FT.com | Gideon Rachman’s Blog | Covered in internet slime

Covered in internet slime

December 10, 2008

I knew that there was something odd going on, when I woke up at 7am on Tuesday and found that over 200 e-mails had arrived in the seven hours that I had been in bed. It turned out that my article on world government had been “Drudged” - ie put on the much-read Drudge Report and this had set off a torrent of e-mail traffic.

The pace of comments - and their vituperative tone - persuaded the blog-masters here to shut down the comments section on that article pretty quickly. But this had the unfortunate effect of encouraging people to e-mail me directly. The following from one reader is fairly typical:

“Just wanted to let you know that you’re never gonna get your New World Order.
People are waking up everyday to what’s really going on ….Good luck gettin’ the guns you traitor piece of trash!!”

If you get two e-mails like that it can be faintly unsettling. If you get two hundred, however, you begin to get used to it. That said, the whole experience has given me an insight into the mindset of the gun-toting, bible-bashing, nationalistic bit of the United States. Here are my conclusions.

1) There is an unbelievable amount of anger and hatred out there - directed at everything from the UN to big business to Barack Obama. These people can read, but they cannot think.

2) The “End of Days” crowd is very strong. I would say that about a third of the e-mails I got referred me to the Book of Revelations - in which, apparently, it is all foretold. In an idle moment, I e-mailed one of my correspondents back and said that I have never read Revelations, since I am an athiest. Big mistake.

3) There are a lot of people who believe not only that global warming is a hoax - but that it is actually a conspiracy. The fact that the most influential reports on climate change have been produced by an intergovernmental panel (IPCC) - sponsored by the UN - fuels this theory. The idea is that the UN is perpetuating a climate-change hoax, to provide an excuse to impose a world government on America. I’m all part of it apparently.

4) I can see what Obama means by referring to “bitter” people clinging to guns and religion. And clinging is the word. Several people informed me that I would only remove their guns “from my cold, dead hands.”

But something positive has also come out of this experience. If the newspaper industry really goes down the pan, I now have a business plan. I will claim to be a former member of the Bilderberg/Illuminati/Council on Foreign Relations/UN/Zionist establishment and write a book revealing the inside story of a plot to form a world government. It will sell millions.

December 10th, 2008 in US politics, Weblogs | Permalink

137 Responses to “Covered in internet slime”

Comments

Those emails must have really shaken you up as I believe you meant to say bible thumping, not bible bashing.
Posted by: Russell Fuhrman | December 10th, 2008 at 2:05 pm | Report this comment
Dear Gideon,

Your genuine surprise at the reactions your article sollicited from the various gun-toting, Bible-quoting xenophobes is both endearing and worrying; I can only assume from your reaction that the FT has provided you with an armed security detail. Indefinitely.

Kudos to you and keep writing!
Posted by: ejhp | December 10th, 2008 at 2:07 pm | Report this comment
Ignore the nutcases out there.

As commenter P notes in your original posting for this weblog, many of the messages likely come from the same source or related sources.

The concept of world government is a good one, Where it can be most effective, how it already exists and so one are topics worth debating.

You are also correct to equate the tone and content of the messages to the group that then-candidate Obama referred to. Fortunately the group is relatively small, but loud and offensive.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | December 10th, 2008 at 2:19 pm | Report this comment
Ahhh … so you didn’t think we would see your article. Shame shame on you.

You posits that global warming, a global financial crisis and a global war on terror may have combined into a perfect storm that may advance the plausibility of a one-world government.

I have a one-line reply to the likelyhood that I shall willingly participate in such a takeover of the United States. It is as follows:

“I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
- Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

The very essence of the American citizen lies in Henry’s impassioned words.

Nobody … NOBODY … is going to take away from my children (and their children) the rights for which their, and my, forefathers pledged “to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

So, make no mistake, Mr. Rachman, et al … against all odds we did it once, and we can do it again!! Dismiss it as “stubbornly local” if you feel you must be judgemental. Just DON’T DOUBT IT !!

We are not so foolish as to give up the best country on earth simply because we have a bunch of feel-good lily-livered liberals in our midst, including that Chicago scum-bag Obama. The dirty little secret is that those same self-righteous liberals can depend on the rest of us to keep them safe and they KNOW it … much like a few countries I could name.

I count on one hand the countries who don’t come with their hands out for American largess. Not coincidentally, they are Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and the U.K. I can’t admire France, but I love France, only because of the Marquis de Lafayette. Besides, when Uncle Sam met Miss Liberty, it was love at first sight. There’s a certain “j’ne se qui” about those French girls.
Posted by: Katy from deep south Texas | December 10th, 2008 at 2:22 pm | Report this comment
Notwithstanding the 200 emails you received, I still think that there is a silent majority which agrees with your views on the need for world government and believes that supranational sovereignty and global democracy are within reach in our generation.

Good luck with your book. A small reading suggestion: look at the work of the British federalists of the 1930s and 40s (Robbins, Wheare, Lord Lothian)
Posted by: Michele Ruta | December 10th, 2008 at 2:35 pm | Report this comment
Methinks you are the xenophobe, and obviously you are a bigot, prejudiced and RETARTED.

These people are not bible-blah blah and gun-this that… this is just your rhetoric taunts to attack ALL PEOPLES of the world and freedom of speech, as your commentry piece was see far wider than you think, and by an extremely educated and aware audience my friend.

The truth is already known by the masses, and you are one of them.
Posted by: David Zucker | December 10th, 2008 at 3:03 pm | Report this comment
I should have read your new article a bit more closely before I posted my previous comment.

I don’t believe I was partonizing or insulting to you at any point in my comment.

So, what’s up with you characterizing myself and my fellow Americans as “gun-toting, Bible-thumping” bitter people, who can read but can not think?

Obama hater? Hate is reserved for persons who have harmed me or my family personally. I call Obama a Chicago scum-bag because that’s what I assess him to be, based on his own speeches and actions (or lack thereof).

It appears to be you, Mr. Rachman, who has the problem with unwarrented bitterness. After all, you are expressing your opinion in a very public forum; why would you not expect others to express their opinions, as well?

For a Brit, your smug, supercilious, headmaster-like disdain for us, coupled with the revealing lack of respect in your new “business plan,” is very disappointing. One can normally count on the British to have good MANNERS!!

And to you, P. … I’m particularly proud of my Great Uncle, who was in France on a small matter called “D Day.” He brought home a French war bride. She was a wonderful aunt, a true lady, and charmed everyone in my family.
Posted by: Katy from deep south Texas | December 10th, 2008 at 3:14 pm | Report this comment
Surely you need to at least consider the danger that a world government might turn into a tyranny. After all, it’s not so long since a nation and its leaders became fascist and murderous and had to be overcome by the free nations. If there’s only one government then who is going to fight it if it turns bad?
Posted by: Andrew Chapman | December 10th, 2008 at 3:20 pm | Report this comment
Frankly Katy, I don’t know who those french girls are either, but there certainly is something about them.

As for the comments being fired out of the Deep South into your inbox Gideon, they are saddening but not surprising.

I only hope that they won’t stop you writing about the important issues of the day. Indeed, I look forward to reading about the possibility of a world army, based in Geneva, and the replacement of the US flag with something a bit more pale blue.
Posted by: Oliver | December 10th, 2008 at 3:27 pm | Report this comment
I used to read a very enjoyable and informative usenet forum about the Middle East for several years before it was invaded by the flag-waving trailer trash from the US of A who started endless flame wars and whose arguments quickly degenerated into “we will bomb you back into stone age”.
The forum simply died because all the interested and interesting users shied away.

If the online editors aren’t careful, this blog will suffer the same fate. Maybe if the onslaught from the Deep South continues, the commenters’posts should be subjected to delay and prior review. At least for a few days.

Best,

P
Posted by: P | December 10th, 2008 at 3:43 pm | Report this comment
Apparently I’m the only commentor here with the fortitude to disclose from where I’m posting.

If I’ve inadvertently ruffled anyone’s feathers, causing one person to desire the replacement of the US flag with a pale blue flag, I apologize, and support your right to express your opinion.

However, it serves no purpose if my posts interfere with a discourse that should be focused on the merits/demerits of Mr. Rachman’s article.
Posted by: Katy from deep south Texas | December 10th, 2008 at 3:46 pm | Report this comment
I have almost to assume Katy from deep south Texas and David Zucker to be inventions; their misspellings and crumpled grammar at emotive moments are too delicious.
Regardless, they raise an important misconception concerning the nature of freedom that cannot go past without comment.
If I read them correctly, these commenters they believe that freedom is an end of itself and does not have any lien over other parts of the individual or his life. However, Katy herself unpicks this. She says ‘Nobody… is going to take away from my children (and their children) the rights for which their, and my, forefathers pledged “to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”’ Katy here agrees that, in order to preserve some things (rights), it might be appropriate for the individual to sacrifice other important things (material possessions, honour, even life itself.)
So if some rights are inalienable (perhaps the right to a clean water supply, for example) then surely some sacrifices on important things are fine by Katy (perhaps where her government sits, and whom it governs).
No one is asking us to sacrifice our ‘sacred Honor’ but we will do so – and to no one’s benefit – if we diminish the lives of others by refusing to acknowledge that our own freedoms and responsibilities are already part of a de facto global system.
Posted by: Justin | December 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pm | Report this comment
…oh sorry Katy, I’m from Ireland.
Posted by: Justin | December 10th, 2008 at 3:53 pm | Report this comment
If you only got 200 emails Gideon you are doing very well.
People were lied to for years about the nature of the EU and the UN. Mainstream press ignored and denigrated “conspiracy theories” about world government. The movement built up as a counter culture.

You now want to get in on the act, saying, yea, there is a world government but dont worry as it wont happen for a long time. You are stealing peoples thunder at the very least.

I dare you to write an article exploring only the negative sides to a world government, if you are so liberal and intellectual, why not. It would represent those christian right voices.

The only stuff we will get from the FT is articles how great the UN is, and how ignorant and stupid people who dont want unelected executives running their lifes are.
Posted by: adam | December 10th, 2008 at 3:59 pm | Report this comment
Perhaps you’re right sir.

The current economic and financial issues and terrorism are all problems that have no national boundaries. Nothing shows how integrated our world economy is like the recent credit crunch crisis. The whole world is holding it’s breath and bracing for the full impact to be felt in 2009.

Terrorism is global problem. Nothing shows it better than an organization like Al Qaeda that functions in the caves of Afghanistan, flying aircraft into the World Trade Centres in New York. Hunting terrorists down is a real problem because of issues such as national sovereignty.

I think if anything is clear, its this. Transnational problems require Supranational solutions. Its not enough for just countries to just sit down and talk and not be willing to set aside their sovereignty to solve problems that affect the world. World Leaders, including the United States has to realize that their individual sovereignty is as much intertwined with the sovereignty of other states.

As much as people warning us of the end -days are concerned, if it is indeed written and destined by God, why are we trying to avoid it as if we can frustrate the plans of an omni-potent being?
Posted by: Anthony | December 10th, 2008 at 4:00 pm | Report this comment
Athiest? Is that a superlative?
Posted by: SDC | December 10th, 2008 at 4:01 pm | Report this comment
What has happened to GR is a lesson for all of us. Obviously his nerves have been shaken by his experience.

P.S. I think GR is nearing the age when he should think about a move to somewhere quiet like
Liechtenstein or its near neighbour. Both places are great if you are under 5 or over 50 (according to Friedrich Dürrenmatt).
GR could write about Swiss politics for a change.

http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/Vom-verlachten-Parteidiener-zum-Bundesrat/story/27629943
Posted by: J.J. | December 10th, 2008 at 4:09 pm | Report this comment
Katy’s ignorance of French (she probably meant to say “je ne sais quoi” about the French girls) is only matched by her ignorance of world affairs. America, far from being a source of largesse, is the world’s biggest debtor nation. If countries like China and Japan didn’t spend billions, or trillions, of dollars propping up the US currency, it would crash.

Her comments show that George W. Bush is not the only arrogant, ignorant, opinionated person coming from Katy’s part of the world.

algasema from the ultra - liberal, educated, diverse and polyglot Upper West Side of Manhattan.
Posted by: algasema | December 10th, 2008 at 4:14 pm | Report this comment
I do not find Mr. Rachman’s original piece in support of world government. I read it as raising the possibility and the topic. Accusing Mr. Rachman as if he were personally leading a movement toward world government makes no sense to me. To me, it does make sense to acknowledge our global interdependency, and to examine methods/means to work on these in the spirit of community. Problem solving is most satisfying when many minds help to create solution on behalf of the many who are impacted. Best to All - Maggie
Posted by: Maggie | December 10th, 2008 at 4:23 pm | Report this comment
“the online editors aren’t careful”

Weblogs can be programmatically controlled, similar to the use of RECAPTCHA that now screens out automated messages. Similar techniques are used to screen out e-mail spam. The techniques work quite well, but a bit a effort from the FT computer systems staff.

Spammers give up quickly once there are some roadblocks set.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | December 10th, 2008 at 4:24 pm | Report this comment
Whether we like it or not, we are living in a global age with heavily interdependent economies, multi-national business entities and social and security issues that cross borders. While I agree that the idea of one omnipotent global ’super’ government is unsettling, I do not think Gideon’s posting is advocating this. We do need to put some processes in place to ensure fair and equitable regulation of cross-national matters.

And to those who bang on about distressed countries looking to the U.S. for ‘handouts’, I would think you’d find the notion of spreading the responsibility of relief across all nations very attractive.
Posted by: Laura C | December 10th, 2008 at 4:26 pm | Report this comment
I’ve just reread the World Government piece and the way in which GR phrases his article is positively tame:

“So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might”…

After that a lot of coulds, woulds, ifs and good and bad points.

If an article that’s written in such a careful manner causes such outrageous comments, you can wonder about the uphill struggle Obama’s administration faces when reaching out to the international community.

Algasema, please don’t give more specifics about your location, you now know the type of people who read this blog.
Posted by: ejhp | December 10th, 2008 at 4:30 pm | Report this comment
Oh my god Justin, you are trying to use reason… That’ll never work.

And P - I think you’re right as it was, pretty much every topic was brought back to a middle east debate, now if Katy and Co take over this blog, every post will be back to freedom, religion, fried chicken, guns etc… Which frankly, would simply mean I drop this page from my RSS feed…
Posted by: fxtrader | December 10th, 2008 at 4:34 pm | Report this comment
My suggestion to the editors: allow only readers with FT subscriptions to post. (Admittedly not a high hurdle, but better than none.)
Posted by: RCS | December 10th, 2008 at 4:38 pm | Report this comment
Justin, Ireland

“I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
- Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

” … forefathers pledged “to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
- Last line of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Both of the above quotes pertain ONLY to the Declaration of Independence.

Twelve years later, the Constitution and the 1st ten Amendments, ratified by the 13 colonies on June 21, 1788, enumerated and defined the rights which were to accrue to an American citizen.

So, while I agree that sacrifice may be essential to maintaining our rights, the rights were made possible by our first having secured our liberty.

Sorry if my misspellings and crumpled grammar are bothersome to you. Typing is not my forte, so many misspellings are quite possible. I have no excuse for grammatical errors.

I have many Irish ancestors, including Murphy and Perkins, among others. I have longed to visit Ireland all my life. Perhaps someday.

Bye, y’all. Heh heh
Posted by: Katy from deep south Texas | December 10th, 2008 at 4:42 pm | Report this comment
Gideon - welcome to the Internet. It’s the place where informed debate goes to die. There are places where you can get sensible reactions (here, usually) but they are generally out of the way and are prey to group think.
Posted by: Anthony Zacharzewski | December 10th, 2008 at 4:48 pm | Report this comment
RCS: “allow only readers with FT subscriptions to post.”

Higher hurdle than you think. It takes relatively little to minimize nutcase comments. Ignoring them is another technique that works.

“It’s the place where informed debate goes to die.”

Untrue. The Internet enhances debate and information dissemination in all ways. Negative side effect is high flow of garbage, but that can be handled.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | December 10th, 2008 at 5:03 pm | Report this comment
Gideon,

I thought your column was excellent. I believe the fundamental problem is that some (including me) see the word “government”, we see something like “co-ordination of behaviour”, whereas others see “over-powering constraint”. As you know, a great deal of conservative thought is based on Aristotelian individualism and the premise that self-interested behaviour and action is optimizing for the both individual and society as a whole (cf Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations – though not his Theory of Moral Sentiments of course): so a government can only impose constraints on good people. It is also bound together with George Lakoff’s strict father mindset, which seems to explain the neuroscience and psychology behind these views. There is no cognitive room for the acceptance of securing minimum safety standards (food, vehicle, electrical etc), the provision of public goods, and several thousand other forms of coordination technology, which necessitate government action funded by some form of taxation. Public spending debates get reduced to “lower taxes!” while the country’s infrastructure crumbles (along with public education standards) and people then blame the government when the bridges collapse & people die. Of course, I am not pointing my finger at any country in particular (well, we Brits are known for our sarcasm after all).

There is also the interesting question of pro-democratic people arguing against a democratically elected global government. Isn’t that the ultimate form of democracy? It could be designed so those in the world currently disenfranchised are represented by proxy even if they were prevented from reaching a ballot box. See http://en.unpacampaign.org/index.php.

But. While there are theoretical arguments for co-ordination of behaviour e.g. a cap & trade system for limiting carbon emissions, we must also address the realism question of whether good governance is possible. We (humans) don’t seem to be very good at it. I suspect (very much conjecture, and maybe a bit of arrogance) that we Brits are some of the least bad at it, so we may be more inclined to argue for government than, say, some Italians I know.

My own view is that we humans are only inclined to accept the argument for a layer of government once we have lived through a crisis that occurs which might have been prevented were the governance in place ex ante. Consider the 30-year war and Westphalia, thought to be the birth placed of the nation state, a concept that most now take for granted. Consider the two World Wars and the formation of the UN and the EU. One might conclude that a global government will only be brought about after a catastrophe at the level of the governance required - in this case global. Deeply depressing – but we humans are not as bright as we like to think, as has been proven by many of the responses to your original piece.
Posted by: Greg Fisher | December 10th, 2008 at 5:04 pm | Report this comment
I am glad to see that there are so many “angry youth” in US of A too. I used to think it is unique in China. Welcome to the real internet world, GR.
Posted by: Fatbrick, analyst, 30 | December 10th, 2008 at 5:05 pm | Report this comment
I posted this on the Putinthread as the and now for thread had ben closed:
@following blogentry (worldgovernment): WOW!!!!!
So the everso stimulating exchange of ideas going on between longtime Rachmansitefollowers P, WTC, RCM, Lisa Helene, Algesma, Enrique, Setton as well as many more was interrupted by a fload of Rachman/obama-antchristpostings. So much so that the thread was closed. That must have resulted in some disussions over at the FT headquarters. My guess is that there are certain keywords, maybe it was worldgovernment but more likely it was the midland radiotalkthing that are being searched for in the internet by the guns^nriflerbloggers resulting in posting on their pastures within bloggossphere and the result is to be seen in the thread of the following post. Again WOW!!! That was some eyeopening learningexperience. It gives you an idea against whom Obama has won the election and lets you shiver and pray for his wellbeing. And as for you Gideon Rachman. Keep your head up, keep on going (posting)
Best wishes
BMH
Posted by: BMH | December 10th, 2008 at 5:07 pm | Report this comment
Lunatic fringe, or lunatic mainstream?

The Writings of the Fathers of the Constitution are so highly revered, it is as if they were some kind of religious work. If Constitution = Bible, I dare not think what Country stands for. That said, St Patrick Henry did leave us with some very uplifting prose.

And despite all that Southerners, when not acting out like this, are very charming folk.
Posted by: RCS | December 10th, 2008 at 5:13 pm | Report this comment
Just an observation from somebody whose background is from a broken down third world country.

I find it amazing that America has managed to become the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth whilst containing such a very large number of bigots and hate-filled extremists.

As I think their attitudes will bring about the downfall of that once great power, instead of “exporting democracy” at gunpoint to the four corners, shouldn’t the Americans put more effort in bettering their own population first?
Posted by: P | December 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pm | Report this comment
BMH ,

I think you mean RCS, maybe.

GR,

I actually sympathize with you. Having seen too many virtual invasion and flooding of online discussions, what happened in the last post is all too familiar. I do not think that a world government is a pratical idea anyway. But I am amazed by the intensive responses to your moderate article.
Posted by: Fatbrick, analyst, 30 | December 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pm | Report this comment
Katy, it is not your inability to type that is a problem - I am notorious for this myself - but your inability to think. However, if this is any comfort to you, you are in good company, as witnessed by the large volume of invective that GR referred to.
Posted by: algasema | December 10th, 2008 at 5:19 pm | Report this comment
62 million Americans voted for Obama or against W. 55 million Americans voted AGAINST the UN, globalism, socialism, aetheism, abortion, gay marriage and that fine Kenyan man, Barack Obama.

