It just doesn’t get much balder than this. The international press are announcing world government and nationalization strategies while we sleepwalk our liberty away. When you and your family are owned by debt, surveilled, and regulated to within an inch of your life in the future, will you at least be able to say that you spoke up about it? That you got involved in the discussion, pro or con? The most dangerous thing about the centralization of power, whatever its efficiencies may be in a command and control setting, is that no matter how benevolent the intentions of any new system of international governance, it lacks the safeguards, the firewalls that the borders of nation-states naturally provide to imperial or tyrannical aspirations. While one country may go rogue, others are insulated by their cultural and institutional traditions. This will not be the case under ‘global governance’, a weasel term this site has derided in the past.
Strobe Talbott, advisor to the Managing Global Insecurity report and President of The Brookings Institute as noted in the article below, declared in 1992 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.” This commentary continues to be reflective of the Fabian cast of mind that has so seized our formerly democratic institutions. The spin on this article is that it may take quite some time yet – but it is worthwhile considering that, in light of recent calls for vast discretionary powers to be handed to global monetary institutions, incremental steps in this direction will have real consequences, too, and there needs to be a viable political resistance so that this agenda does not sail through unopposed.
Gideon Rachman, Financial Times
December 8, 2008
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.
(more…)