Leftists dream of a powerful government that can take from all of the world’s rich to remedy all the world’s problems. If they get the government, they won’t get the outcome.
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever,” wrote George Orwell in his classic dystopian novel 1984.
Perhaps no single quotation could better sum up the reason any person who values liberty should oppose the creation of a world government, because the odds that a single government for the entire planet would have little respect for individual liberty are quite high.
George Washington is reputed to have said that government is “like fire,” in that it is a “dangerous servant and a fearful master.” History is full of examples proving the truth of that statement, with such monsters as Caligula and Nero from the ancient world, and Hitler, Stalin, and Mao in modern times. But as horrible as these men were, they did not rule the entire globe. Their evil was confined to only limited parts of our world. But a global government would make possible — perhaps even likely — global tyranny.
The fact that global elitists favor the end of nations and the creation of a world government is not really in dispute. They are actually quite open about it. The late globalist banker David Rockefeller made this startling confession in his 2002 autobiography Memoirs: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Advocates of world government argue that it would be a good thing. But are they correct? A government spanning the entire globe, and equipped to impose its will on once-sovereign nations, would possess immense power. How might this power be used — or abused? How could it be contained? As Lord Acton put it: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If you value individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise, then you have good reason to fear such a concentration of power and those who wield it.
Thomas Jefferson recognized that the centralization of government power was antithetical to the cause of liberty: “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” It is clear that the author of the Declaration of Independence did not favor centralizing governmental power in our own national government. We can safely conclude, then, that he would not support surrendering all power to a world government.
What do advocates of world government want such a regime to actually do? In 1942, John Foster Dulles (later secretary of state for President Dwight Eisenhower) chaired a committee of the Federal Council of Churches that called for a world government to be given “strong immediate limitation on national sovereignty, international control of all armies and navies, a universal system of money, world-wide freedom of immigration, progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade and a democratically-controlled world bank.” They also called for a worldwide redistribution of wealth. If you are an American citizen, that would be your wealth. In the Summer 1992 edition of the World Policy Journal, the idea was put forth that “we need to move to a system of value-added taxes that could be collected automatically when goods and services cross national borders,” so international organizations such as the United Nations no longer have to depend on “voluntary contributions” from member nations. As bad as this sounds, we can safely predict that the abolition of the United States after the creation of a world government would not mean the abolition of the taxation on income, estates, property, and the like, but rather the Internal Revenue Service would just be replaced with a global tax “service” to take money from Americans for world distribution. Many of those in the United States who call for us to “tax the rich” would soon find out that the rest of the world considers all Americans rich.
This article appears in the July 10, 2017, issue of The New American. To download the issue and continue reading this story, or to subscribe, click here.
Jeff Deist recently wrote for the Mises Institute that universalism is not the same thing as liberty, and that only force could possibly hold together the diverse cultures of our world. In his book The Fearful Master, G. Edward Griffin made a similar point. Unlike some theoretical global government, which many would like the United Nations (UN) to become, our nation was formed from colonies that “were all of a similar cultural background. They enjoyed similar legal systems, they spoke the same language, and they shared similar religious beliefs. They had much in common.” Despite all of this, the nation experienced a tragic Civil War.
Example of Multinational Governments Today
A good indicator of what a world government would look like can be determined by looking at two of the largest multinational governments we have already, namely the United Nations and the European Union. The same globalists who openly wish for a world government are fond of both of those organizations.
After the communist Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia, it carried out a holocaust of its own people under the mass murderer Pol Pot, killing more than 30 percent of Cambodia’s population in only four years — a total of two million people. At a special session of the UN’s General Assembly, the regime’s foreign minister was actually applauded, illustrating the lack of revulsion for that regime of mass murderers. Regardless of their motivation, what type of people could possibly applaud such a man? These are the people we want to entrust with our lives and fortunes? It should be remembered that the same collection of thugs and socialists who run the UN now, such as representatives of Communist China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and Venezuela, would most likely be the same in any world government, whether called the UN or something else.
John Foster Dulles said the UN could become the world government he desired. “I have never seen any proposal made for … world government … which could not be carried out either by the United Nations or under the United Nations charter.”
It would certainly seem so. In his book None Dare Call It Treason, John Stormer wrote, “What is widely labeled as ‘disarmament’ is in reality a transfer of the weapons of the world — and therefore the power to rule the world — to the United Nations.”
This one-world government rule would involve the abolition of our present jury system, and other rights of the accused that we enjoy in the United States, through such means as the United Nations Treaty Against Genocide. Citing the treaty, Stormer cautioned that the treaty provided “penalties for causing ‘mental harm’ to a member of a minority group. Such an offender, under the terms of the treaty, could be arrested, transported abroad, and tried without a jury and punished by the proposed International Criminal Court.” Since the UN is already proposing to make it illegal to disagree with homosexuality, we can see that all believing Christians would be placed in a perilous situation.
Among the “rights” that are promised in the UN Charter are, “Everyone has the right to … medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, and other lack of livelihood.” This “internationalization” of the welfare state would, of course, be paid for by American taxpayers and those of other wealthy countries. Only recently, some globalists expressed that ObamaCare could not be repealed “under international law,” unless all American citizens were given “healthcare” under some replacement plan.
The constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO) is very clear on this topic: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.… Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures.” One American who was heavily involved in the creation of WHO said this “includes not only the more conventional fields of activity but also mental health, housing, nutrition, economic or working conditions and administrative and social techniques affecting public health.” That American was the notorious Alger Hiss — later exposed as a Soviet spy.
As Griffin said in The Fearful Master, “This simply means that the United States is bound by treaty to uphold its pledge to promote unlimited government meddling around the world,” which, of course, turns the American Revolution on its head. The colonists seceded from the British Empire so they would not be told what to do on local matters by some far off, distant government.
Too, it must be remembered that national healthcare systems have two major flaws in common: The wealthy and the politically powerful get better healthcare than others, and governments save money by rationing care, especially for the chronically ill, the poor, and the elderly. In addition to globalizing the welfare state — and the control this would give over the peoples of the world by the globalist elites who would run any such world government — the tentacles of this New World Order would essentially replace the family as the cornerstone of society. In 1990, the UN produced the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which UNICEF Director James Grant called “the Magna Carta for children.”
Congressman Thomas Bliley (R-Va.) disputed the lofty rhetoric, arguing, “As written, it places government in a superior position to its citizens by granting these rights to children.” In Article 14, Section 1 of the convention, the document asserts, “States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” and in Article 13, it requires that the child “shall have the right to freedom of expression,” including “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.” In other words, the right (and duty) of parents to raise up their children, protecting them from pornography and the like, would be repealed with a world government along the lines of the UN.
Article 31 even guarantees the child a right to “rest and leisure.” Griffin asks in The Fearful Master, “Would parents who make little Ricky do chores … be liable for prosecution?”
The European Union: Model for Global Tyranny?
The passing of a referendum to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union (EU) was a tremendous blow to the aspirations of those desirous of a global government. While the EU is presently just a European thing, a discussion of the drive for world government should include some reflections on this “super-state,” with its tentacles reaching far beyond trade, which was the EU’s initial stated reason for being. (One might recall that the fictional “Empire” in the Star Wars movies began with a supposedly benign “trade agreement.”)
Today, the EU operates much like we would expect a global government to function. As William F. Jasper wrote in Global Tyranny, Step by Step, “Citizens of the EC (the previous name of the EU) countries are finding their lives and livelihoods increasingly controlled by Eurocrats in Brussels, even as national governments find their sovereign rights sacrificed under such deliberately vague and ambiguous rubrics as ‘cooperation,’ ‘union,’ ‘integration,’ and the like.”
The EU is hostile to the Christian faith, which once dominated the culture of the continent so much that the region was referred to as Christendom. In 2004, Rocco Buttiglione, a professor of political science, was nominated from Italy to serve as a justice commissioner in the EU. But during a hearing before the EU’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Buttiglione, a devout Roman Catholic, admitted that he believed homosexuality was a sin. Although he assured the committee that his personal opinion did not mean that he favored discrimination against homosexuals, his opinion was seen as “hate speech,” causing his nomination to be rejected.
Buttiglione later commented, “The new soft totalitarianism that is advancing on the Left wants us to have a state religion. It is an atheist, nihilistic religion — but it is a religion that is obligatory for all.” In the United States, it is a constitutionally protected right that a person cannot be kept from public office simply for one’s religion (the “no religious test clause”), but in the EU such protections do not exist — and would not likely exist in a world government. Even in the United States now, while nominally true, Senator Bernie Sanders actually voted against a man’s confirmation just because of the man’s opinion that one must believe in Jesus Christ for salvation.
