he 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.
“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?