"A new world order is emerging," declared British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the conclusion of the summit. The signals being sent by Brown, Sarkozy, Strauss-Kahn, Geithner, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and others should be setting off high-decibel alarm bells. We are witnessing the demolition of our constitutional system and the piecemeal replacement of it with world government. Over the coming months, the architects of this new global system intend to wring every opportunity possible out of the current economic crisis to bulldoze through our constitutional checks and balances that stand in the way of empowering the IMF, the WTO, and the United Nations.
Gideon Rachman, a leading financial opinionator for the very influential Financial Times, in an important op-ed last December 8, Rachman blurted his undisguised enthusiasm for the developing contours of world government appearing from the current so-called reform process. In his column entitled "And now for a world government," the Timesman expresses excitement that "for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible."
Rachman described what he envisions: A "world government" would involve much more than co-operation between nations. 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.
Rachman
offered three reasons why he thought the time was right: "global warming, a
global financial crisis, and a "global war on terror" ... The financial
crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global
solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally
fierce guardians of national sovereignty."
Rachman approvingly quoted from a recent report of a globalist think tank, the
Managing Global Insecurity project, calling for a legally binding UN
climate-change agreement and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping
force, but he observed that the MGI report tellingly avoids using words that
might "get people reaching for their rifles in America's talk-radio heartland
... Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing
language," he noted, using " 'global governance' rather than world
government."
Rachman noted: "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." But,
to Rachman's disappointment, there is still stubborn resistance
to this vision and "any push for 'global governance' in the here and now will
be a painful, slow process."
Rachman, the ardent global government proponent, then made an important admission against interest. He acknowledged, "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."
This, of
course, confirms yet again two of the main objections by critics of the
processes employed to promote "global governance," "harmonization," "shared
sovereignty," "interdependence," and other code words for schemes that subvert
national sovereignty and build global government. The first is that globalists
perennially mislead and deceive to obtain their objectives; the second
is that despite their proclaimed commitments to transparency, democracy, and
rule of law, the global-government adherents regularly ignore and violate all
of these principles.
Unfortunately, while revealing admissions (and boasts) by other globalists are
cropping up, most of Rachman's and Attali's one-world colleagues are more
circumspect. When the inquiring journalist or alarmed citizen points to the obvious
disturbing destination where this process is taking us, he is given the
Wizard of Oz treatment: "Don't pay any attention to that man behind the
curtain." In other words, don't believe your eyes, ears, or common
sense.
Hmm. It appears that Goldman Sachs might only be one leg, a hoof even of the goat with the green leafy coat. And, this is no ordinary barnyard goat. This a sneaky goat with brains, vision, and a plan. But, surely Uncle Sam is still in charge. After all, it's only a goat, right?
