Home » Activism » New World Order » How the World Feared the Establishment of World Government in 1946

How the World Feared the Establishment of World Government in 1946

Written by The Informed Aussie
Published on Thursday, June 28th, 2012
Globalist Report

united nations world government globalist reportThe rhetoric and political ramblings by our elected officials for the establishment of world government is astonishing. At present, the United Nations is playing an active role as a pseudo World Parliament where by which a handful of elected globalist officials and their central bank puppets influence and control the world.

Support for world government appears to be increasing. For some unknown and strange reason, the general public are beginning to believe that the only way to achieve world peace is by establishing world government.

Woefully, this attitude is being perpetuated by the globalist backed mainstream media and the United Nations through consistent positive reporting about the benefits of establishing world government.

There is ample evidence around that proves that many people and groups have been seeking to establish world government for many years. To view one example of this attempt, click here.

Thankfully, there are many advocates who do not support the establishment of world government. While scouring through the archives online, the following article written by William Henry Chamberlin on March 21 1946 in the Wall Street Journal caught my eye.

Chamberlin expresses some serious concerns as to why the formation of world government should not occur and also outlines the impacts of the failed policies of the United Nations.

If we compare what was written by Chamberlin in 1946 to the deception and lies by the globalists who run the United Nations today, we can evidently see that what the United Nations and their beloved world government stand for are power, control and tyranny.

Below, you will find a transcript of the entire article. Where it was difficult to read, or where I have had to insert words that were illegible, I have marked them in italics. To download a PDF version of the article, please scroll down to the bottom of the page.

what of world government

It is a rare day when some individual or group in this country does not come out in favour of world government. Not very long ago a group of a thousand Americans, including some well-known scientists, educators, jurists, publicists, religious and labour leaders, industrialists and artists signed a petition asking President Reagan to take the lead in transforming the UN into a world government.

Over the past week a smaller group, including one senator and two representatives, several professors, an author and a radio commentator, after taking part in a conference at Rollins College, urged the calling of a general conference of the United Nations the purpose of transforming the United Nations “from a league of sovereign states into a government to writing it specific powers from the People’s of the world for the prevention of War”. Their plan suggested that the general assembly of the United Nations be reconstituted as the legislative branch of the world governments, in which citizens of member states should be represented on an equitable basis.

This legislature was to pass laws forbidding the manufacture of certain weapons of destruction and the Security Council was to function as an executive agency enforcing these laws. These are only two of many group resolutions in favour of setting up some form of world government.

All the Political Shades Are Represented

It is noteworthy that the signers of the resolutions in favour of world government are not restricted to persons holding any particular viewpoint on politics and economics and on national and international affairs. One finds among them Conservatives, Liberals and radicals, and men and women who have expressed markedly differing views about the late war on the settlements which have followed this war.

Theoretically, there is a strong and attractive case for world government. There is every reason to believe that the cost of war in the atomic age, in terms of human life and material and cultural destruction, will be appalling, and it is true that neither league nor alliance, neither the balance of power, neither interventionism nor isolationism, neither militarism or pacifism has served to avert war in the past..

It may of course be argued that the United States never tried either isolationism or pacifism, but in view of the very small number of conscientious objectors was (the proportion was about one to every thousand who accepted service in the armed forces) in a war for which there was little popular enthusiasm, it is highly improbable that unilateral pacifism will win the support of the majority of the American people in any predictable future.

No isolationism policy here

And isolationism, which was not preferred in the emergencies of 1917 and 1940, seems still less feasible as an American policy in any global conflict of the future, and for two reasons. One is the atomic bomb, against which none has yet suggested any very hopeful means of isolation. The other is the disappearance of any semblance of balance of power in Europe and Asia

So it is not surprising that many earnest and sincere men and women should be turning towards world government and the only salvation in a world which has seen civilisation itself terribly shattered by the recent war which may see it almost literally obliterated if the disaster of another great war should materialise. But there is one unanswerable and inconceivable objection to all blueprints of world government, however persuasive in theory.

They are simply not to be realised in the world in which we live today. To be sure, it is conceivable that world government of a sort might be achieved after another global war. The last war reduced the number of major powers from 7 to 3. A new Titanic conflict might reduce the 3 to 1.

But only a doctrinaire fanatic would assume the frightful hazards, sufferings and sacrifices of war in order to impose some untried scheme of international authority upon the world. The overwhelming majority of advocates of world government are thinking in terms of some plan to which all nations would peacefully and voluntarily subscribe. It is hard to understand how anyone who follows the international news with some element of realistic discernment can believe that any such plan, however modest would stand a chance of acceptance at the present time

Will Not Surrender Veto Power

Consider the history of the veto right in the United Nations Security Council. To have accepted some will of law, some system of deciding international disputes by some system of majority voting, would have been  much less revolutionary than to set up a world government. But the Soviet Union fought tooth and nail for the preservation of this right to veto. Perhaps America, to, would not have been willing to run the risk of being outvoted on matters of vital national interest. However, this may be a world in which even one of the three great powers has shown itself implacably committed to the principle of acting as seems good in its own eyes, without submitting to the modest forms of international restraint is not a world in which any form of universal government can conceivably succeed.

There is a still deeper reason why the time is not ripe for such an experiment (world government). The common bonds of national experience, national ideals, symbolic holidays, which helped to make orderly self-government possible on the national level simply do not exist on a world scale. The superficial slogan “one world” is much less real today than it was before the First World War. In this age of wars and revolutions, people have become more divided, not more united. No amount of fustian oratory can alter this hard but unmistakable truth.

The contacts between human beings in various countries which could help to build up an international public opinion had become fewer, not more numerous. There is not even a mail service between America and Germany or Japan. Communication between Americans and Russians, or citizens of countries in the Soviet sphere of influence, is anything but free and unfettered.

A Strong Foreign Policy Is Needed

To appraise world government for what it is at present, an unreal fantasy, is not to repudiate the necessity for a strong active American foreign policy designed to promote peace and the rule of law and conditions which will promote economic recovery. Such a policy is an imperative necessity when we live under the Damocles sword of the atomic bomb.

But much progress can be achieved without wasting time and energy on the futile pursuit of world government. With like-minded people’s we can stand firmly for the maintenance of treaty obligations and resistance to aggression. We can urge in season and out of season all round withdrawals of foreign troops from occupied countries. We can work for greater freedom of travel and intercourse and press reporting. We can advocate agreed limitation of armaments. If these goals can be achieved, we can hope for a fair degree of security without world government. If they are not attainable, world government would be only a deceptive name, an empty shell.

To access a PDF version of this newspaper extract, please click here.