CASE 486 - The road to the new world order (part 2)

The common theme about a New World Order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government—which will replace sovereign nation-states—and an all-encompassing propaganda whose ideology hails the establishment of the New World Order as the culmination of history's progress. Many influential historical and contemporary figures have therefore been purported to be part of a cabal that operates through many front organizations to orchestrate significant political and financial events, ranging from causing systemic crises to pushing through controversial policies, at both national and international levels, as steps in an ongoing plot to achieve world domination. Before the early 1990s, New World Order conspiracism was limited to two American countercultures, primarily the militantly anti-government right and secondarily that part of fundamentalist Christianity concerned with the end-time emergence of the Antichrist. Skeptics such as Michael Barkun and Chip Berlet observed that right-wing populist conspiracy theories about a New World Order had not only been embraced by many seekers of stigmatized knowledge but had seeped into popular culture, thereby inaugurating a period during the late 20th and early 21st centuries in the United States where people are actively preparing for apocalyptic millenarian scenarios. Those political scientists are concerned that mass hysteria over New World Order conspiracy theories could eventually have devastating effects on American political life, ranging from escalating lone-wolf terrorism to the rise to power of authoritarian ultranationalist demagogues.

speculators of the New World Order claim it is being implemented gradually, citing the formation of the U.S. Federal Reserve System in 1913; the League of Nations in 1919; the International Monetary Fund in 1944; the United Nations in 1945; the World Bank in 1945; the World Health Organization in 1948; the European Union and the euro currency in 1993; the World Trade Organization in 1998; the African Union in 2002; and the Union of South American Nations in 2008 as major milestones. An increasingly popular conspiracy theory among American right-wing populists is that the hypothetical North American Union and the amero currency, proposed by the Council on Foreign Relations and its counterparts in Mexico and Canada, will be the next milestone in the implementation of the New World Order. The theory holds that a group of shadowy and mostly nameless international elites are planning to replace the federal government of the United States with a transnational government. Therefore, conspiracy theorists believe the borders between Mexico, Canada and the United States are in the process of being erased, covertly, by a group of globalists whose ultimate goal is to replace national governments in Washington, D.C., Ottawa and Mexico City with a European-style political union and a bloated E.U.-style bureaucracy. Skeptics argue that the North American Union exists only as a proposal contained in one of a thousand academic and policy papers published each year that advocate all manner of idealistic but ultimately unrealistic approaches to social, economic and political problems. Most of these are passed around in their own circles and eventually filed away and forgotten by junior staffers in congressional offices. Some of these papers, however, become touchstones for the conspiracy-minded and form the basis of all kinds of unfounded xenophobic fears especially during times of economic anxiety. For example, in March 2009, as a result of the late-2000s financial crisis, the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation pressed for urgent consideration of a new international reserve currency and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development proposed greatly expanding the I.M.F.'s special drawing rights. Conspiracy theorists fear these proposals are a call for the U.S. to adopt a single global currency for a New World Order. Judging that both national governments and global institutions have proven ineffective in addressing worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve, some political scientists critical of New World Order conspiracism, such as Mark C. Partridge, argue that regionalism will be the major force in the coming decades, pockets of power around regional centers: Western Europe around Brussels, the Western Hemisphere around Washington, D.C., East Asia around Beijing, and Eastern Europe around Moscow. As such, the E.U., the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and the G-20 will likely become more influential as time progresses. The question then is not whether global governance is gradually emerging, but rather how will these regional powers interact with one another. Please have a read through all of the Cases below which feature on the New world order map above:

CASE 1, The European Union,
CASE 183, The North American Union,
CASE 218, The South American Union,
CASE 224, The African Union,
CASE 238, The Austral-Asian Pacific Union
CASE 235 - The Continental Superstates again, with updates, improvements and changes
CASE 159 - Who controls the world...?
CASE 106 - The Sovereign Military Order of Malta
CASE 061 - The world bank & The International Monetary Fund
CASE 041 - The Fabien society
CASE 025 - The bilderberg group
CASE 013 - The United nations
CASE 012 - THE EMPIRE OF "THE CITY"
CASE 079 - council on foreign relations
CASE 077 - Club of rome
CASE 096 - The illuminati
CASE 070 - The new world order
CASE 068 - Royal institute of international affairs
CASE 125 - The Commonwealth of Nations
CASE 210 - Central banks
CASE 219 - The Bank for International Settlements
CASE 222 - World Trade organization
CASE 277 - Federal reserve
CASE 352 - World petroleum council
CASE 354 - World currency
CASE 357 - Union state
CASE 358 - One world government
CASE 373 - NATO vs SCO
CASE 404 - The vatican
CASE 446 - TTIP, TPP, APEC & SAARC
CASE 447 - The CIA
CASE 449 - British intelligence and secret services
CASE 485 - Eurasian Union

CASE 485 - Eurasian union

The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is an economic union of states located in central and northern Asia and Eastern Europe. The Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union was signed on 29 May 2014 by the leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, and came into force on 1 January 2015.Treaties aiming for Armenia's and Kyrgyzstan's accession to the Eurasian Economic Union were signed on 9 October and 23 December 2014, respectively. Armenia's accession treaty came into force on 2 January 2015. Kyrgyzstan's accession treaty came into effect on 6 August 2015. It participated in the EAEU from the day of its establishment as an acceding state.

The Eurasian Economic Union has an integrated single market of 183 million people and a gross domestic product of over 4 trillion U.S. dollars (PPP).[10] The EAEU introduces the free movement of goods, capital, services and people and provides for common policies in the macroeconomic sphere, transport, industry and agriculture, energy, foreign trade and investment, customs, technical regulation, competition and antitrust regulation. Provisions for a single currency and greater integration are envisioned in future. The union operates through supranational and intergovernmental institutions. The Supreme Eurasian Economic Council is the supreme body of the Union, consisting of the Heads of the Member States. The second level of intergovernmental institutions is represented by the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council (consisting of the Heads of the governments of member states). The day-to-day work of the EAEU is done through the Eurasian Economic Commission, the executive body of the Union. There is also a judicial body – the Court of the EAEU

Founding treaties (1990s) Meeting of the leaders of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in Bishkek, 2008. The CIS initiated the lengthy process of Eurasian integration.During the 1990s, the Eurasian integration process was slow, possibly due to the economic crisis experienced after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the size of the countries involved (Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan cover an area of about 20 million km²). As a result, numerous treaties have been signed by member states to establish the regional trading bloc gradually.In 1995, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and later acceding states Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan signed the first agreements on the establishment of a Customs Union. Its purpose was to gradually lead the way toward the creation of open borders without passport controls between member states. In 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Kyrgyzstan signed the Treaty on Increased Integration in the Economic and Humanitarian Fields to begin economic integration between countries to allow for the creation of common markets for goods, services, capital, labour, and developing single transport, energy and information systems. In 1999, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan signed the Treaty on the Customs Union and the Single Economic Space by clarifying the goals and policies the states would undertake in order to form the Eurasian Customs Union and the Single Economic Space.



Eurasian Economic Community (2000–2014) Main article: Eurasian Economic Community

To promote further economic integration and more cooperation, in 2000 Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan established the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) which Uzbekistan joined in 2006. The treaty established a common market for its member states. The Eurasian Economic Community was modelled on the European Economic Community. The two had a comparable population size of 171 million and 169 million, respectively. A Treaty on a Single Economic Space by Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine was signed in 2003 and ratified in 2004, but the process was stalled after the Orange revolution. In 2007, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia signed an agreement to create a Customs Union between the three countries. Establishing the customs union and single market (2010–2014) Main articles: Eurasian Customs Union and Eurasian Economic Space A session of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council (composed of the union's heads of state) is held at least once every year.

The Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia (now the Eurasian Customs Union) came into existence on 1 January 2010. The Customs Union's priorities were the elimination of intra-bloc tariffs, establishing a common external tariff policy and the elimination of non-tariff barriers. It was launched as a first step towards forming a broader single market inspired by the European Union, with the objective of forming an alliance between former Soviet states. The member states planned to continue with economic integration and were set to remove all customs borders between each other after July 2011. On January 1, 2012, the three states established the Eurasian Economic Space which ensures the effective functioning of a single market for goods, services, capital and labour, and to establish coherent industrial, transport, energy and agricultural policies. The agreement included a roadmap for future integration and established the Eurasian Economic Commission (modelled on the European Commission). The Eurasian Economic Commission serves as the regulatory agency for the Eurasian Customs Union, the Single Economic Space and the Eurasian Economic Union.

Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union

File:The signing ceremony of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union.webmPlay media The signing ceremony of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union (in Astana, Kazakhstan, on 29 May 2014) In 2011, the then-Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin, announced his support for Nursultan Nazarbayev's idea for the creation of a Eurasian Economic Union. On 18 November 2011, the presidents of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia signed an agreement setting a target of establishing the Eurasian Economic Union by 2015. The member states put together a joint commission on fostering closer economic ties. On 29 May 2014, the presidents of Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia signed the treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union, which came into effect on 1 January 2015. The presidents of Armenia and Kyrgyzstan were also present at the signing ceremony. Russian president Vladimir Putin stated, "Today we have created a powerful, attractive centre of economic development, a big regional market that unites more than 170 million people"."Kazakh politicians emphasized the Eurasian Economic Union was not intended to be a political bloc, but a purely economic union. Bakytzhan Sagintayev, the first deputy prime minister of Kazakhstan and lead negotiator, said, "We are not creating a political organisation; we are forming a purely economic union." He further stated "it is a pragmatic means to get benefits. We don't meddle into what Russia is doing politically, and they cannot tell us what foreign policy to pursue."By October, the treaty had received parliamentary approval from all three states. On 9 October 2014, a Treaty to enlarge the EEU to Armenia was signed. Kyrgyzstan signed the Treaty on 23 December 2014 and became a member of the Eurasian Union on 6 August 2015.

CASE 484 - The history of Thailand

The Kingdom of Thailand and formerly known as Siam (Thai: สยาม), is a country at the center of the Southeast Asian Indochinese peninsula composed of 76 provinces. At 513,120 km2 (198,120 sq mi) and over 68 million people, Thailand is the world's 50th largest country by total area and the 21st-most-populous country. The capital and largest city is Bangkok, a special administrative area. Thailand is bordered to the north by Myanmar and Laos, to the east by Laos and Cambodia, to the south by the Gulf of Thailand and Malaysia, and to the west by the Andaman Sea and the southern extremity of Myanmar. Its maritime boundaries include Vietnam in the Gulf of Thailand to the southeast, and Indonesia and India on the Andaman Sea to the southwest. Although nominally a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, the most recent coup in 2014 established a de facto military dictatorship. Tai peoples migrated from southwestern China to mainland Southeast Asia from the 11th century; the oldest known mention of their presence in the region by the exonym Siamese dates to the 12th century. Various Indianised kingdoms such as the Mon, the Khmer Empire and Malay states ruled the region, competing with Thai states such as Ngoenyang, the Sukhothai Kingdom, Lan Na and the Ayutthaya Kingdom, which rivaled each other. European contact began in 1511 with a Portuguese diplomatic mission to Ayutthaya, one of the great powers in the region. Ayutthaya reached its peak during cosmopolitan Narai's reign (1656–88), gradually declining thereafter until being ultimately destroyed in 1767 in a war with Burma. Taksin quickly reunified the fragmented territory and established the short-lived Thonburi Kingdom. He was succeeded in 1782 by Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke, the first monarch of the Chakri dynasty and founder of the Rattanakosin Kingdom, which lasted into the early 20th century.

