Friday, December 12, 2008



by Erick San Juan

Hints have been dropped that we can soon wake up one fine morning to find that the entire humanity is already under a system of governance that is based on some kind of autocratic if not entirely totalitarian principles. In fact, the Financial Times, one of the most respected and widely read newspapers on the planet, featured last Tuesday an editorial 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.

Throughout the 1990s, people who have been warning us about the elite’s plans to centralize global power and destroy American sovereignty have been called by popular culture and the media as “right-wing lunatics for sounding the alarm bells.

Now their agenda has been unmasked. And these hawks are left with no more spears to shoot at people trying to put them under check.

An unexpected editorial written by the Financial Times’ chief foreign affairs commentator Gideon Rachman entitled ‘And now for a world government’ spells out the plan for global government and the manner it is being pushed with deceptive language and euphemisms in order to avoid steering the so-called hornets’ nest.

“For the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible,” writes Rachman. By citing the financial crisis, “global warming” and the “global war on terror” would most likely be the three major pretexts through which it is being introduced by advocates of globalism.

Sounding the alarm bells much louder than we had done before, 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. It will be recalled that in 1992 Talbott stated that “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.”

In his editorial, Rachman then agrees that the more abstract term “global governance,” which is commonly used by David Rockefeller and other advocates of a single world government as a shroud to hide their real desire of establishing a centralized global government, is merely a ploy used to prevent “people reaching for their rifles in America ’s talk-radio heartland”.

But some learned European of what is really going on around them, says Rachman. He points to Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France , as one who argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as Attali is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. He believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

Rachman also outlined how an official world government would evolve, which would feature 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”.

He insisted that a “world government” would involve much more than just the co-operation between nations, but it would also be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws.

These globalists are likely to pattern their world government after the continental government for 27 nations which the European Union has set up as 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.”

Acknowledging that the path to global government will be “slow and painful,” Rachman concludes that everything is in place considering that for the first time since man learned to write on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to achieve a world government.”

Citing the continual rejection of EU expansion when the question is put to a vote, Rachman concedes that international governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

“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,” Rachman wrote.

So there you have it – to be able to achieve a world government, dictatorial measures will have to be employed because majority of the people are openly against losing their sovereignty says one of the world’s top newspapers.

In view of the admission by the world’s most influential newspapers on the pursuit of the globalists’ self-interested, centralized, unrepresentative and dictatorial world government as their real agenda, would the advocates of globalism and their propagandists still persist in labeling us as paranoid conspiracy theorists for warning that a system of dictatorial world government is being set up? Wake up guys!!

No comments: