Originally posted by pause4thought
Good post.

So the veil is pulled back just a little more...

And whose interests has he got at heart? Even if he (or any other Bilderberger) did have your interests at heart (-purely rhetorical, I assure you-) do you think they are going to ask you to vote on it?
A few thoughts for anyone still on the fence:

The anti-cooperation sentiment on this thread is amazing.

Not anti-cooperation. Anti-fascism.
The mantra you are using has lulled people to sleep for too long. It is based on 'If we don't unite we will fight'. Fear-mongering to manipulate. Pure and simple. This way sheeple...
But people are seeing through the ruse by thinking for themselves.
Here's a few starters as to why a global govt is the last thing we need:
Even if a OWG were benevolent, how on earth could it be run as a democracy?
a) Billions of votes to count, all with regional / national interests at heart
b) Only corporations would be large / influential enough to affect government policy
c) The media might remain free on paper - as now - but in reality they are financially beholden to a select few individuals, who would in effect become global oligarchs, controlling the flow of all information.
d) Even today democracy is an illusion. The liklihood of any given candidate being elected is directly proportional to their expenditure on media exposure. You'd just be handing even more control over to those who've amassed vast wealth - often on the back of corrupt dealings.
e) Minority groups would be voiceless.
I could go on.

Source
(Anyone unsure about the connection between the work of the G20 and moves toward a global government might find this thread a bit of an eye-opener...)

The U.S. and Europe, who have dominated the G-8, now have little option too but to accept a new world order.

Zoellick also said the Bank expects world trade volumes to fall by 6 percent this year, the largest decline in 80 years.
While he offered few details about the program to boost trade, which is being considered by the World Bank board later on Tuesday, Zoellick said the drop in commerce was exacerbated by a shortfall in trade credit, which allows exporters and importers to settle accounts.

On Wednesday, US President George W. Bush will nominate Zoellick as the successor to controversial World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz. In Germany, Zoellick is considered a friend, an "Atlanticist" and a bridge-builder. He once described his bond with Berlin in a speech here as a common, German-American vision of the future, a transition to "prosperity, security and hope for hundreds of millions of people."

Gordon Brown will enter talks with China today to see if it would be willing to commit extra funds to fighting a world recession in return for greater voting powers on multilateral institutions, including the IMF and World Bank.

Brown will hold talks with Hu Jintao, China's president, following discussions with Barack Obama, amid signs that developing countries see the G20 summit as a chance to impose a new world order and end the era of Anglo-European dominance

In addition to being a friend of Javier Solana for many years, Robert Zoellick has with equal vigor been a friend and proponent of a “New World Order,” more recently and politely known as “global governance.” As early as March, 1992, Robert Zoellick was speaking of his World Economic Forum inspired epiphanies of a New World Order

When left-wing economist Michael Chossudovsky released a devastating critique of international financial institutions in The Globalisation of Poverty (1997), it was quickly dismissed by many in the West as a propaganda tune of what British Prime Minister Tony Blair berates as the "riff-raff" who have caused trouble and violent street protests in Seattle, Prague, Nice, Gothenburg and Genoa. But what if a Nobel laureate, former economic adviser to the American White House and former chief economist of the World Bank publishes an even more powerful expose of the machinations of the Washington Consensus which has heaped unimagined misery and privation on developing countries? You sit up and take notice. Right?

Food protests and riots have swept more than 20 countries in the past few months. On 2 April, World Bank President Robert Zoellick told a meeting in Washington that there are 33 countries where price hikes could cause widespread social unrest. The UN World Food Programme called the crisis the silent tsunami, with wheat prices almost doubling in the past year alone, and stocks falling to the lowest level since the perilous post-World War II days.

Originally posted by eldard
reply to post by Chadwickus

---

Ah yeah. Developing countries that can barely feed their own populations and now being asked to contribute to a useless fund? Rrrighttt...

A man-made famineThere are many causes behind the world food crisis, but one chief villain: World Bank head, Robert Zoellick

For anyone who understands the current food crisis, it is hard to listen to the head of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, without gagging.

Earlier this week, Zoellick waxed apocalyptic about the consequences of the global surge in prices, arguing that free trade had become a humanitarian necessity, to ensure that poor people had enough to eat. The current wave of food riots has already claimed the prime minister of Haiti, and there have been protests around the world, from Mexico, to Egypt, to India.

The reason for the price rise is perfect storm of high oil prices, an increasing demand for meat in developing countries, poor harvests, population growth, financial speculation and biofuels. But prices have fluctuated before. The reason we're seeing such misery as a result of this particular spike has everything to do with Zoellick and his friends