Quote:

 

Financial Times Editorial Admits Agenda For Dictatorial World Government

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?

hiphopopotamus

Dec 9 2008, 03:18 PM

That article was taken way out of context.

Lord Tsukasa

Dec 9 2008, 03:38 PM

Provide some evidence. I read it, and it was a pro-Globalist piece.

hiphopopotamus

Dec 9 2008, 04:13 PM

Lord Tsukasa

Dec 9 2008, 03:38 PM

Provide some evidence. I read it, and it was a pro-Globalist piece.

Are you joking?
The article is basically about the rise of problems having roots in many nations, and the only way to successfully mediate/solve the problems is some sort of global government. Then he goes on to write about the difficulty of erecting such an establishment due to the trepidation people have of large governing bodies outside of their locality, which is seen in the inability of the EU to pass certain changes in member states.

The article is not about creating a world government that is going to rule with an iron fist.

That is the very definition of taking something out of context.

Lord Tsukasa

Dec 9 2008, 05:28 PM

It's saying: "We have a bunch of global problems, so a global government could work!".

Quote:

 

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.

hiphopopotamus

Dec 10 2008, 01:25 AM

Lord Tsukasa

Dec 9 2008, 05:28 PM

It's saying: "We have a bunch of global problems, so a global government could work!".

You've got it almost right. Anyways, what about that implies

Quote:

 

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.

?

Nothing. Meaning, the article was taken out of context.

Lord Tsukasa

Dec 10 2008, 05:20 PM

hiphopopotamus

Dec 10 2008, 01:25 AM

Lord Tsukasa

Dec 9 2008, 05:28 PM

It's saying: "We have a bunch of global problems, so a global government could work!".

You've got it almost right. Anyways, what about that implies

Quote:

 

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.

?

Nothing. Meaning, the article was taken out of context.

After this FT guy goes on about how global government would be a reasonable response to global problems, he says:

"International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic. "

Flippy

Dec 12 2008, 12:37 PM

hiphop - did you have anything to do with this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1Fw-iMJN0g

Sorry to derail - saw the name and thought they may be the same person.