Through the 18th and 19th centuries, Siam faced pressure from France and the United Kingdom, including forced concessions of territory, but nevertheless it remained the only Southeast Asian country to avoid direct Western rule. Following a bloodless revolution in 1932, Siam became a constitutional monarchy and changed its official name to "Thailand". While it joined the Allies in World War I, Thailand was an Axis satellite in World War II. In the late 1950s, a military coup revived the monarchy's historically influential role in politics. Thailand became a major ally of the United States and played a key anti-communist role in the region. Apart from a brief period of parliamentary democracy in the mid-1970s, Thailand has periodically alternated between democracy and military rule. In the 21st century, Thailand endured a political crisis that culminated in two coups and the establishment of its current and 20th constitution by the military junta.

Thailand is a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy under a military junta. Thailand is a founding member of Association of Southeast Asian Nations and remains a major ally of the US. Despite its comparatively sporadic changes in leadership, it is considered a regional power in Southeast Asia and a middle power in global affairs. With a high level of human development, the second largest economy in Southeast Asia, and the 20th largest by PPP, Thailand is classified as a newly industrialized economy; manufacturing, agriculture, and tourism are leading sectors of the economy



Thailand had a population of 68,863,514[8] as of 2016. Thailand's population is largely rural, concentrated in the rice-growing areas of the central, northeastern, and northern regions. About 45.7% of Thailand's population lived in urban areas as of 2010, concentrated mostly in and around the Bangkok Metropolitan Area. Thailand's government-sponsored family planning program resulted in a dramatic decline in population growth from 3.1% in 1960 to around 0.4% today. In 1970, an average of 5.7 people lived in a Thai household. At the time of the 2010 census, the average Thai household size was 3.2 people.

CASE 483 - International trade

International trade is the exchange of capital, goods, and services across international borders or territories. In most countries, such trade represents a significant share of gross domestic product (GDP). While international trade has existed throughout history (for example Uttarapatha, Silk Road, Amber Road, scramble for Africa, Atlantic slave trade, salt roads), its economic, social, and political importance has been on the rise in recent centuries. Carrying out trade at an international level is a more complex process than domestic trade. Trade takes place between two or more nations. Factors like the economy, government policies, markets, laws, judicial system, currency, etc. influence the trade. The political relations between two countries also influences the trade between them. Sometimes, the obstacles in the way of trading affect the mutual relationship adversly. To avoid this, international economic and trade organisations came up. To smoothen and justify the process of trade between countries of different economic standing, some international economic organisations were formed. These organisations work towards the facilitation and growth of international trade and some work to compete.

Production jobs in developed countries are moving to lower cost locations such as South America and China. Globalization and the relocation of production allows for lower-cost production which benefits the consumer with lower prices and thus leading to an increase in purchasing power which the American dream is all about isn't it? It comes at the cost of lost jobs in the production sector in home countries which leaves people with a lack of options for other employment.



Corporations spend great effort into setting up stranglehold trade agreements with 3rd world countries. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank ensure that third world countries have to open their markets, while the 'free market western economies' set up fences around theirs. The set up is such that NO jobs are available in third world industries, apart from the ones created by western companies, who pay scarcely over cost-price to the producers, while making record profits on selling their goods to rich westerners. In a true free-market, those third world countries would have an equal change at exporting their OWN products to the West, which would result in profit being made by the third world producers. However, there are tax-barriers where it's okay for the third world to export their raw materials (hence all the oil-export, fruits and vegetables) but where the amount of import-tax on end-products (such as phones, computers, cars, etc.) is so high that it makes their products by default noncompetitive.

The only exceptions to this rule are companies that have head-quarters in the US or the EU region. The current struggle within the EU is actually quite a good example of how badly globalization works. It works for Capital (which can move freely and generate profits wherever they are to be made) but it leaves weaker countries with enormous trade-deficits and poor quality food that hasn’t passed EU regulations. IMF and World Bank politics and demands are destroying local industries and they're introducing true poverty.



GDP is a poor measure of progress – it increases as we destroy the natural capital of the planet.

