters and one younger brother, of the Swiss silk merchant Frierich Baumann and the artist Else Lily Hansen from Hellerup, Denmark. Her Childhood is spent with her family in Kilchberg at the Zurich lake.

1958-1963 Studies of Art in the Regional College of Art, Manchester, Royal College of Art London, the Royal Danisch Academy of Art in Copenhageen (Prof. Egill Jacobsen, member of the group Cobra) and the Kunstgewerbeschule in Zurich .
1963-1971 study-tours through Europe, residence at the Swiss Institute in Rome and periodical assistance to the artist Meret Oppenheim

Since 1969 she lives and works in an 200 year old farmhouse near Berne, that she restored over the years to a light-filled home with living space for human, animals and plants. She has been exposing her artworks in different Museums allover Europe and other countries.

1970 Foundation of the agency for design and advertising of International Medical Enterprices and Companies, production of scientific drawings for University Institutes.

Start of a systematic and wide collection accompanied by intensive research in different fields of natural science, ethnology and cultural history, aswell of contemporary art of the World. She is engaged with the research on „entirety“ and the structures of life and developes her aknowledges which she calls „synoptic research or universal thinking“ and as a method chooses the motion „Synopsism“to a new aesthetics , art- direction and way of life. In this period Suzanne E. Baumann travels to Africa, Turky, North and South America, India, Libanon and Israel. She extends her fields of activity in music.

1985 Establishment of the agency „ISIS VOICE“ . Under this label she organizes concerts with famous and authentic artists such as: James Brown, Ray Charles , Nina Simone and Solomon Burke.

Publishing of her first short stories with images „Macht und Geheimnis“ („Powerand Secrets“) with a preface by the singer and pianiste Dr. Nina Simone.
1989-2002 several exhibitions , public lectures about „the requrement of entirety“

In the early 80’s, she started to realize the concept of „The Small World Exhibition“

1995, first visit and travel tour through Belarus with her artworks . After this, she travels regularly to the east and Belarus, has organized several exchange exhibitions Switzerland-Berlarus

Suzanne E. Baumann initiated the very first exhibition with original artworks from Marc Chagall in his homeland Belarus.
In this context and as a summary of „The Small World Exhibition“,the three life forces and her synoptic way of thinking the project :NATURE-HUMAN-CULTURE including -„The Tower of Synopsis and Love“© (Energy-Tower), -„Garden of Worlds“© and „Worldmuseum“ was developed.

1997, presentation of the projects for the first time to the public, in Chagall’s Birthtown Vitebsk in the range of the „Internatonal Symposium of Fine Art, named after Marc Chagall“ (the project received an award from an international jury.
1998, in the occasion of the 120-year aniversary celeberaion of Kazimir Malevich in Vitebsk, the architectural model of the „Tower project“ was presented and“ the manifest on synopsism“ by S.E, Baumann was recited in Russian translation by the belaroussian artist Wasily Wasilyev.
Presentation of the model and project in Moscow
Presentation of a programme for lectures on synopsism (Synopsismus)

The Small World Exhibition
Work in progress, based on and permeated by three life forces:
Lively thoughts
Clear sensibility
Unconditional action in the creative process

„The Small World Exhibition“ is a pretentious arrangement of works of art. This lifework of the artist and researcher Suzanne Else Baumann has grown over 20 years and comprises 185 works of art to the present day. Installations, sculptures, objects, paintings and findings from nature and science. The remarable work crosses the borders in every sense and can not be associatd with any trend of actual art-scenes. In convincing manner, this exhibition shows the independent will of reseaech,universal horizon of thinking as well as the creative talent and virtuosity of the artist.

„The Small World Exhibition“ is of highest actuality, because the economic-cultural situation is reflected in an artistic-poetical research. In the shape and interaction of circle and globe, the tension between human and nature is expressed through a pictorial vocabulary,taken from natural sciences, ecology,technology and mythology.
Proceeding enciclopedically within five themes,the artist gains new knowledge appearing through assotiative and innovative transformation in her two-or-three-dimenional work ofart. Thus an exciting richness of artistic expression leads from work to work and besids critical inventory,even suggerts promesing solutions for the future. As the exhibition can be ‚read’ in different ways,it my grasp the attention of different poeple. The differencisted art-connoisseur as well as the one interested in research,the curious youth as well as poeple with a clear claim for aesthetic transformation and last but not least,children. Suzanne Baumann shows,there is still an other way of looking at the world,adifferent way of existing and quite a different way of expressing the strength of beauty and ideas. The work is an appeal to trust,besides technology and progress,to sensivity,culture and myth as life-forces and to look upon our living planet with warmth and consiousness.

Destinations :
Display-Gallery Tony Gerber, Berne
Institute for Modern Art, Nürnberg
Invitation of the Chinese External Culture Exchange Assotiation, in the range of the UN-Global Conference on Women in Beijing
Global Environment-Technology Fair „NEW EARTH“, Osaka
Symposium on Fine Arts , named after Marc Chagall, Vitebsk (reproductions together with the „Energy-Tower“(„tower of synopsis and love“)and „Garden of Worlds“-project.
State Russian Museum, Ludwigmuseum in the Russian Museum (Marble Palace) together with the Tower –project.
National Museum of History and Culture, Minsk (with the Tower and Worldmuseum –project)
Chagall Museum, Vitebsk (towards the garden of worlds, Step 1 ) together with the invited , participating artists
Local Museum for History and Culture (City Hall), Vitebsk (toward the garden of worlds , Step 2) together with the participating artists.
Invitation of the Confederation of Internaional Artists Unions in the centrale house of artists, Moscow (with the Tower, and Worldmuseum-project)

„The Small World Exhibition“ received the patronage of the Director General of UNESCO, Paris (Mr. M.F. Mayor)
Award by an International Jury in the range of the Symposium on Fine Arts,named after Marc Chagall, Minsk (for the entire concept)
Extention of the UNESCO-patronage for a „World Peace Tour“ together with
Pianiste and singer Nina Simone.

Sunday, April 29, 2007


"The time -- which, looking back, seems so idyllic -- is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption." - Albert Einstein
Welcome to my debate for a global government. "The End of Nations" refers to the idea of abolishing national sovereignty in order to make way for a global government which can support the growing world population and growing trends towards a unified society.
For those new to this blog, I am working on a book which I hope to promote throughout the world. The book calls for, and offers strategies to implement, a central global government in which national sovereignty becomes a thing of the past.
For those of you who have been following the discussions on this blog, thanks for your input in the debate. This has been extremely helpful as I develop my ideas for my book, and the more I discuss important issues with you all the more anxious I am to start putting the book together.
Sovereignty (def.) is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself.
Whenever I refer to the term "sovereignty" I will be referring to "national sovereignty". Sovereignty of oneself is an inalienable right of all humans (not in the anarchist's sense of the word but the "all men[women] are created equal" and the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" sense), a right currently undervalued and abused in much of the world, a right I believe only a global government can protect indefinitely.
This is a radical concept, but not a new one.
"I believe at some future day, the nations of the earth will agree on some sort of congress which will take cognizance of international questions of difficulty and whose decisions will be as binding as the decisions of the Supreme Court are upon us" -Ulysses S. Grant
Many elements of this debate date back to the post WWII era when nations were attempting to figure out how to respect national sovereignty, regulate labor laws, and promote free trade. During the Cold War borders became a man's best friend and cinder block walls replaced the white picket fence. Shortly after the Soviet Union fell the world turned again to globalism, but the new war on terror has sent the developed world backsliding again from the ultimate goal. However, the capabilities of the world through technology and the thinking of political, academic and economic minds have evolved dramatically over the past fifty years.
I don't know whether you'd consider me left or right, partly because I am interested in politics only enough to not care which "side" I'm on (I simply have an idea for a better world that will most likely still contain and even require constant partisanship). Let me know which one promotes free trade, poverty reduction, environmental protection, regulated capitalism, democracy, global education and infrastructure development and I guess I'll join that camp. I know that parts of my idea is shared with minds such as Albert Einstein and Mahatma Gandhi, but just because I share cause with geniuses doesn't mean that the road to a global government will be easy (nor my book well received for that matter).
Perhaps this will all be merely a regurgitation of my education, but I've already learned several things that most academic institutions either avoid or don't have the capacity to teach.
Some things just have to be self taught.
One thing recent history has taught us though is that the U.S. will probably be the greatest opponent of a global government, even though presidents Reagan, Bush (Sr.), Clinton, and Bush (Jr.) have sought to pursue what they call a Pax Americana which seeks to democratize the world. They have refused to ratify governing bodies to regulate trade, creating sensitive trade agreements instead, and they regularly undermine efforts of the UN when it would require the sharing or relinquishing of some power.
So this contradiction seems to indicate that they want the world to remain independant sovereign nations but they also want international cooperation through free trade and democracy. However, as long as nations remain independant and sovereign, trade will never be 'free' and democracy will never be a global reality.
One thing I don't consider myself is a supporter of the "Bush Agenda" for a "New World Order" - an idea which is generally interpreted to refer to a world dominated by the U.S. through diplomacy, imposed democracy, and (when all else fails or before anything else is attempted) "Shock and Awe". On the other hand, I don't think Dubya's evil for his efforts, just lacking the proper vision for peace.
In other words, I don't agree with the conspiracy theorists who claim the current Administration worked with Al Queda to orchestrate 9-11 in order to create an opportunity to establish stronger military rule at home. These people nit-pick over vague evidences based on straw man cases, and they fail to establish a valid argument based on prudence (at least nI've yet to see one). I really think that most of the problems are due to incompetence and the lack of proper objectives and strategies, vertical bureaucracy and red tape, no clear mission, and fear in the public mind, investors' minds, and the minds of political leaders.
To be fair (and a person who loves his home), with the current state of geopolitical instability in the world, it is a good thing that the US holds fast to its power. The question of the day is, how should the U.S. use that power? I am neither an opponent of war nor a proponent - actually I am both. There are times when war is necessary and other times when it is overkill (not necessary or the wrong objectives pursued too vigorously) and other times when it is underkill (mission incomplete or lacking support) and other times when it is pure blood sport. There are plenty of arguments on all partisan fronts that the current war is 'all of the above', so I'm not going to delve into my opinion on whether or not it is justified or right. This is not the debate I am waging.
I believe that a peaceful (stable) world cannot be obtained with this type of constant power struggle among nations. I believe that the only type of competition that should exist is in a regulated free market, not among nations themselves.
So, with that I first want to make a list of the issues I want to delve into further. If any of you have specific knowledge pertaining to any of these items please share and try to include sources along the way as I can use them in my research for the book.
1) Environmental protection - on the economic side of this I see the US and other heavily regulated nations who adhere to the Kyoto Protocol and other policies at a commercial disadvantage to countries like China and India which do not follow the clean air acts and operate their mines and plants at a discount since they don't have to implement the costly cleaning systems that the "clean" nations use.
Thus, a global government could enact an environmental protection agency which would provide oversight into all industries anywhere in the world. This would level the playing field as far as operating costs and it would greatly reduce water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and degradation of natural resources.
2) Human Rights - Currently there are roughly 3 billion people on the planet and I would guess only around 10-25% of them enjoy the freedoms of speech, suffrage, and religion that citizens of the "developed" world enjoy (I am trying to find a more accurate estimate so if you have one, please share it). Also, labor laws in poor countries are lax and corruption prevents national leaders from effectively cleaning up sweat shops and slavery. National sovereignty laws prevent the nations with the ability to regulate these issues from stepping in. Corporations have been pressured by aware consumers and they in turn have pressured the plants and sweat shops, but I see this as temporary and many countries or factories only clean up their act enough to avoid media attention.
For example, China is desperately trying to clean up its huge air pollution problem from its coal burning plants, but only to improve their public image for the Olympics. I find this disturbing on a deep level, because the entire Chinese government is only acting on national pride and not on what the environment and their own nation actually needs. It's completely hypocritical.
Poverty in countries like Africa are also subject to the failures of their governments while the rich nations try to help, but the red tape of sovereignty gums up the system and corruption prevents a large portion of aid from efficiently or ever reaching those to whom it is intended.
I read an article, I believe from CNN, which said large pharmaceutical companies have the resources to completely wipe out malaria and greatly reduce the AIDS epidemic which currently prevents poor African nations from developing. However, this would require a hefty philanthropic gift which would not be in the economic best interests of the companies and their stakeholders. But, if there was a global government which could police the corruption to ensure the dying receive the medicines they need, and a global tax, even a minimal one, could be used to build the infrastructure and health care system these nations need, the global poverty level would be greatly reduced and the overall wealth and health of all nation-states would benefit.
How would they all benefit? Well, if we could turn all of the poor refugees in Africa into an industrious workforce they would not only create goods and services, but they would also be a huge consumer market which is currently non existent due to the extreme disease and poverty. Plus, imagine how much intellectual talent is being wasted in those refugee camps. A global government could establish a global education system, the benefits of which need no explaining.
However, the socialist regime which is the teacher's union in the U.S. fails to reward great teachers and prevents many from performing at their best while it rewards mediocre and even terrible teachers by not firing them and giving them periodic raises based only on tenure and not on performance; thus, leaving us with one of the worst education systems in the world. I believe a global eduation system would require a lot more forethought and realistic application of a rewards system which makes the positon of teacher one of the most respected and well paid jobs on the planet.
3) Global Economy - Currently the world is made up of hundreds of nations which, except for a few exceptions which use, or are pegged to, the US Dollar or the Euro, each have their own currency and monetary policy. This creates huge risks for foreign investors as minor fluctuations in FX rates, political risk, and localized recessions can greatly disrupt a business.
The recent single day fall of all of the world's major stock markets which was spurred by the fall in Shanghai's financial market is enough indication that we are no longer a world of separate economies acting internationally, but a single global economy in which nations react to production and consumption, and each is intricately tied to each other. The idea of diversifying one's portfolio has new meaning now that we know that foreign markets are not separate entities with separate risks, but uniquely inter-dependant institutions in a single market with global risk implications.
Also, trade regulations, tariffs and embargos create imbalanced competition and hurt both the enacting nation and the outsiders subjected to their trade laws. Basic macroeconomic theory opposes any of these barriers to trade, but they still exist on a large scale. Recent changes in international commerce have reduced these barriers, while new threats in the past decade have put up new ones. For example, NAFTA, the EU, ASEA, CAFTA, Maquiladoras, Free-trade zones, and other trade agreements have reduced costs to international business. But new threats like terrorism have caused nations to heighten port security and intelligence efforts to protect their borders. This, along with geopolitical risk, has greatly increased the costs of trade, and for the first five years following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, these costs have completely negated the progress of the free trade efforts of the previous decades.
A global economy with a single monetary policy, a single central bank and regulating board could greatly reduce the risks and costs of international trade and put all nations on a level playing field. Couple with that the improvement of labor regulations and the protection of human and property rights and the field becomes even more congruous throughout the world.
The EU is a good case study for the pros and cons of uniting nations. According to one of my peers who calls himself Space Cadet, the EU began as a strictly economic solution for the region, but has recently developed political laws, yet still has many problems. Some might see this being compounded on a global scale as detrimental to civilization, but I think if nations approach this with a distinct mission to protect human rights, democracy, the environment, and trade it can work. Based on what I know and from some of Space Cadets comments, I don't believe the EU began with the appropriate mission or vision and they have struggled to define and enforce their laws while member nations reap huge benefits from the free trade amongst themselves. This is evidence that even a misguided effort at unity can produce huge success, but proper guidance and strategy is crucial if this were to be implemented on a global scale, on any scale for that matter.
All the trade agreements I listed are evidence that this is what the world wants, but many who fear, reject, or oppose this idea generally hold the notion that nationalism is a good thing. I see it as one of the most detrimental forces against human progression. It creates protectionism which hurts the economies of all affected parties. It encourages racism and prejudices which in no way uplifts or enlightens the soul and degrades the character of the oppressor while damaging the natural rights of the oppressed.
4) Global Tax and Social Programs - This is where the government will be truly tested. How well can it allocate the revenues it collects to best improve the overall well being of the world? Whether it be on infrastructure and utilities such as sewage, clean running water, electricity, roads, and telecommunications, or social programs such as public education, health care, unemployment, police, corrections, debt relief, etc. the funds need to go first and foremost to the areas of the world that have been most neglected. Once they are up to speed, the taxes can either be reduced or redirected to improve the social services throughout the world. Each existing nation would be a state with full representation in the central government and could levy additional taxes as their region needed and as the voting public approved.
As I said, this tax could be minimal. If it were only 0.5% of the household income throughout the developed world I imagine it would produce enough revenues to completely pull the poorest nations out of their poverty stricken and backsliding state. I'll have to do some analysis to get a good estimate, but I am confident that a sub-marginal tax rate at first would be more than sufficient to get the ball rolling in a quick and powerful way.
5) Technological Advances - Along with the idea that we have the means necessary to govern ourselves on a global scale, I want to compare our world today with past civilizations and empires to see what failed them in the past and what we can implement today. Basically, I believe that the great empires of the world - Rome, Egypt, Great Britain, France, China, even the US depending on whose perspective you're taking - each came close to dominating the world through military might. However, when they began stretching outside their own continent it became difficult to govern outlying colonies.
While the technical reasons are more complex, I believe they each eventually fell for two reasons 1) they did not have the technological means (travel, communications, weapons systems, medicine, local social welfare, etc.) to control their dominion for more than several decades. 2) They were imperialists trying to impose their government by force. This naturally leads to resistance so they constantly had to maintain a military presence which quickly got stretched too thin.
With today's technology and democracy, a global government can succeed where each of the great empires failed. I believe I share the concern that the US is currently starting to repeat some of the foibles which brought down past global powers. Diplomacy and democracy must be utilized on a much larger scale, both of which are much easier to do today with the technology we enjoy on this side of the digital divide.
6) Immigration, National Security, National Culture, Politics, etc. -
"Social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society" - Albert Einstein
This is where the debate gets complicated and the challenge of a global government seems like more of a threat than an opportunity. According to historic anthropological trends and Einstein's reasoning, if we established a strong central government and sovereignty were abolished, human behavior and culture would adopt the new organization of society as "good" or "normal'. The challenge is not the idea itself; the challenge is getting society to accept the idea. Once it is in place, the following generations would feel as strongly about the central government as we do about our national governments.
In the US the political climate over the past five years has grown to focus on issues such as homeland security and immigration. Many US citizens feel the burden of both whenever they try to travel by plane. Other countries like the UK have similar issues and Space Cadet's blog describes a personal experience which reflects the "police state" tendencies some of the world powers are adopting in order to "secure" their borders.
I personally feel that trying to find terrorists through the airport check system is like trying to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Currently, the focus is turning towards Iran who is attempting to launch satellites and move forward with its nuclear program. There is talk of the US possibly engaging Iran in the same manner as Iraq. I'm not going to discuss the technical politics around this just cause I've never liked politics, but I will express my frustration that the idea of national security is a sort of farce - well, at least the way it is currently being handled.
The US has tightened its borders and has clamped down on illegal immigrants either under the rationale that they are hunting for or preventing the entry of potential terrorists in the US. However, as 9-11 evidence has shown, US intelligence was well aware of the threats the day before and could have acted. They did not need these endless security checks at airports or INS crackdowns to find the guys. They only needed to take existing threats seriously. <>
Granted, the attacks have forced different agencies such as the CIA, FBI, FAA and others to be more cooperative and efficient in the way they handle serious threats, but Hurricane Katrina revealed another weakness in the system. So security and response is lacking and many strategies to plug holes seem more like bad PR efforts - mere placebos.
So what does all this have to do with a global government? Well, first of all I don't think a global government would suddenly be more capable to act any better or worse than the US in preventing attacks, but I do think the fundamental difference of how borders are perceived and treated will change a number of things which can make governments at the national and state level working in harmony under a single constitution more efficiently clamp down on terrorism around the world.
