One World Government HAS to be Tyranny

The concept of a world government involves the establishment of a singular global authority tasked with governing all nations.

This hypothetical entity raises fundamental questions concerning its formation, the physical force by which it would be backed, the extent of independence left to individual states, and safeguards against the tyrannous misuse of power.

Concerns have been voiced that such a system could be implemented without the full knowledge or consent of the electorate, particularly in nations like Britain, where apathy concerning political questions beyond social services and war avoidance is prevalent.

Proposed Formation and Underlying Powers

One principal method proposed for the formation of a world government involves amending the United Nations Charter. This amendment would vest the United Nations with greater powers than it currently possesses. Alternative schemes, such as those advocated by the World Federalists, have also been considered.

At the core of the world government concept lies the notion of an ultimate, overarching power. Major General Richard Hilton, in his work The 13th Power, identifies the "13th power" as international finance working through the United Nations and other devious institutions.

This hidden influence is posited as the true driving force behind the potential establishment of a global governance structure.

The Role of Superpowers and the Diarchy Thesis

A significant theory regarding the practical backing of a world government, dating back to a 1958 article in The Observer, suggests an agreement between America and Russia that only they should be permitted to possess nuclear armaments.

The rationale behind this concept is the prevention of another World War, with these two giants using their combined power to compel one another to maintain peace and forbid any other nation from effectively arming itself. This idea is seen as a precursor to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Under such a scheme, the combined power of America and Russia would be used to coerce any other nation into obeying the dictates of a magnified United Nations or any other form of world government. Consequently, no independence would be left to individual states, except in minor matters that do not contradict the wishes of these two dominant powers.

Furthermore, no safeguard would exist against a tyrannous misuse of this irresistible power by the world government, provided the two giants agree to back it against its victim.

However, the Observer writer posits a counter-argument, suggesting that the inherent rival nature of their political and economic systems, recognised as an unchangeable fact, would prevent the two superpowers from agreeing on anything except war prevention.

This viewpoint asserts that their political differences would make them inherently incapable of establishing any positive dictatorship together. In this interpretation, the future of mankind would be one of defenseless subjection under a diarchy of these two superpowers, with the only theoretical protection being their inability to sufficiently reconcile differences to form a dual dictatorship.

Historical events, such as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, serve as a stark warning against trusting the irreconcilability of theoretically hostile ideologies.

There is nothing in the historical records of either the Soviet Union or the United States to justify childlike faith in their altruism. America, for instance, has pursued what amounts to an economic war against the British Empire since 1898, and against other nations outside its tariff wall with smaller home markets, through the one-sided exploitation of the "most favoured nation clause" in commercial treaties coupled with its own rigid tariff wall. The notion of entrusting national destinies unreservedly to these two giants is considered a grim prospect.

Regardless of the theoretical form a world government might take, the practical reality of unbridled power would rest with the two giants if they alone are permitted to own nuclear armaments. This cynical yet realistic fact underpins considerations of any proposed methods for establishing a world government.

The United Nations as a Potential World Government Entity

For the United Nations to be considered a viable entity for world government, two fundamental transformations would be required:

1. Absolute Justice: Its decisions must be rendered with such absolute justice that even the losing party in an international dispute would have no cause whatsoever to entertain the thought of any miscarriage of justice.
2. Unimpeachable Integrity: The organisation would need to acquire and deservedly maintain a reputation for integrity akin to that of cricket umpires and football referees in eras before sport was perceived as debased.

However, the United Nations' past record reveals significant shortcomings in these areas. Its reputation for fearless dispensation of justice has been criticised, with various historical incidents cited as evidence of its partiality and ineffectiveness against certain powerful actors:

• The Kashmir Dispute: The defiance of the United Nations' protests and recommendations by Mr. Nehru went largely unaddressed.
• The Suez Canal Company's Case versus Nasser and the Suez Incident: The seizure of the company's property by Nasser resulted in a prolonged wait for redress, while Egypt's seven-year armed blockade of Israeli shipping drew only ineffective admonitions. Conversely, Israel's use of force in response was met with severe censure and dire threats, demonstrating a perceived lack of impartiality.
• The Hungarian Rising: Russia's use of armed force to suppress a popular uprising in Budapest, the capital of a theoretically sovereign and independent member state of the United Nations, elicited precisely no reaction from the organisation, despite shocking human conscience globally.
• The Anglo-French Operation (Suez): When Britain and France took action after prolonged waiting for UN intervention, their actions were condemned by the United Nations, even though the two great powers obeyed the ruling.
• American Military Posturing: America's condemnation of the Anglo-French "aggression" was followed months later by its own Sixth Fleet intimidating Syria, an action about which the United Nations remained discreetly quiet.
• Ambiguity of "Armed Aggression": The UN's definition of armed aggression appears to depend on the user of force, as exemplified by Nasser's armed seizure of the Suez Canal Company's offices, which was not classified as an employment of armed force by the UN.