We need economic growth, but we cannot continue to measure it using GDP. We need a ‘quality adjusted’ GDP linked to transactions which recognise how much social and natural capital they are building. Although the International Energy Association reported that carbon emissions stabilised for 3 years in the 2014-2016, the best estimates for 2017, which are waiting formal confirmation, are that they increased 2%. This is in the context of Christina Figueres, former chair of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, together with leading scientists, saying that we have “three years for carbon emissions to peak and drop rapidly to avoid catastrophic climate change”. That was June 2017. We now have two years.

Please have a read the Cases 222 WTO and 188 GATT

CASE 482 - Brexit (PART 2)

CASE 482 - Brexit Part 2

2 years since the referendum result

An easy In or OUT referendum, but as the problems of UK’s exit from the EU become apparent, was it doomed years ago due to stuffing its empirical problems under the union jack rug for a later date.

In 2015 The conservatives with the help of UKIP as promised in election mandates quickly pushed for an IN/OUT referendum that no one wanted or had much talked about other than a few eurosceptics (as explained in CASE 476 Brexit (part 1). The government were even against leaving the EU and when the referendum date was set, the same people, the government and media were really positive and persuading everyone to stay in the EU and it looked like most were against leaving. After the country voted to leave 52% to 48% on the 23rd June 2016, David Cameron resigned having made the referendum, promising to keep the UK in the EU and then failed to do so. Which led to Theresa May being appointed Prime minister, who moved to call a snap general election and which she only won the parliamentary majority by being propped up by the DUP. She then later triggered article 50 and the EU withdrawal act with the support of parliament starting a some what brutal 2 year negotiation period between the UK and the EU, but more so between parliament, the people, their families and co-workers who live and work in the UK. This led to many clashes, arguments, misinformation from both sides and a silent run down of the clock from the government as one fact after another surfaced from all sources as to the implications of what happens when the UK leaves the EU not to mention the different scenarios such as May’s deal, No deal, no Brexit or restarting it all and having a 2nd referendum. On March 29th 2019 the UK still intend to leave the European union with May’s proposed deal or a no deal. The Government’s stance has always been that it wants to avoid a no deal, but with a draft deal that has been incredibly divisive, resulting in resignations and strong take-downs from across the political parties, ministers have been preparing for leaving the EU without any deal whatsoever. Political differences on the terms of leaving have been rife for months and hardcore Brexiteers in Conservative ranks have repeatedly said a no-deal Brexit would be better than a soft Brexit.

What is a ‘no deal’ Brexit?

A “no deal” Brexit does what it says on the tin. It means the UK and the EU has been unable to reach a withdrawal agreement and it will be the default position. If this is the case, it means there will be no 21-month transition period. Consequently consumers, businesses and public bodies would have to respond immediately to changes as result of leaving the EU. “On 29 March at 23:00 the UK would leave the EU and everything associated with that would come to an end,” according to Dr Simon Usherwood, a reader in politics at the University of Surrey. “[A no deal] doesn’t stop the UK leaving but it means there is absolutely no clarity about what happens.” While it is a possibility, in reality neither the UK nor the EU would favour a no deal because it signals a poor political relationship, he adds. One of the key issues with a no deal scenario is the uncertainty it would lead to for life and work in Britain. The UK would instantly revert to World trade organisation rules, which would mean we would have to set and accept tariff prices the same for every country in the world and we would have to set them at the maximum amount the EU set their tarrifs in order to create a trade deal with them and over time we can only lower or remove these tariffs creating competition or lowering prices.

The Brexit result in 2016 which caused a massive shockwave across the world on the stock market, towards international business and many other problems internally could be blamed on many factors and theories such as: It was all old people who went out to vote and the young didn’t bother, or it was the poor voting for the populist vote against the rich establishment, the right seeking sovereignty, the left wanting to remain in the EU or even the big cities who have attracted more EU funding over the years verses the Port towns, Northern powerhouse and rest of England who feel they have been somewhat left out of the EU’s great project, but I’m certain the reason it happened, the result, the massive divide straight down the middle of the UK that the result caused and where the government has got so far with negotiations, the problems it has faced and will continue to face as a nation outside the EU is all down to not dealing with its entwined and confusing imperialistic past.



