First off, what is an American doing reading the FT?
I have been reading FT for almost 20 years. I got hooked on it when I first moved to the Washington DC area, and was taking the metro to work every day--the "pink" paper they used to print it on caught my eye (as a graphic designer, I thought it rather novel...) and once I started reading it, I was hooked. The FT is like the Wall Street Journal, but without the pretense of being "unbiased" news--they have been pretty much coming right out and telling their readers for two decades that governments have no real say in the economies of their respective "states"--that it's all really manipulated by the agendas of the central banks, mega-industrialists, and the self-appointed guardians of Finance. I LOVE the FT, because they dropped the "mask" a long time ago--it's frightfully disgusting and refreshingly evil...
Not ALL Americans are completely Amero-centric. Some of us actualy understand the way that the "world economy" is working, and realise that the only way to really get the big picture is by culling "news" from sources all over the globe...
Second, did we read the same article? It basically does NOT say what you claim - that world governance is pretty much inevitable.
Justify why you think it does?
Apparently, we didn't read the same article, nor do I assume that someone in Europe WOULD read the same article, from a relativistic, sociological, or quantum-cognitive aspect. Since you and I have grown up in VERY different environments, and are surrounded by very different "realities" in our media, our neighbors, and our "government", there is, in fact, absolutely NO WAY we could read the same article, from a socio-economic cognative point of view. Our socio-historic-political weltanchauung are so astronomically different, that there is simply no way that we could read the same article, even if we were sitting side by side in the same room, reading it from the same sheet of paper.
But I'll attempt to explain how I came to my conclusion, through quoting the article, and then elucidating from within my own worldview...
And I quote:
"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."
OK, granted, this fellow is a pure academic, and so anything he says MUST be taken with a grain of salt...
However, if we look into
Mr. Blainey's history, we find that he is, in fact, a member of the British Nobility (having received the Companion of the Order of Australia in 2000), a life-long "conservative", and sometimes even catagorised as radically right-wing. This fellow is VERY connected, with seats at Harvard and on the Australia-China Council, in addition to his Australian university positions. So regardless of how you feel about his politics, this fellow obviously hobnobs with the financial, political, and social "movers and shakers" of the Asian and British Imperial ruling class.
So one might assume that he actually doesn't pull his statements out of his bum, but is rather stating what he knows to be truly "in the works"...
In the above quotation, he says that he foresees the attempt to establish world government in the next few centuries. To me, that means that he, as an academic, is making a prediction...
He then goes on to say:
"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."
So although he believes it is pretty much going to happen within 2 centuries, he feels that due to the current economic, political, and sociological events and trends, this "attempt" will most likely happen much sooner. It's pretty clearly stated. I'm not really "interpreting" anything here--just quoting what the guy said...
He then goes on to discuss the perceptions of other world leaders as to the potential agenda of the current American 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."
Attali and Sarkozy are admittedly a couple of unapologetic globalists, and are some of the most vocal proponents of a centralised global banking system, and a centralised, global "security force", so this comes as no surprise. But for them to come right out and say that they see the same agenda moving forward in the USA is pretty brash.
The author then goes on to state:
"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."
Means, motive, and opportunity--that's all you need in any court of law to get a "guilty" verdict...
Despite the fact that such an idea of an American Union (Canada, USA, Mexico--based on the EU model) is repellent and unthinkable to most Americans, the idea of a European Union was pretty appalling to most Europeans in 1946. A little guy from Austria tried to consolidate Europe in the late 1930's, and because his plan was an end-run around the "ruling class" it was stomped out like a roach by the rest of the planet. And his socio-political policies left a REALLY nasty taste in the mouth of most Europeans with regards to a "unified Europe" for several decades.
Interesting, though, that 35 years later, DESPITE the fact that the majority of European people STILL didn't want entry into a unified Europe, the parliaments, crowns, and prime ministers of most of the European nations pushed the EU through.
The same will happen here in the USA, because the people we "elect" are not really functioning representatives of the people--they are beholden to their funders--the SAME people who set up and pushed through the EU--who are, by and large, the multi-national military-industrial corporations, the large international banking houses, and the "foundations" established a century ago by the neo-nobility racist eugenicists in the US like Ford, Rockefeller, and Morgan--people who had then (and maintain to this day) close ties with Euro-eugenicists, the various Euro-nobility, and the European central banking houses. (look into Cecil Rhodes and his little "foundation" for a jolting bit of enlightenment...)
This is no longer some sort of conspiracy. A "conspiracy" is hidden--this agenda is being played out in the open now--right in front of us. It's just that most people in the US have been made borderline retarded through decades of flouride, aspartame, mercury and formaldehyde poisoning and the generational program of forced addiction to psychotropic prescription drugs, and they are simply unable to process the information being presented to them in any rational, thoughtful, or causal manner.
The engineered failure of the financial sector by the actions of ING, UBS, RCH and others is just an accelerant. The "plan" as delineated by Charles Galton, Bertrand Russell, and others in the early part of the 20's century apparently wasn't proceeding quickly enough for these greedy sociopaths, and they knew that the only way to bring the various "American" nations into the fold of "global governance" was to threaten their almighty Dollar with extinction.
The American people have become very well-trained (and dumbed-down), and although they are divided into "right and left" by the media, they are, for the most part, easy to lead in a general direction if you give them a goal to point at like "terrorist" or "depression".
Nope, we're going to see "global governance" as a reality in our lifetime, and there's not much we, as the common people, can do about it. No voting, grassroots movements, or political activism will make a dent in the plan toward global centralization. This little project has been on the make for close to 200 years, and it's proceeding pretty much on schedule.
By the time I'm ready to retire, I fully expect to be either living in seclusion up in the mountains somewhere, or else locked in some sort of "re-education camp" because I have spent the last decade "calling it like I saw it"...
And here, dear friend, is yet another nail in my own coffin.
All I can do is stand up and shout:
"Vive la revolution, mutha-"F"er!!!"
The French people had the right idea in 1789...
Let the rest of the world go down this path of "global governance". The Romans tried it, and it lead to the destruction of indigenous cultures and the economic subjugation of peoples all over Europe. The Germans tried it and it lead to the Holoaust, and the largest war in the history of humanity. The Soviets tried it, and we got the Gulags, the Purges, the Putsches, and Siberian "re-education camps".
Frankly, I'm not too impressed with the historical precedent set by people who want to unite the whole world under one central governing body, and I'm in no big hurry to jump on this next train that is sporting that flag.
You all need to ask yourself, in the context of history, "Am I?"
?