The global army you fantasize under the powder blue flag, if it were to be an army of any value, would have to be the American army, which is a volunteer army and finds it’s roots and families among the 55 million and not the 62.

Obama has no socialist mandate in America.

You global citizens who consider yourselves intellectuals, ie educated at universities and by professors of fine repute, you delude yourselves. You have knowledge, but no wisdom and little sense outside your metropolitan cafes.

Katy is right. There will be no global government as long as my family lives.
Posted by: Macgowen07 | December 10th, 2008 at 5:26 pm | Report this comment
“Italians I know”

Italians overwhelmingly approved (and approve) of the euro as a replacement currency and of inclusion in the European monetary union precisely because they so distrust their own supposedly representative government - which isn’t of course of over the overall populace.

They prefer a more responsible supranational government.

The violent reaction of some to the concept of “world government” is due exactly to this point:

I believe the fundamental problem is that some (including me) see the word “government”, we see something like “co-ordination of behaviour”, whereas others see “over-powering constraint”.

The Internet is a good model for “world government” in that it is made up of millions of smaller intranets (they themselves can be mini-Internets, i.e. networks of even smaller networks, depending on structure) that permit coordination and communication through any number of connective “nodes” all of which no single entity controls directly.

Central coordination of issues important to all through the supra-entity, the Internet = “world government”, but no control nor influence over individual intranets (countries, etc.) that make up the larger network.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | December 10th, 2008 at 5:37 pm | Report this comment
A long time ago, Craig Raine wrote in the FT, “Life is complicated. Ideas are simpler. That is their attraction.”

I certainly cannot nor will not defend the paranoid insular know-nothings out there in the US “heartland.”

Self-delusion is an inherent part of being human. Heck, there are still Americans who firmly believe the market value of their homes will increase next year!

Too bad there isn’t a market mechanism for irrational political beliefs.
Posted by: Sinyet | December 10th, 2008 at 5:45 pm | Report this comment
So it was A Drudge Readers Invasion…Figured as much …or perhaps Pajamas Media…now everyone understands why you never need to open up either site…look at the company you would be keeping…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | December 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm | Report this comment
Wendell…If the world government is going to be modelled like the internet, then I am going to buy a gun and emigrate to Montana!

P
Posted by: P | December 10th, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Report this comment
re fatbrick:
yeah and I forgot some and called Ms Larsen by her first name, misspelling her last now I guess. Anyway.
Your thoughts on angry people are interesting though. One does hear so little of them. It is hard to get information on what is going on in China. Even if something takes place in Europe like in Greece lately they just report about it as if these young people are hooligans running havoc outside of the stadium. They hardly report on their intentions.
BMH
Posted by: BMH | December 10th, 2008 at 5:59 pm | Report this comment
I have been reading GR’s blog and comments for months now and have subscribed to the FT for about five years. I figured what better time to finally jump into the conversation than during a nice calm, rational discussion such as this one!
Was I the only person who read GR’s blogpost as simply a “what-if” situation, toying with the ideas of World Government viability? As for the onslaught of comments, it is that specifically which has alienated me from my once passionate defense of Conservatism in America!
Its strange to come from a country where you are bombarded with very liberal almost chaotic activism in college only to discover a whole new world of equally zealous conservatism! Who couldn’t love this country of extremes!
Posted by: LPA | December 10th, 2008 at 6:02 pm | Report this comment
Problems posting. Have I been blocked? But I am not even American! Really!
Posted by: RCS | December 10th, 2008 at 6:05 pm | Report this comment
To Mr WordPress: The following is not a duplicate comment. Thank you.

P,

America is not a homogenous place. They have there pockets of excellence like Silicon Valley, which will keep them in the lead for many years hence. You are committing the same type of error as some Soviets once did (who could not believe such a vast economy was not centrally planned, so they imagined a secret hub in the Rockies).

America’s greatest strength is its flexibility. It is a place constantly reinventing itself, changing as circumstances require. This has been once again revealed by the latest turn in the economic policy paradigm.
Posted by: RCS | December 10th, 2008 at 6:07 pm | Report this comment
Thank you Mr WordPress for finally allowing the following comment. Your patience with me is much appreciated. But I had to chop it up into many paragraphs, so that you would not claim it a duplicate comment.

P,

America is not a homogenous place.

They have there pockets of excellence like Silicon Valley, which will keep them in the lead for many years hence.

You are committing the same type of error as some Soviets once did

(who could not believe such a vast economy was not centrally planned, so they imagined a secret hub in the Rockies).

America’s greatest strength is its flexibility.

It is a place constantly reinventing itself, changing as circumstances require.

This has been once again revealed by the latest turn in the economic policy paradigm.
Posted by: RCS | December 10th, 2008 at 6:13 pm | Report this comment
Wendell,

Thank you for your feedback on my thoughts. I suppose I should have written that Italians appear less trusting of government than (e.g.) me - the ones I know certainly are, I have discussed these things with them at length - but perhaps they are also less trusting of their own government than others? So I agree with you.

But the internet is essentially an information-sharing system, albeit an excellent one. Information can facilitate co-ordination but it cannot on its own arrange agreed, credible and binding agreements e.g. carbon reduction systems.

I have in mind something like the prisoner’s dilemma - the two prisoners can discuss co-ordinating their interogations with the police but without binding agreements, they will still snitch on each other.

There is also the issue of the co-ordination of multiple large groups of people, which in reality can only be done through representives. How can 7 billion people agree to reduce carbon emmissions across the internet?

Greg
Posted by: Greg Fisher | December 10th, 2008 at 6:21 pm | Report this comment
Thank you for saying what needed to be said.
Whether the Give me liberty or give me death crowd know it or not, we already have a somewhat chaotic scheme of world governance in the WTO, IMF, etc. which combined often act in such a narrow manner as to counter the policies of other agencies working on environmental and development issues. Perhaps this cross purposes issue needs to be addressed first.
Thank you
Posted by: James Mays | December 10th, 2008 at 6:21 pm | Report this comment
For what it’s worth: I was raised in the American Heartland, and although re-located from my birth/childhood region, live here still. (See my post above) I have yet to figure out a comprehensive explanation for extreme fear/anger/mistrust that is in the minds of some of my compatriots. These same individuals are - in interpersonal moments - gracious and generous. A high-powered emotional reaction is unfortunate as the physiology of such high emotion is known elevate a flight/fight capacity, and to reduce capacity to hear and to think. These folks may have some valid reservations that need to be spoken. But they are unable, in a state of high emotion, to hear alternative thinking which also has valid points to consider. Best to All - Maggie
Posted by: Maggie | December 10th, 2008 at 6:22 pm | Report this comment
Personally, I have nothing against the British for trying to enslave America with central banking, some of my best friends are British.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | December 10th, 2008 at 6:36 pm | Report this comment
Here, in the Golden City of Prague, we do not have gun-holding, just beer-holding bitter ones (Pilsner beers are bitter,right) but one who fits into Texas (sorry, Lone Star State) or better “Deep South” etc. or whatever symbol of xenophobic emotions one wishes to use … but we have our very own, homegrown pseudopatriot, Mr. Vaclav Klaus who who has been doing his share to stir emotion in cheap ways. His next enemy of choice to rally the emotional and yes, simple minded ones for his own selfengrandment, will be that World Governbement. For now he is massaging the gullible with all kinds of fears from integrated Europe and Lisbon Treaty in particular. NYT had and article on him last week. Concerning the US, where I had a priviledge or an opportunity to work and live for few past decades: Cannot produce (not only Detroit) what Americans and especially the rest of the world wants (in metric system). Priting dollars will not do forever, a new reserve currency will come sooner rather than later (as Brits withj libra already know, never geeting back from WWII moutains of debt). I used to think that religiosity in the US is a plus, now I am not so sure. See how (not only)Bush gets them there. Born-again will OK prez sending of quarter mil in heavy armor around the world while similarly religios mular blesses barefoot desperado to blow herself up. Like project called EU is apperently preventing wars between Europeans, world government might be a move in similar direction. Unfortunately, as ANY government, including “free” elections, even that one will not avaid being approachable to lobbist and special interests. But that is, I guess, a constant of human existence: some will always be more equal than the others.
Posted by: Zdeněk in Prague | December 10th, 2008 at 6:42 pm | Report this comment
I hope you do not consider your ideas validated by the opposition of idiots, since I am sure there are plenty of idiots who favor them.

Current efforts at a world government, in the form of the United Nations, have not yielded encouraging results. I need only mention the Oil for Food program, the Commission on Human Rights, and the widespread practice of pedophilia by UN peacekeeping forces. Would you really want the Islamic bloc to have significant influence over your country’s governance? If world government is such a demonstrable failure in its current limited form, what justifies your faith that its operations will be successful if only its scope were to be greatly expanded?

In the United States, we have just turned a failed party out of power. You have no peaceful means of doing so in the European Union. Every major initiative put to a vote by the people has been defeated, and yet those measures are inevitably put in place. If you seriously believe that your affairs are best managed by a self-perpetuating class of enlightened rulers, you might as well avoid half measures and go right back to feudalism. We will watch the experiment with keen interest.
Posted by: MFT | December 10th, 2008 at 6:50 pm | Report this comment
I read your article. If you intended the article to be supportive of the idea of world government, I did not gather that conclusion.
On the other hand, I do believe that some sort of world government is on the agenda of Adam Smith unbridled world financial players who in fact owe allegiance to no country. Moreover, given the extraction of moneies re the socalled bailout with no oversight yet, from within the boundries of this country, the United States already in substantial debt beyond its borders will have little or no recourse to stand too firmly against a variation of that theme regarding certain issues.
In addition, please remember that what one could call world government is not new…Emperors in history have done so for centuries. We are headed to a diminishment of the integrity of the boundries and resources within boundries. You can support that or not. I do not..and find it anathema for any number of historical and personal reasons
Posted by: NewOrleansPuma | December 10th, 2008 at 6:58 pm | Report this comment
Hi Gideon,

I was sorry to read of your discomfort at the many intemperate emails from natives of our former British colonies.

The trouble is, apart from those employed by the state or those who receive hand-outs from the state, not many people like the state.

I’m English and I don’t like the local councils who abuse our anti-terrorism laws to spy on paper-boys and monitor residents’ rubbish bins (that’s garbage pails to our colonial cousins).

Neither do I like our central government, who spend 50% of their time thinking of ever more laws to tie us down with, and 50% of their time to vote for their own higher salaries and gold-plated pensions.

I like even less the unelected European Commission that our own government seem happy to let draft laws for us, while being universally recognised as corrupt and inefficient.

The EU itself is undemocratic and not worthy of the epithet of “government”.

A world government would be even worse.

