Natural Medicine Talk Your natural health critic

Go Back Natural Medicine Talk > Community > Chitchat

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
� #1
Old 12-17-2008, 06:12 AM
Senior Student
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Out of sight
Posts: 71
liverock is on a distinguished road
Default I never thought I'd see the day.............

........when a worldwide respected newspaper such as the London Financial Times admit we could be heading for a World Government. / Columnists / Gideon Rachman - And now for a world government

And now for a world government

By Gideon Rachman
Published: December 8 2008 19:13 | Last updated: December 8 2008 19:13

I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

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.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.
First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.
Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. 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.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that 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. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. 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”.

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.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.
There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. 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.

The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.
[email protected]
THe EU would be a perfect model for an anti-democratic World Government. The writer is wrong in saying that the EU is being slowed down in their plans by individual countries not approving any legislation they dont like. The EU merely goes ahead with the changes and resubmits the proposals for a series of referendums, "after a suitable time for the re-education of the electorate" as they put it, until they get the result they want.

The Euopean Law model is totally anti-democratic and follows the Napoleonic justice system, that you are presumed guilty until proven innocent and can be held without charge for up to 6 months. There is no right to a trial with a jury.

Another sinister law hidden away among the thousands churned out by the EU is the one making it a criminal offence to critisise the EU government.

Most people in Britain have no idea that they are signing away all their rights under juris prudence and all the safeguards they have under British Law, and merely think the EU is a common market with no trading tariffs as it was originally sold to them.

The EU is continually changing its name to confuse people not "in the know" to its real purpose.

It started out as "The European Common Market" and then became "The European Economic Community (EEC)", and finally "The European Union (EU)"..

Thus it has gone through the 3 stages of common trade tariffs,a common currency and finally a common political system, (the real aim from the start).

If they had attempted political union from the start the EU would never have got off the ground.

Would anybody care to bet against this model being repeated under The North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA)?


Last edited by liverock; 12-18-2008 at 02:43 AM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
� #2
Old 12-17-2008, 10:15 AM
Kevin's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 364
Kevin is on a distinguished road

If some disaster strikes our Earth and only a few hundred people survive. It's possible.
Reply With Quote
� #3
Old 12-17-2008, 09:14 PM
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Illinois
Posts: 599
Mad Scientest is on a distinguished road

Originally Posted by liverock View Post
Would anybody care to bet against this model being repeated under The North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA)?
Not at all! Just take a look at the Security Prosperity Partnership agreement between Mexico, the US, and Canada. This would create a North American union similar to the European Union. The individual countries would lose their individual sovereignty and be required to submit to the rules of the �partnership�.

Of course no one is supposed to be aware that this �partnership� is even in the works and for those that do hear about it why with such a friendly name like that what is there to worry about?

The following is a radio interview with David Icke, is a bit long, but I think he does good job of connecting the dots.

YouTube - David Icke - Audio - Coast to Coast AM - March 2006
Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thought This Site Might Interest People Boss Chitchat 0 07-21-2008 07:31 AM

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin� Version 3.7.2
Copyright �2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0 �2008, Crawlability, Inc.