domingo, 15 de outubro de 2017

4 THINGS GLOBALISTS THINK YOU’RE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND

Escrito por John Griffing









North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).























«While running for the oval office, President Trump noted to crowds how destructive NAFTA was to individuals, businesses, and states. Now he says he may keep NAFTA.

On New Year’s Day in 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into being. Despite the enthusiastic backing of then-President Clinton, congressional Democrats, and a large majority of Beltway Republicans, the massive new trade deal and international bloc that it created were controversial everywhere but inside the Beltway.

As discerning observers almost a quarter-century ago pointed out, although NAFTA was being sold to the American public as a “free trade” deal, it was in fact anything but. Its beguiling name notwithstanding, NAFTA was and remains a “managed trade” deal, an instrument of international socialism setting up a vast new array of international bureaucracies to manage the flow of goods across the borders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Included in the deal from the very get-go, for example, was a sweeping set of environmental objectives and rules in a little-noticed side agreement, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, whose enforcement arm is the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, headquartered in Montreal, whose mission is to receive and adjudicate notices of alleged environmental violations by any of the three North American countries.

During its 23-year lifespan, NAFTA has brought about radical changes in the economies of the three North American countries, of which the most conspicuous has been the proliferation of maquiladoras, Mexico-based assembly plants, mostly built by American companies moving assets south of the border, where wages are cheaper and government regulations less burdensome. NAFTA has thus been an enormous economic boon for Mexico, a poor country run by an irredeemably corrupt government — which now has the manufacturing base of a major industrial power. The United States, on the other hand, has experienced a massive exodus of jobs and capital as hundreds of American businesses have moved assets south of the border.

NAFTA has failed to deliver on the airy-fairy promises of its creators, at least from the point of view of its most important sponsors, American taxpayers. And despite its dismal track record, the organization is in no imminent danger of collapse, now that President Trump has decided, after months of anti-NAFTA campaign bluster, to renegotiate rather than withdraw from the organization. Trump’s top priority, as with most of his foreign policy priorities, is to get a better deal for the United States. But extracting better trade terms from our two North American neighbors has virtually nothing to do with the long-term objectives of NAFTA. Not only is NAFTA not a free-trade agreement, its underlying purpose is not trade at all. Like the former European Common Market — which was transformed into the European Community and finally into the modern European Union, a full-fledged continental government — NAFTA was designed with much more ambitious aims in mind than making the world safer for imported avocados and Canadian softwood. And President Trump, by deciding to stick with and further legitimize NAFTA, has — wittingly or unwittingly — greatly improved the prospects for NAFTA to someday be transformed into a North American Union.

Candidate Trump portrayed himself as the NAFTAnator, a new type of president with ordinary Americans as his top priority, who would not hesitate to withdraw from “one of the worst deals our country has ever made,” as he called NAFTA on May 9, 2016. On the hustings in August in North Carolina, Trump told an enthusiastic crowd, “I see the carnage that NAFTA has caused, I see the carnage. It’s been horrible. I see upstate New York, I see North Carolina, but I see every state. You look at New England. New England got really whacked. New England got hit.” A core element in Trump’s stump speech, NAFTA was a calamity he routinely blamed on President Bill Clinton — and by extension, his rival, “Crooked Hillary.” Indeed, President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, but it was his predecessor, patrician Republican George H.W. Bush, who negotiated and signed the agreement on the international stage. Also on board with NAFTA was most of the Republican congressional delegation in 1993-1994, including future GOP Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

In a word, NAFTA was never a Big Government boondoggle imposed on an unwilling but valiantly resistant GOP minority by venal Democrats; it was and remains a product of bipartisan consensus, at least among the elites in control of both parties. For Trump to attempt to rally GOP leadership against an organization they were complicit in creating was a nonstarter.







































It therefore was not terribly surprising to seasoned observers when President Trump, on April 26, announced that, all previous anti-NAFTA billingsgate notwithstanding, he had decided to renegotiate rather than withdraw from NAFTA. In the first of two Tweets, the president admitted to having a change of heart after receiving personal calls from both Canada’s Justin Trudeau and Mexico’s Enrique Peña Nieto: “I received calls from the President of Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada asking to renegotiate NAFTA rather than terminate. I agreed.” But then, in an apparent sop to disappointed anti-NAFTA Trump supporters, the president Tweeted reassuringly: “... subject to the fact that if we do not reach a fair deal for all, we will then terminate NAFTA. Relationships are good — deal very possible!” Later he reiterated his position to reporters following a meeting with Argentine President Maurice Macri:

I decided rather than terminating NAFTA, which would be a pretty big, you know, shock to the system, we will renegotiate. Now ... if I’m unable to make a fair deal for the United States, meaning a fair deal for our workers and our companies, I will terminate NAFTA. But we’re going to give renegotiation a good, strong shot.


European Union 

Whether President Trump truly believes renegotiating NAFTA could possibly benefit Americans is not for us to speculate. This author finds it difficult to believe, however, that President Trump can possibly be unaware of what internationalist elites have foisted on Europeans in the name of free trade; the entire European unification scheme has unfolded in the course of Trump’s lifetime, and is worth recalling here as a cautionary tale.

In 1951, when Donald Trump was five years old, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was set up by six Western European countries under the Treaty of Paris. Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, France, and Luxembourg created the very first modern supranational organization — an apparently innocuous, narrowly focused trade bloc that began the process that has led to the political integration of much of Europe under the modern European Union. Note well: The European Union has abandoned any pretense of being a “free trade” union; its sponsors now openly tout it as a regional government, and have long since moved on from questions of economic and monetary union to total political and legal union — in other words, a modern-day pan-European empire such as Rome or Napoleonic France, but assembled largely with the consent of its subject peoples rather than by naked military conquest.

Nor did this come about by chance. It is well documented that the political unification of Europe has long been the objective of European elites. Before the Second World War was even over, French financier and pioneering internationalist Jean Monnet, the “father of Europe,” was already working to lay the foundation for a postwar order that contemplated the eventual economic and political unification of Europe. Born into a well-to-do French family of cognac manufacturers, Monnet as a young man was one of the founders of the now-defunct League of Nations, and was appointed the organization’s first deputy secretary-general. However, he soon grew impatient with that organization’s stifling bureaucracy, and returned to the family business and to international finance, where he learned the art of currency stabilization in the new post-gold standard world. A real-life “international man of mystery,” Monnet spent time in Poland, Romania, and China in the interwar years helping to stabilize economies and, in the case of China, even reorganized that country’s railroad system. By the time of the outbreak of World War II, Monnet had become as much an Englishman as a Frenchman, and was instrumental in helping those two governments forge an alliance against the Axis.

Despite his impeccable globalist credentials, Monnet remained a European at heart, and it was with the affairs of Europe that he was chiefly concerned. In 1943, in an address to the National Liberation Committee, the seat of the French government in exile in Algiers, Monnet appears to have articulated for the first time his overarching goal, that of a unified Europe:

There will be no peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty.... The countries of Europe are too small to guarantee their peoples the necessary prosperity and social development. The European states must constitute themselves into a federation.

Following the war’s conclusion, Monnet and his associates arranged for the dismantlement of the German industrial base, particularly the seizure by France of the German coal mines in the Ruhr and the Saar. These critical assets were then offered back to Germany at a price: submission to a new international authority, a “High Authority,” that would exercise control over the coal and steel assets of all member nations, including both France and Germany. Having little choice, West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer accepted the new order. French Minister of Foreign Affairs Robert Schuman proclaimed at the time:

Through the consolidation of basic production and the institution of a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and the other countries that join, this proposal represents the first concrete step towards a European federation, imperative for the preservation of peace.



Jean Monnet



































































Thus the new European Coal and Steel Community from the outset was openly intended to be the first of a series of steps leading to the unification of Europe under a single political authority. Jean Monnet was appointed the first president of the ECSC’s High Authority in 1953, where he immediately began laboring for something larger. In 1955, he founded the Action Committee for the United States of Europe.

As intended, the European Coal and Steel Community was soon overshadowed by a more ambitious organization. In 1958, the European Economic Community (EEC, the “Common Market”) came into being, a broader trade zone that originally consisted of the same six member nations of the ECSC but actively sought to add more, with the transparent objective of eventually including all of Western Europe. Alongside the ECSC and the EEC, a third organization, the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), operated in concert to draw in other European nations to the budding unification project. In 1967, these three communities were unified under the Merger Treaty.

The 1970s were a banner decade for European unification. In that decade, new countries, including the U.K., joined the EEC, and enormous progress was made toward long-sought political unification. By the end of the decade, a fully functional, if not yet very powerful, European Parliament was operational. By 1980, no sober observer could doubt the true motives of the “Eurocrats.”

The project of European unification has not gone forward without opposition. As early as the 1950s, many in Europe objected to the severe compromises of national sovereignty that were being proposed. Such objections, often voiced by powerful nationalist interests such as trade unions, managed to delay the designs of Monnet and his ideological successors, but in the long run, have not stopped European unification from coming about.

In 1993, the year the Maastricht Treaty came into effect, the European Economic Community shortened its name to the European Community (EC), a name that embraced the all-encompassing vision of its founders. The same treaty also created the European Union (EU) out of the three existing European communities. With the European Union a political reality, movement toward total continental political, economic, and financial integration accelerated. In 1998, the European Central Bank (ECB) was created, and the euro, the currency of united Europe, was launched the following year to worldwide plaudits. In 2009, the old European communities, including the EC, were officially dissolved within the EU via the Treaty of Lisbon. Despite the ongoing sovereign debt crisis in Europe, the union shows no signs of falling apart. The goal all along, after all, has been political unification, not shared economic prosperity, and the gradual leveling of Europe’s once-sovereign economies is of little concern to the internationalist ideologues responsible for cobbling together the world’s first international government-by-consent.

Today’s Europe is, if not yet a fully integrated superstate, certainly no longer a collection of sovereign nations. The European Union now controls European finances via the ECB and the euro; has completely open borders, facilitating not only the flow of goods and services but also illegal immigrants and malefactors such as Islamic terrorists across former international borders; issues a broad range of regulations, including environmental and commercial statutes; has an active European parliament whose legislation is binding on member countries (albeit one whose job is mainly to rubber-stamp already-authorized rules and regulations issued by EU bureaucrats); and is working diligently to establish European taxes, a single European police force, military, and the like. What was 30 years ago considered the province of wild-eyed speculation and dystopian conspiracy theory has become 21st-century reality for hundreds of millions of Europeans who now owe their allegiance not to their respective motherlands but to a continent-wide government.

But what possible purpose could there be in cobbling together a European Union? To facilitate the creation of a single global government, a project near and dear to the hearts of international socialists for more than two centuries. Creating a workable world government by persuading nearly 200 separate sovereign countries to give up their sovereignty is obviously impractical — unless the nations of the world could first be persuaded to form regional political unions with countries with whom they already share history, culture, legal traditions, and the like. Several such regional unions could then be merged into a single global estate with comparative ease.





North American Union 

The process of continent-wide unification began in North America with the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement of 1989. At the time, few voices were raised in opposition to this apparently innocuous agreement between two very close allies with an enormous flow of goods across one of the world’s longest borders. But artfully included in the text of the treaty were provisions to “lay the foundation for further bilateral and multilateral cooperation to expand and enhance the benefits of the agreement.” A single word, “multilateral,” betrayed the longer-term aims of the treaty: Other countries were eventually to be brought into this “free trade” zone, in a rhetorical sleight of hand reminiscent of the manner in which the original EEC was used to draw other European countries into the Common Market in addition to the six founding nations.

The ink was not even dry on the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement when negotiations began in earnest to create a broader “free trade zone” that would include Mexico. The so-called North American Free Trade Agreement took only two years to negotiate, and was signed in 1992 by American President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and Mexican President Carlos Salinas. Already by October 1992, The John Birch Society was opposing NAFTA on the basis that it would “create a regional government-in-waiting.” However, Congress went on to approve the “trade agreement” late in 1993. It was signed by President Bill Clinton later in 1993 and went into effect in 1994.

Of course, North America does not end with Mexico, and a few years after NAFTA went into effect, negotiations began to create a separate United States-Central American “free trade zone,” which would include Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, as well as the United States. After much negotiation, the Central American Free Trade Area (CAFTA) was ratified by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005, and went into effect in 2006. Subsequently, the Caribbean nation of the Dominican Republic has joined CAFTA.

In fact, during the last few decades “free trade” has broken out all across the Americas. In 1991, Mercosur, a customs union and “free trade zone” encompassing much of South America, was founded. Mercosur today includes the nations of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela (which was recently suspended due to political and economic turmoil in that country). Meanwhile, the Andean nations of Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, and Peru belong to the Andean Community, a “free trade bloc” transparently inspired by and named after the European Community. These two trading blocs are now subordinate to the Union of South American Nations (USAN, or UNASUR in Spanish), a European Union-like political union that encompasses all 12 South American countries. UNASUR came into being only six years ago, but has already made considerable progress toward continent-wide integration. UNASUR boasts a parliament, a bank (the Bank of the South), and a wide range of councils dealing with matters as diverse as health, defense, energy, education, and culture. In other words, UNASUR is following the European playbook exactly, and is at roughly the same phase of implementation as the European Union was 30 years ago.

Even the English-speaking Caribbean nations (including Belize, technically part of Central America) have a “Caribbean Community” (CARICOM) that began as a Caribbean Free Trade Area (CARIFTA) back in the 1960s.

With the examples of Europe and South America to instruct us, there can be no possible doubt that a North American Union, along the lines of the European Union and UNASUR (as well as other embryonic regional governments overseas, such as the African Union), is planned, the strenuous denials of internationalists notwithstanding. There has been one ambitious attempt at wider unification already, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which was launched in 1994, scant months after NAFTA went into effect. The FTAA contemplated unifying North, Central, South, and Caribbean America into a single “free trade zone,” with the usual provisions for further integration down the road. After 11 years of negotiations, however, the FTAA foundered and fell apart in 2005. Although 26 of the 34 countries that attended the last FTAA summit, held at Mar del Plata, Argentina, in November 2005, pledged to meet again in 2006, that next summit never happened. Not coincidentally, The John Birch Society had kicked off a vigorous campaign to stop the FTAA by warning its members in May 2000 that the FTAA would be “a step toward transforming NAFTA into a full-scale hemispheric version of the European Union.” By 2005, the JBS had succeeded in shutting down the internationalists’ dream of establishing a bicontinental government bloc in the Western hemisphere.


























Ver aqui


Ver aqui


As for the quest for a North American Union (NAU) per se, the feverish desire of many internationalists to transform NAFTA into a true North American political union à la EU is well documented. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox, for example, agitated openly about the need for using NAFTA to springboard North America into deeper integration, a so-called NAFTA Plus plan that contemplated, among other things, a completely open U.S.-Mexico border. In a candid 2001 interview, Fox held forth with an American interviewer on the need for “convergence of our two economies, convergence on the basic and fundamental variables of the economy, convergence on rates of interest, convergence on income of people, convergence on salaries.” While lamenting that this might take time, he went on to express hope for future policies that would “erase that border, open up that border for [the] free flow of products, merchandises, [and] capital as well as people,” and noted that Mexico stood to benefit from such an arrangement in much the same way as erstwhile weak economies such as those of Ireland and Spain had benefited from membership in the European Union.

The late Robert Pastor, a Latin American expert and member of President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Council staff — and also of the flagrantly globalist Council on Foreign Relations — made a late-life career out of agitating for what he coyly termed a “North American Community.” Pastor insisted that this was not the same as a “North American Union,” nor was in any way inspired by the European Union. Yet his ideas, and those of other “North Americanists,” argue otherwise. Major long-term agenda items include a North American currency union, featuring a currency to be known (not surprisingly) as the “amero”; a North American customs union, such as was implemented in the early stages of the European Community; and various schemes for the harmonization of wages, labor standards, environmental laws, and border security, among many other things.

Nor is a North American Union merely a pipe dream of foreign politicians and think-tank theoreticians. Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state to presidents Nixon and Ford and an arch-internationalist insider, in a 1993 Los Angeles Times article, approvingly styled NAFTA as “the most creative step towards a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War,” pointing out that NAFTA “is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system.”

As evidence of just how deep-seated the consensus on “North Americanism” is among Washington policy elites, whose concerns are utterly remote from those of the American private sector, consider the frank discussion on how to proceed with continental integration in a 2005 American diplomatic cable, released by WikiLeaks in 2011. In the cable, marked “sensitive,” American diplomatic personnel in Canada assess the prospects for further North American integration, based on circumstances in Canada:

An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers. Our research leads us to conclude that such a package should tackle both “security” and “prosperity” goals. This fits the recommendations of Canadian economists who have assessed the options for continental integration. While in principle many of them support more ambitious integration goals, like a customs union/single market and/or single currency, most believe the incremental approach is most appropriate at this time, and all agree that it helps pave the way to these goals if and when North Americans choose to pursue them.

The cable discusses in considerable detail the need for such measures as a common currency and customs union, and notes that these, and other recommendations, are strongly supported by Canadian policy elites. The entire concern of the document is with how American and Canadian elites can align their policy goals; that no mention whatever is made of any concerns American and Canadian citizens might have at their countries’ being corralled into this “North American Initiative” is indicative of how completely irrelevant such concerns are to the unelected policy elites who are the true nexus of modern American political power.

Despite all of the momentum behind the internationalists’ NAU project, The John Birch Society managed to inflict a major setback on the construction of the NAU by defeating the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) initiative. In March of 2005, President George W. Bush and the leaders of Canada and Mexico announced the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a trilateral cooperative effort with the hidden goal of transforming NAFTA into the NAU. A couple months later, the Council on Foreign Relations published Building a North American Community, a blueprint for transforming NAFTA into the NAU via the SPP.

In October 2005, The John Birch Society launched a STOP the SPP campaign. Four years later the internationalists were forced to abandon their SPP/NAU initiative. Then, in 2011, Robert Pastor published The North American Idea: A Vision of a Continental Future, in which he specifically named “the John Birch Society” as among the leading groups that “have been the most vocal, active and intense on North American issues, and they were effective in inhibiting the Bush administration and deterring the Obama administration from any grand initiatives.”






Don’t Renegotiate NAFTA — Get US Out! 

With the announcement by the Trump administration of its intent to renegotiate rather than withdraw from NAFTA, the JBS is redoubling its efforts to raise public awareness of the true nature of NAFTA. On May 23, the JBS wrote “Don’t Renegotiate — Get US Out! of NAFTA,” posted at JBS.org:

On April 27 President Trump announced he had decided to renegotiate NAFTA rather than withdraw.... Negotiations could begin as early as August 16 and could be complete by the end of 2017. What happened?... Although we do not have inside knowledge of the details of why Trump changed his mind, it is pretty easy to understand the generalities of the sudden change of heart.... Donald Trump had run smack-dab into one of the internationalist establishment’s most important steppingstones toward world government, the North American Union (NAU). The NAFTA agreement represents the foundation of the eventual North American Union, a supranational governmental entity that would be comprised of the three formerly sovereign nations.... The NAU is modeled after the internationalist establishment’s highly successful, although hugely deceptive, project to establish the European Union via so-called free trade agreements. Since many of Trump’s advisors are members in good standing of the internationalist establishment, no wonder they advised him very powerfully to forget about withdrawing from NAFTA and instead work on renegotiating the agreement. In fact, they already had been planning to update NAFTA.

The JBS added:

Now that we’ve withdrawn from the TPP, renegotiating NAFTA is exactly what they want as a next step toward regional government, aka the North American Union (NAU), on the way toward world government under the United Nations.

President Trump, it would appear, has some appreciation for NAFTA’s deleterious economic effects. But — despite his pledges to put America first — he has shown little interest, so far, in the far greater threat to American independence entailed by our continued membership in the organization. Let us hope that better-informed and -intentioned ordinary Americans will eventually get America out of NAFTA altogether and stop the North American Union».