Vote for the “Leave me the feck alone” party.
Posted by: MrDavies | December 10th, 2008 at 6:58 pm | Report this comment
Per an official US government data, in 2005, top 1% of Americans owned almost 42% of national wealth. Top 330.000 Americans had - after all those creative deductions most people cannot even imagine - taxable income equal to the “bottom” 138.000.000. If money means power and influence, which is certainly the fact, how can one imagine domestic and - in particular - foreign policies of such country look like.

Such concentration of power is fiting for banana republic or latifundista regimes of the old, but for an example of democracy?

An those “Give me liberty or else” …. I would like to ask how many of them have a decent, globally competitive mandatory education, good or any comprehensive healthcare coverage all their lives, how many countries they visited and what their lives would be if US per capita consumption of natural resources would be say at West European levels and what their standard of living (read: consumption) would be if printing machines for all those thousands of billions of dollars which were sent (in exchange for goods, raw materials etc.) around the world and so far never coming back, will not be an exclusive property of Washington? Look at mountains of debt, federal, private, still record trade deficits …. with a cushion of the reserve currency living on a borrowed time. While those who produce and save, do not consume - by far - that much are getting from US still less worthy pieces of paper called US dollar. Does not sound very noble, patriotic, smart or anything to applaud.
Posted by: Johny in the East | December 10th, 2008 at 7:00 pm | Report this comment
“Information can facilitate co-ordination but it cannot on its own arrange agreed, credible and binding agreements e.g. carbon reduction systems.”

To push the analogy further, assume the “program” is a supragovernmenal project that is set up along the lines of an open-source software project that does in fact impose rules and has a given agreed-upon state at any given moment that participants have agreed upon to that point.

No doubt the analogy breaks. I haven’t tried to think it through.

The basic idea is to address your key point regarding how various parties view a supra-anything either as helpfully coordinating or potentially oppressing if there is no build-in mechanism to thwart oppression.

The “don’t tread on me” nonsense will always exist, but is distinctly in the minority.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | December 10th, 2008 at 7:04 pm | Report this comment
“not many people like the [S]tate”

Nonsensical case in point. The issue is not “either or or”. It is whether and where governmental functions are needed and for what social need.

A competitive economic marketplace is a social construct, just as much as a governmental bureaucracy or Congress or Parliament or other political institution that is supposed to represent the collective will of the people.

That comment reflects the usual ideological myopia of the right-wing in any country.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | December 10th, 2008 at 7:11 pm | Report this comment
With all due respect Wendell, it is the “dont tread on me nonsense” that brought this country out from under the fetters of King George and as far as being “distinctly the minority” you seem to misunderstand the make up of this country. Sure the “deep south” crowd will scream of guns and cold dead hands but you have to understand that most of this country shares at least the groundworks of that passion. The North East, where I am from, is highly educated and generally liberal, yet that passion and distrust of government still exists. We of course embrace this country’s government and rely on it heavily, much more heavily than our founders would deem acceptable I’m afraid, but to suggest that the VAST majority of Americans would do anything but balk at the idea of world government is to misinterpret the passions and history of this place. We were born out of “Dont Tread on Me” and regardless of political affiliation, grounded or ungrounded fears, locale or race, etc most Americans would defend that ideal.
Posted by: LPA | December 10th, 2008 at 7:19 pm | Report this comment
Johnny in the East -

True enough! But the reality now apparent is that those irresponsible American consumers maxing out their credit cards, lying on their loan applications and refinancing their overpriced homes have been supporting the world economy.

There are plenty of responsible, frugal, honest Americans - but they do not tend to spend other people’s money on Chinese junk.
Posted by: De La Rey | December 10th, 2008 at 7:19 pm | Report this comment
Those American chauvinists should note that the US is already trying to act as the World Government by abusing institutions like the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO as a tool of her foreign policy and by destroying the credibility of the UN by throwing vetoes around like so much confetti.

Anybody who doesn’t yield to those pressures will be subjected to unilateral sanctions, subversive activities by the CIA sponsored groups and outright invasion.
Posted by: P | December 10th, 2008 at 7:20 pm | Report this comment
P,
I would argue that is EXACTLY the reason most Americans distrust their own government let alone a World Government. The actions of our leaders do not reflect the will of the people, regardless of all the political aggrandizing or propaganda. It’s regrettable to me that so many especially in Europe, base their opinions of my country and its people on the actions of the very government we mistrust.
Posted by: LPA | December 10th, 2008 at 7:25 pm | Report this comment
“Americans would defend that ideal”

Few Americans would or do risk life and limb for any ideal.

Most would be willing to risk them for practical reasons including freedom to act in normal ways to make a peaceful way for oneself in the world or to defend one’s loved ones from physical attack.

Most likely true of any people, not just USAers.

The so-called founding fathers asserted their practical interests and broke with the colonizer when they had an opportunity and the advantage of several thousand miles of ocean - along with aid from a powerful enemy of the colonizer, i.e. France.

The practical interests of the “founders” are wrapped in many layers of ideological nonsense that is evermore repeated.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | December 10th, 2008 at 7:36 pm | Report this comment
Macgowen07, America has decisively elected an American, not a Kenyan, president, who happens to be black. My respectful advice to you and all the other hate-filled anti-black, anti-gay, bigots and right wing, pro-gun, religious fanatics “drudged” up in response to GR’s last two columns is to get over it.
Posted by: algasema | December 10th, 2008 at 7:43 pm | Report this comment
Wendell-
I tend to agree with you about defending an ideal. This is in no way unique to America I would also agree.

There were absolutely many pratical interests at play for the revolution and the timing was beneficial but to dismiss the fervent ideals of founders such as Adams and Jefferson is to not understand their true history. Franklin was the erstwhile pragmatist to be sure, but there was true zeal and patriotism from John (and Samuel) Adams as well as Thomas Jefferson and the “ideological nonsense” was something they were absolutely ready to die for. While many in America may not share their passion right now, to dismiss its existance or significance especially during the founding of this country, is completely erroneous.
As far as French help, it was absolutely vital and saved the cause financially and militarily…it was also never established and assumed to be nonexistant until very late in the revolution. There was a HOPE for French support consistantly, not a reliance on the French until they did in fact throw their lot in with us.
Posted by: LPA | December 10th, 2008 at 7:44 pm | Report this comment
Im a Canadian agnostic and I have never held a gun.
One world government is a concept that most find an obnoxious plan to reshape our world as a corporation run plantation.
Also keep in mind nations run seperatly are a firewall against a one world dictatorship.
If there was a one world government in 1939 and Hitler had somehow grabbed control of it..who would have stopped him?

Nobody, and his kid would be our fuhrer today

You sir are an idiot, but at least you dont hide it.
Posted by: Andy s | December 10th, 2008 at 7:47 pm | Report this comment
Think Critically

I can not see how a one world Government is a good thing. I have a relatives that remember how everything went down in Nazi Germany and those same things are happening again here in America. Maybe those who think it is a good thing should go live in Communist China for a spell and let us know how that works out for you.

I do not want to give up my freedoms for a sense of some security. I will then deserve to lose both.

I do not want to have to show my papers(id) to someone in a uniform when taking a stroll downtown. I do not want my children to have to join a civilian military force by law or in order to graduate. I do not want to be forced to have vaccinations or to have my choice of using natural herbal remedies taken away. I do want to be forced to use genetically enhanced seeds in my vegetable garden or to give my chickens hormones. I do not want to have to answer to foreign military people either.

I truly think The Patriot Act and The FISA Bill should be abolished and our Constitution should be restored.

I want our freedom of speech to stay intact along with our privacy. I do not want our phones tapped. I do not want the police or military to be allowed to come into our homes without a search warrant and call us terrorists just because we believe the Constitution to be a good thing. I would like to be allowed to call a lawyer if needed. I do not think it is right that we can be arrested and detained indefinitely without any formal charges. I do not think torture is a viable way to get information from someone because being that I am just a wife and mother from SC, I would probably confess to killing Santa Claus if tortured. I will even give whatever details they ask for if they threaten to hurt me or a family member.

I want to live in peace, yes, but I do not want to live in a dictatorship or under Martial Law where all our rights and freedoms will be abolished.

We actually need less Government not more Government but judging from most of these comments I see that fear has made many forget their history and they will willingly give up their freedoms for the illusion of safety. You are all probably all good people who think you have nothing to hide so you are safe. I bet the Jews thought the same thing right up until they were hauled into the camps. Nobody did anything to fight tyranny back then until it was too late for many.

I hope the spell check police do not waste time pointing out my mistakes in spelling and grammar and instead try and see the point I am trying to make.

Thank you.
Posted by: Melissa | December 10th, 2008 at 7:52 pm | Report this comment
Wow, how to start after the flogging and counter-flogging above.

World government of any nature, form, or source, is an incredibly bad idea. One of the best features of our array of nations on earth today is choice. If you don’t like the government you have, you can either work to change it or you can go somewhere else.

Having see the UN in action (again, Oil for Food, etc), and seen what happens to populations when their government disarms them (Britain’s & Australia’s crime rates, Hitler’s Germany), we Americans are just fine the way we are.

As for Italians seeking to abandon their government for the supranational nature of the EU, when have the Italians EVER had good government? And why does that preference have to mean the EU is “good” government? If what you have swirls in the toilet, something that merely floats may seem a better choice.

Gideon, you seem appalled that anyone who isn’t at your intellectual capacity (something I will accept as noteworthy given your position with the FT) might have read your blog. Recheck your Statistics textbook for those Six Sigma outliers… There are likely those above you who are eye-rolling just as heartily.

As for American interventionism, I will raise my hand first and say that, yes, there are several instances we have been heavy-handed, intrusive, even imperialistic. We have also been altruistic, charitable, humanitarian, supportive, and nuturing. Hearkening back to all our Banana War interventions at the beginning of the 20th Century, one of my basic reactions to our (often uninvited) efforts was that even when we “fixed” a country, it rarely stayed fixed.

As for global warming, the efforts of our own resident looney-toon, Al Gore, has tainted the perspective of many Americans. The most inconvenient thing about what he calls truth is that he took projections from scientists and used only the worst-end numbers to generate other numbers. Back to your Statistics text and reread “rounding error”…

Welcome to the Internet, Gideon.
Posted by: Brian from Virginia | December 10th, 2008 at 8:02 pm | Report this comment
Just Great ! /Josef Boberg
Posted by: Josef Boberg | December 10th, 2008 at 8:07 pm | Report this comment
Oh yes I forgot to add on other thing. I do not like guns but I defend the right of citizens to own them and to call those who believe in the 2nd amendment right to bare arms as “bitter” is a terrible thing to say in my opinion. We own a gun and a rifle but we keep them for defense here in South Carolina. If someone tries to come into our home and ham us I feel better knowing I have this protection. The fact is that where I live everyone assumes that we all own guns and none of us have problems with break-ins. On another note many here also hunt for food. But more importantly our Forefathers did not say we should have guns for these purposes. They wanted all Americans to have fire arms in order to be able to stand up to Government if the time came when Government started to overstep their bounds and impose tyranny on the people and stopped using The Constitution as the guide for them to lead by.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our Forefathers knew this.

P.S.

I am not a Bible thumper or a Christian. I respect everyone’s right to believe as they choose. I tend to follow the Golden Rule as a way of life. Do unto other as you would have them do unto you. But I will never submit to someone or any force that would attempt to do evil.
Posted by: Melissa | December 10th, 2008 at 8:07 pm | Report this comment
GR–you’ll really be in trouble when those flogging Tories leave off protesting the foxhunting ban long enough to discover there’s something besides dirty pictures on the internet. Then we’ll find out if you run with the hares or hunt with the hounds.
Hoping you are as fleet of foot as fleet of intellect,
Apachecadillac
Posted by: apachecadillac | December 10th, 2008 at 8:11 pm | Report this comment
“Italians seeking to abandon their government for the supranational nature of the EU”

Current Italian government is certainly better than the Bush Administration and the extreme right-wing Congresses from 1994 through 2006 in the USA, despite the many negatives of the current government and some general negative characteristics of the Italian political system.

Italians overwhelmingly preferred that control over monetary affairs only be controlled supranationally.

Brian: I assume if not you personally, then your mind at least resides in Sarah Palin’s “real Virginia”. Do some basic factual research on any topic before writing such nonsense. Your cohort also happens to be a distinct minority in the USA despite monumental propaganda efforts on the part of the extreme right in the USA.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | December 10th, 2008 at 8:18 pm | Report this comment
Thank you, Mr. Rachman

As a proud American, a committed Federalist (the good kind, not the archconservative type!) and an ardent supporter of establishing a democratic global federal system, I applaud your discovery and support of this proposal.

Most of your points I have heard discussed for a number of years. It is great that this idea is again being more opening discussed as a viable path for accountability and justice. This is applicable whether or because both conservatives and liberals - and all stripes between - will (need to) be involved in global governance.

I encourage you to engage with those who are actively working to promote the necessary institutions to apply global solutions where necessary. Feel free to get in touch.

Tony
Posted by: Tony | December 10th, 2008 at 8:39 pm | Report this comment
Do a search for “Common Purpose” and find out what the UK arm of the New World Order are up to.
Posted by: John | December 10th, 2008 at 8:44 pm | Report this comment
Mr. Rachman:

It is only my opinion, but it does seem to me that anyone who views world events and opines on them is bound to lack something of his or her understanding of the world and the forces shaping world events if he or she has not read the Bible, whether atheist or not. I do not know whether you have read any of the Bible or not, but what is contained in the Bible has had enormous import in the Western World especially, and real impact on the rest of the world. Shouldn’t you at least be intellectually curious enough to read what it says? I suggest the King James Version–that way you get to read English at its most elegant. Our language has diminished in beauty and power since Elizabethan times.

As one reader has posted, one suspects you meant “Bible-thumping” and not “Bible-bashing.” The two phrases are opposites. Let’s not get our metaphors mixed up.

And, a thought on global warming: I don’t beliee it is a conspiracy, but it does amount to a sort of “received wisdom.” Many people have reputations, dissertations, academic advancement and grants riding on the rest of us accepting the “truth” of all the global warming mantra.

We know that no warming has occurred in a decade. And we also know that many reputable scientists and researchers question–and many dismiss–the hypothesis that carbon dioxide has anything to do with any global warming that has occurred. They believe natural climate cycles, probably influenced by the sun’s activity, is what is at the bottom of any global warming. Remember, the UN position is based on computer modeling–not hard scientific evidence in the usual sense. How well in another sphere–finance–did computer modeling serve the world’s major banks?

I have in fact read a lot of material, including reputatble scientific studies, involving the prognostications about global warming, carbon dioxide, alternative energy, etc. There are many holes in the received wisdom in each of these areas. My concern is that a lot of bad governmental decisions, which will further damage our world economy and perhaps even our environment, will be taken on the basis that all this “reeived wisdom is in fact true. When in truth, much of it is not, and a great deal more cvan be legitimately questioned.

Also, just for clarity, it is the “Book of Revelation” and not the “Book of Revelations.” But this is a common mistake.
Posted by: Terry L. Walker | December 10th, 2008 at 8:48 pm | Report this comment
I have had very interesting and informed debate about world issues in College Station, Texas (somewhat deep and pretty much the heart of the Lone Star State). I have also been told to date someone my own “race” in Boston, Massachusetts (my then girlfriend, now wife, was white and I am black). We should drop the geographic bigotry; there are stupid people all around the world (don’t get my started on Spain and Italy).
Posted by: Michael Johnson | December 10th, 2008 at 9:12 pm | Report this comment
As nationalism is the best direction for new world order, I feel I am a guest on this British blog, and maybe a kind of diplomat. While the blogs in the United States sponsored by British subsidiary corporations are not allowing spanish phrases in a state where spanish speakers are close to a majority, and in a nation that has no official national language, I find that these FT blogs allow phrases in languages other than english. To many of us, that looks as if the British bureaucratic elitists are still actively campaigning to colonize, subdue and control us. It is just, then, that we should, in return, send you our communications in American. The ‘hate’ you interpret is rather the natural defense of our honor and national security. We look at our troubled financial system, and we see that since WWII it has been placed under British control. We look at our troubled education system and we see that since WWII it has been placed under British control. We look at our corporations and we see that since WWII, most of them have been placed under British control. We look at our military strategy and we see that since WWII it has been placed under British control. We look at our foreign policy and we see that since WWII it has been placed under British control. We look at our government bureaucracy and we see that since WWII it has been placed, well, modeled after the British form. Now we are beginning to see that the theory of the virute of Godlessness and world government is coming to us from across the Atlantic. Not to say that the origins of our national troubles are ultimately British, but at least the arrow is pointing pretty strongly towards the direction of the source.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | December 10th, 2008 at 9:55 pm | Report this comment
Typical sanctimonious, condescending and elitist liberals. Their constant proclamations of their superior intellect is rather tiresome and boorish.

I find it irritating, but very telling, that those of you who demand not only tolerance, but absolute acceptance, and total deference to your ideas are the very individuals that are intolerant of anyone who has opinions to the contrary.

Yes, you are truly the enlightened ones. In truth, you are the epitome of the prejudiced, hypocritical, ignorant people that you purport all conservative Christians to be.

The absolute disdain for us right wing, conservative, Christian, gun toting Southerners is obvious. How about you guys practicing what you preach…
Posted by: Michael Jones | December 10th, 2008 at 9:56 pm | Report this comment
Interesting that you only point at the moron bible-thumpers as your only critics. Enough with your strawman Rachman. There were many replies that had logical reasons why your “world government” won’t work and why it would be a very bad idea. For example, if the U.S. can’t stabilize Iraq with a 50,000 man army, what makes you think your world government can control the world with that army? Other posters mentioned that the various cultures of the earth have mutually incompatible and mutually hostile value systems. The muslims are a large part of the world population, do you think that a raped woman must provide four “good” male witnesses in order to avoid the capital charge of adultery is good idea? Large parts of the world think so. Yet you don’t mention those in your response Rachman.

How about your wrong-headed prediction of the future? You predict than in 100-200 years, there will be a world government. Only a person ignorant of the reality of the super-empowered individual and fifth-generation warfare would think a future world government is possible.

The technology trends point toward the greater and greater strength of small organizations/individuals versus the army and police of the central government (see globalguerrillas.com and look of Belmont Club’s “fourth conjecture”). The striking power gap between nation-states and small networks of super-empowered individuals is SHRINKING. The future of a 100-200 years isn’t a world government, it is a world shattered into tens of thousands of tiny micro-states.

If you noticed the amount of opposition, you should’ve realized that your so-called world government would be paralyzed by multiple insurgencies of every stripe. It would re-fragment back to square-one.
Posted by: Robert | December 10th, 2008 at 10:08 pm | Report this comment
Naughty GR for thumping below the Bible belt.
Posted by: J.J. | December 10th, 2008 at 10:30 pm | Report this comment
Somehow I don’t think that GR’s extremely optimistic view of a one world government will be the way it turns out. It would take very little to turn a one world government into a one world tyranny. I can imagine Zimbabwe on a global scale, or China, or Saudi Arabia, or Russia, or…. It is a good thing when people can vote with their feet and abandon a country with a government that they are being oppressed by.
Posted by: Will | December 10th, 2008 at 11:09 pm | Report this comment
The reason World Government is impractical for Americans is that the rest of the world has different values than we do.

We could no more accept Saudi Arabian religious laws than we could accept Canadian-style censorship or British laws against self defense and the right to bear arms.

The rest of the world doesn’t get a vote on whether or not America censors the press or executes apostates or leaves its citizens at the mercy of poorly-armed criminals. Only Americans get to decide those questions.

Should the rest of the world come around to our way of thinking and adopt our values, defined as clearly as anywhere by our Constitution’s Bill of Rights, then and only then will a World Government that includes us become a possibility. Until then you can censor our press with your human rights commissions when you pry our guns from our cold, dead hands.
Posted by: USS Constitution | December 10th, 2008 at 11:12 pm | Report this comment
Gideon:

Sorry about the gun toting crowd, but your proposal and response was naïve and small-minded in its own way (dismissing others).
Posted by: John | December 10th, 2008 at 11:17 pm | Report this comment
The EU is a structured along the lines of the French state - a deeply undemocratic, sprawling, bureaucracy of elitist technocrats that believe they have a mandate to control every aspect of people’s lives (with no accountability). I can see why the French, with little experience of liberty or reasonable government and deep resentment against the “anglo-saxons” would sign up. But it mystifies me why an englishman or an irishman or a eastern european (despised by the French - “Ils auraient mieux fait de se taire”) would do so . And I say this as a French person who has moved to America to escape the conformisme and étatisme that is the norm in France.
Posted by: Alain | December 10th, 2008 at 11:22 pm | Report this comment
Sorry about the gun toting crowd, but your proposal and response was naïve and small-minded in its own way (dismissing others).

So acknowledging that people who emailed him hold the views they say they hold in email, is small-minded and dismissive?
Posted by: Aristides | December 10th, 2008 at 11:28 pm | Report this comment
Kudos to the admin of this blog for letting this conversation go on so long, this is a massively important dialogue at the forefront of many people?s minds today. Like many other commenter?s on this post thus far, I am not a believer in any particular religion, however I AM from the south (of California). My purpose here is regretfully to inform those who think, like the author of this blog, that anyone who would dare question the intentions of those so determined to consolidate all governmental power into one global ruling body, might have any impure intentions are apparently all creepy hillbilly folk with missing teeth and an addiction to shooting everything with guns is simply not true.

I especially find comments like those from ?Algasema? terribly disturbing. To insinuate that those who speak out against a questionable plan, whether or not it is only just ?proposed? or merely ?in consideration? are ?hate-filled anti-black, anti-gay, bigots and right wing, pro-gun, religious fanatics? is the most saddening aspect of all of this. If nothing else, this truly proves to me which side of the argument is the most sensitive to criticism and thusly, standing on the most shaky ground of all.
Posted by: alex | December 10th, 2008 at 11:47 pm | Report this comment
I recently became familiar with the works and ideals of the Club Of Rome. I like it. An exponential growth curve of democratic capitalist waste is not sustainable. I would give up some freedoms for the ability to work less and work more effiently at making the things that the people of the world actually need. Anyway, I thought this was a reasonable article. Cheers!
Posted by: COR Supporter | December 10th, 2008 at 11:55 pm | Report this comment
Atheism - A not for profit oranization.
Posted by: COR Supporter | December 10th, 2008 at 11:59 pm | Report this comment
Amazing! And Ithought Gideon’s point was that World Government was not something likely to be happening anytime soon.

Reminds me of the frenzy the folks out there got into with the Trilateral Commission and Nelson Rockefeller.

Rev. John Hagee is still at it, I suppose. I read today that Bibi Netanyahu is now saddled with a candidate who thinks Adolf Hitler was a military genius, and who wants to carry out Hagee’s plans for Israel to annex the West Bank and, presumably, expel the Muslims and Christians.
Posted by: James Canning | December 11th, 2008 at 12:12 am | Report this comment
GR, nous voilà !
What a funny thing the Internet… If it’s an illustration of the world governance talks, mostly between US and Brit netizens, what a hell! Anyway, after reading all this forum, I’ve the feeling that GR ask the right question at the right moment, in spite of his sceptical conclusion, and of all his provisos. As if he was himself anxious of what he was airing online.
I just want to look at an argument coming mostly from Rome (the hyperpower, be it Texas, Virginia or East cost): the Empirelike idea of world governance as DarkVador Power in a sort of Star war back to earth. Just ask to, say, Texans, Virginians, or Newyorkers: when they have local problems, how do they solve them ? By local policies. Same is true of now unescapable global challenges which call for global governance or global regimes.
One last thing: if no one can assure that the creation of the EU was the real cause of the longest time of peace that western Europe has experienced since the WW2, no one can bet that without the UE, and its forefathers (Monnet, Schumann, Adenauer, de Gasperi, Spaak… and why not Churchill)the continent would have such a long time without wars. And I don’t talk about the eurorush to EU of countries of former Soviet Empire.
Raph Elm from Paris (France)
Posted by: Raphelm | December 11th, 2008 at 12:21 am | Report this comment
Where do I find the article that got such a great response? Sounds great, a must read!
Posted by: Mat | December 11th, 2008 at 1:14 am | Report this comment
These comments are as weird as the item itself. I skimmed the first bit of this and skipped on. I’ve only just started reading the blogs on the FT following a really stupid one (or was it an editorial?) about how evil and aggressive etc Russia was in going into South Ossetia. In fact, all the media and politicians in the UK and US got it wrong. Another pair of morons proposed that the Bank of England should be the insurer of last resort, as if being lender of last resort isn’t enough (it actually isn’t, in a city of unlimited greed). Until recently I’ve only used the FT for the markets pages. It should stick to factual reporting. Staff opinion is off the wall.
Posted by: Chris King | December 11th, 2008 at 1:24 am | Report this comment
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and let me remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

What, GR, would posess you to believe that a one-World Government would be even vaguely just?
Posted by: Barry Goldwater | December 11th, 2008 at 1:29 am | Report this comment
What does it say about Mr. Rachman’s view of world government that when he talks so approvingly about the “Eurpoean Model” possibly being exported, he choses not to use the shining examples of Srebrenica or Kosovo? Or the stirring response of the Europeans to Rwanda? And this gentelman has been “the FT’s chief foreign afairs columnist since 2006″? And that, after 15 years at The Economist? Where was he during the 1990’s? Did he own a television? I am an American, and admit that we have not set the standard for diplomacy in action, but what thinking person thinks the “Eurpoean Model” actually works? Not the people in the former Republic of Yugoslavia, I assure you. (btw, the country that was once Yugoslavia was located in Europe)
Posted by: Paul F | December 11th, 2008 at 2:14 am | Report this comment
Blimey Gideon, you have picked up some interesting new readers.

I don’t approve of novelists having opinions (let alone political opinions), so I’m afraid I have nothing personal to contribute to this fascinating debate. But here’s splendid quote worth pondering by both sides:

“Individual liberty is not an asset of civilization. It was greatest before there was any civilization, though admittedly even then it was largely worthless, because the individual was hardly in a position to defend it.”
-Sigmund Freud, “Civilization and its discontents.”
Posted by: Julian Gough, Berlin | December 11th, 2008 at 2:23 am | Report this comment
Raph Elm:
The problem with “global governance” to solve “global problems” is that a very large part of the world believes that “religious intolerance” is a “global problem” for which censorship of the press is a solution.

I’m sorry to be this blunt, but the reason we Americans aren’t interested in joining your “World Government” is that, from our point of view, you’re all a bunch of primitive barbarians.

Your desire to bring America into your fold is as pathetic as if one of your men offered one of our women half a dozen pigs for her hand in marriage. “But those pigs are fat and healthy! How dare those uppity Americans refuse us!” Sure, it’s our fault we don’t want to marry you. Try looking in a mirror.

You censor your press, disarm your helpless citizens, control your economies with central planning, insulate your decision-makers from accountability to your voters, grant barbaric exceptions to your laws to religious minorities, and stifle your economies with high taxes and vast volumes of regulations — then grant exceptions to industries you consider “too important” to have to play by the rules. Thus your socialism begets crony capitalism. You can’t put down a riot or keep order in the streets, but you can ban editorial cartoons for “provoking violence” with their dangerous religious content.
In short, by American standards the EU is a squalid banana republic — one that incidentally regulates the curvature of bananas (EC reg 2257). Why would we want to be a part of that?
Posted by: USS Constitution | December 11th, 2008 at 2:27 am | Report this comment
Dear Gideon,

when I read this kind of reactions I always remind myself neuro-biologist Rita Levi (Jewish!) Montalcini’s quotation: “Intelligence is an illness of the brain and the world is full of people completely sane”.

My solidarity for the bad adventure. Those who threaten behind a forum or an email USUALLY are too coward to face their enemy, but I understand that this doesn’t sound as reassuring.

See the light side of it: the people that menaced you have lost the last elections in the USA; in Italy, they always win and usually create some new or old form of Fascism. At that point, the Italian roundheads rely only on some invasion from a foreign country, to have democracy and liberalism back. Guess who is the invader, usually?
Posted by: www.anellidifumo.ilcannocchiale.it | December 11th, 2008 at 3:24 am | Report this comment
Dear Mr. Rachman,

“World government” is simply silly. It is one of those phrases said with arched eyebrow, used to get a light chuckle at a cocktail party. It is not a subject for serious discussion, or controversy.

Sincerely,
Charles Hyde

P.S. You misspelled “atheist.”
Posted by: Charles Hyde | December 11th, 2008 at 3:32 am | Report this comment
Gideon,

Your blog on One World Government reminds me of one of those conspiracy theories that I read on the web that talked about a New World Order–a single world government. Dont tell me you’re a subscriber to that theory and now want to sell it to us. I think we’ve got too many state and non-state actors today to have them all in one big happy family. Happy day-dreaming mate.
Posted by: ftworm | December 11th, 2008 at 3:34 am | Report this comment
Just imagine a global government modeled after the US. I doubt that world productivity would ever be equal to the task of supporting such a corrupt enterprise.

Earl …. US Pacific NW
Posted by: Earl Hill | December 11th, 2008 at 3:35 am | Report this comment
One World govt? Yes, it’s called the Chinese Empire, and if you’re lucky, you can join. As the doofy stary eyed lib fantasy falls apart, we here in China, with our way better Way, are zooming to new heights and power
Posted by: Bob Burns | December 11th, 2008 at 3:36 am | Report this comment
Dear Mr. Rachman, I am a gun-toting, bible-bashing flag-on-my-sleeve moron of the first order, incapable of deductive reasoning, coherent thought, or polite discourse. It’s impossible to even have a reasoned debate with me because the reality that informs my thoughts and actions exists entirely within my puny brain, and bears no resemblance to the greater reality shared by everyone else. You may as well preach to a doorknob. I can’t hear you. My personal hygiene is spotty at best. - WW
Posted by: William Wallace | December 11th, 2008 at 3:37 am | Report this comment
What never shocks me is the thin skin of a prgressive. You’ll see progressive’s foaming at the mouth if the choice is other than abortion. The honest admiration for those with absolute power that “do so much for the poor” - so much that more in these countries join the poverty brigade every day.

The anti-industrial movement is a religion. Its core belief is in anti-humanity and that the Earth was a place of enduring tranquility until the modern age. People that could not feed themselves died. If they caught disease it spread. All other manner of the Earth’s “defenses” kept people in check.

The science on climate change is not settled, every year more and more scientists are dissenting from the IPC on climate change. The scheme will fail, especially when people start to realize that its only another avenue for taxation with no intent of or ability to change ANYTHING.
Posted by: B. Gonzalez | December 11th, 2008 at 3:39 am | Report this comment
Not only do we know how to think, it is our common sense that creates our disgust with condescending dimwits like you. I don’t own a gun, but I see what is ruining America. It isn’t NASCAR types or those that own guns or those that actually know what the last book in the Bible is called. Imagine your snickering if I referred to the UN as the UNs? How ironic that those of us that can’t think are doing the snickering.
Posted by: Figures | December 11th, 2008 at 3:43 am | Report this comment
Well, we pulled Europes asses out of harms way twice in the last century and they will never let us forget it. At least the French won’t and the Germans—well, they are simply Germans and can’t help it. We expect that from these two countries but not from a UK writer. Obviously, you do not understand the Nationalistic nature of the American people. Anyone that tries to govern us, other than people we elect from our own land, will have hell to pay. I live in China and I can tell you that they are of the same mind. Europeans have chosen thier lot and from the news about Greece, the EU is unraveling as we speak. ( You will remember this started in France)
Posted by: Ruckus | December 11th, 2008 at 3:44 am | Report this comment
If there is a one world government, who runs that government? Libs have openly declared certain people don’t deserve freedoms, and equality is not something they believe in either.