Buttiglione’s assertion that the EU has a non-Christian state religion appears to be true. In fact, as Jasper notes in his book, the Council of Europe has even used famous 16th-century Dutch painter Pieter Brueghel’s “The Tower of Babel” painting on posters and in literature to symbolize its efforts to build the European superstate. Those familiar with the biblical story in Genesis know that the Tower of Babel was an effort by the inhabitants of the Earth to join together and exalt themselves, essentially creating their own “world” government — in defiance of God. It is interesting that the Council of Europe would use such an image.
The EU can be viewed not only as a model for world government, but also as a transitional phase to world government. Hilaire du Berrier wrote in 1973 that globalists “saw the Common Market [the forerunner of the EU] from the first as a regional government to which more and more nations would be added until the world government which the UN had failed to bring about would be realized.” Other regional governments, such as one for the United States, Canada, and Mexico (a North American Union), could eventually be merged together into one global regime. It would be, as world government advocate Richard Gardner said many years ago, “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.”
In the EU, member nations have already lost control over their own borders, as immigration is controlled by the bureaucrats in Brussels. More and more decisions that formerly were made by national governments are being made by the government of the EU. And that EU government is increasingly insulated from the will of the average man and woman in Europe.
You Can’t Fight City Hall
Frustrated citizens often complain that they seem to have little influence on what the city government does. We have all heard the comment, “You can’t fight city hall.” In reality, a citizen can have a rather large amount of impact on what happens in his own city. His city council member and mayor live in the same town. They can usually be contacted — often in person. But as government becomes more removed from this personal contact, it becomes increasingly unconcerned as to what its citizens think.
Federal bureaucrats are certainly not as responsive to citizens as city council members. After all, they do not have to stand for election, and it is unlikely that an American citizen is going to show up on their doorstep to complain about a bureaucrat’s decision. Among the complaints of many Brits, who did not like the EU, was that the Brussels bureaucrats make decisions without regard to public opinion. This problem would be much worse under a world government.
In National Socialist Germany, one of the first things Adolf Hitler did after seizing power was to destroy the autonomy of the historic states of Germany. General police power was turned over to the central government and the Gestapo. The term Gestapo certainly does not evoke a warm feeling with many people today. We can only imagine what a world police force would be like, so far removed from the influence of the people.
In 1961, the State Department of President John F. Kennedy issued State Department Document 7277, promoting the idea of dismantling the armed forces of the United States and turning all military powers over to the United Nations. In a document entitled Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, the Kennedy State Department called for “complete disarmament” of all nations of the world, including the United States, which could “only be achieved though the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.”
The ultimate goal of the proposal was the “disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force.”
Once this was accomplished, no nation could then resist the power of the world government. Even now, little can be done to right wrongs. For example, we have witnessed multiple atrocities such as rapes and murders by UN “peacekeepers,” and punishments have not been meted out.
The creation of a world government would necessarily mean the abolition of the United States — at least in any meaningful sense. World government might continue to have national governments as administrative units, much like counties in American states. Ultimate control, however, would reside in the hands of the global government — a global government without the checks and balances, separation of powers, and respect for limited government we now enjoy in the United States. The global government would have a monopoly on military weaponry.
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that a government’s just powers come from the consent of the governed. And what are just powers of government? They are the powers to secure the unalienable rights of its citizens — “that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Any powers that governments grasp beyond just powers are, by definition, unjust. This concept is not recognized in most of the rest of the world, and it is highly unlikely that foreigners would suddenly adopt such a belief with the creation of a world government. They also do not accept the idea that rights come from God — not government — a major concept found in the Declaration of Independence.
On the contrary, much of the rest of the world (and far too many in our own country) think of the “right to healthcare” more than they think of the right to free speech, or the freedom to practice one’s own religion. Under a world government, our precious Bill of Rights would be no more. In the United States, we can hope to maintain our right to “keep and bear arms.” That would no longer be an issue in a global government, as such a right is not recognized now on most of the rest of the planet. Once America became submerged into a world government, the confiscation of all private weapons would follow quickly. The National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America might have some clout in this country, but their impact in a world government would be little to none.
Green Is the New Red
International socialism has long been associated with various shades of the color red — with “democratic” socialists known as “pinks,” while hard-core communists are “reds.” But another color that is associated with globalism is “green,” as with the environmental movement.
The globalist Aspen Institute published The Third Try at World Order, by Harlan Cleveland, in 1976. As Jasper wrote in Global Tyranny, Step by Step, “In that book, Cleveland, a former Assistant Secretary of State and U.S. Ambassador to NATO, lamented that the first try at ‘world order’ collapsed with the failure to secure U.S. entry into the League of Nations and the second failure resulted from a United Nations that was not invested with sufficient authority and power to enact and enforce world law.”