For one thing the economic issues I've highlighted would allow nations in poverty (the perfect environment for terrorist ideologies to breed) to rise out of poverty and improve the feelings of unstable regions as members of a global community. Second, if borders were no longer relevant the immigration problem would be instantly nullified - a non-issue. Also, with global trade, labor, resources and human rights regulated, the economic conditions would be more balanced and people who would be emigrating from a poor country would return home as their regions would become the fastest growing economies and their efforts to prosper would be rewarded. Huge amounts of capital would follow these people and international investors would be huge beneficiaries. Plus, with corporations more free to enter markets, but more obligated to act ethically, competition would occur in the only arena it should: in the market and not among governments.
As national intelligence became global intelligence, it would be easier to find and prevent threats and the lack of sovereignty would allow defense forces to enter regions which are currently "no-fly zones". If U.S. and Iranian forces became allies and friends and the global government allowed the desired satellites to provide the communications infrastructure Iran is attempting to improve, then the threat of nuclear war could be greatly reduced. Nuclear proliferation is another concern of a global government. Who, if anyone, would hold nukes and who could gain access to them? This is a question I think I will leave alone for now, but an important one so please, share your thoughts on it.
As far as national culture, I believe many of US citizens would fear that rights such as the right to bear arms would be removed, or simpler things like the way we treat sports like Futbol and Football (not the one that actually utilizes feet) might be at risk. Patriotism and holidays like the 4th of July are big parts of US culture while the Queen and tea are big parts of GB culture, and tea ceremonies and deference to seniority are major elements of Japanese culture.
First of all, I don't think these elements of culture will change much if at all. However, Japan has always been a "closed" society. Even though I lived there for two years and learned the language, I will always be an outsider. If I raised children there and they remained for generations (something that is very difficult to do with current Japanese immigration laws) my posterity would still be considered outsiders. How would the Japanese feel about their country suddenly required to be an open society?
Well, I think those technical details will have to be hammered out through long debates among countries, but I really feel that most things won't change much and such huge "cultural" sacrifices won't have to be made. As I mentioned previously, this global government would only be a higher (preferably multi-lateral and flat) level of government wherein nation-states would be able to maintain many elements of tradition, culture, and law, but the elements I have listed which supersede culture (environment, natural rights, trade, etc.) would be protected and balanced throughout the world. If anything, the barriers of language and culture could more quickly be overcome and understanding and diplomacy would be easier, more efficient, and more accurate.
So those are some of my issues. If you have any comments on the ones I've listed or if you have any ideas for some issues I might have missed, please, by all means share your thoughts and try to include sources so I can verify any findings. Please, read on and welcome to my debate for global unification.....
"...the French had rejected the EU Constitution because they had "the impression that Europe was not protecting them anymore" and was making them "not actors but victims of globalisation"."
The above quote came from and couldn't be a more misguided view by the French. Unfortunately (fortunately) we are all victims (beneficiaries) of globalization. We are also all actors. So the French have rejected progression because they have failed to realize their own position and value in the world. This debate is going to be long and tough as long as whole nations lack any confidence or self esteem.
I cut and pasted the following from an email I sent to one of my readers. The first part in Italics was his comments in response to my first blog. What follows is my response. He'll remain anonymous in this posting, but if you are the author and are reading this please repost it as a comment so other readers don't think I'm making up dialogue.
I read the synopsis you had written up this blog, I have thought similar ideas before, as far as a global democracy or even a well maintained oligarchy so as to bring about world peace and hopefully a stable economy. However when thinking of the negative drawback of just the processes of achieving such an organization would be difficult, cause cultural confusion, and get anyone in a comfortable government position to put at risk their position for the world's sake. Of coarse there are many other issues entailed. Now, I am only a 22yr. old college soph. majoring in Psychology, so I'm by no means an expert opinion when it comes to anything. I just have an opinion. Anyway, good topic for a book. Also there is a good book about globalization called "The World is Flat" I can't remember the author presently. Its an interesting read. One last observation is that in my opinion globalization has been a long time coming from the start of the Columbian exchange before colonial times.
Actually, "the World Is Flat", by Thomas Friedman, was one of my inspirations. Another is "Globalization, A Very Brief Introduction" by Manfred Steger. I'm a recent college graduate and I studied international business so I feel my education will give me some credibility in promoting my book. By the time I publish the book I should have an MBA in Economics. Don't know if I want to go as far as a PhD, but we'll save that thought for later. I might try publishing brief articles about my ideas in the mean time.
I agree that there are some huge challenges in creating a global government. For one, it would require the US and other developed nations sharing their power with other nations and allowing other nations to have a closer look inside the workings of each government. However, that is one of the most important parts of making this work. Complete cooperation and knowledge sharing among civilized society is the key. The other key ingredient is ensuring that this government contains all of the human rights protections and that the judicial branch is powerful and efficient enough to ensure that human rights are protected. I think there are a couple of roads we can take to achieving that goal. One possible road is if the UN member nations or the G8 nations started talking about uniting and sharing power. However, if only the developed nations discuss this it will leave the interests of the undeveloped nations behind. There needs to be a forum in which all leaders, even the "harsh dictators", can speak about their country's needs without harassment. Each nation would still have significant powers to exercise locally, but the global government would have the power to enforce equal treatment, due process of law, labor and environmental regulations among other issues which require a single governing body. Sensitive local cultural issues would have to be considered, but with the way globalization is going, these issues are of less importance than the problems facing millions of poor people around the world. Besides, nationalistic pride only invokes racism, prejudice and ethnocentrism and is rarely beneficial to anyone (unless the feeling of pride itself is considered a benefit).For example, the AIDS epidemic in Africa could be controlled and almost completely wiped out with the resources available to the huge pharmaceutical companies; however, this is not economically viable for the companies, and the nations in which the companies operate are willing and able to avoid direct responsibility for these poor countries. Everybody talks about helping, but nobody wants to be accountable. If there was a governing body like a global health care system then the office accountable would exist and person in office and the corresponding board or agency would not only be required to improve health conditions, but the government and global defense force could ensure that the proper resources and funds got to where they need to be. Currently, donated resources are often getting into the hands of corrupt leaders of the country and because of sovereignty laws and constant fighting they are generally unable to interfere. The UN and UNICEF are starts, but they are not powerful enough, just like the Articles of Confederation were insufficient for the U.S. A strong central government with power over individual nations is vital. Right now the UN struggles to compete for power with the US and EU. Both of the latter are perfect case studies for how successful global unity could be. A global market economy is already pretty much in place. Many of the necessary elements of global unity are in place, we mainly just need all nations' leaders to talk and decide how to implement the united government. The main reason national boundaries exist is because in the past insufficient technology prevented a single government from stretching too far outside of a single continent. The US, Australia, w:st="on" New Zealand are perfect examples. They were too far away for the King or Queen of England to exercise total power for very long. However, with today's technology geographical limitations are virtually null and void. Anyways, those are some more of the thoughts. For the most part people agree that my idea is a good one, but doubt whether it could be implemented in our grandchildren's lifetime. I tend to feel that this is possible in my lifetime (perhaps within the next 40 year) but I think it will take an additional 40 years to truly reap all of the benefits and for the global public to fully accept the change and agree that it works.
So, for those of you who would rather go about your day and let someone else worry about it, at least enjoy the debate and let me know what you think. For those of you, who hope to be a part of this change, welcome and I am anxious to hear your thoughts. Thanks for your interest, and as they say in Japan to welcome and be welcomed "douzo yoroshiku onegaishimasu"....