Charles Scaliger («Don't Renegotiate NAFTA: Get US Out!», in The New American, 26 June 2017).


«According to Karl Marx, "the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property."

That's pretty plain, and it's directly out of the Communist Manifesto. It has been the rallying cry of collectivists of all stripes — communists, socialists, anarchists, fascists — and has guided the most ruthless and bloody regimes of the past century. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Ceausescu, Tito, Gomulka, Castro, Pol Pot, Mengistu, Ortega, and dozens of other Communist dictators and satraps all fervently espoused that Marxian precept and applied it with a vengeance.

And in so doing, they produced mountains of corpses and rivers of blood unequalled in all history.

Conversely, the champions of freedom have ever recognized that private property is essential both to human liberty and to the material well-being and economic advancement of all classes of people.

"Let the people have property," observed Noah Webster, "and they will have power — a power that will for ever be exerted to prevent a restriction of the press, and abolition of trial by jury, or the abridgement of any other privilege.'' (Emphasis in original.)

Justice Joseph Story, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison and became one of America's most revered jurists, put it this way:

"That government can scarcely be deemed to be free when the rights of property are left solely dependent upon the will of a legislative body, without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred."

"It is the glory of the British constitution," said Samuel Adams,

"that it hath its foundation in the law of God and nature. It is an essential, natural right, that a man shall quietly enjoy, and have the sole disposal of his own property."

Moreover, said Adams,

"Property is admitted to have an existence even in the savage state of nature.... And if property is necessary for the support of savage life, it is by no mean less so in civil society. The Utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional."

In his famous encyclical Rerum Novarum, written in 1891, Pope Leo XIII stated:

"We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the humbler class to become owners."

"Men always work harder and more readily," he continued, "when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, they learn to love the very soil that yields, in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat but an abundance of good things for themselves and those that are dear to them."

In our own day, this same powerful truth was expounded clearly by the great economist Friedrich A. Hayek.













































































"What our generation has forgotten," he said in his 1944 Nobel Prize-winning classic, The Road to Serfdom, "is that the system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves."

It is easy, then, to see why those who have totalitarian ambitions always attempt to destroy private property. Because, like Hayek, they understand that as long as "the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently," their plans for total power will remain frustrated.

The millions of farmers, homeowners, businessmen, shopkeepers, artisans, laborers, and professionals who own their own property form a natural obstacle to tyrannical aspirations. If people are allowed to own their land, grow their food, manufacture whatever products they choose, live in homes of their own, and freely exchange their goods, services, and labor — why, they just might not meekly yield to the dictates of central planners, whether of the fascist, communist, or socialist variety!

So whom do you think the folks at the United Nations and their Insider sponsors choose to follow: Adams, Webster, Leo XIII, and Hayek? Or Marx, Mao, Lenin, and Stalin? You guessed it: Time after time after time, they've chosen the path of power, slaughter, tyranny, and destruction, rather than liberty, morality, and justice».

William F. Jasper («The United Nations Exposed»).


«The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) fell from grace at astounding speed. From being touted as the Obama administration's “global partner” in globalizing education just a few years ago, to facing a massive financial crisis and even a U.S. government exit today under President Trump, UNESCO is on track to become a byword for globalist corruption and tyranny. It also offers Americans a powerful example of how easy it is to restore ceded U.S. sovereignty and crush globalist schemes that undermine liberty, morality, self-government, and common sense. Israel also announced its departure. Now, it is time to focus on the broader United Nations. 

Today, the U.S. State Department formally notified UNESCO boss Irina Bokova — an actual communist swamped in corruption scandals — that the United States is leaving the organization. In a statement, the U.S. State Department said the decision “was not taken lightly.” The reason for the decision, officials said, includes “U.S. concerns with mounting arrears at UNESCO, the need for fundamental reform in the organization, and continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO.” More on each of those important points in a moment.

In its official statement, the Trump administration said the U.S. government “indicated to the Director General its desire to remain engaged with UNESCO as a non-member observer state in order to contribute U.S. views, perspectives and expertise on some of the important issues undertaken by the organization, including the protection of world heritage, advocating for press freedoms, and promoting scientific collaboration and education.” But pursuant to UNESCO's Constitution, the U.S. will withdraw, with the decision taking effect on the last day of 2018 — despite intense lobbying by globalists and foreign powers.

Speaking about the Trump administration's decision, widely criticized UNESCO Director-General Bokova issued a statement touting UNESCO and expressing regret over the U.S. government's move. “At the time when conflicts continue to tear apart societies across the world, it is deeply regrettable for the United States to withdraw from the United Nations agency promoting education for peace and protecting culture under attack,” she said. “This is a loss to the United Nations family. This is a loss for multilateralism.” Multilateralism is another term for globalism.

Even before the Trump administration announced an “Amexit” from UNESCO, though, relations were already strained. Thanks to 1990s federal laws banning U.S. funding of international organizations that admit the “State of Palestine” as a member, even under the Obama administration, the U.S. government was forced to cut off most American financial support to the UN agency. Of course, Obama tried hard to get around that — and even found creative ways to illegally send U.S. tax money — but the hole in UNESCO's budget, close to 25 percent of its budget, was still catastrophic. UNESCO claims U.S. taxpayers “owe” it about half of a billion dollars at this point. Other major donor governments, reacting to UNESCO's extremism and corruption, also withheld funding.

