Additional Titles

 

 

 

 

 

Other
Yates
Articles:

The Real
Matrix Part 1

Scuttling Bad Trade Agreements

 

More
Yates
Articles

 

 

 

 

ERASING AMERICA!

 

 

 

By Steven Yates
November 23, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

The United States of America, once—long ago—a Constitutional republic, is being erased. The erasure of America isn’t reported on the 6 o’clock news, of course. It isn’t much noticed, because it is happening too slowly—although the pace has increased over the past couple of decades. Be this as it may, there is no need to speak of “conspiracy theories.” For one thing, it isn’t a theory. It is as much a fact as gravity. It is being carried out in plain sight, not behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms. Anyone with Web access can follow the process. Those in the business of erasing America know, however, that they are operating in a culture whose educational system has been strip-mined, so to speak. America’s masses by and large don’t know what a Constitutional republic is, and use the Web the same way they use television—for entertainment. But all you need to know is there, and you don’t have to stick with NewsWithViews.com or Steven Yates’s blog.

Go, for example, to the website of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). There you will find a document entitled Building a North American Community. It first appeared on the site this past spring. Checking in at 47 pages excluding acknowledgements and other front matter, Building a North American Community provides a blueprint for the integration of the United States, Mexico and Canada under a single supranational authority. This plan would, for all practical purposes, dissolve the borders between each nation and end the lip-service that must still be paid to the Constitution within our own. It would bring NAFTA to fruition, building more of the “architecture of a new international system” about which Dr. Henry Kissinger spoke candidly back in 1993 when NAFTA was being accorded bipartisan support as a “free trade” agreement.

Regional unification would solve the illegal immigration problem by fiat, of course, by promoting the free movement of peoples across the former borders, an idea Mexican president Vicente Fox has promoted openly on numerous occasions. We will doubtless still speak of a United States, a Mexico, and a Canada. But their status would be very much like the status of formerly independent nations of the European Union, which is becoming a unified political entity whose citizens move as freely across borders as we do from state to state. The Europeans are just a few years ahead of us on the curve. The CFR report, which went online late last spring, has the endorsement of the Bush Administration. On March 23 of this past year, President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin joined in committing their governments to this “regional integration.”

For the details here, go to the website of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). President Bush has spoken of the common commitment of the three eventually-to-be-dissolved North American nations “to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security.” Notice that he speaks of markets, not free markets. Note that he speaks of democracy, when what our Founding Fathers created was (in Ben Franklin’s immortal words) “a republic, if you can keep it.” Again, because of the strip-mining of our educational system mentioned above, he can get away with this. The average School-To-Work high school graduate has no idea that America was founded as a republic and not a democracy, by men severely critical of democracy. As for prosperity, it seems clear that since NAFTA we have grown not more but less prosperous as our national economy has literally bled manufacturing jobs and replaced them with low-paying “service sector” jobs. By 2003, almost ten years after NAFTA went into effect, America’s middle class was massively in debt, the average debt by those owning one credit card being $9,250, up over $6,000 from 1990.

By September of this year, our savings rates had actually gone negative. Unemployment is much larger than the government’s official statistics reveal, because those statistics do not count people who have ceased seeking work as unemployed. Moreover, no one keeps statistics on underemployment, the employment of men and women at jobs well beneath their educational level or mental capacity. Examples of the latter: the science graduate who stocks shelves at the local Wal-Mart, the former high-tech employee compelled to take a job sorting mail. There is simply no evidence that eroding our national borders will reverse this slow destruction of the American middle class, and every reason to think the process will be accelerated as more jobs depart overseas for cheaper labor.

The contention that a unification of North America will increase the security of the three eventually-to-be-dissolved nations is even stranger. Our government will not protect its own borders despite worries of our being at risk of another terrorist attack because doing so would conflict with the regional integration desired by the super elite. For many of us this points directly at the deceptive nature of the “war on terror”: if the feds were really interested in protecting the American public, the Bush Administration would have long pulled America out of all this misguided globalism, forgotten about that boondoggle in Iraq, recalled our troops from the hundred or so nations where they are stationed overseas, and used them to close our porous borders.

But never mind all that. The SPP will create a far larger perimeter to defend! Mexico has a southern border as porous as our own, if not more so. Small wonder that Lou Dobbs, one of the few voices in the mainstream media drawing attention to the problems with recent pseudo-free trade accords and immigration policies, can ask, Have our political elites gone mad?

The plan is to have the super-elites’ North American Community in place by the year 2010. Here is what they want:

  • Military and law enforcement cooperation between all three eventually-to-be-dissolved nations;
  • Canadians and Mexicans brought into the American Department of Homeland Security;
  • “[T]emporary migrant worker programs expanded with full mobility of labor between the three countries in the next five years.

Not even the mainstream media is ignoring this. The above-mentioned Dobbs posed his question on CNN. As I said at the outset, the super-elite is not really hiding anymore! Consider the following exchange that took place on the air between CNN’s Christine Romans and Dobbs:

Romans: “The idea here is to make North America more like the European Union…”

Dobbs: “Americans must think that our political and academic elites have gone utterly mad at a time when three-and-a-half years, approaching four years after September 11, we still don’t have border security. And this group of elites is talking about not defending our borders, finally, but rather creating new ones. It’s astonishing.”

Romans: “The theory here is that we are stronger together, three countries in one, rather than alone.”

Dobbs: “Well, it’s a— it’s a mind-boggling concept….”

It is also official, as one can see just from consulting the relevant websites. It is not something we “conspiracy kooks” made up. We are moving—in overdrive—towards a state of affairs that will effectively end what little is left of the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution and the idea of limited government to a state of affairs in which Americans will answer to unelected supra-national bureaucrats—possibly without even realizing it!

We may add to all of this the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which has not gone away but been temporarily shifted to the back burner. This latter may be due to the adverse publicity following the obvious strong-arm tactics the Bush Administration used to get CAFTA passed in the House last summer. The FTAA has fallen on apparent hard times, with the dissolution of the Fourth Summit of the Americas meeting in Argentina amidst a chaos of dissent and protest. Protests also attended the meeting that occurred in Canada four years ago. No one who studies these agreements wants them except the super elite, who see themselves as getting even richer from them. Its members have had setbacks before. They always eventually regroup. The creation of a North American Community places them in a good position to move forward nevertheless, following an agenda formulated by Zbigniew Brzezenski in his book Between Two Ages, which became the bible of David Rockefeller Sr.’s Trilateral Commission. Regional integration under NAFTA has already created tribunals whose members see themselves as having the authority to overrule U.S. court decisions.

The long-term goal, of course, is a world government that would subordinate all the affected peoples to an encirclement of regulatory controls by internationalist bureaucrats, most likely under the auspices of the United Nations whose sustainable development policies are carrying forth the effort on the domestic front. Sustainable development, as Michael Shaw recently showed in detail, is transforming communities all across America, city by city, county by county, and steadily depriving individuals of their private property rights and their mobility. Combine these two—international policies aimed at dissolving entire nations and domestic ones dissolving Constitutional liberties by stealth—and you have the incipient New World Order. Expect it no later than 2010—unless, of course, we experience the kind of economic meltdown described by Devvy Kidd in a recent two-part article. [Must see video; Liberty or Sustainable Development]

World government has, of course, been the goal of the super elite from the start. It was the goal of the Round Table Groups created with Cecil Rhodes; it has been the goal of the Fabian Society, which set the entire English-speaking world on the road to socialism. It was the goal of “Colonel” Edward Mandell House, who had written anonymously (in Philip Dru: Administrator) of “socialism as dreamt of by Karl Marx.” House sat always at President Woodrow Wilson’s side as he maneuvered this country into what became World War I, and then went on to guide the founding of the CFR.

The UN’s backers have always seen it as destined to emerge as a world government. In 1962, the U.S. State Department commissioned MIT Professor Lincoln Bloomfield to produce an essay entitled “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations.” This essay’s Summary opens with these words: “A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which ‘world government’ would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force. Effective control would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the hands of a supranational organization rather than in individual national units, and would assume the effective operation of a general disarmament agreement.”

Between Two Worlds spoke of an “emerging international consciousness” and called for establishing a “community of the developed nations” focusing particularly on Western Europe, Japan and the United States. “This country’s commitment to international affairs on a global scale has been decided by history,” Brzezenski wrote. “It cannot be undone, and the only remaining relevant question is what its form and goals will be.” A few short years later, one-time ambassador Richard Gartner (CFR) wrote of bringing about an “end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece” in his oft-cited “The Hard Road to World Order” in the CFR’s flagship journal Foreign Affairs (1974).

Arguably, this movement went into overdrive during the period 1992-93, which saw the rise of NAFTA, the emergence of sustainable development, the election of the globalist Clinton Administration, and much else besides. It has succeeded in globalizing the curricula in government schools at all levels, from elementary grades to research universities, so that internationalism is simply accepted and the Constitution (with rare exceptions) is simply bypassed, except perhaps as a historical relic. Whether President Bush will find some pretext to be done with it and institute martial law (perhaps following an outbreak of bird flu and calling for the quarantining of an entire city) remains to be seen. Domestic martial law would make it much easier for the super elite to get what it wants without putting up with the grass-roots scuffles it had to deal with over CAFTA. It will enable them to coerce silence from the public and imprison those who refuse to shut up. Admittedly most Americans are still too busy watching football to pay much attention to this; but it is doubtful that they are sufficiently conditioned for martial law. After all, Bush’s approval ratings are at an all-time low, and the number of people who don’t trust his consolidation of power at the federal level has been on the increase especially since the Katrina debacle.