ACP/RD's Manifesto

ACP/RD's manifesto (short version)
1) Braking of the taboo on the S.I.S.U.L. (Sinners' Intercontinental Secret Unspoken Language [the ACP/RD's NEW-saints, will >redefine< what sin is!!]), forming the ACP/RD's Worlds' Government (already including Venus & Mars) of the P.R.G. (People's Republic of the Globes), and taking control of the worlds' armies & police forces (secret services included, which won't be secret, anymore, of course!! True glasnost!!) True freedom and worlds' peace, at last!!
2) Total loving and caring reciprocal control through web-(grid, or whatever will follow)cams: no more crime and protection of the little children from being forced into something they don't want!! (If they want it, then ok, but it's them the ones who will choose, there will be no forcing, anymore! ......Privacy never existed, anyway! [The only allowed {physically-} 'private' thing {visual-control allowed, of course!...}, will be the couples' intimate contacts...... {purity and faithfulness will be promoted!!!}]) Free basic health-foods, free basic clothing, free basic shelter, free communication & transportation, and free education!! New monetary system of non-saveable points, against unsocial piling up of money or goods!! 4000 points/month for every single person on the globes (no matter how much responsability is being carried from an individual: be the president of the ACP/RD' Global Government, or someone with minimal responsabilities; true equality of income: true social justice!!), from conception until leaving of the physical dimension (what remains at the end of the month, will automatically return to the global bank); at first for 4 hrs/day (for study and work), for 4 days/week, and 4 months/year of payed vacations, and equal (non-mandatory) pension at age 40; this until the robots will work for us; then our job will consist of being good citizen of the universe!! We'll all be registered users (no private property!), and that means: everything will belong to everybody, including all goods on the planets!! We'll be all rich beyond our dreams!!
3) We're all going to eat NEW kosher or TRUE karma-free!! Thanks to the matter copy-machines (kept secret by the previous criminal capital-imperialistic system), we're all able to nourish ourselves without violence!! (No more slaughter-houses, no plants-killings!! We'll have a full new relation with all creatures, and with nature in its whole!! [No more polluting and oxigen-burning internal-combustion engines, factories and energy-producing plants!! It's us who need the oxigen, to breathe!]) No more illnesses thanks to the medical de- and reintegrating cabins (kept secret by the previous murderous capital-imperialistic system!) Planetary travel at the speed of photons, travel to the Moon's bases at tachyons' speed, and to Venus & Mars, at mnemons' speed, thanks to the travel cabins!! (Kept secret by the former satanic capital-imperialistic system!)
4) Thanks to the always higher purity levels of the new generations, the global population will be able to see (individually), in a very special Dream (REVELATION) our BIG LADY-COMRAD IN HEAVEN, our