Among the most serious problems identified by critics around the world was UNESCO boss Bokova. Despite support from international communism and leading establishment globalists such as the Rothschild dynasty, among others, Bokova, a longtime communist operative from Bulgaria, has become infamous worldwide for lawlessness and corruption. She originally joined the Bulgarian Communist Party as a youth member, despite the party's track record of mass murder and brutality. She later served in senior posts in the communist regime, which murdered hundreds of thousands of people — something for which she has never apologized. Her father was a high-ranking communist bigwig, too. That helped to secure Bokova's spot at the KGB-controlled Moscow State Institute of International Relations, an elite training center for future communist spies and operatives.


Irina Bokova









Irina Bokova e Vladimir Putin









Ver aqui






Ban Ki-moon e Irina Bokova










The stench of corruption scandals has been swirling around Bokova for years, as well, much of it exposed by investigative watchdog group Bivol. From lying on her résumé and owning luxury properties around the world that her tax-funded income could not possibly account for, to using public money and handing out “awards” to people in positions of influence in her campaign to lead the UN, to appointing cronies without qualifications to top posts, Bokova has attracted scrutiny worldwide. Most recently, she was exposed by Bivol for using her luxurious UN-funded apartment-office in Paris as the registered address for a shadowy business named after her and her husband. Her husband, another communist operative burrowed into an international organization, is already under investigation in Bulgaria for mega-corruption and huge alleged bribes from murderous regimes.

Bokova's corruption is so extreme and so well known that, in addition to destroying UNESCO's reputation, her own staffers been been begging for external audits and investigations. As The New American reported, a large number of UNESCO staffers sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, a fellow socialist linked to Bokova's communist network through his leadership of the Socialist International, pleading for help. To protect herself, though, Bokova is working hard to ensure that a “friendly” candidate takes over when she leaves her post later this year. The New American was the first publication to report, citing insider sources at the agency, that she was considering a Communist Chinese operative as ideal for the post. Today, the communist agent has been widely reported to be a frontrunner.

Even the “legitimate” activities of UNESCO under Bokova's leadership have drawn fierce criticism from defenders of liberty, national sovereignty, common sense, education, science, culture, Christianity, biology, and more. Consider, for example, a recent report disgorged by UNESCO that demands propaganda in textbooks pushing globalism, statism, the “LGBT” agenda, and other “values” that the UN agency claims all children must possess. The UN agency has also been fiendishly working to sexualize children as young as four-years old with perverse and wildly inappropriate “sex education.” And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to UNESCO, which has long been seeking to standardize “education” around the world using, among other tools, the radical “World Core Curriculum” modeled on the bizarre teachings of Lucifer Publishing Company founder Alice Bailey.

On Israel, UNESCO has long been criticized for its bizarre obsession with demonizing the tiny Jewish state. Most recently, the disgraced UN outfit came under criticism for adopting a resolution last year describing Israel as an “occupying power” while downplaying the historical Jewish connections to the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, and more. Also sparking outrage was the resolution's reference to the “Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif” as holy Muslim sites, completely erasing the historical and religious links of Jews to the sites. In 2015, UNESCO passed a similar resolution purporting to rename famous Jewish historical and religious sites with Arabic names, again sparking global outrage. Adding fuel to the fire, just today voting UNESCO member states gave a plurality of votes to Qatari candidate Hamad bin Abdulaziz Al-Kawari, widely accused of anti-Semitism, in the race to be the outfit's next leader.

According to UN Watch, each year, UNESCO adopts about 10 resolutions criticizing a particular country. Unsurprisingly, considering the UN agency's membership roster, 100 percent of those resolutions target the state of Israel, with one exception occurring in 2013 when Syria was condemned in one resolution. The obsessive focus on Israel has become so extreme that more than a few prominent Jewish and non-Jewish critics have referred to UNESCO as systemically anti-Semitic. UNESCO is among the worst when it comes to UN agencies, many of which consistently demonize Israel more than all other governments and dictatorships combined.

Following Trump's lead, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calling the U.S. government's move “brave and moral,” also announced that his government would be withdrawing from UNESCO. “This is a courageous and ethical decision because UNESCO has become a theater of the absurd and instead of preserving history, distorts it,” he added. Netanyahu has previously accused the UN outfit of promoting “fake history.” Other senior Israeli officials also praised Trump's decision. “Today is a new day at the U.N., where there is price to pay for discrimination against Israel,” Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon was quoted as saying.

But while it may have gotten more extreme and more corrupt under Bokova, UNESCO has a long and sordid history of extremism and corruption. In fact, this is actually the second time the U.S. government has withdrawn from UNESCO. The agency's extremism and hostility to basic liberties got so outlandish that, by 1983, President Ronald Reagan decided to formally cancel the U.S. government's membership in the Soviet-dominated outfit, along with American funding for it. In a series of scathing statements about the organization, senior U.S. officials lambasted the UN agency and its collectivism. U.S. State Department officials, for example, said UNESCO “has extraneously politicized virtually every subject it deals with.”