Hitler wanted a one-world government too, and he’s a wonderful liberal who hated gun toting religious people.
Posted by: May | December 11th, 2008 at 3:47 am | Report this comment
I think the disconnect is quite simple. Of the 55 million in America that didn’t vote for Obama, a large proportion of them don’t see a large government as being desirable.

In the 20’s, the US Government was relatively small, compared to the population, and it was pretty inefficient. Under FDR, it grew, proportionately, and became even less efficient. The US Government of today is still larger, and even less efficient.

As Americans look around them, large numbers of them recognize this. Some of them think the only reason this is bad is because it’s the ‘wrong’ type of government. These people are among those who voted for Obama and some inchoate concept of ‘change’.

Others recognize that the more you reward a behavior, the more of it you get. So if you reward inefficient governments, you get a bigger one next time around. These Americans look to the vast socialist and comminist enterprises that have been demonstrated to be huge failures and reject the idea of a future that ensures such overarching control of the polity. It’s as simple as that.

And as someone stated in the past - when government is so huge that it’s the only player in the game, who’s going to dismantle it if it goes bad?

This isn’t knuckle-dragging gap-toothed moronism, it’s a valid concern that transnationalists won’t condescend to even try and explain.
Posted by: Bob Maurer | December 11th, 2008 at 3:47 am | Report this comment
I will tell you about my experience trying to “discuss” issues online at “liberal” sites in the year before the election:

1) I have never experienced as much hatred, anger, misogyny and offensive insults ANYWHRE than at “liberal” sites. These were places where “moderators” had to approve posts before they were published and where people would say the most offensive things on a DAILY basis and it was considered normal. They would frequently say they wanted female politicians including Palin killed, either in a plane crash or assasinated. They would laugh at jokes about female politicans being sexually assaulted. They would make offensive racist remarks about people. They insulted the children of politicians including Bush in such a hateful way that I was shocked.

2) Anyone who had an opinon they didn’t agree with was immediately attacked by gangs of people, called stupid, they would make personal insults about you if they found out you were a woman including calling you a bit*ch and a sl*t, they would say your’re worthless and they WOULD NOT STOP until you finally left. Anyone who was religious was called an idiot, their religion was insulted, they were blamed for every bad thing that happened in the world.

3) The most vicious people were the online Obama bully brigade but there were many others. Although these people thought anyone who was a Republican and who wanted to own a gun was ignorant and uneducated, they didn’t have any problems saying Clinton and Palin deserve to be shot - apparently guns should be illegal unless you’re killing female politicians. This was said on a DAILY basis ALL THE TIME although there were “moderators” there approving posts.

4) Anyone who think “liberals” are more “enlightened” then other people needs to really take a step outside his Ivory tower and stop making assumptions based on a few emails that could have been sent by a few people.
Posted by: Jennifer - San Francisco | December 11th, 2008 at 3:50 am | Report this comment
81 % of American’s calim to be Christian. Surprising , since the breakup of the USSR, 70% of Russian’s claim to be Russian Orthodox Christians. This my friend, is the silent majority. In America-not so silent However the EU boast only 20% Christians. But as mention, earlier Riots in France and now Greece, the EU is coming apart. The Uk will not accept thier currency requirements and Ireland has refused to join. There are 30 million Muslims in the EU now and growing. Bridget Bardot was haulded into court for reminding people of this. (so much for freedom of speech) The Eu is a mess and getting messier !
Posted by: Bernard | December 11th, 2008 at 3:57 am | Report this comment
For the record, sir, the portion of the Bible you referred to is entitled “The Revelation,” not “Revelations.” Also, if you cannot understand why a large segment of the American public reacts with fear and anger to the suggestion that our beloved, hard-won culture should absorbed and diluted, then you are not as smart as you think you are. Be well.
Posted by: Steve | December 11th, 2008 at 3:57 am | Report this comment
Because of course anyone of any erudition is in favor of giving bodies like the United Nations more power. There are many, many nutjobs who support leftist causes. I’m sorry you got some nasty emails, but don’t try to score points for your dream of world government.
Posted by: Nigel Tufnel | December 11th, 2008 at 4:01 am | Report this comment
If someone diagrees with you, that means they cannot think? That’s a thoughtless comment.
Posted by: Edthethinker | December 11th, 2008 at 4:15 am | Report this comment
World government is stupid. Just look at the bloat and ineffectiveness of the UN. It can’t even solve the Zimbabwe disaster in a timely fashion despite the fact that little African country has been suffering for decades.

Folks it is simple. The larger the institution the easier it is to break.

You lose me in the global warming stuff too. Who know if it is really happening. Is man causing it? who knows. Can man stop it? who knows. We do know the Earth has been way warmer and way colder and Man was no where to be seen. Explain that!

Lastly, as for the guns. Mao say tung said it clearly, “Power flows from the barrel of a gun.” That is never going to change. And I think there are a lot of folks on the planet go to sleep wishing they had a gun close by.
Posted by: lothario | December 11th, 2008 at 4:17 am | Report this comment
Well anyway, here is a comment from a non-gun-toting, non-bible-beating American. The main cause of annoyance in the article on world government is the fact that you give no particular evidence of which side of the question you are on. Do you intend to warn about the possibility of world government or do you intend gently to tout that possibility? Not visibly opposing it, you seem to give the idea that you support it, and there’s the rub–oh more than a rub, a furious, acute inflammation. Elitism is anathema to most Americans (at least those who are not elitists, and that is by far the majority). The picture that most Americans see concerning world government is that of an elite, effete ruling class, supported and provided for by the enforced labor of billions of tax slaves. Actually that’s a fair summation of world history, and really when has it ever been any different? The only difference now is the efficiency of it and the awesome power of enforcement, but also the capability for immediate resistance and very rapid organization of anti-establishment forces. What an interesting and immensely stupid planet we live on, where selfishness rules and there is no peace. By the way, the hatred you sense from these Americans is the direct response to five years of worldwide hatred poured out against them by literally billions of people. Now was it really wise for the nations of the world to do such a thing and create such animosity on an unprecedented scale, on all sides? Peace and love dear hearts, that’s what we need, and the elevation of the individual to dignity and intelligence, not elitism, never the rule by the privileged, uncaring few, or rather not any more, and never again.
Posted by: Harry | December 11th, 2008 at 4:20 am | Report this comment
Typical libtard arguments in this trivial rebuttal to disagreement with your positions. Because people do not agree with your supposed enlightened position on global warming and global government you say they “can read but not think”. Whose really intolerant and ignorant here.

Because some of them are religious nuts you decide the whole counter position to global warming and global government is a product of religious intolerance or religious mythical belief. I have news for you, I too am an atheist and so I can also throw the atheist card just as well as you; and my opinion is that global warming is a farce and global government is a bad idea. In the last hundred years we have been through global cooling, then global warming, then global cooling, then the current global warming. It is all in the news papers and magazines. You ignore the financial motives of the global warming crowd that bias their data. You’ve already demonstrated that you think anyone that disagrees with you “can read but not think” so I guess we know how much you objectively review all sides of an issue.

I don’t own a gun either but I think the individual right to own a gun is MORE important than freedom of the press. A well armed population keeps the government in check. Got to love those founding fathers for recognizing a good check and balance when they see one. Not to mention providing for self defense. And the more talk of global government I hear the more likely I am to exercise my right buy a gun, lots of them, and lots of ammunition too. If you read the history you will notice that the founding fathers were very afraid of a central government that accumulated too much power. What do you really think the founding fathers would say about a global government?
Posted by: rcj | December 11th, 2008 at 4:23 am | Report this comment
A one world government will never work for one reason…

That many stars won’t fit on the American flag!
Posted by: Towerbuddha | December 11th, 2008 at 4:23 am | Report this comment
Gee whiz, fellers and gals, you all sure get your gastric juices ignited over ideas. Emotional responses like many here are pretty indicative of brain spasms interfering with the logic side of the brain.

I’m an atheist from Tennessee. I don’t care much for the U.N. or the idea of world gov’t. I own a gun and on occasion carry it. Legal here. Our crime rate is much lower than gun free England.

I actually enjoyed reading Rachman’s article. Informative and worth understanding. There are a number of logical arguments against a real world gov’t., but few here seem to be able to think of any.

For those who like categories, I’m a social liberal, financial conservative, think Obama is a decent enough sort but the wrong man for the job.

I’m 100% disabled from the Korean War and think Bush was nuts to invade Iraq, I’m a Mensan, reasonably intelligent and don’t understand the locked-in liberal mindset, nor the extreme right.

How about a little moderation in thought and deed?
Posted by: Ray L. Walker | December 11th, 2008 at 4:26 am | Report this comment
Alain said:

The EU is a structured along the lines of the French state - a deeply undemocratic, sprawling, bureaucracy of elitist technocrats that believe they have a mandate to control every aspect of people’s lives (with no accountability). I can see why the French, with little experience of liberty or reasonable government and deep resentment against the “anglo-saxons” would sign up. But it mystifies me why an englishman or an irishman or a eastern european (despised by the French - “Ils auraient mieux fait de se taire”) would do so . And I say this as a French person who has moved to America to escape the conformisme and étatisme that is the norm in France.

The funny thing is that even the French People opposed further expansion of EU power in the referendum on the EU constitution.
Posted by: Robert | December 11th, 2008 at 4:31 am | Report this comment
It is a mistake to equate religion with ignorance.

It is a mistake to equate geographical location with ignorance.

I stand with Ray L Walker, above.

BTW, how’s that civilised EU going? Y’all joining up anytime soon? Why not? How about your violent crime rate? So damn high, you’re looking at outlawing sharp knives now.

It is your final mistake to not understand the true nature of man.
Posted by: Bill Johnson | December 11th, 2008 at 4:38 am | Report this comment
I have to add one thing. In your bio you put quotation marks around the words “war on terror” as if you’re not sure it exists. It does, in many forms, on many fronts. Remember the Indian policemen shooting it out with the guys who were murdering and torturing innocent civilians recently? That was part of the “war on terror.” Don’t be aloof when it comes to human suffering. Face it.
Posted by: Steve | December 11th, 2008 at 4:39 am | Report this comment
as you deride those awful people who cling to their guns AND THEIR COUNTRY you ignore the passion you do stir up when you want to erase the United States of America.