*H*E*A*V*E*N*L*Y* *M*O*T*H*E*R*, *T*H*E*

*_S_*_U_*_P_*_R_*_E_*_M_*_E_* *_E_*_N_*_T_*_I_*_T_*_Y_*

*W*H*O*'S* *B*O*U*N*D*L*E*S*S* *L*I*G*H*T* *O*F* *L*O*V*E*; *T*H*E* *O*N*E* *W*H*O* *C*R*E*A*T*E*D* *T*H*E* *E*X*I*S*T*I*N*G*!!!!!!!!!!

A Declaration of the Value of Global Government

WE hold these truths to be self-evident,

— that the world can be made a better place through the evolution of consciousness and culture,
— that we each have a responsibility of care and compassion for others and for the natural and cultural environments in which we live,
— that in order to fulfill these responsibilities and to secure the blessings of world peace, justice, and prosperity, it is necessary to institute a new form of global governance deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed,

WE, the free citizens of planet earth, thus affirm the need for a system of global governance founded on the values of integral consciousness, which include:

The value of the universal family of humanity; The value of individual freedom and personal autonomy;

The values of decency, honesty, and respect for traditions;

The values of progress, prosperity, and economic development;

The values of multiculturalism, environmentalism, and egalitarianism;

The value of the channel of evolution as a whole -- the system through which individuals and societies develop.

WE, the undersigned, therefore solemnly publish and declare our intent to worktoward the establishment of a limited, democratic, federal, integral world government; so that through this organization, we can begin to solve the globalproblems of war, hunger, poverty, disease, injustice, terrorism, environmentaldegradation, unfettered corporate globalization, ignorance, and despair.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Jun Salvador in a Ritual with the Reigning Leader of the Dulay Clan of Marikina Valley

Jun Salvador, a senior citizen former Marikina policeman and a scion of the Salvador political clan that produced Congressman Serafin Salvador has long been fascinated with the pre - hispanic kingdom of Lakan Dula. His long search led him to many places, and books, discussion groups and endless nights in the internet. Then, one day, he encountered an internet article that mentions the Dulay Clan of Marikina Valley. That internet article, according to him, says that the Dulay Clan of Marikina Valley came from David Dula y Goiti, a direct descendant of Lakan Dula from Tondo. The article said the present head of the clan is a 5th generation reign of successions of the eldest sons starting from Petre, Doroteo, Elpidio, Ceferino, Sofronio I and Sofronio II. Ceferino, direct from Tondo, decided to settle in MarikinaValley, afterall, Marikina Valley is part of the Kingdom of Lakan Dula.

Jun searched for the address and telephone number of Sofronio I, the current and the 5th generation clan leader, he found it, and they talked over the phone. He visited the residence of the leader – an old Hispanic house near the papal canonized Our Lady of the Abandoned (OLA) Church within neighborhood of the Shoe Museum (formerly Spanish jail) and International Red Cross Office, along the street formerly called Daang Kalabaw which was later on named Callejon and later renamed I. Mendoza, but the leader was in a business meeting. One Sunday morning, Jun went again to that old house and he spotted a tall man with a high cheekbone, a “bigote” and a slightly protruding forehead, standing along the grapes and millionaire’s vines beneath a pine tree that grow abundantly outside of the old Hispanic house few blocks away above the bank of Marikina river that has been converted into Butiki Park and Women’s Park.

“Are you Professor Dulay?” Jun asked the man. ”Yes, what can I do for you” replied the visibly surprised leader. After a short introduction, Jun was welcomed into the Hispanic house and the two exchanged stories over orange juice and cookies.

“May I call you Lakan?” said Jun to the clan leader. “Ok lang”, said the leader, “after all, you reminded me of an old friend of our clan Abdullah Santos from Parang who often tells me that I should love the Muslims because Lakan Dula is a Muslim,”

Jun proposed the creation of Marikina Geological Society and the planting of bamboo along the river bank because it is part of the folklore of the Tagalogs (Taga-Ilog) of the past. Incidentally, the clan leader is a supporter of congressional candidate Marcy Teodoro who was his schoolmate in MSAT and in UP Diliman. Jun turned out to be a former staff of Marcy’s father, Amado, in the Bureau of Fisheries. He knows lots of stories about the Teodoro family.

