The Nation-State Is Finished

Robert Bartley, a closet one-worlder at the WSJ, used his newspaper’s "conservative" clout to seduce American business leaders into sacrificing U.S. sovereignty for trade. ‘‘What in blazes can President Bush be thinking?" That has been the general response — on talk radio and in media surveys, Internet postings and letters-to-the-editor — of many current and former Bush supporters angered and confused by the president’s immigration proposals. These folks would not have been surprised by the president’s outrageous announcement on January 7 or his remarks the following week at the Summit of the Americas in Mexico if they had been paying attention to his immigration themes from the get-go. While still governor of Texas, Bush had already indicated his tilt toward open borders between the U.S. and Mexico. However, like most well-coached politicians, he knew better than to play this grating chord to his conservative core constituency.

The Bush amnesty plan (which the president insists is not an amnesty) calls for legalizing millions of illegal aliens, whom President Bush, in deference to the canons of political correctness, calls "undocumented workers." It also calls for increasing the flow of "temporary" foreign workers into the country, as well as upping our annual quotas for legal immigrants. All of which would prove disastrous for our already overwhelmed immigration and border patrol agencies. Bush’s proposed immigration fiasco did not originate with President Bush, however, or even with his "Amigo Numero Uno," Mexican President Vicente Fox, who endorses this new plan for open borders. This suicidal migration scheme would be more appropriately christened the Robert L. Bartley Open Borders Plan, and the Monterrey Summit of the Americas might well have been dubbed the Robert L. Bartley Memorial Summit, both in honor of the late Wall Street Journal editor who championed the death of nationhood.

Mr. Bartley, who passed away on December 10, 2003, is hugely responsible for promoting the idea of open borders among America’s business, academic and political elites. For 30 years, he used the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal to redefine American political and economic conservatism and to undermine a key conservative and constitutional principle: the protection of national sovereignty against internationalist encroachment. One of Bartley’s signal triumphs has been a general acceptance by many of these elites — especially the neoconservatives who have hijacked the Republican Party — of the need to sacrifice national sovereignty, supposedly to promote trade. Thus, the Journal’s news and editorial pages consistently promoted NAFTA, the European Union, the World Trade Organization, the FTAA and many other internationalist schemes.

"I think the nation-state is finished," Bartley once told Peter Brimelow, a former colleague of his at the Journal. "I think [Kenichi] Ohmae is right," he continued. Kenichi Ohmae is not a household name, except to avid readers of the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, The Economist and the like. Mr. Ohmae, an economic guru and prophet of regionalism, is the author of such works as The Borderless World and The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies. In his 1993 essay, "The Rise of the Region State," for Foreign Affairs, house journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, Ohmae declared: "The nation state has become an unnatural, even dysfunctional, unit for organizing human activity and managing economic endeavor in a borderless world."

Peter Brimelow was understandably stunned by Bartley’s candid admission. He states:

I was thunderstruck. I knew the fans of the Journal’s editorial page, overwhelmingly conservative patriots, had no inkling of this. It would make a great Wall Street Journal front-page story: Wall Street Journal Editor Revealed As Secret One-Worlder — Consternation Among Faithful — Is Pope Catholic?

Yes, Robert Bartley, the supposed paragon of conservatism, was indeed a secret one-worlder, and this was evident many years ago to alert readers of the Journal. In more recent years, Bartley began inching out of the one-world closet and showing his real globalist colors. In an editorial for July 2, 2001, entitled "Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?" he announced the Journal’s support for dumping U.S. sovereignty and transforming the United States into a vassal of a hemispheric superstate modeled after the European Union. Bartley wrote:

Reformist Mexican President Vicente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two NAFTA should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper....

Indeed, during the immigration debate of 1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies — a constitutional amendment: "There shall be open borders."

Get that? Mr. Bartley was bragging that he and the Journal — that supposed bastion of conservatism — were pushing for open borders 20 years ago! Not to put too fine a point on the matter, but that is another way of saying that Bartley and company were (are) pushing for the abolition of the United States of America. Which is to say — and there’s no way around it — that Bartley and his WSJ coterie were (and are) engaged in subversion and treason, no matter how respectable they may appear or how cleverly they couch their verbal assaults on nationhood.

What makes the Bartley-WSJ globalist scheme so dangerous is not so much the proposal itself (how many Americans want to abolish our borders and merge with other nations?), but the use of deception and conspiracy to foist it on an unsuspecting public. The open borders advocates could openly and honorably lay their plan before their fellow citizens and explain it something like this: "In our globalizing economy, the political constraints of our individual nation states have outgrown their usefulness and are impeding economic progress and prosperity for all our people. We think it is time to unleash the productive potential of the people of our hemisphere by eliminating national boundaries and allowing the free movement of peoples and trade. Of course, this will mean doing away with the U.S. Constitution and our national sovereignty and constructing some as-yet-unknown and undefined regional system of governance that would reflect a mixture of features of our U.S. system and those of 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries."

But the Bartley claque of internationalists at the Journal knew that a forthright appeal of this sort would have about as much chance of flying as a penguin in lead underwear. They knew they would lose hands down if the supposed merits of their plan were carefully scrutinized and publicly debated. So, for the most part, they have cloaked their true objectives in rhetoric extolling "free peoples," "free markets" and "free trade," while gradually insinuating their plan of hemispheric integration into their reporting and editorials.

Mr. Bartley’s recent death brought forth a flood of eulogies from the high and mighty. President Bush eulogized him as a "giant of journalism" and noted that he had recently bestowed on Bartley the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Leading editors, writers and network television news anchors proclaimed him the oracle of conservatism and a key opinion molder who shaped modern economic thought. But Mr. Bartley’s vision and influence were not his own; he was an agent, not a principal. He was able to man the helm at the Journal for three decades because he faithfully and effectively retailed to an essential clientele the propaganda of America’s one-world Insiders. Robert Bartley (a.k.a. Mr. Conservative to unsuspecting Journal readers) was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Trilateral Commission, as well as an attendee of the super-secretive Bilderberg meetings. These are the premier organizations that have been undermining American sovereignty and promoting world government for many decades.

Bartley’s main task, which he ably fulfilled, was to gradually redefine conservatism in such a way that his readers would not realize that they had been led onto a completely new track, eventually taking them to a destination they would have rejected if they had gotten their direction from the Left. Which meant that the Journal would continue to function as the "conservative" voice of Pratt House, the New York headquarters of the CFR, just as the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc. serve as the CFR Establishment’s "liberal" voice. The Journal editorial staff is loaded up with CFR members: Daniel Henninger, Robert S. Greenberger, George Melloan, Gerald Seib, Amity Shlaes and John Bussey, to name a few. Karen Elliott House, publisher of the Journal and president of its parent corporation, Dow Jones & Company, is also a CFR member. As is Dow Jones CEO Peter Kann. Dow Jones is a corporate member of the CFR. Editorial page editor Paul Gigot, a former CFR member, is a stalwart internationalist nonetheless and one of the most ardent promoters of open immigration.

One of Bartley’s early undertakings was to boost a group of ex-Trotskyite socialists (who were still internationalists and hadn’t even shed all of their socialist inclinations) as the new spokesmen of conservatism. Now known as neoconservatives, these intellectuals hold dominant sway in the Republican Party, the Federal Reserve and many of the Beltway think tanks and conservative organizations.

In his eulogy to Bartley in The Weekly Standard, Irving Kristol (CFR), the renowned "godfather of neoconservatism," noted the pivotal role that Bartley played in launching the neocon revolution. Kristol recalled that he was editor of a young and little-known magazine called The Public Interest when Bartley came to interview him in the late 1960s for the WSJ. "I was amazed," Kristol wrote, when Bartley said he was an avid reader of the magazine. The Journal’s promotional piece on Kristol and The Public Interest was a big help to the fledgling publication, but that was just the start of a much bigger assist. Bartley also gave Kristol a regular column in the Journal, which Kristol used to promote neoconservatism (internationalism) as a replacement for traditional nationalist, constitutionalist conservatism.

Mr. Kristol was not alone. The Journal began regularly to feature one-world scribblings from the CFR brain trust (besides those on its own staff), such as the January 1, 2000 op-ed entitled "A World Without a Country?" by Henry Grunwald (CFR). Accenting a favorite theme of Kenichi Ohmae, Grunwald predicted that the "nation-state will undergo sharp limitations of its sovereignty" and that "just as the old, petty principalities had to dissolve into the wider nation-state, the nation-state will have to dissolve into wider structures."

On May 1, 1998, Bartley turned over a large chunk of editorial space to David Rockefeller, former chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank and chairman emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission. The purpose of Mr. Rockefeller’s op-ed was an urgent appeal for support for the International Monetary Fund. Over the past six decades, the IMF has promoted socialism, waste, corruption, global inflation, national bankruptcy and a tidal wave of debt. Of course, the IMF also has been immensely profitable for politically connected banks and corporations, like Rockefeller’s, whose projects are funded by the IMF. And all in the name of "free market" economics. In his Journal op-ed, "Why We Need the IMF," Rockefeller argued: "In a globalized economy, everyone needs the IMF. Without the IMF, the world economy would not become an idealized fantasy of perfectly liquid, completely informed, totally unregulated capital markets." According to Rockefeller, "the IMF is the sovereign nations’ credit union," and U.S. taxpayers and the U.S. Congress should be willing to pump more billions of dollars into its tills.

Along with the Council of the Americas (David Rockefeller, founder and honorary chairman), the Americas Society (David Rockefeller, chairman), the Forum of the Americas (David Rockefeller, founder), the Institute of International Economics (David Rockefeller, director and principal funder) and a number of similar organizations, the Bartley-CFR cabal at the Journal succeeded in selling the idea of regional economic and political convergence to the global business community, as a prelude to global convergence and global government under the UN. A principal part of their strategy in preparing the way for establishing the FTAA has been to convince the U.S. financial and business communities of the supposedly overwhelmingly positive attributes of the regional economic and political convergence occurring in the European Union.

In furtherance of this strategy, the Journal and its one-world confederates promoted economist Robert Mundell, the "father of the euro." When Mundell was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1999, the Journal could not help breaking forth in rhapsodic acclamation. "For a generation now these columns have preached economics from the gospel by Robert Mundell," the paper crowed in its lead editorial for October 14, 1999. The Journal praised Mundell as "the chief intellectual proponent of the euro" and the savant most responsible for winning acceptance of a common currency for Europe. The Journal then devoted nearly one-third of a page to reprinting a 1990 essay by Mundell advocating a world central bank, including this large blow-up quote: "We have a better opportunity to create a world central bank with a stable international currency than at any previous time in history."

This should have provided all the clues any careful reader would need to understand the globalist game plan. Mundell and the Journal were admitting that, in their vision, the European Central Bank (ECB) was just a steppingstone to a world central bank. The ECB is using its formidable powers to destroy the residual national sovereignty of the countries of the European Union and bring them under the control of one-world Eurocrats in Brussels. A world central bank would do the same thing, but on a global scale. And remember, the Journal says Mr. Mundell’s word is gospel. The end result of the Mundell-Journal vision would be a world economic cartel leading to world political control under the United Nations.

Seen in the light of the regionalist process described above, President Bush’s amnesty program and his proposals to increase our immigration quotas and temporary work visas take on additional frightening meaning. As harmful as they would be, in and of themselves, the truth is that these are merely part of a process that envisions still more radical schemes aimed ultimately at destroying our borders and merging the U.S. in a hemispheric region state. An article by Robert A. Pastor (CFR) in the January/February 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs shows where this process is headed. Mr. Pastor does not pretend to be a conservative; his left-wing bona fides are well known. He has long been associated with the Institute for Policy Studies, a think tank with close ties to the Soviet KGB and Castro’s DGI. His current Foreign Affairs essay, "North America’s Second Decade," calls for melding U.S. immigration and security policy with Canada and Mexico, in effect obliterating our borders. Pastor says that our security fears born of the 9-11 attacks should "serve as a catalyst for deeper integration. That would require new structures to assure mutual security, promote trade, and bring Mexico closer to the First World economies of its neighbors." This necessitates, he avers, "a redefinition of security that puts the United States, Mexico and Canada inside a continental perimeter."

"The European experience with integration has much to teach North American policymakers," he states. We must jettison our "outmoded conception of sovereignty," says Pastor. "Most important," says this left-wing Pratt House one-worlder, "the Department of Homeland Security should expand its mission to include continental security — a shift best achieved by incorporating Mexican and Canadian perspectives and personnel into its design and operation." That’s right, merge our new Bureau of Customs and Border Protection with Mexico’s military and law enforcement agencies, which are riddled with corrupt officials and paid agents of the drug cartels. That will surely enhance our homeland security against foreign terrorist groups!

The Bush administration is already headed in that direction, with much of the program outlined by Pastor faintly visible in the statements of Bush officials and the Special Conference on Hemispheric Security in Mexico last October, in which the U.S. participated. President Bush, along with Republican and Democrat leaders of Congress and the CFR choir in the major media, insist that these moves toward regional government constitute no threat to our national sovereignty. That is precisely what European politicians and their enablers told the peoples of Europe as the Common Market was morphing into the increasingly tyrannical superstate now known as the European Union.

Sir Peregrine Worsthorne has been one of the few prominent voices in Europe over the past few decades warning against the merger designs of the EU one-worlders. A regular columnist for London’s Sunday Telegraph, he protested in a 1991 column of the ongoing campaign of deception used by the EU advocates. "Twenty years ago, when the process began, there was no question of losing sovereignty," said Worsthorne. "That was a lie, or at any rate, a dishonest obfuscation."

However, it wasn’t until 2000 that documentation showing the depth of deception and the enormity of the lies by government officials began to seep out of sealed records. "What these papers revealed more starkly than ever before," says British journalist Christopher Booker, "was just how deliberately the Heath Government and the Foreign Office set out to conceal from the British people the Common Market’s true purpose. They were fully aware that it was intended to be merely the first step towards creating a politically united Europe, but they were determined to hide this away from view."

"For 40 years," says Booker, "British politicians have consistently tried to portray it [the Common Market and EU] to their fellow-citizens as little more than an economic arrangement: a kind of free-trading area primarily concerned with creating jobs and prosperity," dismissing and denying the charges by opponents that the emerging EU government unequivocally attacks national sovereignty.

There is no need for Americans to wait 40 years to find similar documentation of official lies and deception by the Clinton and Bush administrations concerning the FTAA plan to merge the Americas. By then it would be too late. We must not allow the neocons’ seductive siren song of "free trade" and "free markets" to dull our senses to the reality of their socialist-internationalist trap, which, when sprung, would kill nationhood as well as free trade and free markets. We already know everything we need to know to oppose this treasonous scheme with all legal and honorable means at our disposal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anticipating a hostile reaction to the Bush proposals from the conservatives who elected him, the Wall Street Journal and its internationalist allies moved quickly to shore up support and neutralize opposition.

Anticipating a hostile reaction to the Bush proposals from the conservative Republicans and Democrats who elected him, the Wall Street Journal and its internationalist allies moved quickly to shore up support and neutralize opposition. A January 12 Journal column by Tamar Jacoby (CFR) declared: "The Bush immigration plan is Reaganesque in its optimism." "What could be more conservative," asked Jacoby, "than encouraging the American dream, rewarding work, restoring the rule of law and enhancing our security?" Too bad the Bush plan does none of these.

Former Congressman and HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, one of the prized protégés of the Bartley-Kristol school of globalism and open borders, charged out of the starting gate on January 12 with a syndicated column entitled "Race to the Border." Kemp began his piece with a typical leftist ploy of labeling opponents of unlimited immigration as "xenophobes." The Bush plan, says Kemp, is "an excellent beginning" that "seeks to blend salutary economic policy with sound national security." The president should be commended for "bold leadership" on the issue, but he doesn’t go far enough, Kemp declares. He would like to see a detailed plan for speeding the border jumpers to full citizenship.

Kemp then invoked the supposed benediction of George Washington upon open borders, by quoting this most venerated Founding Father, to wit: "I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong." Kemp knows that is another deception. The key word here is "virtuous," indicating selectivity. Neither Washington nor any of the other founding patriots would have countenanced the total eradication of our borders as proposed under the Bush plan and the FTAA. "My opinion with respect to immigration," said Washington, "is that, except for mechanics and particular description of men and professions, there is no use in its encouragement." Alexander Hamilton stated: "The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency." Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and other Founders expressed similar sentiments.

No, Kemp’s co-opting of George Washington is as disingenuous as his regular use of free market rhetoric to justify more New Deal/Big Government programs. His primary vehicle for spreading the neoconservative, one-world gospel is Empower America (EA), a Pratt House front for neocon Republicans. One of his co-directors at EA is his longtime boon companion William J. Bennett. Back in 1994, Kemp and Bennett teamed up with the leftists of the radical Hispanic lobby to campaign against California’s Proposition 187, a responsible initiative to deny welfare benefits to illegal aliens. Kemp and Bennett characterized Proposition 187 backers as bigots, racists and xenophobes. Californians passed Proposition 187 anyway. The other three co-directors at EA are William S. Cohen, Vin Weber and Jeanne Kirkpatrick — CFR members and internationalists all, not patriots in the mold of George Washington.

Illegal immigration isn't honest policy disagreement. It's literally the collapse of civilization. And Bush is on the wrong side, and he deceived us. That's not honorable or compassionate in my eyes. That's a political sell-out, and there's no recovery.

I will repeat what you posted, it is a valid position. But Bush was still a better candidate on this issue than Gore. Bush made no claims to support conservative positions on immigration. His experience in Texas seems to have convinced him that he can increase the number of hispanic votes in his election with this approach. I happen to see things the way you do. But polls have shown this issue to be below the average voters horizon.

When I joined Bush's supporters, it was with a clear understanding that he was and is wrong on this issue. When you illegally enter the USA, you step in front of the line of everyone who is waiting legally for their chance. That is simply being a bully and we all know what to do with a bully. They are illegal, they should face deportation, no welfare, no handouts. My support for Bush is in other areas, like the war on terror where if we don't win, immigration won't matter. (Immigration of course is part of the way terrorists will enter this country.)

I do not agree that Bush was not totally clear that he was in the Jack Kemp camp on immigration, that is that in a few generations, these immigrants' kids will be voting republican. I don't buy the approach, but if I knew it, it must not have been too hard to find.

"Give me a break" -Joe-

Point taken, but they keep coming. It they were told that with a vote they could come here without border hastles what would they do? And don't forget all those people who have never tried to rush the border would believe they would be qualified for welfare where they are. It would be a lot like the reunification of Germany. Lots of problems, lots of costs but they did it.
That said, I am certain the problems associated with statehood for the nation of Mexico would not be minimal.

______________________________________

Interesting article on statehood for Mexican states:

Address:http://members.aol.com/XPUS/Mexico.html

Not to mention different interests.

Doesn't anyone remember that Mexico sided against with France and Russia against us in Iraq? They are a full fledged member-state of the Axis of Weasels. They are going to do whatever they can to restrict US power and force us to subordinate ourselves to the UN. They hate us! Why is that so hard for some to understand?

The Pentagon has even identified them as a possible "future threat" to our national security!

"(The DIA) report says a "camp" of unaligned countries would continue to try to limit U.S. power. This group included Russia, China, France, India, Mexico, Iran and Iraq."

