From: Bard 
Subject: SNET: America First or World Government
Date: 7 Jan 2000 12:20:53 -0500
To: Snetnews 


->  SNETNEWS  Mailing List

The Millennium Conflict: America First or World Government 

                                              Boston World Affairs
Council January 6, 2000
                                                   (Text prepared for
noon delivery) 

                                                    Patrick J. Buchanan 

Five years ago, historian Christopher Lasch published The Revolt of the
Elites. It was a book about how our national elite was literally
seceding from America.
Pointing up the huge and growing gap in incomes between the elite and
the middle class, Lasch argued that a more ominous gap existed in how
each perceived
America. 

The old elite, Lasch wrote, had a sense of obligation to country and
community. But the new ruling class, more merit based, brainy, and
mobile, congregates on the
coasts and puts patriotism far down the list in its hierarchy of values.
Indeed, said Lasch, "it is a question of whether they think of
themselves as Americans at all." 

Lasch did not name names, but the new elite is not difficult to
identify. A few years ago, Ralph Nader wrote to the executives of 100
giant U.S. corporations,
suggesting how they might show their loyalty to "the country that bred
them, built them, subsidized them and defended them." At the annual
stockholders meeting,
Ralph said, why not begin with a pledge of allegiance to the flag? 

Only one company responded favorably. Half did not respond at all. Many
sent back angry letters declaring that they were not American companies
at all. Motorola
denounced the request as "political and nationalistic." Other companies
likened the idea of a pledge of allegiance to loyalty oaths of the
McCarthy era. Why were the
heads of these corporations outraged? Because for years they have been
trying to sever their bonds to the country of their birth. 

In 1997 the head of Boeing told one interviewer he would be delighted
if, twenty years hence, no one thought of Boeing as an American company.
My goal, said Phil
Condit, is to "rid [Boeing] of its image as an American group." 

Back in the 1970s, Carl Gerstacker of Dow envisioned a day when Dow
would be free of America. "I have long dreamed," he said, "of buying an
island owned by
no nation and of establishing the World Headquarters of the Dow Company
on the truly neutral ground of such an island, beholden to no nation or
society." A
spokesman for Union Carbide agreed: "It is not proper for an
international corporation to put the welfare of any country in which it
does business above that of any
other." In any test of loyalties, for such as these, the company comes
before the country. 

Early in the 1970s, Zbigniew Brzezinski, later Jimmy Carter's national
security adviser, wrote, "A global consciousness is for the first time
beginning to manifest
itself...we are witnessing the emergence of transnational
elites...composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional
men and public officials. The ties of
these new elites cut across national boundaries, their perspectives are
not confined by national traditions...and their interests are more
functional than national." The
one force that can derail the rise of this new elite, warned Zbig, is
the "politically activated masses," whose "nativism could work against
the cosmopolitan elites." 

Brzezinski knew that the creation of any New World Order would have to
proceed by stealth. As Richard Gardner, 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 assault." 

Advancing on little cat's feet, they have done their work. By 1992 Mr.
Clinton could appoint as Deputy Secretary of State his roommate from
Oxford days who
openly welcomed the death of nations and the coming of world government.
Wrote Strobe Talbott: 

     All countries are basically social arrangements. Within the next
hundred years, nationhood as we know it will be obsolete. All states
will recognize a
     single global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid
20th century, citizen of the world, will have assumed real meaning at
the end of the 21st. 

Last year in Istanbul, Bill Clinton declared himself "a citizen of the
world." 

This, then, is the millennial struggle that succeeds the Cold War: It is
the struggle of patriots of every nation against a world government
where all nations yield up their
sovereignty and fade away. It is the struggle of nationalism against
globalism, and it will be fought out not only among nations, but within
nations. And the old question
Dean Rusk asked in the Vietnam era is relevant anew: Whose side are you
on? 

Last fall, accepting the highest award of the World Federalist
Association, the Most Trusted Man in America declared his loyalty. 

     ...[I]f we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict,
we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world
government... we
     Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would
be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the
new order.

     Indeed it would, Mr. Cronkite. 

Walter went on to urge U.S. ratification of the UN Law of the Sea Treaty
rejected by Ronald Reagan, of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty rejected
by the
Senate, and of the Rome treaty for a permanent international war crimes
tribunal. He urged America to surrender its veto power in the Security
Council, and called
for a standing UN army to enforce the peace of the world. We now no
longer see as through a glass darkly, but face to face, the
internationalists' vision of world
government. 

