Jaw-dropping report concedes that “global governance” is a euphemism for anti-democratic global government
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Financial Times, one of the most respected and widely read newspapers on the planet, features an editorial today that openly admits the agenda to create a world government based on anti-democratic principles and concedes that the term “global governance” is merely a euphemism for the move towards a centralized global government.
For years we were called paranoid nutcases for warning about the elite’s plans to centralize global power and destroy American sovereignty. Throughout the 1990’s people who talked about the alarming move towards global government were smeared as right-wing lunatics by popular culture and the media.
Now the agenda is out in the open and in our faces, the debunkers have no more ammunition with which to deride us.
A jaw-dropping editorial written by the Financial Times’ chief foreign affairs commentator Gideon Rachman entitled ‘And now for a world government’ lays out the plan for global government and how it is being pushed with deceptive language and euphemisms in order to prevent people from becoming alarmed
“For the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible,” writes Rachman, citing the financial crisis, “global warming” and the “global war on terror” as three major pretexts through which it is being introduced.
Rachman writes that “global governance” could be introduced much sooner than many expect and that President elect Barack Obama has already expressed his desire to achieve that goal, making reference to Obama’s circle of advisors which includes Strobe Talbott, who in 1992 stated, “In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”
Rachman then concedes that the more abstract term “global governance,” which is often used by top globalists like David Rockefeller as a veil to offset accusations that a centralized global government is the real agenda, is merely a trick of “soothing language” that is used to prevent “people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland”.
“But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on,” says Rachman. “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”.
Rachman proceeds to outline what the first steps to an official world government would look like, including the creation of “A legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force”.
“A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations,” writes Rachman. “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, 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,” concludes Rachman, before acknowledging that the path to global government will be “slow and painful”.
Tellingly, Rachman concedes that “International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic,” citing the continual rejection of EU expansion when the question is put to a vote. “In general, the 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,” writes Rachman.
So there you have it – one of the world’s top newspapers, editorially led by chief economics commentator Martin Wolf, a top Bilderberg luminary, openly proclaiming that not only is world government the agenda, but that world government will only be achieved through dictatorial measures because the majority of the people are dead against it.
Will we still be called paranoid conspiracy theorists for warning that a system of dictatorial world government is being set up, even as one of the world’s most influential newspapers admits to the fact? Or will people finally wake up and accept that there is a globalist agenda to destroy sovereignty, any form of real democracy, and freedom itself in the pursuit of an all-powerful, self-interested, centralized, unrepresentative and dictatorial world government?
Rachman’s article is all about the merits and necessity of global government and then at the end he brazenly adds the caveat that it will only be a success if it is anti-democratic in nature, ie dictatorial.
Rachman has since tried to backtrack on the article after it was referenced all over the world across the internet
Rachman’s attempt to backtrack and protest his innocence in claiming the article was anything but a PR piece for global government may fool the naive, but when we have dozens and dozens of highly influential figures throughout the decades calling for the same thing, the seriousness of the issue becomes clear.
Global government is by no means a new phenomenon proposed as a “solution” to current problems, it is the ultimate goal for a long-standing agenda that seeks to crush national sovereignty and freedom and replace it with a tyrannical new world order. That is not some kind of hare-brained conspiracy theory as Rachman would have it, it is a privately and publicly stated mission of the global elite.
Strobe Talbot, current Obama advisor and President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, wasn’t loosely “debating” the subject of one world government when in 1992 he told Time Magazine, “In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”
Neither was Dr. Henry Kissinger absently chit-chatting when he told a Bilderberg conference in 1991, “Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat fro
m beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.”
Likewise, international financier James Warburg was deadly serious when he told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1950, “We shall have a world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.”
The march towards a centralized global government is not a contemporary idea, it is a coordinated movement firmly entrenched in history.
At the end of his riposte, Rachman cracks a lame joke about pretending to be a member of the “Bilderberg/Illuminati/Council on Foreign Relations/UN/Zionist establishment” to make millions from tell-all books.
Deliciously ironic it is therefore that as a matter of routine, Rachman’s colleague Martin Wolf, the Financial Times’ associate editor and chief economics commentator, attends the Bilderberg Group meeting every year and hob-knobs with hundreds of the world’s power elite, and then routinely fails to report on it in the knowledge that if he did he’d be shunned by the very establishment that Rachman makes light of.
After all, 200+ global powerbrokers meeting in secret to discuss the future course of the planet doesn’t seem like a very interesting story now does it?
Perhaps Rachman should ask Wolf for an invite to Bilderberg 2009, and then he could stop hoping to be a member of the global elite and actually become one. With disgusting, anti-democratic and elitist opinions like his, I’m sure Bilderberg will welcome Rachman with open arms