Supposing we avoid martial law a few more years, will America’s masses go along with the dissolution of this country like a bunch of sheep? They can do so by continuing to vote for Demopublicans. Or they can put a stop to it by recognizing that something has gone seriously wrong, waking up, and then getting behind a credible Independent candidate in 2008. It would be nice to see Independents elected to Congress in 2006, but it’s doubtful since such candidates ought to be building up their war chests now, and I know of no cases. If America’s masses continue mindlessly voting for CFR-controlled Demopublicans, the agenda I have been describing will continue apace.

Be all this as it may, I do not think this agenda will come to fruition. The New World Order world government will not fall into place the way the super elite wants. Brzezenski notwithstanding, it won’t happen. Why not? It won’t be protests in the streets that stop it. It won’t be a third party. What will stop it, if we do not, are the basic laws of economics. Not even the super elite is powerful or wealthy enough to repeal basic economics, which tells us that real wealth must be produced and not borrowed against the future, and that not even governments can live indefinitely beyond their means. The New World Order is being built up on an unsustainable mountain of debt. One day this mountain must collapse like a house of cards. Much of the prosperity we claim for ourselves now is bogus—as imaginary as were the futures of the dot-com millionaires of the late 1990s who have since gone bankrupt. The reason for this last: the late 1990s were not years of real productivity but of massive credit expansion, which means easy money—all of it borrowed. Real jobs were disappearing; public education, pursuing the School-To-Work and Workforce Investment agendas, was circling the drain.

When entire economic systems pursue paths of reckless borrowing, eventually someone must pay. Today’s debts have reached unpayable levels, and as Devvy Kidd argued in the article referenced above, the edifice is getting increasingly wobbly. Its collapse is not a matter of if, but when. Of course, super elite control over the “global economy” will have done enough damage to plunge much of the world into a depression that will make the 1930s look like a bad dream by comparison. So here are a few things one ought to do if one is capable: (1) homeschool your children; (2) do not live in a “sustainable” community; get out of the controlled urban environment; (3) buy precious metals, whose value will go up as the value of our fiat dollar goes down; (4) store a supply of food, water, vitamins, toiletries, batteries and battery-powered equipment capable of lasting at least half a year; (5) learn to grow vegetables; (6) learn to use firearms for protection against the looters and thugs that will doubtless roam the land following infrastructural collapse—just picture the entire continent looking like New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina minus the flood waters, and you get the idea.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!


Enter Your E-Mail Address:

I would think anyone with functioning brain cells would be motivated to see to it that this scenario never happens. Whether its possibility will actually sink into the consciousness of today’s public remains questionable, however; even its portrayal in a made-for-TV movie on a major network where millions could tune in would be lost in the spate of disaster films we’ve seen this fall. Hopefully, some of those currently being homeschooled will keep the idea of Constitutionally limited government alive, as we continue the struggle to alert more and more Americans that the country they grew up in is slowly being erased.

© 2005 Steven Yates - All Rights Reserved

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


Steven Yates, Ph.D., is the most published professional philosopher in South Carolina. He teaches as a lowly adjunct instructor of philosophy at University of South Carolina Upstate (occupational punishment for his utter lack of political correctness and for pursuing issues from the standpoint of adherence to Constitutionally limited government, personal moral responsibility guided by a Christian worldview, and the rule of law as opposed to arbitrary rule by politicians, judges, and unelected bureaucrats). Later this month he will be joining the faculty at Greenville Technical College in Greenville, S.C., also as an adjunct.

He is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (San Francisco: ICS Press, 1994) and Worldviews: Christian Theism vs. Modern Materialism (delayed, but due out this summer). He also works on manuscripts with names such as In Defense of Logic and Philosophical Questions as well as on a science fiction novel, Skywatcher’s World. His articles and reviews have appeared on LewRockwell.com as well as NewsWithViews.com and other websites. He has also published in academic journals including Inquiry, Metaphilosophy, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, Reason Papers, Public Affairs Quarterly, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics and others. He recently held a year-long fellowship with the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Ala., has appeared at conferences ranging from the American Philosophical Association to the South Carolina Society for Philosophy, and made numerous talk radio appearances. He spoke on “The Real Matrix and Sustainable Development” at the recent 6th Annual Freedom 21 National Conference in Reno, Nev. He lives in Greenville, South Carolina, where he also directs the Worldviews Project and is a member of the S.C. Chapter of Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA.

His blog is at:
http://itshappeninghere.blogspot.com

E-Mail: yates2005@bellsouth.net.


 

Home

 

 

 

 

 

The long-term goal, of course, is a world government that would subordinate all the affected peoples to an encirclement of regulatory controls by internationalist bureaucrats, most likely under the auspices of the United Nations...