I find it deranged when people like you think that by sending barney frank a check that he can change my weather and how arrogant you people have gotten with the global warning club

of course you don’t think you are insulting anyone when you smilingly say that you want to do away with American’s rights and tax them for the weather

you can’t be that dumb…………..
Posted by: catherine | December 11th, 2008 at 4:42 am | Report this comment
Too many dad gum British Fabians around here. We don’t accept The Third Way…BACK to the Us Constitution as the Founders intended it. If you DO wish to learn about the one world government, please see Holy Bible, Book of Revelation. There are millions of people on the planet that know what it says..and I find it narrow that the author of this blog does not.
Yes, I am a proud G.R.I.T.S. (Girl Raised In The South)
Posted by: Belle | December 11th, 2008 at 4:47 am | Report this comment
Good thing a one world government, at least we will have all the corrupt politicians in one place. “Global corruption” I love it.
Posted by: Bill Konrad | December 11th, 2008 at 4:50 am | Report this comment
Thank God England has been more or less relegated to being only an American aircraft carrier. Europe is looking more and more like the shattered remnants of the Western Roman Empire in the 4th after the center of culture and power had been moved to Constantinople. There is a lesson here for Europeans. After having nearly annihilated Western Civilization twice in the last century killing each other by the millions over what form of totalitarian Socialism was the better murder machine, Europeans still have the gall to look down on their poor, uncouth American cousins. Go back to you Gothic masters (or in this case Muslim masters) and leave us be. Or has Sharia been incorporated into English Common Law yet? We will be so kind as to keep the world safe for international commerce while underwriting European security (keeping you safe from the Russians as you gobble their oil and enjoy your ‘free’ healthcare) at least for the time being. Count your blessings and dream on about ‘World Government’.
Posted by: James Allen | December 11th, 2008 at 4:55 am | Report this comment
Thank you for stereotyping Christians and individuals who disagree with your politics. It shows what you are made of. This is why people call folks like you elitists. You believe you are above the “common folk” in intelligence and your world views. If this nation was left to snobs like yourself, there would be none left to defend it. But of course, that should be left to the “common folk”. People like yourself should be left to the ivory tower you exist in.
Posted by: smitty | December 11th, 2008 at 5:01 am | Report this comment
If there were an example of world (transnational) government to help us think about the idea, it might be helpful.

Well, it turns out there are two proxies we can think about. One is already extinct and one is barely limping along: the USSR and the European Union, respectively. While not in every true sense “world governments”, they still serve as useful constructs for contemplation.

You’ll pardon me if, on considering either of these models, I say “Thanks, but no thanks”. Or, in the parlance of you British elitist snobs, “Bugger off”.
Posted by: Brian | December 11th, 2008 at 5:03 am | Report this comment
One world government? How’s that EU thing working out?
Posted by: Jack | December 11th, 2008 at 5:09 am | Report this comment
…and if the world government your heart yearns for should turn out to be a Muslim caliphate, what will you say then?

Don’t look now, but it’s already happening in Europe, and this time I don’t think the U.S. will be able to pull your fat out of the fire.
Posted by: Brian | December 11th, 2008 at 5:09 am | Report this comment
Mr. Rachman, You just validated the opinions that you consider slime. Your arrogance speaks volumes. This latest flatulence was also posted on Drudge below the link of the story of eroding newspaper sales.

I don’t believe in conspiracies but I do believe that people get complacent. Journalists, Scientists and Politicians have been marching in lock step while neglecting to serve the public and instead have been dictating to them. Most of the public are dimly beginning to realize this.

One world government is viewed as an easier way for politicians to do business. They have chosen to ignore human nature like the communists have. People need sovereign nations to maintain ethnic identity and to serve their unique needs. Thinking that people can be forced into behaving the same is foolhardy and irrational.

Global Warming has become an industry based on an unproven theory. Scientists have learned that if they throw out some half baked theory some one will pick it up and use it as a money making vehicle and they will be carried along the way. Once the momentum dies (money dries up) they can jump off and start a new theory. The problem is the scientists are the ones losing credibly. People are losing confidence in them daily.

And Journalists, you people have sat on your thrones dictating to people you consider too stupid to think for themselves. You have forgotten you job is to report not filter, rectify information. And yes the web is killing your profession. Soon there will be programs that will truly impartially process video and sound data into written information. It can’t come soon enough.
Posted by: William Curtin | December 11th, 2008 at 5:10 am | Report this comment
News flash: 200 of the most impassioned, crazed people online do not represent (a) any significant portion of society, (b) the people to whom Mr. Obama referred in his campaign gaffe, or (c) any coherent worldview. Any attempt to generalize from these people (as Mr. Rachman seems, I fear, to do) will be the construction of a strawman.

I’d welcome a response to this, although I certainly understand you have far too much input right now for individual responses to be feasible.
Posted by: Joe Bingham | December 11th, 2008 at 5:17 am | Report this comment
Your smarmy conclusions aside, I can read, and do think. I am a Master’s Educated historian and simply because I do not agree with your perspectives does not substantiate your assumptions nor your slurs. The fact that you choose to accept the self-serving conclusions of the UN “global warming crowd” ignores the opinions of hundreds of notable scientists who are not funded at the UN trough. The fact that you choose to believe the assertions of folks whose livlihood depends on the continuation of this climate foolishness says much more about you than I care to. That some folks may not agree that a one-world government is an idyllic one in which to live, also points to the narrowness of your perspective. Assuming that those who disagree with you are conspiracy theorists or religious nutjobs, simply exposes the “straw men” you smugly set up as your intellectual opposition. You sir, are simply another in a long line of elitists whom look down your nose at the rest of the world and assume you know what’s best for the masses. You’ve got Karl Marx, Nicholai Lenin, Mao Tse Dong in your corner. I wouldn’t wager a nickel that you’re on the right track.
Posted by: Marcy | December 11th, 2008 at 5:21 am | Report this comment
Adam, don’t knock the FT. They have columnists that opine on both sides of issues such as the Euro vs Sterling, the EU Lisbon Treaty, continued UK membership in the EU and Global Warming/Climate Change. FT is far, far, more balanced than the NYT or the WSJ - and I read them all.

Sure, I totally disagreed with the Rachman. But he has a right to his opinion. And I can only best oppose them if I hear them.
Posted by: NewYawker | December 11th, 2008 at 5:22 am | Report this comment
I am surprised, most good atheists I find know their bible better than the believers.

Read revelations and understand that many people take this as Truth. Among them is one George W. Bush.

When you remember that he is self described as “born again” much of what he has done as President makes perfect sense.

Off topic I’m sure, but these conspiracy theorists are everywhere and in places that might surprise you. It is essential to understand their thinking if you are to understand a lot of what influences American politics.
Posted by: Paul Centro | December 11th, 2008 at 5:24 am | Report this comment
It’s just this sort of hubris from journalists that has their industry reeling as readers are tiring of being talked down to. Insulting your readers(customers) is not a great way to keep their readership (business).

And assuming that YOUR opinion is the only rational one is even more arrogant.

Good luck in the job market if this gig ends. I’m sure you have tons of “job skills”.
Posted by: Bruno | December 11th, 2008 at 5:30 am | Report this comment
Many have attempted to implement world government in the past. Many will try again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRmTsD79i8s
May they also fail.
Posted by: Tom | December 11th, 2008 at 5:30 am | Report this comment
Global warming? Bro, it’s snowing in Houston. I will be laughing my ass off at you next week when it snows in Los Angeles.
Posted by: Rob Munn | December 11th, 2008 at 5:34 am | Report this comment
Continuing on from my first post.

Supporters of One World Government and Rachman, who would be the ruling class?

The Western “Cathedral” ruling class (Western “official” media, Ivy Universities, schools run by the civil services of various Western countries. You Rachman, are a member of this class. This term for the West’s actual ruling class was first mentioned by “Mencius Moldbug”)? Instead of the West’s Cathedral class, what about these other ruling classes that are independent of the Cathedral:

China’s ruling class?

The Sunni Ulema ruling class? The Shiite Mullah ruling class?

Russia’s Oligarchy ruling class?

What if it was the Bible Thumpers in charge of the World Government (what if they controlled your information monopoly, the “official” media/Ivy University organs)? What if the Bible Thumper ruling class imposed 6,000 Year-old-Earth Creationist baloney on the entire world. Do you, Rachman, think that is good for the world?

What if the Sunni Ulema ran the World Government as a Sharia State and outlawed athiesm? The Ulema would control this government via powerful Islamic birthrates and an information monopoly control via the Mosque. Do think that would bring harmony, Rachman? Do you and other “progressives” (ie The Cathedral) think this is good for the world? Al Zawahiri thinks so and his Islamist friends certainly are One Worlders and Internationalists, unfortunatly for a member of the Cathedral like you, the Islamists have a very different idea of what a Unified World of Peace would look like.

I mean, this world government would be torn apart today by these powerful centrifugal forces, don’t even need fifth generation war and super-empowered individuals to take it down. But I bet you would just concentrate on knocking down Bible Thumper people instead of answering people who cite practical problems with your world government.
Posted by: Robert | December 11th, 2008 at 5:34 am | Report this comment
I agree that this newspaper is the best in the country - I get it almost every day. They have the best reporting on the financial crisis and some of their news isn’t even in other newspapers although it’s important.

The only problem is that there aren’t more women and also it’s mostly about financial news.
Posted by: Jennifer - San Francisco | December 11th, 2008 at 5:39 am | Report this comment
I strongly oppose your claim of our “need” for a world government. I think that there has never been a greater need for the preservation of our Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties than right now.

However many threatening and insulting responses you received, it isn’t right to lump all people who disagree with you (i.e., gun owners and religious citizens) into a group that you not only characterize as unintelligent, but hateful as well.

Disagreement with you does not equal a lack of intelligence, nor a phobia, nor hatred.

Better luck next time.
Posted by: Michael Worthington | December 11th, 2008 at 5:42 am | Report this comment
Obama is either Christian or Muslim, so guess that proves how stupid he is too? Fortunately, the color thang will shield and protect him from the press. After all, He is “The One”!

A senate.gov article reveals that “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”. Pffft! That’s OK, we Libs have Gore to blaze our true path into the future. He’s the guy that invented the Internet,ya know, so he be really really smart. Don’t nobody try to confuse me with the truth.
–

Democrats are the party of hate and discontent. They thrive on lies, half-truths, and confusion. Journalism is dead and buried.
Posted by: Jami Simmons | December 11th, 2008 at 5:44 am | Report this comment