World Government – coming in December?

I haven’t done a fact check on this but it doesn’t sound very nice.

He is also in an interview with Alan Jones.

I think the document he is referring to is this one:-

He has obviously struck a cord, or maybe a nerve, because today Kevin Rudd responded. Some extracts:-

And we are just 31 days away from the Copenhagen Conference of Parties – an historic moment to forge a global deal to put a global price on carbon.

Today we are approaching the crossroads. Both these policies are reaching crunch time.

When you strip away all the political rhetoric, all the political excuses, there are two stark choices – action or inaction.

Note that he clearly has a better speech writer than George Bush Junior had. None of this “you’re either with us or against us” nonsense. Later on he makes reference to the video.

Lord Christopher Monckton – a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher – was quoted this week in the Australian press by Janet Albrechtsen. Lord Monckton describes the potential Copenhagen agreement as a plan to set up a transnational “government” on a scale the world has never before seen. Enter the “world government” conspiracy theorists.

Lord Monckton also publicly warned Americans that “in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever.”

Janet Albrechtsen, in her understated neo-conservative way, refers to the potential Copenhagen agreement as a UN “power grab”. This gaggle of world government conspiracy theorists are so far out there on the far right, that they rub up next to the global anarchists of the far left.

Are we about to witness the formation of a world government? I’d suggest that such a project is already well established and was well under way before climate change even appeared on the radar. However if you oppose world government I think it is fair to say that this agreement won’t help.

13 thoughts on “World Government – coming in December?

  1. I can’t find the connection with all his claims. The most dominant tone is the acknowledgement of the ‘debt’ of western countries to the third world, their right to continue economic progress (which is good), and the duty of western countries to sacrifice growth to the environmental god.

    So I’d say more in the vein of European soft-socialism than leftist world domination. But still bad news.

  2. My understanding is that:

    1. The US Senate has to ratify any international treaty obligations

    2. they can’t supersede US government authority.

    I also noticed the good old Tobin tax made its way in there which has been around since the early 80’s as a proposal to tax international capital transactions. Every f..king barking mad internationalist leftie type seems to go orgasmic over a Tobin tax. It’s a way of getting money to the UN and give it taxing powers. Screw them.

    All in all I can’t see how this gets through the US senate and eventually the SCOTUS even if that schlep in the White House supports it.

  3. Those worshiping democracy better wise up and realize what world government can only ever be: non democratic.

    You will be completely at the mercy of those in control of the power structures.

    Rudd is either completely ignorant or a total 100%traitor.

  4. Reading Rudd’s plea for world government compliance reminds me thematically of the first big US Paulson bankster bailout plea.

    The risk of ‘doing nothing’ theme and the horrible selfish audacity of ignoring the clique of government integrated academic socialists and corporate Al Gore scammers fully locked and loaded, ready to ‘help’ us deal with the certain imminent global calamity that the precious United Nations empowered crystal ball computer modeling has innocently spotted just in time.

    Rudd also tried to sling some kind of casino gambling analogy at anyone repudiating the world government scam. The casino gambling theme sheds way more light on the insane fake Ken Lay/Al Gore inspired carbon trading ‘market’.

  5. I think Monckton is going a bit OTT here.

    Yes, we’ll sign up to a new international treaty… and, yes, to some degree that transfers some power to an international body. And yes, such a process could easily lead to a world government at some stage.

    But we’re still a very long way away from that. And this is only another small step. Let’s not over-dramatise.

  6. G’day,

    John, I’m not very comforted even if its only a small step. I think any move towards the ultimate Big Government is something very lover of liberty needs to oppose.



  7. Let’s not understate what is proposed either. An international body, likely to be made up of more net receivers than givers is to have the powers to take a minimum sum of money from Australia, suggested 0.7% GDP, but range mentioned 0.5% to 1.0%, and give it to developing nations to “adapt to climate change”. Since adaptation is only necessary when the climate chooses to naturally change, much of this money will slosh around in these nations, being creamed off by corrupt officials, politicians and businesses. This 0.7% is over and above the money Australia chooses to give to developing nations to help alleviate poverty.

    But wait, there’s more. When Australia misses its emissions targets, which it most assuredly will because Kevvie will offer ambitious targets to prove he is the international man of the moment, this international body of receivers can fine Australia ten times the value of the carbon it has over emitted.

    As libertarians, do we not believe that it should be our right to determine where our money goes and what problems it goes to solve (if any), not have government take large amounts of it and give it away?

    Also, if we do not believe in global government by an unelected body whose members largely comprise representatives of nations that have undemocratic, unaccountable leaders, isn’t now the time to say so?

    Lord Monckton may have gilded the lily a bit, but if not now, at what time do we man the barricades?

  8. We give 2.5 bln AUD a year to ODA.

    I bet every cent of it is wasted. The waste concerns me more than a foreign income transfer. Rudd and Swan should be decent and give every Australian $120 of back taxes instead.

Comments are closed.