These incidents demonstrate that the United Nations is effective against nations that obey its rulings but not against those who flout them. It is perceived as being lenient towards "afro-Asian demagogues" while consistently condemning "colonial Powers." Crucially, it is considered unthinkable that the United Nations would ever challenge Russia or America, regardless of how or why they use armed force.

The prevailing view is that the United Nations' ideas of justice are insufficient for world government. Rectifying this situation would necessitate either the complete destruction and rebuilding of the organisation or a radical restructuring to ensure it is not financially dependent on America, nor afraid of Russia or of initiating a nuclear war. Furthermore, any revised organisation must be constituted in a manner that prevents the older civilisations of Europe from being consistently outvoted by the afro-Asian, dollar, and Soviet blocs, which is considered essential for ensuring international justice.

If the United Nations were to rely upon Russia and America to act as policemen and enforce its decrees, it would become merely a figurehead, with the true power residing with these two giants, effectively allowing them to rule the world. For the United Nations to be effective as a world government, it would require sufficient armed might to keep even the two giants subservient to its decrees. However, the likelihood of either Russia or America agreeing to such a proposition is considered extremely low. Russia is unlikely to submit itself disarmed to any world government unless it is communist-dominated. Similarly, America would not consent to any change in the United Nations' constitution that would render the organisation immune from dollar pressure.

The challenge of reconstituting the United Nations to fairly represent all nations in proportion to their standing in the world has not been squarely faced. Any attempt to introduce mechanisms such as secrecy of ballot in the General Assembly or abolishing the privileged position of the great powers in the Security Council, which would place the United States on exact equality with miniature states, is considered absurd. The voluntary surrender of such power by America or Russia is deemed unimaginable.

The World Federalists' Proposal and Its Flaws

Certain schools of thought, notably the World Federalists, have acknowledged the impossibility of building a world government based on voting by nations, other than a concert of the great powers. Consequently, they advocate for a world government founded upon universal adult suffrage by individuals, rather than by nations.

However, this proposition is also met with considerable scepticism and is deemed impractical. An estimated one-third of the human race lives under communist rule, and a basic understanding of communist electoral methods suggests that this significant block of mankind would vote precisely as their communist rulers dictate. When combined with the votes of communist parties and their sympathisers in the Free World, communism could quickly obtain a majority of individual votes worldwide.

Beyond this ideological concern, the Federalist idea is criticised for endowing individuals from developing regions with an equal say in world affairs to the wisest individuals that civilisation can produce. This outcome is described as "democracy run mad." While many Federalists appear to have recognised these potential absurdities, numerous schemes have been proposed for tempering universal suffrage through various forms of selective qualifications for voting power. This approach, however, introduces a vital question: what authority would decide upon this differential scale of electors? It is difficult to imagine newly independent afro-Asian nations willingly admitting that their citizens are inferior to those of the "hated Western ex-imperialist States." The imposition of such a scale would be arbitrary, fixed by a committee, and enforced by force, raising further questions about representation on such a committee and the wielders of such force.

The Inevitable Reality: World Tyranny

Ultimately, no scheme for the creation of a world government has yet been propounded that can withstand the test of practical examination. A world government must fundamentally be one of two things:

1. A "talking shop" for demagogues from overpopulated primitive countries, with a sprinkling of "stooges" from communist lands. This alternative is predicted to lead to anarchy and chaos.
2. A shadow government with no real power, directed and controlled by arbitrary power behind the scenes. This alternative is considered far more probable and would result in world dictatorship by the oligarchy that pulls the strings of money power.

