Rachman recognizes these political realities, noting:
These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” — when calling for international co-operation — rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty.” It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.
Rachman then drops this bomb:
Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” [Emphasis added.] As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon.
We agree completely with Attali’s statement that “global governance is just a euphemism for global government,” and have in fact made that point in these pages many times over the years. And we are thankful that Attali and a few of his fellow world government advocates are cocky enough to openly admit what others are still denying.
The UN-appointed Commission on Global Governance issued its much-heralded report, Our Global Neighborhood, in 1995. The foreword to the book states: "As this report makes clear, global governance is not global government. No misunderstanding should arise from the similarity of terms. We are not proposing movement towards world government." And that has been the absurd line echoed by the global-governance chorus ever since, even as the contours of global government have become ever more visible on the horizon.
Every once in a while, however, some member of the Power Elite drops a line in public. Sometimes it’s accidental, on other occasions it is purposely done to gauge public reaction.
Along these lines, we refer to a story about Rachman’s employer, the Financial Times, which has been playing a lead role in disavowing and covering up the global-government designs of the global-governance crowd. The story was related in a speech by bestselling British author Frederick Forsyth to the anti-EU Bruges Group. Forsyth, an outspoken opponent of the EU threat to national sovereignty, said:
I sat once in a meeting in, well I don’t know what I was doing in the meeting but I was invited clearly by a renegade to a meeting at the Financial Times editorial offices in Blackfriars to listen to Mr Pohl. He was a former president of the Bundesbank and he had been eased out of that presidency by Helmut Kohl specifically to work with Jacques Delors in the creation of the new currency, the Euro. And he was, I thought, extremely forthcoming. He said, ‘It is my duty to tell you my English friends (they never say British, I don’t know why, they always say English) that you will have to abandon the British nation state because the future has no provision for the nation state within it.’ There was a stunned silence. And then in the course of the remarks that followed almost immediately afterwards, Peter Hain stood up and told us quite bluntly that we had not heard what we thought we had heard. It hadn’t been said. And a rather bemused German former president of the Bundesbank sat there as if someone had accused him of being slightly deranged. He had of course said exactly what he had said. We had all heard it. It was beyond doubt his informed position. He was giving us the final destination of the European Union project.
But, of course, the Financial Times never breathed a word of this meeting or the words of the German central banker to its readers. No indeed, because the Financial Times is a very important part of what Forsyth referred to as “a very powerful cabal in our country that is quite literally dedicated, fanatically, to a futuristic dream. It’s a vision, it’s a dream, it’s an imagined utopia.”
Like many of the other leading “news” organizations, the Financial Times is more about propagating the misinformation and disinformation that suits the interests of the cabal it serves than in providing true information to the public. Not only has it been a top cheerleader for the continuous empowerment of the EU, but it also has always deceived its readers as to the final planned result of that empowerment, as Forsyth’s experience shows.
Rachman and his colleagues at the Financial Times have proven their trustworthiness to the powers that be; they are frequent or occasional attendees at secret functions of the Bilderberg Group, Chatham House, the World Economic Forum, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and other power centers of what Forsyth accurately described as a cabal.
We can probably expect to see more editorials, columns, and news stories similar to Rachman’s popping up in the controlled elite media as trial balloons. After decades of denying that their “globalization” efforts have anything to do with building world government, the globalists are switching gears; now they will begin to call more openly for world government as the only solution to what they claim are imminent, planet-threatening global crises.