James W. Harris
[Liberator Online Newsletter, December 21, 2008]
World Government on the Horizon?
We know, we know. Mention anything about politicians scheming for a "world government" and you will instantly be slammed as a troglodyte, conspiracy theorist, wing nut, and so forth, followed immediately by snickering references to tinfoil hats and black helicopters.
Still... we find it most interesting to ponder a remarkable commentary entitled, "And now for a world government," published December 8 in the highly respected and influential international newspaper The Financial Times, which boasts 1.4 million readers. The piece was written by Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs commentator for the publication. Rachman was formerly employed by the equally respected Establishment outlets the BBC and The Economist.
"For the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible," writes Rachman. He cites the financial crisis, global warming and the war on terror as creating unprecedented new opportunities for the concept.
"A 'world government' would involve much more than cooperation between nations," Rachman says. "It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union [EU] 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."
A world government, Rachman stresses, could not be created democratically, because we ignorant unwashed masses, lacking the wisdom and foresight of those who rule us, mostly hate the idea.
"Even in the EU -- the heartland of law-based international government -- the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for 'ever closer union' have been referred to the voters.
"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.
"International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic."
Hmmmmm. Pardon us if we hear the echo of jackboots in that last sentence.
Another reason Rachman is bullish about world government is the election of Barack Obama. He notes Obama has key advisors who are very enthusiastic about steps in the direction of world government. High among them is John Podesta, who heads Obama's transition team.
Podesta is also the head of the highly influential Center for American Progress think tank, and an advisor to the Managing Global Insecurity (MGI) project.
MGI, Rachman notes, favors among other things "the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force."
MGI, says Rachman, is "aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas," and thus carefully avoids scary terms like "shared sovereignty" and "world government," preferring more soothing phrases like "responsible sovereignty" and "global governance" so as not to alarm the slumbering masses.
"So, it seems, everything is in place," Rachman concludes. "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."
However, he notes that, because of us darn stubborn ignorant rabble and our irritating lack of enthusiasm for world government, "any push for 'global governance' in the here and now will be a painful, slow process."
But of course, clever minds are working on that, too.
(Source: Financial Times, "And now for a world government"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
Thanks to Roy Lieberman )
http://www.theadvocates.org/liberator/vol-13-num-21.html#GBU
[Liberator Online Newsletter, December 21, 2008]
World Government on the Horizon?
We know, we know. Mention anything about politicians scheming for a "world government" and you will instantly be slammed as a troglodyte, conspiracy theorist, wing nut, and so forth, followed immediately by snickering references to tinfoil hats and black helicopters.
Still... we find it most interesting to ponder a remarkable commentary entitled, "And now for a world government," published December 8 in the highly respected and influential international newspaper The Financial Times, which boasts 1.4 million readers. The piece was written by Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs commentator for the publication. Rachman was formerly employed by the equally respected Establishment outlets the BBC and The Economist.
"For the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible," writes Rachman. He cites the financial crisis, global warming and the war on terror as creating unprecedented new opportunities for the concept.
"A 'world government' would involve much more than cooperation between nations," Rachman says. "It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union [EU] 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."
A world government, Rachman stresses, could not be created democratically, because we ignorant unwashed masses, lacking the wisdom and foresight of those who rule us, mostly hate the idea.
"Even in the EU -- the heartland of law-based international government -- the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for 'ever closer union' have been referred to the voters.
"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.
"International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic."
Hmmmmm. Pardon us if we hear the echo of jackboots in that last sentence.
Another reason Rachman is bullish about world government is the election of Barack Obama. He notes Obama has key advisors who are very enthusiastic about steps in the direction of world government. High among them is John Podesta, who heads Obama's transition team.
Podesta is also the head of the highly influential Center for American Progress think tank, and an advisor to the Managing Global Insecurity (MGI) project.
MGI, Rachman notes, favors among other things "the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force."
MGI, says Rachman, is "aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas," and thus carefully avoids scary terms like "shared sovereignty" and "world government," preferring more soothing phrases like "responsible sovereignty" and "global governance" so as not to alarm the slumbering masses.
"So, it seems, everything is in place," Rachman concludes. "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."
However, he notes that, because of us darn stubborn ignorant rabble and our irritating lack of enthusiasm for world government, "any push for 'global governance' in the here and now will be a painful, slow process."
But of course, clever minds are working on that, too.
(Source: Financial Times, "And now for a world government"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
Thanks to Roy Lieberman )
http://www.theadvocates.org/liberator/vol-13-num-21.html#GBU
3 comments:
Dear Warta Malaysia blog editor,
I am the author of this article, "Is World Government on the Horizon?"
There is a BIG PROBLEM with the version you have printed, and I hope you can help me correct it.
This version of my article HAS BEEN ALTERED by some unknown person, who added things I did not write.
I would very much appreciate it if you can correct the article at your site.
You can find the original article as I wrote it here:
http://www.theadvocates.org/liberator/vol-13-num-21.html
Below are the things that have been ADDED to my article by some unknown writer.
I respectfully request that you delete the words below from the version you have put at your Web site. It should be very easy, only a minute or two.
(Or, if it is easier for you, you can just replace this entire altered version with my article, which can be found at the link above.)
HERE ARE THE CHANGES MADE TO MY ARTICLE:
* Paragraph two, last sentence: "He is a known zionist and Bilderberger."
I DID NOT WRITE THIS. PLEASE DELETE.
* Paragraph four, last sentence: "and the financial crisis is the ideal time for the next stage."
I DID NOT WRITE THIS. PLEASE DELETE.
* Paragraph 9: "russian"
I DID NOT WRITE THIS WORD. PLEASE DELETE IT.
* Paragraph 10: "zionist"
I DID NOT WRITE THIS WORD. PLEASE DELETE IT.
* End of article: You link to:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=9863
However, that Web site currently has the ALTERED version of the article. I am sending them a notice about this, too, in hopes they will change it.
Until they change it, I would respectfully request you to replace that link with a link where the actual UNCHANGED article can be found, such as:
http://www.theadvocates.org/liberator/vol-13-num-21.html
I hope you will respect my rights as an author and replace or change the altered version with the correct one.
No one likes to have words put in their mouth on such an important topic, as I am sure you can understand.
Respectfully,
James W. Harris
Editor, Liberator Online
Advocates for Self-Government
Dear Mr Harris
I am an ardent follower of the Truthseeker. I will immediately correct your article as per the original.
Thank you - WARTA MALAYSIA
Dear Warta Malaysia,
A follow-up:
I contacted the TruthSeeker Web site and they said responded immediately, thanking me for notifying them and saying they would immediately replace the altered version of my article with the version I originally wrote.
Thank you for doing the same!
Sincerely,
James W. Harris
Post a Comment