The UN agency's totalitarian extremism, which has accelerated in recent years under communist operative Bokova's tenure, was another key issue in Reagan's decision. UNESCO “has exhibited hostility toward the basic institutions of a free society, especially a free market and a free press, and has demonstrated unrestrained budgetary expansion,” officials said, lambasting the organization for wasting money promoting Soviet schemes and other totalitarian absurdities.











President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations Gregory Newell, meanwhile, said at the time that, despite frequent warnings from U.S. officials, UNESCO has “served anti-U.S. political ends.” Specifically, Newell cited “misguided policies,” including “collectivist” schemes that promote “group rights” at the expense of individual rights. He also blasted UNESCO's promotion of licensing schemes for journalists, its obsession with imposing a “New International Economic Order” in which taxpayers in freer countries are fleeced so their wealth could be redistributed to the UN and oppressive Third World regimes, and numerous other problems.

The U.S. government re-joined UNESCO in 2003 under neoconservative President George W. Bush. “As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO,” Bush claimed, without explaining how joining a dictator-dominated organization dedicated to anti-American ideologies and plagued by scandal would be a symbol of commitment to “human dignity.” Bush also claimed, falsely, as it turns out, that the organization had been “reformed.” Recent events and actions by UNESCO prove that the outfit has not only not “reformed,” but that it is actually worse today than it was in 1984 when the U.S. government withdrew.

The Trump administration made a very wise decision in exiting UNESCO. But it is not enough. While it is a key agency, UNESCO is merely one tentacle of the globalist-controlled monster that is the UN dictators club. To protect the liberties and self-government of the American people over the long term, Congress must act. Fortunately, there is legislation already introduced in Congress, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 193), that would end all U.S. government involvement with the dictators club. Now it is up to the American people to push the effort over the finish line by educating their communities and their elected representatives».

Alex Newman («U.S. Exits Corrupt, Communist-led UNESCO», in The New American, 12 October 2017).



 

4 THINGS GLOBALISTS THINK YOU’RE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND 


Most Americans by now have read or heard Infowars warn about the dangers of globalists, and the “new world order,” but the sheer amount of information can be overwhelming — and it’s easy just to throw out the information, or trust someone else to take action.

We will approach “globalism” a different way. 

Instead of just examining the raw facts (he said, she said, time, place, date) and then hoping people connect the dots (often a maze that would make a minotaur dizzy), Infowars will provide an in-depth look at the “psyche” of globalists.

And, we will endeavor to probe the basic assumptions that guide their daily lives — rather than hem and haw at the objectively horrible things they do and say.

After reading our exposé, any Infowarrior will understand for themselves “why” globalists do what they do.


4 THINGS GLOBALISTS BELIEVE 


1. ENLIGHTENED (WE KNOW BETTER): Globalists have one central goal in life: to eliminate nation-states and replace them with global institutions run remotely, without the consent of average citizens, usually by themselves.

Don’t take my word for it. Consider the remarks of David Rockefeller, preeminent globalist and master of the universe, until his death in March, 2017:

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications … 

“It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

That does not sound very democratic, does it? Globalists usually have a God-complex, believing they know what is best for approximately 9 billion people — or worse, believing the 9 billion people are irrelevant. In that sense, globalists will often “break it to rebuild it” along the lines of their worldview.

Example: Globalists want a global currency, and historically, they admit as much. So they require every nation to install a central bank, de-link their currencies from gold, and then accept hyper-inflated worthless paper as “money” until all the bubbles have popped, the world economy is vaporized and a globally-controlled monetary system replaces it.

“Order out of chaos,” or “Ordo ab chao,” is the motto of Thirty-third Degree Freemasons. America’s political ruling class is dominated by Thirty-Third Degree Freemasons, men who believe they see the “light” and are the “light-bearers” to the rest of humanity.











Chaos is where globalists think they are in control. 

Maurice Strong definitely supported chaos during his life. Strong was the former chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the CEO of Petro-Canada and briefly president of the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development. Strong is responsible for Agenda 21.

Strong told people 30 years ago: 

“Each year, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland … What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? … Isn’t the only hope … that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

Scary? And he was in a position to do it. Globalists often work slowly and over many decades, so the switch could go at any moment.

Mega-billionaire Hungarian Nazi war criminal George Soros made similar predictions (more like his “to-do list”) in 2012.

Warning of “riots” and “brutal clampdowns,” Soros said, 

“We are facing an extremely difficult time, comparable in many ways to the 1930s, the Great Depression … The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system. … 

“It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, …a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.” 

The challenge as globalists see it, is for the rest of us to get out of our own way and accept their benevolent, enlightened guidance.

It may not be for a lack of effort, but most people faced with the apocalypse are usually more concerned about losing their house, food, electricity and healthcare — all of which are put in the crosshairs by stated globalist goals.


