Posted on 02/18/2002 11:37:03 PM PST by Verax
As with so many of history's so-called trends, America's transformation into global policeman isn't accidental. Official admissions of this little-known truth aren't commonplace, but they do occur. Take journalist Michael Hirsh's stunning comments in a recent issue of Newsweek, for example. Buried more than four pages into an otherwise typical anti-isolationism screed entitled "Death of a Founding Myth," we find the following:
While the isolationists … tempted millions with their siren's appeal to nativism — the internationalists were always hard at work in quiet places making plans for a more perfect global community. In the end the internationalists have always dominated national policy. Even so, they haven't bragged about their globe-building for fear of reawakening the other half of the American psyche, our berserker nativism. And so they have always done it in the most out-of-the-way places and with little ado. In December 1917 the Inquiry, a group of eager reformers who included a young Walter Lippmann, secretly met in New York to draw up Wilson's Fourteen Points. In 1941, FDR concocted the Atlantic Charter in the mists off Newfoundland. The dense woods of New Hampshire gave birth to the Bretton Woods institutions — the IMF and World Bank — in 1944. And a year later the United Nations came to life at the secluded Georgetown estate of Dumbarton Oaks.... So what emerged took us more or less by surprise. We had built a global order without quite realizing it, bit by bit, era by era, with our usual schizoid approach: alternating engagement and withdrawal.... Like it or not — and clearly large numbers of Americans still don't — we Americans are now part of an organic whole with the world that George Washington wanted to keep distant.
Leaving aside the snide reference to George Washington, and Hirsh's shifty use of the term "we," what of the claim that America has been deliberately, semi-secretly maneuvered into globalism, that her "berserker nativism" (i.e., patriotism) has been neutralized by stealth and subterfuge?
Background to Betrayal
Hirsh is absolutely correct. America's modern obsession with internationalism, including global militarism, is hardly a grass-roots impulse. It all started, as Hirsh observes, with Woodrow Wilson and the war to make the world safe for democracy. Wilson himself was a left-leaning idealist, in step with the progressives and socialists of his day with their heady designs of making America over in their own image. But, as is ever the case with idealists in the arena of practical politics, Wilson was ultimately the tool of other men, men of cunning and ambition far surpassing his own.
One of Wilson's keepers was Edward Mandell House, a longtime political operative from Texas who had learned to work the levers of power behind the scenes. House had been born into wealth and privilege and had no visceral need for fame. The consummate political insider, House manipulated Wilson's internationalist idealism as a personal confidant to the president but declined any official appointments.
House was the real impetus behind the Inquiry, a semisecret group of internationalist intellectuals including Harvard-trained journalist and co-founder of The New Republic Walter Lippmann. Many members of the Inquiry, including both House and Lippmann, were also involved in the negotiations at Versailles following World War I.
The Inquiry created the Fourteen Points, the famous set of postwar policy recommendations that included as its centerpiece the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations. Despite a blizzard of propaganda on its behalf, the League of Nations was ultimately defeated in the U.S. Senate, an act that set back the plans of House and his associates. But House, ever the patient pragmatist, joined with many others who had thrown their energy into the League of Nations and formed the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the American counterpart of the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs. The Council on Foreign Relations aspired to nothing less than creating conditions favorable for the establishment of a world government — although in recent decades, globalist elites have generally avoided using that politically risky phrase.
With the outbreak of World War II, internationalists in the CFR and elsewhere had another chance to convince a reluctant American Congress (and public) of the wisdom of a world order. Accordingly, the United Nations was created and this time, the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the UN treaty.
From the beginning, the architects of the UN recognized that, as with all governments, only the ability to exercise force could confer legitimacy. This meant that the UN would have to be given police and military powers. But how? Member nations were jealous of their sovereignty and largely ignorant of the megalomaniacal objectives of UN insiders. They would not easily be persuaded to surrender their weapons or commit their armed forces to UN service. As long as a country as militarily powerful and independent as the United States wielded influence apart from the United Nations, a true world order would be impossible.
The infamous Kennedy-era State Department document Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World gives a rare glimpse into the mentality of the men who in public always carefully insist that the United Nations and kindred international organizations are but benign "frameworks" or "forums" for peace and cooperation. The document envisages strengthening the United Nations militarily by a careful, step-by-step process while gradually reducing the military might of independent nations, until "no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force." Clearly, to achieve this objective, the United States must be weakened militarily and persuaded to commit its resources to the United Nations.
This has been precisely the outcome of more than a half-century of UN-supervised war-making. American confidence was severely eroded by the Korean stalemate, the original UN "police action" which included capturing, torturing, and successfully brainwashing a surprising number of American servicemen by a brutal Communist foe. And Vietnam was worse: Our troops were placed deliberately in a no-win quagmire with inane rules of engagement precluding victory. The American defeat in Vietnam — the first in our history — devastated our national confidence, even as sundry subversives on the home front sowed the seeds for a cultural revolution in the '60s and '70s that blasted American moral values and cultural norms.
The Persian Gulf War in 1991 marked the next major turning point. Regarding the UN-supervised war and cease-fire that followed (UN-led wars usually end in "cease-fires," not "peace treaties"), President George Bush (the elder) fondly recalled:
In the Gulf, we saw the United Nations playing the role dreamed of by its founders, with the world's leading nations orchestrating and sanctioning collective action against aggression.
After such a precedent, it became a simple matter for eager-beaver internationalists during the Bush and Clinton eras to dispatch American troops to the likes of Somalia, Kosovo, and Bosnia to fight on behalf of the United Nations.
Fast Forward to Today
Now, in the era of George W. Bush, the true objectives of the internationalist set are more transparent than ever. An international UN-mandated peacekeeping force is now being assembled in Afghanistan. UN troops are stationed in much of Africa, most notably in the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Sierra Leone. Smaller contingents patrol the former Spanish Sahara in Morocco and many other African states. UN forces also wage peace in Cyprus, Korea, the Balkans, and Palestine, and token observer forces are stationed in many other hot spots.
But the most significant fact about UN operations is that they seldom end. The UN has kept the Korean peninsula in a state of war for almost fifty years. The UN-mandated campaign against Iraq shows no sign of ending. And even the most credulous observer would now admit that Clinton and his internationalist friends never intended to extricate UN-supervised U.S. forces from Bosnia and Kosovo.
But the prize for the globalists remains the United States. Soberingly, the United Nations can now muster the military force to subdue much of the Third World, given an adequate political pretext. And America is being duped into subscribing to the internationalist agenda, as each new UN military adventure strengthens the precedent for U.S. subservience to international authority.
"And QUIT trashing each other. You know who you are. Knock it off!"
Thanks for pointing it out.
I appreciate that.
Second, allow me to illustrate something...
When you make a statement like.."All evidence indicates that Bush (41) led the UN around during the Gulf war not the other way around", you are missing the point. We can't truly know what was going in the mind of George Bush Sr. All we can know for certain are his actions. What did he do? What did he say?
So, it really doesn't matter what I think about why George Bush, or Henry Kissinger, or Franklin Roosevelt did what they did. YES, I have my opinion.
Do I think that a conspiracy is possible, of course. Only a fool would suggest that conspiracies don't exist. I watch the Denver Broncos conspire to win the Superbowl every year...but I don't see Freepers trying to wrap Mile High Stadium in tin foil.
Do I believe that people who have more money and power have a greater ability to effectively conspire to create change? Of course. Other "wackos" have thought similarly...
Finally, do I believe that many powerful people have conspired to move the world toward a one-world Socialist government? YES! My belief is based upon a lot of research. It's also based upon my world view and my Christian faith, etc.
But, that's not something of which I can convince you in a forum like this.
So, let's just stick to the facts. Facts are the only thing that we all can appreciate irrespective of our own world view. For example...
"Almost all United States Representatives voted on the Patriot Act without having read the final draft." That's a statement of fact. It doesn't matter if you are a Liberal Socialist, a Marxist Leninist or Neo-Conservative. It's still a fact. Now, If you're a Liberal Socialist, the reality of that statement may hold a different meaning for you than it does for me.
So it all has to do with perspective.
My political perspective is this...
I am a Constitutionalist. I believe that a government is best which governs least. I believe that the Constitution made us the strongest nation on the globe, and is our only hope to remain that way. To that end, I watch out for elected officials who commit specific acts that threaten our Constitution.
It's that simple.
Contrary to popular belief, this country is NOT A DEMOCRACY! It is NOT FOR EVERYONE. It is a Constitutional Republic. In that Constitution there is one specific ideology. Foreigners must swear to uphold and defend this in order to become a a US Citizen.
So, when elected officials do things that infringe upon my Constitutional Rights, I care. We should all care. It shouldn't matter how good they look in a tie, or what state they're from, or what school they went to or WHAT PARTY THEY BELONG TO! They are the enemy of our childrens' birthright.
The American Men and Women who make up the John Birch Society have contributed, and continue to contribute a great effort toward this end; therefore, they have my respect.
So please stop bashing a respectable, freedom-loving group of Patriots and let's just stick to the facts from now on.
Most of the negative comments about JBS here are not directed at the members but at those who control the organization. Having strong libertarian leaning I would probably agree with you on most of the specific issues. My problem with JBS is a belief that the New American and those who write and control the message don’t really advance the agenda.
JBS operates so far out into the fringe that when most people hear the name they think conspiracy theory and most often bizarre groundless conspiracy theory. A reputation that they have earned through their own actions and which does not advance the cause they pretend to advocate.
Even if Bush (41) used the rhetoric of the UN in order to advance his coalition efforts it does not necessarily indicate UN control. If it were not for Bush (41)’s efforts the gulf war would never have happened. The UN did not have the power or even the influence to lead a war effort, Bush (41) did.
I think that Bush (41) was wrong to invoke the rationale of restoring World Order to justify the Gulf war. We went in there to maintain the free flow of oil and I believe we should have been more honest about the reasoning. Bush (41)’s speeches helped to justify Clinton’s attacking Yugoslavia, a war that we had no interest in carrying out. Bush (41) by emphasizing World Order over national interest lead right into Clinton’s actions in Yugoslavia.
But I believe even Clinton was acting on his own discretion not on orders from the UN. Placing the emphasis on the UN does not target the true culprit, Clinton and those who support and elect such slime to office.
True the PATRIOT act was passed without a thorough review and with some potentially dangerous provisions but even Ron Paul one of our only Congressmen to deserve the title honorable, does not credit its passage to some UN conspiracy.
It seems to me that the efforts of JBS simply undermine the legitimacy of our government, not aid in restoring our constitutional form. If the UN is secretly manipulating World events and American Presidents are mere puppets then we have little or no chance of peaceful change for the better. When JBS repeatedly denigrate all of our leaders they feed a resentment that can have only one likely outcome, anarchy like the French Revolution.
I believe that those who run JBS mask their true objectives, just like the conspirators that they supposedly expose. With the number of ex-military writers for JBS I wonder why the never write about their own complicity in or personal observations of government conspiracies. If there were a conspiracy to control our Country then the military would assuredly have many operatives.
Even the religious people say your Church is a Part of The New World Order.
But you can bet who is ever controlling it is a decendent of the Satanic Bloodlines.
But the time left is getting short according to this Masonic Timeline For The United States because the next leader for the United Nations is getting ready to take his seat.
The traditional Washington/Jefferson American Foreign Policy, was the most enlightened in human history. We owe our preeminence today to its success: A success predicted by its authors.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
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.