Sophistic phony intellectual vents his distaste at the rabble rousing rednecks who think a world dictatorship might not be such a good idea
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com 
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman complains that he has been “covered in internet slime” after receiving hundreds of hostile e-mails in response to his article in which he all but called for a dictatorial global government to be installed to fight terrorism, climate change and solve the financial crisis.
Self-satisfied with his perch on the wannabe-elitist media peanut gallery, puking verbal diarrhea from the gravy train of sophistic phony intellectualism, Rachman’s was aghast that the rabble-rousers and “gun-toting bible bashers” as he disdainfully referred to them dared challenge his globalist world view.
“These people can read, but they cannot think.,” sneers Rachman , as he registers his contempt for those “Who believe not only that global warming is a hoax – but that it is actually a conspiracy.”
No matter that the IPCC’s chief source for its scientific data was recently caught faking temperature data  in claiming that data records from the naturally warmer month of September represented those from October.
No matter that 2008 is the coldest year of the decade , that the Arctic ice sheet has expanded by an area the size of Germany  since summer 2007, and that record low temperatures have hit areas all over America .
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
No matter that over 650 scientists have put their names t o a US Senate Minority report that challenges the contention of the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change that there is a scientific “consensus” on the causes of global warming.
Forget about all that, to even question the religious orthodoxy of global warming makes one intellectually inferior, Rachman implies.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Despite calling his article , ‘And now for world government,’ Rachman then has the temerity to argue that he was not promoting the idea of a one world government, but merely “debating” the topic.
Throughout Rachman’s article he employs the intellectual tactic of making it seem that global government is inevitable as a means of advocating its necessity.
Rachman writes that there is, “An opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government,” that the idea is “plausible,” makes an argument that the financial crisis, terrorism and global warming create a pretext for it, and he quotes others who have passionately called for it. Near the end of the article he bemoans that fact that the push for a world government will be a slow process due to massive opposition against it.
How can this represent anything other than advocacy for the implementation of global government? If this article was a “debate” surrounding the question of whether or not global government should be set up, as Rachman claims, then he would have included at least some of the many arguments against global government, but how many did he cite? Zero. That’s not a “debate”, that’s coming down on one side of an issue. For Rachman to claim that his article was “a dispassionate discussion of the possibility” of global government is completely dishonest.
This smacks of the classic hand-in-the-cookie jar moment. Far from being covered in slime as he protests, the spotlight has been turned on Rachman and to everyone’s horror, he is already a slimeball of the highest order. Rachman’s retort is a desperate effort to turn the light off again before more people take a look – he obviously doesn’t like the fact that his distasteful and abhorrent opinions are being shown for what they are.
Rachman’s article is all about the merits and necessity of global government and then at the end he brazenly adds the caveat that it will only be a success if it is anti-democratic in nature, ie dictatorial.
Rachman’s attempt to backtrack and protest his innocence in claiming the article was anything but a PR piece for global government may fool the naive, but when we have dozens and dozens of highly influential figures throughout the decades calling for the same thing, the seriousness of the issue becomes clear.
Global government is by no means a new phenomenon proposed as a “solution” to current problems, it is the ultimate goal for a long-standing agenda  that seeks to crush national sovereignty and freedom and replace it with a tyrannical new world order. That is not some kind of hare-brained conspiracy theory as Rachman would have it, it is a privately and publicly stated mission of the global elite.
Strobe Talbot, current Obama advisor and President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, wasn’t loosely “debating” the subject of one world government when in 1992 he told Time Magazine, “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.”
Neither was Dr. Henry Kissinger absently chit-chatting when he told a Bilderberg conference in 1991, “Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.”
Likewise, international financier James Warburg was deadly serious when he told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1950, “We shall have a world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.”
The march towards a centralized global government is not a contemporary idea, it is a coordinated movement firmly entrenched in history.
At the end of his riposte, Rachman cracks a lame joke about pretending to be a member of the “Bilderberg/Illuminati/Council on Foreign Relations/UN/Zionist establishment” to make millions from tell-all books.
Deliciously ironic it is therefore that as a matter of routine, Rachman’s colleague Martin Wolf, the Financial Times’ associate editor and chief economics commentator, attends the Bilderberg Group meeting every year and hob-knobs with hundreds of the world’s power elite, and then routinely fails to report on it in the knowledge that if he did he’d be shunned by the very establishment that Rachman makes light of.
After all, 200+ global powerbrokers meeting in secret to discuss the future course of the planet doesn’t seem like a very interesting story now does it?
Perhaps Rachman should ask Wolf for an invite to Bilderberg 2009, and then he could stop hoping to be a member of the global elite and actually become one. With disgusting, anti-democratic and elitist opinions like his, I’m sure Bilderberg will welcome Rachman with open arms.