2. HEAVEN IS A PLACE ON EARTH: Globalists believe that, irrespective of the facts, nations are the cause of all the war, famine and economic inequality in the world. It is a religious belief. Without a basic assumption that nations are bad, everything else globalists believe is impossible. “The grass is always greener,” basically.

Conversely, “Utopia” is real to globalists; it isn’t something achieved in death (as with Christians, Jews or Muslims). Utopia is the result of things done in a certain mathematical order, in a certain way — hence, the globalist obsession with “fairness” and equal distribution of resources among nations.

Example: The Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen — all “climate” agreements packaged and marketed to the great unwashed only several years apart from each other. America said “Hell no” to all three of these agreements, even if a president’s pen got overeager.

Every one of these alleged attempts to “fight climate change” have two things in common: First, the U.S. is the only country who is expected to take things seriously, and second, the content of the agreements has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change.

Hidden in each “climate agreement” are “taxes,” or “reparations,” and surprise, America is expected to transfer up to half its total wealth (estimates range from $300 billion to $9 trillion) to the other signatories.

“It’s the economy, stupid,” to paraphrase a raging network liberal pundit.

Copenhagen demanded America repay “adaptation debt.” This is not optional for ratifying countries. And unlike previous climate agreements, Copenhagen empowers a new U.N. council to compel rich nations to comply.

Kyoto wanted to regulate how much fuel the U.S. military could burn. (Sure, no hidden motive there.)

The globalists must redistribute America’s wealth to satisfy their utopian OCD. It is a zero-sum game in their minds. Making money takes money from somewhere else.

“Climate change” is economic terrorism by any other name.



Ver aqui




















3. ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS: Globalists do not typically (with very few exceptions) value human life. They will use staged military conflicts and kill millions to validate their belief in world government.

Example: The “police action” in Korea was the first time American soldiers were placed under “United Nations” command, which included Soviet generals. President Truman gave Soviet military leaders copies of U.S. troop movements, and the Soviets predictably informed the North Koreans and Chinese — who slaughtered many brave young American soldiers. To what did they owe their blood and tragic end?

Truman’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson later recalled: 

“The only reason I told the President to fight in Korea was to validate NATO.” 

General Lin Piao, commander of the Chinese forces, would later comment: 

“I never would have made the attack and risked my men and my military reputation if I had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur. …” 

And war is not the only time human life is sacrificed to promote the geographical consolidation favored by globalists.

Pandemics, mass refugee migrations, and terrorist attacks targeting a nation’s collective psyche are also valuable, because they undermine the sense of safety previously associated with a national space.

Prof. Robert Pastor, “Father of the North American Union,” 

“The 9/11 crisis made Canada and the United States redefine the protection of their borders. …What I’m saying is that a crisis is an event which can force democratic governments … to create a North American Community.” 

The nation no longer acts as a “house” in the mind of citizens, is no longer a shelter. Something bigger must replace the inadequate, outdated nation-state, and guess who is waiting in the wings to offer a new vision? That’s right: globalists.

Example: The recent rash of semi-weekly Muslim terrorist attacks are a perfect example of globalist “crisis” politics. Governments are known to have advance knowledge of many of these attacks, and yet nothing is done to prevent them from occurring. How can this be? We find our answer in the many “global” solutions to “terrorism” heard often the day after the newest tragedy, sold in a package worthy of a used car salesman.

After the London bridge attack, Prime Minister Theresa May immediately began calling for global control of the Internet to fight terrorism. The government knew; they did nothing. Now they want to control the Internet. See how it works?

Example: In the U.S., former President Obama’s own intelligence czar warned that his refugee policies were allowing ISIS to gain entry.

Then, Hillary Clinton handed over our refugee vetting authority to the U.N. and told the U.N. it needed to pressure countries to take in more refugees.

In short, globalists generally support anything that invalidates national borders and overwhelms public infrastructure — even if totally manufactured — in order to justify greater surrender of national control to bigger and more geographically expansive entities.


4. BITE-SIZED ELEPHANTS: “If you’re going to eat an elephant, eat it one bite at a time,” goes an old adage.

It’s definitely about the destination, not the journey, for globalists. Globalists believe in multiple paths to the finish line, as long as nations are destroyed, and an enlightened elite — presumably them — will be in charge.

Example: For this reason, globalists will even pay to create an enemy, and the former Soviet Union was the best enemy money could buy.






American banks loaned the Bolsheviks millions after the revolution, built a refinery, and were responsible for two-thirds of Soviet Russia’s industrial capacity. The “red menace.” was made-to-order.

Lincoln P. Bloomfield, recently Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs in 2005 from a State Department paper he wrote in 1962: 

“…If the communist dynamic were greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government … If there were no communist menace, would anyone be worrying about the need for such a revolution in political arrangements?” 

Example: In addition to manufacturing threats, globalists have an even craftier way to attack nation-states: regionalization. This is where entire groups of countries are convinced to share more and more with their neighboring countries, until a single economy, single set of institutions and shared identity replace old national identities.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor in 1995: 

“We cannot leap into world govt. in one quick step … The precondition … is progressive regionalization, because thereby we can move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.” 

Bite-sized countries.

(in Infowars.com - JUNE 9, 2017).