You are the one who wants to talk about some fantastic scheme for Mexican statehood rather than the destruction of our sovereignty by the FTAA and OAS. If you want more states in the Union why don't you start with Puerto Rico?

Oh yeah, because THEY DON'T WANT TO BE A STATE!

Guess what? NEITHER DOES MEXICO!

They want to leech of our system without having to contribute to it. It won't hurt their "pride" either because us yanquis stole all this land from them to begin with! It's only just that the ill-gotten gains of the racist American empire be redistributed to their rightful owners: THE BRONZE NATION OF AZTLAN!

I'm sure all the "Latino-Americans" in Aztlan will be all for "reunification" with Mexico. Maybe we can look forward to having a government as socialist as Germany's too.

Joe, it was a suggestion to take the offense and trump the border crossers and global cabal that is threatening the USA's sovereignty. It was not meant to be jumped into with the resulting destruction of America. No new state comes into being without evaluation and assurance that the move is a good one for the USA.

The very highly pro-Mexico latins would be crushed by impending statehood, their dream of an sovereign indepent Aztlan run by socialism would be utterly destroyed. For this reason, they will be totally against it. But at no time do I forsee the government of the USA accepting socalism, as much as it seems hell bent down that path.

If the topic of National ID CArd was ever to come up again, which it will when our state systems are too cluttered with stolen identifications to determine who you are, the one and only way I could vote for it would be if all, that means every last one, illegal alien in this country was either put on a bus or a ship and removed as soon as they were discovered.

Removing these foreigners who have come here, primarily to attain a better lifestyle while leaching on the taxpayers tit, would bring the instant awareness that 90% of the programs and agencies are not needed.

This would also bring about a unification of Americanism. Color wouldn't enter into the picture, nor would race. You would know that the person standing next to you was either a natural born or officially accepted, sworn in American.

Percentage wise first generation immigrants are a drain on America. Their children are the ones who become the producers, the kids with fresh ideas who want to make their country the best in the world.

The current group of 15 to 30 million illegals are not a positive benefit for us. They are generally uneducated, diseased, non English speaking people who are taking the 'learning' jobs away from our younger population.

Their allegence is not with America. You and I when we are driving or walking are constantly looking, without realizing it, about the safety and security of our community.

When we see someone who is drunk and walking along the road, we automatically think of the consequences to an American family should this man fall into their driving path. That's why we call the police to have this danger removed. An illegal alien doesn't have these concerns.

The cost of everything overall, including food would drop. One illegal Mexican man will cost us $5000 per year. Imagine what the costs are of one childbearing woman including the costs of her childrens education.

Immigration into America is a necessary cost that we must pay in order to gain the fresh ideas, but it must be regulated and controlled.

Last year the cost to Nevada was approximately $450 million, I don't know what California's costs were but I'm sure they were in the billions.

As a country America is in trouble, we all know that. Blindly following the Republicans will not cure our difficulty unless the leaders realize it too.

As a country America is in trouble, we all know that. Blindly following the Republicans will not cure our difficulty unless the leaders realize it too.

I am with you, except that actually deporting 10 millions of people would not happen in a week or two. I too support the national ID as a means to determine friend or foe and to keep the foes identified once they are located.

You are also right that both parties believe that the present system has something in it for them and that the country will not suffer beyond recovery if they let a few million more in. Why is this so low on the list of concerns? Living in a Mexican neighborhood in California I saw what was happening, how they saved the teachers' jobs by bringing population to the schools because we were not having enough children. How the very same school salvation turned out to destroy the concept of education in California. "Do not give my hijo (child) homework, at home he works for me. "Teach him on school time, give him a free lunch, free medical, and a free bus ride." And we let this happen because to stand against it meant to be called a racist and be guilty of "discrimination". Jack Kemp said we will never again win California because we passed prop 187. Well politically we have lost California since then, But, is California headed in a direction we believe in?

Well, we need to become discriminatory again. And soon.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.