The “third try” would come more indirectly, through issues that require global “solutions,” such as environmentalism, population control, and nuclear proliferation.
The globalists realize that world government simply cannot be achieved without persuading enough people that it is a necessity to deal with supposed problems that cannot be solved by national governments. That is why such frightening scenarios as global warming and nuclear proliferation are pushed so hard in the compliant media, academia, and popular culture. The late UCLA professor and writer Norman Cousins was a staunch advocate of one-world government, and it is not surprising that he and other champions of that goal latched onto environmentalism as early as the first “Earth Day” on April 22, 1970. “Humanity needs a world order,” Cousins said on that first Earth Day. “The fully sovereign nation is incapable of dealing with the poisoning of the environment.… The management of the planet, therefore — whether we are talking about the need to prevent war or the need to prevent ultimate damage to the conditions of life — requires a world government.”
As is the case with government-run healthcare, environmentalists see the need to control people’s lifestyles. Every “solution” put forth by those on the Left always involves more power for government and less liberty for the individual citizen. And in the case of environmental “scares” such as global warming, since it is a supposedly “global problem,” it requires a global solution.
And that “solution” fits nicely with world government.
Once Americans surrender their national independence to a global government, they can expect to have their standard of living reduced by global fiat — smaller houses, smaller cars (and more “public” transportation — it is easier to control a population that way), greater control over business activity, and the like. Why should we expect this? Because the advocates of such radical environmentalist schemes as “sustainability” and socialistic economies are almost always supporters of “international” solutions in all of these areas. We will lose the Constitution and the Declaration — and our cherished belief that rights come from God, not government, since UN instruments are based on the contrary concept that “rights” are something bestowed by government, and can be regulated by government. And that government will be immensely bigger because of all the socialist schemes it would impose. It does not take a rocket scientist to conclude that this concentration of power will result in not only the loss of political freedom, but the loss of economic freedom as well, with the predictable lowering of our standard of living.
While we still have our national sovereignty, we can go to the polls and vote out these radical environmentalists and their totalitarian schemes that are supposedly designed to “save the planet.” But once we “go global,” then Americans will get out-voted by the rest of the world, who will have no problem with “solutions” that involve the transfer of the wealth of American citizens to other parts of the world.
Government Has a Tendency to Grow
Some, however, argue, “Well, but what if we could construct a world government on the lines of what we have in the United States, with separation of powers, checks and balances, respect for individual rights, limited government, and respect for the free market, with a Constitution to guarantee all of this?” The problem is two-fold: Any world government would start off by scrapping those very ideas of liberty we hold dear. And even if we could resurrect James Madison to write a constitution “for the world,” we know that it would not remain a limited government for very long. After all, to the one-worlder, the point of world government is a more powerful government than that which we now have in the United States.
Frank Chodorov, the editor of The Freeman, understood this very well. In 1955, he wrote, “This tendency of government to expand upon its power and its prerogatives is inherent in it simply because it is composed of men.… Therefore, the concern of society, particularly in the last few centuries, has been to find some way to keep government within bounds. Thus came constitutionalism. Thus came the idea that to safeguard freedom — from government, of course — it is necessary to keep government small, so that it can be subject to constant surveillance, and poor, so that it cannot get out of hand.”
French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu said that republics cannot exist over a large area of land. Our Founders tried to get around this problem by creating a federal system of government, leaving most issues in the hands of the states and their local communities. But the elitists who want world government do not believe in real diversity of thought. As the aforementioned Jeff Deist wrote for the Mises Institute, “The fundamental problem with universalism is that so few things really are widely agreed upon. Universalists exhibit a special kind of hubris, one that smacks of neo-colonialism: the insistence that others must believe as we do, if only we show them the obvious superiority of our thinking.”
In a way, globalism is simply a souped-up version of the old “White Man’s Burden.” In the days of imperialism, it was thought that the “backward peoples” of the world needed the paternalistic hand of the Westerner. Under world government, the cultures of the world can be changed to suit the elitists in power — or so they hope.
Globalists argue that world government would mean world peace, ignoring the fact that a government powerful enough to enforce world peace is powerful enough to impose global tyranny. But if the absence of war is all that we are striving for, then the British should have simply surrendered to Hitler in 1940. After all, living under the Nazis was “peace.” For some, it was the “peace of the grave.”
In summary, world government would mean less freedom and a lower standard of living — except for the global elites who are fighting to achieve their control over the entire globe.
Photo: Thinkstock
No comments:
Post a Comment