INTERDEPENDENCE

I had planned to follow my last post with one on the Trilaterals in the Carter administration, but this came up Sunday and I thought it important.

Parade Magazine, Oct. 19, 2008, reports a "discussion" between Republican national-security "expert" Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski. It isn't clear who is posing the questions nor who is saying what, but here are significant excerpts.

"What is our next President's most pressing foreign-policy challenge?"

"Addressing the worldwide crisis of confidence in our leadership. The U.S. must seriously consult with its allies, not act unilaterally. The President also must credibly convey that the era of American self-indulgence is over and that we will recognize global interdependence."


Absolutely! "Our" government must place a priority on what other countries want regardless of the wishes and well-being of the American people. To make clear that our "self-indulgence" is over, the average American must be prepared to abandon his hovel for the steam grate. Of course, we cannot ask the wealthy and their political puppets to give up their mansions, country clubs, and generally profligate lifestyles. That would be inhumane.

What does "recognize global interdependence" mean? We must realize that this has a totally different meaning to the elite than it does to most of us. We tend to think in terms of the need to buy the products of another nation that we may not be able to produce as readily and to sell them that which we can manufacture more efficiently. But in those terms, we have always been "interdependent." To the elite then, interdependence must have a different meaning. It does! To them it means merging much of our national sovereignty into global agencies. It means overriding our laws and our Constitution with international laws that will best protect and further, not the interests of the American people, but of the international financiers and multi-national mega-corporations. Of course, taxing powers to support these laws and agencies in a supra-national entity will be necessary.

"A Strategy of Interdependence" by Vincent P. Rock* lays out what is (or was), ostensibly, a plan to reduce tension between the Soviet Union and the U.S. But it went beyond that. It went as far as to not so subtly attack the very concept of the nation state; that is, sovereignty:

"A flaw in both the Western alliance system and the Soviet bloc arrangements is that, while within their area of influence they attempt to curtail the chaos of the multistate system**, in regard to each other the Soviet Union and the United States have been content for relations to remain largely in a state of nature governed ultimately by force. Thus as soon as an ally has the power, it seeks to reassert its sovereignty in the brutish world of nation-states."

How's that for a rational, unbiased, intellectual argument against national sovereignty: "...the chaos of the multistate system,..." and "...the brutish world of nation-states." What would this mean if, after our government has accepted the latest push at North American "interdependence," after the United States melts into the North American Union, we seek to "reassert our sovereignty?" Will we see U.N. troops marching through our streets? Absurd? Maybe. But don't discount it too smugly.

"What should the next President do to ensure change?"

"General Scowcroft and I recommend reviving bipartisanship. The President should appoint respected people from the other party to top national-security posts."

How can we have bipartisanship when we have only one party with two faces? When Brzezinski talks of "reviving bipartisanship" does he mean "continue two-faced politics?" I do think it highly likely that no matter who is elected, McCain or Obama, "respected " will translate into CFR and/or Trilateral membership. I would not be too surprised if McCain's top foreign policy advisor, Henry Kissinger and Obama's top man, Brzezinski both get top level security jobs regardless of the election outcome.

A vote for Obama or McCain is a vote to keep our children in bondage. Yes! I said "keep."


*Rock's book was on the recommended reading list of the Council on Foreign Relations.

**This same attitude toward Nations within alliances is paralleled in the attitude toward the States within the United States and toward our local governments. Here the plan to eliminate our States and locals is called regionalism. There's an article on that in:

http://PhreedomPhan-lostliberty.blogspot.com

Return to TOC