The clan leader and Jun walked near the Butiki Park beside the river, few houses away from the old Hispanic house. Jun said, “Lakan, I know that the descendants of Lakan Dula in Marikina settled over there”, pointing to a spot in the ibayo, at the opposite side of the river. “Yes, according to local historian Servando de los Angeles. My lolo also told me that,” said the leader. The De los Angeles is a descendant of Don Emiliano Guevara, the founder of the shoe industry in Markina. One of the ladies of the Guevaras is married to Mike Defensor who is currently running for the Philippine senate. The root of the Guevara clan is from Quiapo while the Dulay Clan is from Tondo, both in Manila, before they settled in Marikina. Ceferino retired as a “Katiwala” of Don Francisco Cacho, a Spaniard that developed Concepcion Dos, Marikina Heights, and part of Parang as well as Concepcion Uno in partnership with the Tuazons who owned Hacienda Marikina. Sofronio I, eldest son and legal heir of Ceferino, worked as an executive of a century old Swiss - owned cigar manufacturing company Alhambra Industries, Inc. based in Pritil, Tondo, Manila before he was encouraged by his friend Sergio Montinola to teach at the Far Eastern University in downtown Manila. The clan leader is a Director of the Asian Institute of Management Alumni Association (AAAIM). Sofronio II, the future clan leader and only son of Sofronio I is an honor high school student of Marist School, an exclusive Roman Catholic school for boys based in Marikina Heights and is serving as a Sacristan of OLA Church as part of traditional conservative upbringing as the 6th generation future clan leader. Former Mayor and now MMDA Chairman Bayani Fernando and former AFP Chief of Staff Generoso Senga also served as Sacristans of OLA Church when they were kids.

Jun said that the descendants of Lakan Dula in Marikina built the first Catholic Church in the city, recently discovered in barangay Jesus de la Pena. They were also responsible in relocating the church into a bigger place now called Our Lady of the Abandoned (OLA) Church. No wonder, the house of Don Emiliano Guevara and Ceferino Dulay are both found near the vicinity of the Church. Ceferino was even buried in the upper chamber of a secretive old Roman Catholic Chapel found in small cemetery at the back of OLA Church.

The clan leader said that he can feel that the Guevaras in Marikina are also descendants of Lakan Dula, aside from the fact that his father told him so. He also told Jun that, “You may not know it by now, but I can feel that you are also a descendant of Lakan Dula. The fact that you are continuously seeking for it is a living proof that there is in your blood a surge that tells you to look for your root. The test of Lakan Dula ancestry is in the feeling; it is not in the name or membership I.D. card. This is the main reason why our clan prohibits recruitment of clan members. Membership in our clan is based on bloodline, marriage or a surge of mysterious affinity or feeling like what you have shown.” The leader said that his father told him that there are lots of missing Lakan Dula descendants all over the country who adopted other surnames because of Hispanic prosecution or intermarriages. They should be found and put back into the lineage. The clan leader and Jun went back to the old house. The leader asked Jun to hold one of the a 16th century antique plates located at the top of an antique black piano. The plates were part of the household of David Dula y Goiti that was handed down from the series of generational successions of eldest sons and leaders of the Dulay Clan down to the present. A couple of similar plates are displayed at the University of Sto. Tomas (UST)Museum. UST is pontifical university. The plates dates back from 16th century and was uncovered in Pandacan, Manila.“By holding that”, the leader said, “it is as if you have dined with your ancestors at this moment”

And so… the clan ritual of going – back – to – his - ancestral - root has been performed peacefully by Jun through the reigning clan leader whom he called Lakan.

