First posted on Blogspot 12/10/08
On December 8, 2008, the voices of those warning of the creation of a dictatorial world government were joined by the voice of the widely read and highly respected Financial Times, British counterpart of the Wall Street Journal.
But the Times does not warn. It greets the prospect with joyful anticipation. Little wonder! Martin H. Wolf – Associate Editor and Economics Commentator for the Times is a Trilateral Commission member and an attendee from Great Britain at the 2003 Bilderberg meeting in Versailles, Paris, France.
In his times article, “And now for a world government,” Gideon Rachman says he never before believed there was a “plot to take over the US,” but he now believes world government is possible.
This according to Rachman, “would involve much more than co-operation between nations.” He says that the European Union, “a continental government for 27 countries” with a supreme court, a common currency, reams of law, a large bureaucracy, and military power, could be a model.
The author cites three reasons why he thinks the EU model could be used for a world government.
The first reason is the “international” nature of problems facing national governments. These include: global warming, global financial crisis, and the “war on terror.”
The second, says Gideon, is the transportation and communications advancements that “have shrunk the world.” Apparently it is no longer over 25,000 miles in circumference at the Equator. Regardless, I don’t see how that pertains specifically to the European Union “model.” Never-the-less, that’s what he says.
The third Rachman says, most important to those who expect “change” for the better with Obama, is “a change in the political atmosphere” that could speed the coming of “global governance.”
Rachman rehashes global warming and the financial crisis, but then adds that president elect Obama “does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties.” I’ll admit I’m a little confused about the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements. If it has such disdain, why has Bush been involved in negotiations for a North American Union? Anyway, Mr. Rachman quotes Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope: “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.” Like the European Union, it doesn’t seem to matter if the government must surrender part or all of national sovereignty over, under, or around the people if they can’t do it through them.
Further proof of the importance of the UN to Obama, according to the author, is his appointment of Susan Rice [Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations member] as ambassador to the UN at cabinet level.
In addition, Obama and his team are apparently being influenced by a Managing Global Insecurity project report. Project advisors include John Podesta the co-chair of Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution and member of the Trilateral Commission.
Rachman says, “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.” I’ll have to take his word for it because every attempt I made to download a PDF copy hung my computer.
Rachman continues, “These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland.” Let’s be thankful they still have those rifles and hope they have a good place to hide them when the FedStapo comes to collect them. I suppose if the peoples of Europe don’t have rifles, they will reach for their balls and chains, pick them up, and move in the direction their EU Masters tell them.
I like the way Rachman refers to the “soothing language” used by the MGI report, such as “responsible sovereignty.” Responsible sovereignty to MGI means a nation’s leaders must consider the welfare of the people of other nations as well as their own. I interpret that as put others first if need be. If I’m right in my assessment, then “responsible sovereignty” is certainly more “soothing language” than treason.
A telling part of the article is a quote of Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, he believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”. I’ve said this for a long time. International finance and the multi-national megacorporations want power to lie at the level of their economic interests so all can be manipulated to protect and further those interests. The interests of the peoples of the world be damned.
Despite apparent “progress” toward world government, Rachman laments that achievement of “global governance” “will be a painful, slow process.” He cites as a bad reason for this the national and political leaders’ “lack of will and determination.” They are, he opines, “more focused on their next election.”
Incomprehensibly to me, he says this “hints at a more welcome reason” for slow “progress” toward “global governance.” This sounds as if he wants slow “progress.” Regardless, while he calls the EU the “heartland of law-based international government” he admits the idea is unpopular. When the EU has attempted to implement its plans through referendum, he says the voters have handed it a “series of humiliating defeats.”
But progress has been fastest, according to Rachman, when “far-reaching deals” have been “pushed through” without reference to the citizens (subjects?). He notes a tendency of “international governance” to be effective only when anti-democratic. Could it be that conditioning the people to obey the dictates of the EU power elite in this way is why it is welcome in Rachman’s eyes? It seems clear to me that the author’s idea of “law-based” government is dictatorship. Heaven forbid that “leaders” be more concerned about the will of the people than about the will of international finance.
Rachman concludes that “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.”
I don’t know if Rachman is aware that it’s too late to hide the plan from the people. It was already published along with a map showing the plans that were current when compiled and published in 1941-42.
Cracking the problem of the people “stubbornly” identifying themselves with their country, their heritage, and their customs and beliefs; cracking the problem of the peoples’ unwillingness to surrender what liberty and individuality they have left to be worker bugs in the great world corporate anthill, may not be as difficult as Rachman thinks. After all, the New World Order will have its 50,000 man “peacekeeping” force.