"And Now for a World Government" - Financial Times

And now for a world government
By Gideon Rachman
Published: December 8 2008 19:13 | Last updated: December 8 2008 19:13
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html

I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the [European] Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.

 

The Hidden Powers are now declaring their long-planned agenda to create a Global Government. The Anglophile push for world government has been extensively chronicled over the past 100 years - most notably by Professor Carol Quigley.

Until recent, those plans went largely ignored or unreported by Media. The past 10 years has seen a flurried resurgence in the invocation of the mysterious phrase, "New World Order", by many prominent Statesmen, Bankers, Politicians, EU leaders and Billionaires.

The Financial Crisis alone has generated hundreds of articles calling for a "New Financial Order" that makes the purse strings of sovereign Nations beholden to Global Institutions and Bodies.

While the article notes any Democratic push towards Global Government to be painfully slow, autocratic actions have proved especially effective in Europe, where popular opposition to EU membership was altogether ignored by sitting Government.

The Wests favored mechanism around insular societies resistant to structural change is the Hegelian Dialectic = Problem-Reaction-Solution.

The idea is to hype or create national crisis, that elicit useful emotions (outrage or fear), that demand "solutions" which imbue the very change desired all along.

For example: Manufactured Problem - fake NVA attack on US Ship. Reaction - public outrage and “self defense”. Solution - Vietnam War.

Other examples:

Global Warming. Terrorism. Iran. Iraq. Bird Flu. Depression. War. Financial Collapse. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Food Riots. Crime. Gangs. The War on Poverty. The War on Drugs. Gulf War#1. Iraq Invasion (no WMD's) etc etc.

All hyped or created threats to scare the American Public into surrendering their liberty to Government, or getting behind unprovoked war (which happens to be extremely profitable).

This is the reason for the unrelenting myriad of crisis in the world.

To fear monger the transfer of power from citizens to Government, who is then cast as the Savior to all of societies manufactured-ills.

To what end?

The real money powers want total Control. They want World Government.

This is why we're seeing a concerted public unveiling and trial-ballooning of intent.

While the Media is several years behind the curve, Academics have extolled the virtues of Global Government for decades. And before that, the Grand Architects advanced their moles into the very private and public bodies charged with forming Policy Directives for Government and private life. Notably, the Department of Education, the State Department, Universities, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Major Media - ownership and editorial.

The Financial Times is the first of many articles meant to acclimate the Sheep to World Government and create favorable associations with the idea.

As a corollary, national crisis will be increasingly spun as "Global Problems". Barrack Obama will be the New Champion for all problems global, which logically demand Global Solutions. In other words, Global Governance. Or some Supra-National body nations must cede power to, so that our global problems can be “effectively” policed.

In the next several years, the picture painted by media will get increasingly apocalyptic, the rhetoric more frenzied, and the message more dire. Punctuating these mini-epochs of certain doom will be briefer periods of public reassurance for actions taken to resolve the crisis before it. Just like a car salesmen reassures the buyer how great their new car is, so to the Media and Government will reassure the people what a great "buy" they've made each time they surrender more of their Rights to Government.

We will even see the resumption of terror attacks in the US and a likely financial collapse.

This is not only to fear monger threats, but to actually execute them against the people in the hopes to restructure society so it can be comfortable merged with Fascism.

All this soft and flowery talk of Global Change, Global Stewardship and Global Cooperation is really code for Global Government.

Global Government means the end of the Constitution, and the end of the United States.

I hope all you fervent patriots who jeered and ridiculed us "moon bat conspiracy theorists" now recognize what Mainstream Media is blatantly telegraphing to all of us.

 

Interesting time frame, but look at Nostradamus......"something will happen, in the future, when we'll all be dead".
Wow, people think he was either right, or dleiberately was obscure, and still right.

Both could be the case, but it didnt matter a rats ass to him.


When you consider, the US was one of two massive superpowers, both of whom could very easily be accused of desiring complete world domination, slugged it out through most of the 20th century, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that organic convergence is inevitable.

Forget the stale, age old hype of theorists, moonbats, or anything else, and look at the population, and demographics.

By 2020, what is the population forecast? What is it likely to be by 3000?
Can the earth support that, without further, let alone complete devolution to rigid fascism and "total control"?

 

Thats an interesting thesis - if the objective is control of populations, why not join forces instead of doing battle?

Makes sense if the players were States and not Bankers.

According to Quigley and others, the Bankers and their cohorts openly admit they financed Communism, while owning Capitalism (America and England) via their Central banks.

The objective was to create enemies (problems), that elicited reactions (fear and war), which homogenized political and military power structures against a manufactured threat.

The ultimate objective was (and is) to create easily administrat-able Governments and Political Parties as opposed to decentralized, self-governing communities/states the Founders originally intended. Not by accident, of course.

The whole idea is power consolidation. And the easiest way to cede local power to Government voluntarily is create external or internal threats that demand the invocation of Federal Powers (usually War Powers). IOW, keep the Nation on a constant state of war-footing, like we've seen for the past 4 decades.

The demographics, I'm not sure where you're coming from there.

If the implication is more people = greater threat to consolidated power, I'd agree.

Perhaps I got it wrong and you're suggesting that billions of people cannot efficiently self-organize and need autocratic direction to navigate the "confusion"?

 

More to it than that, states, not bankers? Queen Victoria controlled most of the known world for a time, yet had never set foot off the windy, misty, and depressing isles of great Britain.

Yet, she had a stranglehold on world shipping, and commerce, worldwide, through-companies, authorised by herself.

Bankers, while not perhaps the bloodmeat of the enterprise, never authorised anything in her name that wouldn't be profitable.


In short, Nobody is going to invade, occupy, much less see to it thats a fairly permanent thing, unless there is GAIN involved.
Sure, it has been known for "states" to wage war, effectively for the sake of it, but that isn't "natural" if you like.

Commerce, is-most wars of the middle ages had ransom of nobles, BOOTY of occupied lands as the focus.

Do bankers wage war? No, they underwrite it, and insure it.
Britain only recently paid of its debt to the united states for WW2, for example. Thats a long time, a lot of money, and a surprising amount of trust-or is it?

Financing something, isn't the same as planting a black flag and going berzerk.

I haven't read Qiugley, but its evident the EU will never be that power, in its current guise, nor will nafta, nor anything else. Russia and china-thats the issue, beyond a certain point, you actually have to wage war to secure resources, if everyone isnt on the same page, caring and sharing wise.


And yes, your last two paragraphs are evident home truths to me.
They are both true,
This is likely a sucky site, but

http://www.netlingo.com/more/poptick.html

 

Just so you know, globalist wealth entities say in their OWN documents that as a single centralized goverment is formed they would like to MANAGE only 300 to 500 million people on the planet. This is also why they are into various forms of Eugenics programs through the numerous companies they own and influence.....THEIR ideas for our future are very disgusting!!!

Do the research....see the truth!!!