Brexit’s root problems stem from not dealing with the British empire’s imperialistic past

In 1919 when The empire of Great Britain and Ireland was at its peak and had just won world war 1, countries such as Ireland, India and others followed in trying to shed their imperialistic rulers of the British by means of internal war or overthrowing the people in control of their territory. India was drastically split into 4 states, which culminated in years of political and religious wars, tensions and displacement of millions of people which still poses and international threat but has no ties to Great Britain and Ireland. Ireland had the war of independence which finished in 1921 ending the 300 year British rule over Ireland, but also partitioned it into 2 countries and this is where the ‘root problems’ of ‘Brexit’ came from and proceeded to build up for over a century. By 1927 the Anglo-Irish treaty had been signed, the Irish free state had been created and the empire was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland a new country which had a majority unionist government refused the ‘home rule act’ imposed by the British and wanted to stay apart of the British empire. For 30 years, economically and culturally Northern Ireland was segregated into 2 peoples, that gave more opportunities and share of the countries budget to the protestant communities which caused and added many problems as well as a declining poor functioning economy subsidised by the Westminster government. As the situation escalated, the British government imposed ‘direct rule’ in 1972. Paramilitary groups, both republican and loyalist, became increasingly deadly. The bombings, shootings and sectarian brutality of Northern Ireland's Troubles were to last for decades. Over 3,600 people, most of them civilians, died. The violence spread to the British mainland in acts of terrorism never seen before and now being televised.



Paramilitary ceasefires and years of gruelling bargaining culminated in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement which brought peace. The deal addressed differences over national identities in Northern Ireland, as well as the relationship with Dublin, which gave up its constitutional claim to Northern Ireland. It set up a power-sharing mechanism and restored devolved government through the Northern Ireland Assembly. Voters in Northern Ireland and the Republic backed the deal in referendums, it was heralded as a great achievement and brought lots of growth and investment to a thriving new Irish republic economy but left a stagnant economy in the North, this is where the term ‘kicking the can down the road’ comes into play. 100 years ago in 1919 and 21 years ago in 1998 the British held onto Northern Ireland and the unionist population of about 900,000 have stood strong and held onto the belief that they are British people living on the Island of Ireland, the 900,000 and growing population of Irish catholics living in Northern Ireland still firmly believe it is their territory even though the government of the Irish republic doesn’t. So its a very complex and ever changing situation that in reality is still “at a stalemate” and this stalemate is one of the last remaining problems the British empire created, this can also be similarly applied to the Gibraltar/Spain situation but these are two very different circumstances.



Northern Ireland has always existed on the political, economic and cultural periphery of the UK, rather than being an integral component of Britain’s understanding of its own self-interest or self-image. So the Idea of Great Britain leaving the EU (Brexit) was that all of the UK was to take back control of many aspects of control such as immigration, trade, agriculture, fishing and others, but as the EU has grown around Great Britain and Northern Ireland, its laws, regulations and policies has outgrown the UK and intwined into everyones lives which has made the situation of leaving the EU more difficult due to the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland having to change under EU laws and possibly bringing up the old days of the troubles with a border wall which no body wants, and as the SNP and Scotland calls for a 2nd independence referendum which the British government will try to avoid at all costs in the coming weeks, it will bring a whole new set of problems to the surface for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If Scotland votes yes to leave the UK a massive constitutional crisis will erupt culminating in Northern Ireland possibly being cut off further and an immediate suspension of the ‘acts of union’, the British parliament and could be an immediate implementation of an English and Welsh parliament. Giving Northern Ireland 3 possible choices to choose between as an Irish border poll referendum will be offered on both sides of the border.

1. It continues to be a dysfunctional territory governed by England and Wales
2. It becomes an independent country backed by gold reserves and bank loans
3. It ceases to exist, unifying with the rest of the republic of Ireland