Tuesday, December 9, 2008

And Now For A World Government, by Gideon Rachman, Financial Times

Well, it had to happen sooner or later. The "respected" press could not go on forever pretending there are no plans to establish a One World Government. Rachman starts out assuring us he's not a conspiracy nut, and then moves right into describing the EU's supranational system of governance. He makes sure he mentions the EU's accumulated body of law twice in the second graph.

Of course he didn't feel it was important to NAME that body of law for his American readers. Nor did he feel it was relevant in this "fact based" story to describe how it is already underway across the globe (including the USA) via UN Local Agenda 21 Programmes and Community Economic Development. No mention of sustainable development or the role it plays in the balance between national law and international law. He gives just enough watered down information to lead Americans straight back into the dialectic. Heaven forbid Americans should have any other options for stopping Fabian plans besides fruitless armed rebellions. Peaceful non-compliance of unconstitutional laws, treaties, regulations and agreements doesn't play into the synthesis, so why bother explaining how that can be accomplished. It's much better for the globalists if American people think the only way to fight a War on Words is with guns. It's also a huge help if people never understand what communitarian law is. Leave them stuck in the capitalism versus communism divide and they'll never know what hit them.

"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."
- Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959 (posted by Bob Lanzer in a comment to Rachman's article)

Krushchev, like all the Soviets, was an EXPERT liar. If the synthesis was planned at the same time the thesis (capitalism) and antithesis (communism) were, and the goal was always to create a solution called world government, then should we believe Krushchev's 50 year old promise or the REALITY of what we actually live with today?

Will this revelation change my public status from wacko to intelligent political analyst (or at least just a concerned citizen)? I doubt it. My focus on the synthesis (the actual EU laws) means I'm still too ahead of their propaganda game. Barack Obama will be the one who introduces the synthesis to the global "masses," not me. And he'll make it sound a lot better than I do.

And now for a world government, by Gideon Rachman, Financial Times:
"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." {boldface mine} Read the rest of this article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html

Many thanks to Larry G. for sending me this link!

No comments: