"The Nation-State Is Finished"
By William F. Jasper
|
Source: The New American, February 23, 2004
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.
Bartley�s Legacy
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.
Fronting for the Power Elite
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.
The Regional Superstate
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!
Replay of EU Deception
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.
Neocons to the Rescue!
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
prot�g�s 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.
|
