Ever wonder where the term “One World Government” came from?
It was used in the past by the ruling class to foretell a story of an impending centralized system of governance reigning over all of humanity. But it didn’t really become commonplace language until a man by the name of “James Warburg“.
Warburg was a German-born American banker that helped organize the ‘Society for the Prevention of World War 3”.
Most importantly, on February 17, 1950, Warburg attended the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
One World Government Comment
During the meeting, Warburg developed a platform on which he could state his opinions on the Revisions of the United Nations Charter. Yes, that UN.
During the meeting, James Warburg started with the following:
The past 15 years of my life have been devoted almost exclusively to studying the problem of world peace and, especially, the relation of the United States to these problems. These studies led me, 10 years ago, to the conclusion that the great question of our time is not whether or not one world can be achieved, but whether or not one world can be achieved by peaceful means.
Followed by this statement:
We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.
This is where the term “one world government” originally began to get traction.
The only question to Warburg was whether the elites would get this government by force or coercion. Very telling even today.
“Consent or conquest” has a slight eery feeling to it, honestly.
But Warburg did have another quote worth reading.
What is a One World Government Anyway?
Warburg went on in a later message (at the same meeting) to say the following:
In due course we shall have to define more closely what we mean by world government and by what steps we propose to get there.
I have given considerable study to these problems.
I believe them to be soluble—but not by the adoption of any hastily conceived formulas, and, above all, not without exploring patiently and carefully what is in the minds of other peoples, who, while friendly to us, do not share our historical background nor our particular political or economic prejudices and predilections.
If we seek peace under law by common consent, we cannot expect to impose our imprint upon the world. We must be prepared to accept some sort of a composite pattern, in which we may preserve for ourselves the things we cherish, but in which others may be equally free to do the same.
So it seems to me that Warburg was hinting at the fact that if we achieved a one world government by the means of consent, we would have to preserve local cultures.
Whereas if it was by conquest… not so much.
Local cultures conflict with one world governance and total power centralization, so the consent approach is clearly not the ideal approach.
The term “One World Government” has been around for quite a lot longer than many of us realize.
It started with the Bible, as it foretold of the Antichrist assuming and presiding over a coerced/conquered Earth. That’s why the general concept of this one world government has been around long before Warburg.
But the actual ramifications of the term did not spring to light until Warburg at this subcommittee. Even then, it didn’t become a popular phrase until the later 1980s/90s.
Regardless of your thoughts on the one world government idea, it is always good to know about how the term came to fruition and their original meanings/intentions. It was evil from Bible times, and Warburg was no saint.
Warburg could have worded his address to the subcommittee a bit better. That is, if he actually wanted to get the message across without sounding like a nutcase.
Which I doubt.