|
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison
Planet.com
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?
Comments can be left on my
blog.
|
