by Ryan Setliff
The Advent of the North American Union"America is surrendering its sovereignty to a world government. Hooray."
—Cover of the New Republic, January 17, 2000, in reference to an article by Robert Wright
"Plans for far-reaching changes in the character of international society are an intellectual by-product of all great wars."
—Nicholas J. Spykman, America's Strategy in World Politics
Simply put,
The North America Union (NAU) is fast becoming a political reality, and this proposed international entity may encompass nearly a half-billion people. This goes beyond the pre-existing
Organization of American States (OAS), which was the earliest step in the integration process started a few decades ago.
On February 17, 1950, James Paul Warburg confidently declared to the United States Senate:
We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.
Well, I saw this coming in the 1990s, and everything is going according to plan. Internationalists have always been keen to note that treaties ratified by the Congress are the supreme law of the land, so they can plan for a stealthy
coup d'état by treaty,
and all without a short fired. These plans in the works are anathema to the free constitutional federal republic of the founding fathers. Such a calculated move will further divest the people of power, make for a centripetal aggrandizement of political power, while placing much of that power in the hands of a largely unaccountable cosmopolitan elite. These globalists know loyalty to no nation. The United States of America is fast becoming a minor province in the New World Order.
The Bush Betrayal - Take Two
Well, I made it obvious that I disapprove of the present administration in my November 2005 review of
The Bush Betrayal, which landed author James Bovard a radio interview incidentally.
Our turncoat President Bush leads the way for more creeping globalism and internationalism. His administration has been working overtime in cooperation with the various elitist globalist think tanks (i.e. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Council of Foreign Relations, et al.) at planning the North American Union, a counterpart to the European Union. The Bush administration presided over the creation of the
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) which was formally launched in March of 2005 ostensibly as "a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States." The irony of integrating a security apparatus with Mexico and Central American countries is disturbing given that they are basically corrupt narco-states. Police corruption there is appalling, and NAFTA has only meant an easier time for the drug cartels! That's right. Commercial vehicles can cross the U.S.-Mexico border without inspection. Full of what? Probably? Illegal aliens, narcotics, and maybe even a few terrorists. The utility of this Union and its value to Americans is dubious, but globalist elites have an agenda all their own. Security and economic growth are just clever marketing propaganda to dupe Americans into trading the remnants of freedom and prosperity for a mess of pottage. These globalist policies will hit the American middle class the hardest.
The SPP is just another chip in the building block towards a North American Union. This is why this former RNC campaign staffer is no longer a Republican. Pffft.. the Republican Party sells our nation's soul. As Bruce Bartlett wrote in
Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy: "Bush is more like Richard Nixon a man who used the Right to pursue his agenda, but never really part of it. In short, he is an imposter, a pretend conservative."
"Global Governance"The push for world government is not new to the twenty-first century, and it stages in continuity with the past century since World War II. For over a decade, I was reading journals, working papers, and publications off-and-on straight from the globalist think tanks themselves. What they talked about doing back then, they are doing now. They said what they were planning on doing. A customs and economic union in North America, with the goal of building a trilateral regional bloc. From to time, they would even leak their plans to the media, and I captured news articles as well in metropolitan newspapers, such as one in 2001 in Canada where the CEIP called for integration of American and Canadian customs. A few years later, it is becoming a reality.
One of Clinton's senior diplomatic officials in the U.S. State Department, Strobe Talbott, an Oxford Rhodes Scholar and Clinton's college roommate, has been a professed "world federalist." He wrote in a July 20, 1992 Time Magazine article, entitled "The Birth of the Global Nation:"
The best mechanism for democracy, whether at the level of the multinational state or that of the planet as a whole, is not an all-powerful Leviathan or centralized superstate, but a federation, a union of separate states that allocate certain powers to a central government while retaining many others for themselves.
More alarming Talbott also proclaimed:
All countries are basically social arrangements. Within the next hundred years, nationhood, as we know it, will be obsolete. All states will recognise a single global authority. A phase briefly fashionable in the mid 20th century, citizen of the world, will have assumed real meaning at the end of the 21st.
Simply put, there are people working the shadows and laboring for world government. In fact, they have been working for almost a century now. It's no conspiracy totally shrouded in mystery, as the globalists are quite open about their agenda at times, and covert at other times. They work stealthy to be sure, but have become more overt in recent years. They have a sympathetic media-political establishment in their hip pocket to put a spin on things. Large multi-national corporations have a stake in the New World Order as well. I learned to go to the insiders themselves, and not perceive things threw some fanciful kaledioscope of wild conspiracy theory. The sensationalists and qwacks only serve to discredit the rational conservative minds. Likewise, the globalist establishment and their sympathizers loves to lump all opposition to globalism together, in order to discredit the opposition.