Despite persistent propaganda in favour of world government, there is a striking silence regarding these practical difficulties. This silence is perceived as intentional, as the propaganda is believed to be inspired, financed, and directed by individuals who are fully aware of where this immense power would ultimately lie once mankind is ensnared in the "trap." It is further posited that mankind is passively accepting the idea of world government without thoroughly questioning how it would be made "safe for democracy." The "two-bogey ambush" — the fear of communism and the fear of nuclear war — has effectively "lacerated" human nerves to such an extent that people are prepared to ignore the tyranny hidden behind the seemingly benign words "World Government."

Disarmament and a World Security Authority

In a debate on disarmament on 10th June 1958, Mr. Sandys, the Minister of Defence, put forth illuminating ideas on "disarmament in a single step." Acknowledging the practical difficulties of disarmament by stages due to Soviet antagonism towards effective inspection systems, Mr. Sandys envisaged the possibility of establishing a World Security Authority. This authority would be armed with two key instruments:

1. An international arms inspectorate, possessing a right of completely unrestricted access to any premises in any country.
2. An international police force, which would possess unquestioned military superiority over disarmed nations.

Mr. Sandys emphasised that these were not formal proposals, but their utterance by a statesman of his standing indicated the prevailing train of thought in British governmental circles, particularly as it corroborated earlier statements by other government members. The plan could advantageously be based upon the principles embodied in the United Nations Charter.

Such suggestions from a minister of state indicate that world government may be much more imminent than generally supposed. Its implementation would involve the surrender of national independence and subjection to an alien authority backed by irresistible military power. Members of all three political parties in the subsequent debate affirmed this implication. Mr. Clement Davies, the former Liberal leader, remarked that Mr. Sandys' speech marked a memorable day, being the first time a government had declared its preparedness to surrender its sovereignty in the interest of universal peace.

Whether British public opinion is truly awake to the immense significance of these plans for the abolition of national freedom is questionable. If the British people are fully aware of the implications of such proposals and yet are ready to accept their consequences without qualms, it suggests that "nuclear neurosis" has dulled their senses.

The Ultimate Tyranny: State Capitalism and the International Money Power

No insurmountable obstacle exists against the establishment of a common policy between the oligarchies of the Kremlin and Wall Street. The outdated notion that one stands for the abolition of capitalism and the other for its retention no longer holds true. The present rulers of Russia are hard-boiled realists who believe solely in the state capitalism they helped build, which is founded on police tyranny. Similarly, the manipulators of money power in Wall Street believe in a state capitalism based on dollar tyranny. While their methods may differ, the final result is posited as the same: world government, regardless of its foundation, can be nothing but world tyranny.

The only currently feasible path to this outcome is through some form of diarchy between the United States and the Soviet Union, with all other nations having surrendered their powers of independent life. The idea that these two nations could ever collaborate to tyrannise mankind is considered dangerously optimistic, for behind both of these superstates stands the 13th power: the international money power.

Once mankind is committed to world government, there will be no escape. Nations outside the Iron Curtain are already ensnared by economic agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and other "strangleholds" of Dollar Diplomacy that have been imposed upon the once economically free world. The American economic intrigues against the British Empire and the civilisations of Western Europe have involved the principle of non-discrimination in trade. While seemingly benign and fair, this principle is effectively a device for the vast American economy, protected by its own tariff wall, to penetrate all other markets. This allows the flooding of these markets with American products, often forcing unwanted goods upon recipients, thereby perpetuating and increasing the indebtedness of other nations to the American economy, and through it, to the money power that operates from New York.

Simultaneously, beyond the Iron Curtain, the rest of mankind is being regimented by the "police truncheon." The ultimate outcome is similar in both scenarios: a "dollar-run state capitalism" and a "police-run state capitalism." In both cases, the vision is of a "mongrelised humanity" living on a strictly rationed standard, working in a "Godless human ant-heap" for two sets of bosses. These bosses, in turn, act as intermediaries for the true controllers: the international money lending oligarchy.

The notion that world government would be based on the consent of the governed is considered absurd. This future, resembling George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, is believed to be much closer than many realise. The only perceived escape from this grim prospect is to resist before it is too late. This requires swift and vigorous action to break free from the economic chains that are already fastened upon the so-called free world.

Historically, the British Empire, or what remains of it (the family of Nations), is considered the only community capable of leading the ensnared nations, having provided such leadership five times previously against would-be world conquerors. Despite the task appearing insurmountable, it is posited as an imperative that must be achieved if nations coalesce their efforts, as time is running out and every passing week renders a comeback more difficult.