But the American ship of state has long been shifting course to that
destination. In October 1991, President Bush told the UN that a New
World Order was
America's goal. In 1993, the Clinton White House, in a secret national
security directive, declared its intent to put U.S. troops under UN
command. When young
Americans were killed in an accident over Iraq, Al Gore offered his
condolences "to the families of those who died in the service of the
United Nations." 

In a lame-duck session of Congress in 1994, both parties voted to
ensnare the United States in a World Trade Organization where America
gets one vote out of
135, and gives up its right to negotiate reciprocal trade treaties that
serve America's national interest. 

Under the treaty on global warming Al Gore brought home from Kyoto, the
United States must radically slash its use of fossil fuels like oil and
coal, while no
commensurate cut is demanded in the fossil fuel use of 132
"underdeveloped countries," including China. 

The house of world order is indeed being built from the bottom up; but
resistance is also beginning to build. In December globalists were
astounded there was so
much anger in Seattle at the WTO. But our trade-uber-alles elites do not
understand America, or American history. It was the will of this people
to be masters in
their own house that steeled our first patriots to stand up to the
troops of the British Empire, just outside this city in 1775. A spirit
of liberty is bred in our bones. Let
me tell you about an American who put trade in its proper perspective. 

Thomas Nelson, a merchant, was Governor of Virginia and head of its
militia at Yorktown. As his artillery was firing on the British, Nelson
walked up to the gunners
to demand to know why they were avoiding one sector of Yorktown where
his own home was located. "Out of respect to you, sir," came the reply.
Nelson had the
cannons turned and ordered them to fire at his own house. It was shelled
to pieces. 

But when that spirit of patriotism dies within a nation's elite, the
aspirants of global power smell opportunity. Two years ago, a Mr. Bacre
Waly Ndiaye of the UN
Human Rights Commission came to the U.S. His mission: Tour U.S. prisons
to determine if they are up to UN standards. Mr. Ndiaye interviewed
condemned killers
on death rows to see if their human rights were being violated. 

There is, of course, something comical in a UN official from a continent
where the criminal justice system is still, shall we say, pre-Miranda,
ripping the U.S. for its
prison system. But the issue behind the Ndiaye tour is deadly serious.
For he insists he has the right to investigate our prisons because his
UN commission speaks for
"the world"—an authority higher than the United States, and he claims
the 1992 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed by
President Bush,
justifies UN inspections of U.S. prisons. 

Last month, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson toured
northern Mexico. Her concern: the U.S. Border Patrol. By heavily
patrolling the
accessible crossing points, said Ms. Robinson, our Border Patrol is
"forcing" illegal aliens to take more perilous routes into the United
States. It is, presumably, a
violation of the human rights of people breaking into our country to
"force" them to seek out less safe passages across our borders. 

It is easy to see where Mary Robinson and her colleagues are heading.
They seek a regime where UN bureaucrats from Third World despotisms
demand that
America open her borders and grant sanctuary to all who wish to settle
here. Americans who wish to control their borders will be told that
sovereignty is outdated,
and that our great fertile plains and cities are, compared to Bombay and
Lagos, under-populated. 

>From UN declarations of "world heritage sites" in the U.S, to putting
U.S. troops under UN command, to creation of a UN war crimes tribunal
with the power to
seize and prosecute U.S. soldiers, we are on the road paved by Bill
Clinton when he said that he hopes to leave America tied down in a web
of global institutions. 

Last month, we learned that the UN tribunal to prosecute war crimes in
the Balkans has opened a file on U.S. Air Force pilots. The chickens of
globalism are coming
home to roost. 

Another milestone was crossed last year when UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan asserted that only the Security Council can authorize the
international use of force;
and a nation's sovereignty no longer protects it from intervention, if
the UN determines that human rights are being violated. The Brezhnev
Doctrine of Limited
Sovereignty has been replaced by the Annan Doctrine. 

Upon what meat has this our Caesar fed? The United Nations was not
established as a world government, but a forum for settling disputes.
Kofi Annan is not the
conscience of mankind; he is a civil servant, an employee of the UN; and
he should begin behaving as such. 

But it was not Mr. Ndiaye, Mrs. Robinson or Mr. Annan who announced the
death of the nation-state. That was Strobe Talbott, Richard Gardner, and
those
Republicans who have made the Global Economy a Golden Calf to fall down
before and worship. And the political globalists have their own Fifth
Column of fellow
travelers inside the conservative elite. 

Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley has been quoted as declaring
"the nation-state is finished." He calls for an amendment to the
Constitution to throw open
America's borders to immigration from all over the world. Bartley's
vision of America as Global Mall, is embraced by the global corporations
that advertise in the
Journal and seek access to an inexhaustible supply of low-wage foreign
labor. As British author John Gray writes, America's neo-conservatives
have become little
more than "ranting evangelists of global capitalism." 

Let it be said: Loyalty to the New World Order is disloyalty to the
Republic. In nation after nation, the struggle between patriotism and
globalism is underway. In
England, the Tory Party draws a line in the sand at giving up Britain's
pound. In France, farmers riot to preserve a way of life. In Canada, the
fight to preserve the
national culture is gaining recruits. In Germany, Gerhardt Schroeder
makes a political comeback by embracing economic nationalism. 

And Mr. Cronkite's talk of world government ushering in world peace
notwithstanding, the end of sovereignty means endless war. Trampling on
the sovereignty of
Yugoslavia, President Clinton demanded that the Serbs surrender Kosovo
and cede domination of their country to NATO. When Belgrade rejected his
ultimatum,
Mr. Clinton began 78 days of bombing, using as his casus belli
allegations of Serbian genocide against Kosovar Albanians. We now know
there was no genocide.
We now know it was Clinton's bombing that spurred the killing. We now
know Clinton's War did not create a "multi-ethnic democracy," but a
vengeful little statelet
where Serbs are burned out of their homes for sport. 

If ever sovereignty becomes obsolete, we may expect America's
involvement in endless wars until, one day, we pay the horrific price in
some act of cataclysmic
terror on our own soil. For interventionism is the spawning pool of
international terror. 

Admonishing Russia for her war on Chechnya, Madeline Albright declared,
"Killing the innocent does not defeat terror. It feeds terror." Exactly,
Ms. Albright. But
that is as true of Serbia, as it is of Chechnya. 

If we wish to see the future our globalists have in mind, we need only
look at the superstate rising in Europe. The nations of the European
Union have ceased to be
sovereign. They have given up control of their currencies, their
budgets, their borders, and are giving up control of their defense.
Britain has been forced to comply
with a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights requiring the
British army to accept homosexuals. Earlier, the court demanded that
Britain end corporal
punishment in its schools. "What doth it profit a man if he gain the
whole world, and suffer the loss of his own country?" 

In 1939, in his work, The New World Order, H. G. Wells wrote: "Countless
people...will hate the New World Order...and will die protesting against
it...we have to
bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents..." 

Well, Mr. Wells, we are your malcontents. But we're not going to die
protesting your New World Order; we're going to live fighting it. And
Seattle may just prove to
be the Boston Tea Party of that New World Order. "I believe
globalization is inevitable," Bill Clinton told Larry King at year's
end. Well, I don't. 

My vision of America is of a republic that has recaptured every trace of
her lost sovereignty, independence, and liberty, a nation that is once
again self-reliant in
agriculture, industry, and technology, a country that can, if need be,
stand alone in the world. 

My vision is of a republic not an empire, a nation that does not go to
war unless she is attacked, or her vital interests are imperiled, or her
honor is impugned. And
when she does goes to war, it is only after following a constitutional
declaration by the Congress of the United States. We are not
imperialists; we are not
interventionists; we are not hegemonists; and we are not isolationists.
We simply believe in America first, last, and always. 

And we don't want to be citizens of the world, because we have been
granted a higher honor-we are citizens of the United States. Asked on
his deathbed to make a
toast, John Adams, the great Bostonian, declared: "Independence,
forever!" That is my vision for America; that is our cause; and it shall
prevail. 

http://www.buchananreform.com/new/speeches/print_friendly/millennium_conflict_boston.htm
-------------------------------

Brothers and Sisters,
Which will it be?  Entirely up to you in November, 2000.


Bard

Wouldn't you rather receive a paycheck
which represents the full value of your labor?

The parasitic taxsuckers would finally have
to find 'gainful' employment.

It's frightening at the number of people who
don't realize the extent to which they have
become enslaved to the felons operating the
the private corporation they like to call the
Federal Reserve System.

Find out about the billions they took us and our ancestors for in the
late
1920s and early 1930s,
notwithstanding what their doing right now.

-> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
->  Posted by: Bard