Post by Daniel on Jan 21, 2016 19:20:31 GMT -5
Going Global
Charles Scaliger
11 January 2016
There was a time when the very notion of world government was taboo, at least in public. Although elites in the United States and every other Western nation have been working for decades to set up a world government, it was, until fairly recently, done behind the scenes, with plausible deniability. Those who dared to accuse the architects of the UN-centered international system as working to build global government were routinely derided as cranks and conspiracy theorists.
In recent years, however, the architects of world government have been more open about their goals. For example, current UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (shown), at an October event in honor of the 70th anniversary of the UN’s founding, characterized the United Nations as the “parliament of humanity.”
Those who defend the notion of world government routinely claim that it would be a benign federation of nations structurally similar to our own federal government. Such a world government has long been promoted as the only possible solution to war and other social ills. Strip independent countries of their territorial sovereignty, it is claimed, and international war will cease. Who could possibly object to a benevolent “parliament of humanity” presiding over a future without war and without want?
But the key to effective government has ever been not wishful idealism but sober realism, which is why the American Founders insisted on limiting the powers of the federal government to the protection of God-given rights, and on dividing the apparatus of the state into discrete compartments whose powers checked and offset one another’s. And they did this in framing the government of a relatively small country whose inhabitants mostly spoke the same language and had similar religious beliefs and cultural assumptions.
Any world government would have to be sufficiently powerful to exact obedience from billions of people speaking hundreds of different languages, practicing many widely divergent religions, from cultures utterly incompatible with one another, from the entire length and breadth of the inhabited world. To achieve this, it would need to be both extraordinarily powerful and omnipresent. It would need to possess the police powers necessary to suppress insurrection and terrorism, and to compel people of disparate races, religions, and languages to get along.
continue reading
www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22305-going-global
Charles Scaliger
11 January 2016
There was a time when the very notion of world government was taboo, at least in public. Although elites in the United States and every other Western nation have been working for decades to set up a world government, it was, until fairly recently, done behind the scenes, with plausible deniability. Those who dared to accuse the architects of the UN-centered international system as working to build global government were routinely derided as cranks and conspiracy theorists.
In recent years, however, the architects of world government have been more open about their goals. For example, current UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (shown), at an October event in honor of the 70th anniversary of the UN’s founding, characterized the United Nations as the “parliament of humanity.”
Those who defend the notion of world government routinely claim that it would be a benign federation of nations structurally similar to our own federal government. Such a world government has long been promoted as the only possible solution to war and other social ills. Strip independent countries of their territorial sovereignty, it is claimed, and international war will cease. Who could possibly object to a benevolent “parliament of humanity” presiding over a future without war and without want?
But the key to effective government has ever been not wishful idealism but sober realism, which is why the American Founders insisted on limiting the powers of the federal government to the protection of God-given rights, and on dividing the apparatus of the state into discrete compartments whose powers checked and offset one another’s. And they did this in framing the government of a relatively small country whose inhabitants mostly spoke the same language and had similar religious beliefs and cultural assumptions.
Any world government would have to be sufficiently powerful to exact obedience from billions of people speaking hundreds of different languages, practicing many widely divergent religions, from cultures utterly incompatible with one another, from the entire length and breadth of the inhabited world. To achieve this, it would need to be both extraordinarily powerful and omnipresent. It would need to possess the police powers necessary to suppress insurrection and terrorism, and to compel people of disparate races, religions, and languages to get along.
continue reading
www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22305-going-global
!!
