Lurching Toward Globalism
By Erik Rush (10/03/07)
Cliche, corny or trite, it can probably be said that most who occupy this globe, and certainly all Americans of sound mind would relish attaining that Holy Grail of "World Peace." Unfortunately at present, from the perspective of the American voter, the parameters of our Constitution, and history, there is an almost incomprehensible naïvete associated with accomplished individuals of power and influence from developed nations pursuing globalist visions, despite their accumulated salacious wisdom or experience.
I have maintained for years that a peaceful realization of this goal (as opposed to a totalitarian government or governments eliciting a population’s “behavior” under pain of death) would require such a leap of cultural evolution on the part of most societies that it is too far out of the influence of anyone living today to support current overtures in this area.
Even given the coalition of a “unified” Europe, North America and Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Russia, India and even China – assuming such a federation could be peaceably maintained and with mutual trust – a significant number of the world’s remaining nations are retrograde, barbaric and culturally inassimilable as regards such a partnership – at least at present.
The entire paradigm of Western culture is rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition, like it or not. Speaking historically (rather than religiously), had there not been a Jewish people, with their history and law, there would not have been a people to which the personage of Jesus Christ could relate. Granted that this man whom Christians consider the Son of God might have been born and delivered His Message at another time and place and to a different society, the fact remains that 2000 years of culture, customs, mores and law (occasionally questionably interpreted or perverted by we imperfect human beings) based on Christ’s teachings are the foundation for all Western institutions and conventions and have remained a strong influence in Russia and parts of the Eastern world.
We learn in school – or at least we used to – of the Magna Carta, the 1216 English charter that is one of the most important documents in the history of democracy. It arose due to clashes between British monarchs and the Church over issues of human rights, among other things. The governments of all of the European and Scandinavian nations, as well as those in the Americas, were influenced by the resulting model.
The sanctity of life for example, as viewed by those in the West (a concept which conservatives argue has become entropic or suffered retrogression due to the influence of socialists) is one which billions take for granted, but is a manifestly alien concept to even more billions in undeveloped nations.
London Daily Mail, Evening Standard, October 2, 2007
“Burma: Thousands dead in massacre of the monks dumped in the jungle”
“Thousands of protesters are dead and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle, a former intelligence officer for Burma's ruling junta has revealed.
The most senior official to defect so far, Hla Win, said: ‘Many more people have been killed in recent days than you've heard about. The bodies can be counted in several thousand.’
A Swedish diplomat who visited Burma during the protests said last night that in her opinion the revolution has failed.
Liselotte Agerlid, who is now in Thailand, said that the Burmese people now face possibly decades of repression. ‘The Burma revolt is over,’ she added.
‘The military regime won and a new generation has been violently repressed and violently denied democracy… Now the military has cracked down the revolt, and the result may very well be that the regime will enjoy another 20 years of silence, ruling by fear.’”
One of the principle aims of radical Islam’s current global jihad is their vehement opposition to the rights granted women in the West. How would this globalist coalition of intellectualized, industrially-advanced nations (which are perhaps just beginning to see the light vis-à-vis the counterproductivity of tribal militarism) address the reality of emerging nations whose view of the world is hundreds of years behind their own? It has become obvious to many who follow the devices of pro-NAFTA/North American Union folks, the Trilateralists and their ilk that there’s a pecuniary motive there, and one might argue that anything which brings nations currently under the Trilateralist banner to the table is a good thing, but the questions remain:
1. How will they handle the aforementioned issues of undeveloped nations’ disparate societal paradigms and (in some cases) animas toward Western nations?
2. Why do they operate in such clandestine fashion?
To the first, I have no idea, and I doubt they do either, hence my accusation of naïveté. To the second, many such as I believe that it is because the ascendency of such a union would supersede our Constitution on so many levels the American public would not stand for it.
“If someone is so fearful that… that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!”
- Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-CA)
If that doesn’t give you chills, you might as well be on a potentially lethal dose of barbiturates. Lest I be accused of exclusively indicting Democrats, a case in point:
During his presidency, George H.W. Bush, “under pressure” from factions in Congress after two citizens went on shooting sprees in Stockton, California and Langley, Virginia in which semiautomatic military rifles were used, banned such rifles which were also very popular among law-abiding American firearms collectors. Not a crowning achievement for a conservative, and it definitely factored in the erosion of support for the president among his base.
It also leads one to wonder: Effectively disabling the most heavily-armed civilian population in the West would be a prudent security measure for someone wishing to render that population bereft of the avenue of armed insurgence should unilateral, radical governmental restructuring occur somewhere down the line.
History is clear on the results of governments disarming civilian populations, whether or not they are forthcoming with regard to their reasons for doing so; eventually, civilians are confronted by the armed forces of an increasingly tyrannical government against which they now have no defense. Lay people familiar with the history of governments accept this readily, those who are not have been conveniently convinced that “it couldn’t happen here” or conditioned to an irrational fear of firearms and those who enjoy them recreationally. These facts were the express reason for our Second Amendment. I might say “don’t knock yourself out trying to convince your neighbors of that these days”, but the fact is that we have a civic duty to do so when the opportunity presents itself.
So Perhaps Bush wasn’t under as much pressure from Congress as we were led to believe. Bill Clinton reinforced the ban in a different form, which George W. Bush allowed to expire in September of 2004, no doubt to reinforce the support of his base for the general election which was two months off. The ban could of course be reinstated with the stroke of a pen by any President, Democrat or Republican.
Back to attaining whirled peas… One might speculate that the recent acceleration of unified cooperation on the part of The U.S., Canada and Mexico is due in part to the Islamic threat that is essentially faced by the entire world at this stage of the game. Just last week, Iranian president Mahmoud “Dat’s the Ticket” Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan leader Hugo “The Missing Link” Chavez met in Teheran. “ ‘Together we are surely growing stronger, and in truth no one can defeat us,’ the Iranian leader said through an interpreter. Apparently referring to the United States, he said, ‘Imperialism has no other option: Respect the peoples [of the world] or accept defeat’ ” (Associated Press, September 28, 2007).
Imperialism? We should show such to this kidnapping, pathological liar and the insane old men in black dresses to whom he answers. Far more than in Iraq, a complete, decisive and thoroughly demoralizing blow is called for in Iran given their rhetoric and actions in the matter of nuclear weapons. Considering Hugo Chavez’s megalomaniacal dream of a Latin American socialist revolution (driven by hatred for America) coupled with an alliance with Iran and a proclivity with providing Islamic terrorists with forged Mexican passports, only a dullard or a weakling would hesitate to neutralize this menace with extreme prejudice.
The danger from entrenched Islamic radicals is even more severe in Russia and Europe, as evidenced by terrorist acts there over the last few years and the political boldness of Muslims in Britain and France in particular. Riots that occurred in French suburbs in November 2005, the Madrid and London commuter bombings and the ghastly Russian school siege in September of 2004 make plain that this is not an American issue or a Bush administration issue; it is a case of the undeveloped thoughts of men giving way to evil dreams of dominion over all.
Those in government who seek to increase the scope and power of our Federal government fuel the fears of those toward domestic measures calculated to combat radical Islamists within our borders. Why? Because 300 American schoolchildren killed by an Islamist cell would lead to a widespread demand on the part of the American people to grant the Federal government that very scope and power.
Entities such as the Iranian, Venezuelan and North Korean regimes and terrorist organizations can only be successfully dealt with if we:
1. Realize that we have the moral obligation to neutralize them by any means necessary.
2. Execute such action.
That will happen only if and when the majority of Americans, who do not want their children blown up at school or to live under martial law mobilize and let our leaders know that we not only will allow decisive and uncompromising action against tyrants, but demand it.
The United States possesses the resources to counteract these threats without ceding its sovereignty. The reason we do not have the will to do so is not due to the collective inherent weakness of the American people, but of its leadership’s shortsightedness, self-serving duplicity, narcissism and the fact that we do not hold them accountable as public servants – and I strongly stress the word “servants.”
So, by “lurching” toward Globalism, I do mean as in drunkenly…
(Printer friendly version) Email: Erik Rush