I read extensively of all of the machinations before and after World War II, and of the men working behind the scenes. I learned to go straight to the working papers of the globalist think tanks and their journals, not crazy conspiracy books. I have found some wise people that have been helpful to me along the way. Ironically, one of President Bill Clinton's professors the late
Carroll Quigley, a professor of history and international relations at Georgetown University, was very helpful at forging my perspective and giving me insight. Quigley was a liberal and cosmopolitan to be sure, but an outsider among insiders to say the least. Quigley's problem with the elites was not their activities for he was very much sympathetic to them, but rather that they shrouded their machinations in secrecy. Quigley wanted to tell about it, and he did so. In his 1300 page magnum opus, entitled
Tragedy and Hope, he wrote:
There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent in the way the radical Right believes the Communist act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records.
Quigley, Carroll. Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (NY, NY: Macmillan, 1966), p. 950.
He goes on to say,
The original purpose of these groups was to seek to federate the English-speaking wrold along the lines laid down by Cecil Rhoades (1853-1902) and William T. Stead (1849-1912), and the money for the organizational work orginally came from the Rhodes Trust.
Ibid. p. 950
This double international network in which the Round Table groups formed the semisecret or secret nuclei of the Institutes of International Affairs was extended into a third network in l925, organized by the same people for the same motives. Once again the mastermind was Lionel Curtis, and the earlier Round Table Groups and Institutes of International Affairs were used as neclei for the new network. However, this new organization for Pacific affairs was extended to ten countries, while the Round Table Groups existed only in seven. The new additions, ultimately China, Japan, France, the Netherlands, and Soviet Russia, had Pacific councils set up from sctach. In Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, Pacific councils, interlocked and dominated by the Institutes of International Affairs, were set up. In England, Chatham House served as the English center for both nets, while in the United States the two were parallel creations (not subordinate) of the Wall street allies of the Morgan bank. The financing came from the same international banking groups and their subsidiary commercial and industrial firms.
Ibid. pp. 950-951
The intrigue documented in Quigley's books, and treacherous dealings with communists throughout the Cold War probably no longer surprise anyone or have any shock value. It's old news. Even mainstream conservatives like Ann Coulter scratched the surface of such machinations in the 1950s in her book
Treason.
I was reading
CFR publications in the 1990s, and have noted, that globalists no longer keep much of their agenda a secret, but rather they are very open about it. From to time, their chief sponsors will make bold statements attacking national sovereignty. They tacitly exploit those who take the conspiracy hysteria to an extreme, as the masses are naturally apt to reject the wild speculators and for good reason. Nevertheless, the general public unfortunately becomes complacent in their perception of events as they unfold, or they are simply not perceptive at all. A prominent trilateralist, Richard Gardner, Jimmy Carter's ambassador to Italy wrote in 1974:
The 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up. An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than an old fashioned frontal attack.
Moreover, the globalist strategy has always been Fabian in nature. In a Fabian strategy carried out in war, direct confrontation is always avoided in favor of wearing down an opponent through an agonizing war of attrition, consisting of stealthy hit-and-run attacks. This strategy derives its name from
Quintus Fabius Maximus, the Roman dictator who was tasked with taking on the general of Carthage, Hannibal, in southern Italy during the Second Punic War. The globalists operate in a similar fashion to this Roman General at erecting world government, though they don't neccessarily move with force unless you consider UN peacekeeping missions such
force. Instead, they make their with political manuevering as they wittle away at localism, states' rights, and national sovereignty. Likewise, they steadily support a campaign of filching power upward to cosmopolitan national and transnational elites. These elites are largely unaccountable to the people and appointed. The globalists wage their campaign both behind-the-scenes and overtly as well. They make steady planned progress inch-by-inch, and press further for more gains. Likewise, they are always quick to solidify the progress they do make, consolidate their gains and put ramparts around it.
They are manipulative to be sure, and as UN member-states have called for reforming or partially-defunding the UN while decrying its corruption, the globalists have seized cleverly seized upon the rhetoric of reform to propose a new, more empowered United Nations organization with more powers, and even the power to tax. Their proposed
Law of the Sea Treaty is a clarion example.