Friday, April 20, 2007

The Globalist Manifesto Party Needs to Support UN's Global Governance Efforts

Over the last decade, the United Nations has unabashedly been reinventing itself into a global government, striving to obtain the legal teeth and financial resources to implement its policies. Government reinvention is frequently an effort to avoid the consequences of failed policies in the past, or to justify a government's continued expansion by posing solutions to the problems it has created.
Historically, government never downsizes voluntarily; it always increases its power and minimizes accountability to its citizens. This is one reason bloody and non-bloody revolutions have been fought throughout history. In 1995, the United Nations Commission on Global Governance published a report entitled, Our Global Neighborhood, 1 which called for a World Conference on Global Governance, to have been originally held in 1998 but which never materialized. The Commission made a number of eye-opening recommendations for changes to the United Nations, including:2
o A system of global taxation;o A standing U.N. army;o A Court of Criminal Justice;o Expanded authority for the Secretary General;o An Economic Security Council;o U.N. authority over the global commons (especially the oceans and all areas of sovereign territories that influence the oceans);o An end to the veto power of permanent Security Council members;o A new parliamentary body of "civil society" representatives (NGOs).3
The report denied it was supporting "global government," preferring the term "global governance," but its contents reveal all elements required for a genuine government. Besides, a little reflection yields the following question: How can one have global "governance" without global "government"?
It has been argued that the Commission was not an official body of the U.N. "It was, however, endorsed by the U.N. Secretary General and funded through two trust funds of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), nine national governments, and several foundations, including the MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation."4
The foundations involved have been promoting globalism and socialism for years. Although no conference was ever held, implementation of the Commission's recommendations are well under way. Members of the Globalist Manifesto Party are in contact with this agency.
Global taxation, such as the proposed Tobin tax, will free the U.N. from relying on members' dues for financial income. A U.N. standing army, once made possible by global taxation, will establish the U.N. as a military power in its own right, not dependant on the armed forces of member countries.
The dream of an international court of criminal justice was accomplished two years ago in July of 1998 (in Rome) when the International Criminal Court was created. The court claims jurisdiction over all countries of the world, even those which do not ratify the implementation treaty. The Court believes its verdicts to be binding on all countries.
Expanded authority for the Secretary General will convert him to a global prime minister. The economic security council will manage international finances. Regulation of global trade is already under way through another nongovernmental organization, the World Trade Organization (WTO) via the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
Note that GATT was in reality a treaty, which should have been ratified by the U.S. Senate. However, public outcry would likely have prevented ratification so calling it an "agreement" executed an end-run on that necessity.
Eliminating the veto power of permanent Security Council members (the U.S., Great Britain, Russia, China, etc.) creates equity; thereafter it's one nation, one vote and no vetoes if you don't like the outcome of world opinion.
The Millennium Assembly: Formation of a World Parliament
The next big item on the U.N. agenda is a new parliamentary body of "civil society" representatives scheduled this September when the U.N. People's Millennium Assembly begins. The Assembly's purpose is to create a global parliament.
On May 25, 2000, a preliminary workshop on the forum was held, featuring Dr. Andrew Strauss, currently involved in hammering out the structure of the "people's parliament," along with Jim Garrison, President of the Gorbachev Foundation in San Francisco, California. In an interview with Joan Veon, Dr. Strauss said:
...we could think of this meeting symbolically, where civil society has been officially called in to have this meeting at the U.N. as the end of the "old paradigm." And what is the old paradigm of sovereignty? It says "citizens, if they are going to be represented at the international level, are going to be represented through their states"...I think perhaps if the very meaning is about anything, it is about the end of that order; that citizens want to be directly represented at the international order; that the old idea of sovereignty of politics for citizens within or between states is over. That leaves us with a very big question which we are far from resolving, and that is how citizens should be represented.5
According to Dr. Strauss, the old idea of national sovereignty is out. Local lawmaking bodies will be bypassed. The new parliament will begin as an advisory body, but the ultimate goal is to convert it into a global lawmaking body. Currently it is uncertain how members of the world body will be elected. Several proposals have been placed on the table:
o Establishing some kind of consultative assembly of parliamentarians to which parliaments all over the world would appoint representatives.
o Creating a consultative assembly consisting of nonelected NGO organizations, which already provide input to the U.N. major conferences.
o An assembly directly elected by all the people of the world.
o Direct democracy by way of the Internet, so that any "world citizen" could vote on any items they could so choose at any time.6 This would probably be an electronic form of the ancient Greek "mobocracy."
Global Government Rising
The issues driving the "need" for the global government are often genuine or over-hyped issues such as environment, war, children's issues, weapons of mass destruction, genocide, justice and equity, et al. However genuine the problems, 20th century history teaches that evil frequently rides on the back of a white horse: the solution to a real problem that becomes far worse and abusive than the original problem ever was.
Global government has been a long time in coming, supported by a wide panoply of luminaries over the years. Our Global Neighborhood said the surrender of sovereignty is "a principle that will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation." 7
Sixty years ago, famed globalist H.G. Wells in his book, The New World Order, put it another way: "Countless people...will hate the New World Order [his words]...and will die protesting against it...we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents..." 8 Bottom line: globalists recognize that the new order will have to be shoved down a lot of people's throats whether they like it or not.
According to Henry Lamb of EcoLogic, "the foundation of global governance is a set of core values, a belief system, which contains ideas that are foreign to the American experience and ignores other values and ideas that are precious to the American experience. The values and ideas articulated in the Commission's report are not new. They have been tried, under different names, in other societies. Often, the consequences have been devastating."9
These values, which we would label socialist at best and Marxist at worst, have consistently appeared in U.N. documents since the late 1980s. Appearing with repackaged names, they have dominated all international conferences, agreements, and treaties. Marxist transfer-of-wealth schemes, the demonization of capitalism, enforced equity among peoples, etc. are all part and parcel of the new globalist rhetoric. As global government is locked into place, people should understand that the legal safeguards against government abuse do not exist at the international level nor are there plans to create them. The political bent of the U.N. has always been toward socialist ideology and the concept that government is all good, all knowing. The rights enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights - property and financial rights, freedom of speech and religion, the right to bear arms against invaders and abusive government, protection against double jeopardy, trial by a jury of one's peers, right to petition for redress of grievances, et al. - do not exist in the same form at the U.N. level. Where the U.N. appears to guarantee rights, there are often "weasel words," which allow the so-called rights to be set aside at the will of government. As always, the devil is in the details - literally.
Article 19, Paragraph 1 and 2 of the U.N.'s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."10
So far, everything sounds good. But read Paragraph 3:
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in Paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals."11
So the right to freedom of speech can be limited any time a state believes it to be in its own best interests or to protect its own corrupt politicians. The "weasel words" of Paragraph 3 destroy the guarantees of Paragraphs 1 and 2.
Another example: The U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) lays out what seems to be a wonderful series of rights, similar to the U.S. Bill of Rights. Article 18 of the UDHR upholds "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion...." Article 19 affirms "the right to freedom of opinion and expression...and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Sounds great! But then Article 29 states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, these "rights" or "freedoms" don't apply to politically incorrect people who refuse to conform to U.N. policies. What is the purpose of freedom of speech if not to openly discuss and critique government? According to U.N. ideology, that won't be tolerated. The U.N. has a track record of showing zero tolerance toward those who oppose its goals.
Americans, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders are unaware of how radical the internationalist agendas really are, and how they are filtering through each of their governments with the full cooperation of many in them. Implementation is slow but inexorable everywhere. Some are becoming aware that something is going amiss, but few have a clue as to the origin of the changes that will shortly affect their lives and religious belief systems.
The entire push to globalism has tremendous significance for Christians for several reasons. First, we are witnessing the formation of what the Bible predicted 2,000 years ago: a (somewhat) unified universal political, financial and religious system. Christians note that the new global paradigm has a moral and religious component that will not tolerate opposition or dissent by religious factions that do not agree with it!
Let's say it again: the new globalism will not leave the Christian church alone. It will use legal and other pressures to co-opt, coerce, or eliminate religious groups to force them into conformity to the new ideals or go out of business. Unlike secular humanism, the new global pantheistic socialism will not leave the church alone! No clearer warning can be sounded as to the dangers to faith on the road ahead.
Thus our closing caveat: no matter how slow the implementation-given the current course-when the changes are all done, they will be binding on all by artifice of law, international treaty and internal regulation conforming to the dictates of the United Nations, against which citizens of the world will have little established methods of recourse or redress.
* * *

For more information on United Nations policies and how they will affect us, we recommend the following sites:,, and