Coupled with their Fabian strategy of making steady gains, the globalists also embrace a Gramscian approach in their political manuevering. In the early twentieth-century, an obscure Italian communist by the name of
Antonio Gramsci theorized that it would take a
long march through the institutions before socialism could be operative. Even though these largely Leftist cosmopolitans are not ideological Marxists by any stretch of the imagination, they certainly are keen to Gramsci's tactics, and tacitly make use of them. Anyhow, Gramsci postulated throwing off the old bourgeoisie superstructure, by taking over the various societal institutions from civil associations to education to government to religious bodies. In addition, his plans entailed building a veritable state within a state that would be grafted on to the established order, and in time, the old order would simply be peeled away, supplanted or displaced and a new order that would emerge and take form. Similarly, the internationalists work this way in creating a state within a state. Their idea is to create so called
multilateral institutions, largely unaccountable, and aloof from the people. The globalists then augment political power within those institutions steadily with the passage of time, and gradually displace political power at the national, state and local area. Their concern is not limited government, only the aggrandizement of centripetal political power within a world government. Making regional blocs — through the principle of trilateralism — is but a stepping stone to a full-fledged world government.
The globalists are in fact very clever, and know the value of propaganda.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the
Ford Foundation, et al., spend millions on education initiatives. Educating who? Grade school and college students, of course. They propagandize pupils into the culture of globalism, and laud the United Nations, the WTO, and other globalist edifices. They inculcate students with shrewd propaganda supplied directly to teachers and schools, which they bill as educational materials. Their key is to make a positive impression on students while they are young and impressionable, and desensitize them to the idea of both globalism and world government. Of course, the phrasing "world government" is not routinely used by its biggest sponsors, and is defanged in favor of less offensive sounding terms like "global governance" and "multi-lateralism" or "supra-national institutions." If the UN, WTO, the proposed North American Union (NAU), and globalism becomes a fixture in your imagination, then regional blocs and world government become ubiquitous and uneventful, plus it is marketed as benevolent, harmless, and economically beneficial anyway. Therefore, their psy-ops (psychological operations) campaign speeds along the political process of integration and it lessens popular resistance.
Across the AtlanticThe
European Union is firmly committed to expansion and further integration, and is laying out plans for a Constitution. Oddly enough, the proposed Constitution knows nothing of any doctrine of enumerated powers, and is more of a structural edifice than anything. It is a largely teleocratic constitution dedicated to the implementation of ideological ideals, and less of a nomocratic (i.e. rule-based) document like the U.S. Constitution. Within the European Union framework, powers are broad and enunciated with sweeping generalizations.
Interestingly, this poster to the right has been a source of controversy since its impetus. The European Union often lauds a gaudy secular humanism, so it is not surprising that they would invoke the Biblical symbol of the Tower of Babel, which was originally built in defiance of God. The European stars have been inverted to a pentagram (an occult symbol). It is not without significance, regardless of whether this was just to casually offend those they who might be offended, or a more conscious attempt to declare the European Union's secular contempt for traditional Christendom.The American UnionNAFTA and the slated CAFTA and FTAA are the skeletons of this embroyonic American Union. The purpose of course is to bring down political and economic boundaries and create a supra-national authority above the U.S. Congress that hands down binding edicts affecting the regulation of trade, commerce, industry, enterprise, labor and property use that supercedes federal law, or perhaps compels U.S. federal law to operate within its constraints. Ostensibly, much of this regulation will entail setting supra-national standards and forcing our government to conform to those guidelines. As Lew Rockwell surmises,
NAFTA is imperialist. It preaches to other countries about what kinds of laws and regulations they should have-the social democratic mixed economy that is impoverishing us. NAFTA is, of course, not the free trade of Jefferson, Randolph, Taylor and Calhoun. It is trade for the few and not the many, for the particular interests and not the general interests.
My support for "free trade" doesn't compel me to support NAFTA, CAFTA, and the
newly proposed FTAA, and frankly it creates a protectionist regional bloc, supra-national regulatory web, and is destructive of national sovereignty. I frankly don't consider it "free trade" anyway. If opposition to NAFTA entails solidarity with nationalist or protectionists as a political expedient than that is fine by me, though it doesn't change my commitment to free-markets.
(This is the omninous symbol of trilateralism to the right. Some people have been quick to note its cryptic symbology, and whether it is intentional or not... it should be apparent.)
Dare I say that the
John Birch Society is right about a few things?
The New American magazine is a good source to stay updated on these developments.
Globalist Web Sites:
