When a writer publishes an assessment of a fast breaking world development involving multiple players, within three or four days of its outset, he usually has many reasons to wish that he could recall and revise long before five weeks have passed. But with regard to the Clinton-Blair-NATO aggression in the Balkans, the subject of our April essay posted March 28th, we find no need for revision. It remains fully applicable. This will but build on what we said there.
The most common rationalization for the five plus weeks of horror, which the Clinton-Blair-NATO axis have been able to thus far perpetrate in Serbia--however stretched by a conflicting reality--has remained that of saving the Albanian element in Kosovo from Serbian atrocities. The problem, as pointed out earlier, is that the Serbian reaction to the NATO bombing was literally programmed by the self-anointed "altruists." Being pounded from the skies by nations with populations outnumbering them 70 or more times over--nations armed with technically superior weapons;--it was totally predictable that the Serbs would lash out in a frenzy at those with whom their attackers publicly identified. Thus where hundreds might have been the victims of cruelty before; within days of the assault, hundreds of thousands became victims. It is asinine for those who planned this war to deny culpability in what has happened.
Bear in mind that those planners are well educated men, who knew the Serbian tradition for defying ultimatums; knew that until we started this aggression, we--even as the Serbs--had classified the K.L.A. as a terrorist body; knew that the ultimate ultimatum being defied (allowing an army of occupation on their soil), was one that no freedom loving person in the world could find acceptable. It is not the claimed despotism of the socialists in Belgrade, but the intemperance of the socialists in Washington and London, which keeps this War going.
The secondary argument was that the Serbs, unrestrained by an army of occupation, were going to "destabilize" the Balkans. We leave it to any fair minded person, whether the Balkans seem more stable today than before the bombs began to fall!
When assailed at home by Conservative forces within their several populations, for the poor planning as well as the despicable nature of this War, the perpetrators of deliberate internationalized aggression--including the draft evader in the White House--fell back upon appeals to the National pride of the respective NATO members. We are "in this now," we were told; we have to "see it through to a successful conclusion." But nothing could be more fatuous! That such an argument could even be used by men who had insisted on our humiliating retreat from Viet Nam--a just war, fought to stem the tide of international Communism--has more than a few outrageous aspects.
The most outrageous lies in the fact that there is no possible honor to be had in subduing a nation more than 70 times out-numbered by nations with superior weaponry, yet no legitimate interest in the nation being subdued! The NATO attack on Yugoslavia, thus far, demonstrates the same type of heroism as the Italian air attacks on the primitively armed warriors of Emperor Haile Silassie in Ethiopia in 1935. (Mussolini, like Clinton and Blair was interested in a new World Order! He sought his in an alliance with another European Socialist, Adolph Hitler.)
One of the most far fetched arguments to justify NATO aggression in the Balkans was offered by French President Chirac (whom one would have thought would know better than to get in bed with the Social Democrats on this one), when he sought to justify the aggression as France's way to avoid another Munich! But he has it backwards. It was the German--not the Allied position--at Munich, that German intervention in Czechoslovakia was required to protect an ethnic minority!
Since the beginning of this century, British intellectuals, of one stripe or another, have been trying to entangle America in their interests-- to ensnare us in some form of new world order. For example, in the first decade of the century, the Will of the famous empire builder Cecil Rhodes established a program of scholarships for bright young British, American, German & White South Africans to study at Oxford--the avowed intention to provide an intellectual basis for a Nordic hegemony that would dominate Man's future. (William J. Clinton was such a scholar. So too, a half century earlier, was Clarence K. Streit, who founded the Atlantic Union Movement before World War II; a proposal for a Federal union with those nations who are now our principal NATO allies!)
We do not suggest that from a British perspective--the British people have survived and prospered for centuries by a combination of courage, foresight and intrigue--there was something inherently wrong with all such endeavors. But from an American perspective, any attempted entanglement--other than a temporary alliance to meet an "extraordinary emergency"-- is clearly a retreat from our battle won heritage; from those policies which we will hereinafter delineate in the words of the framers: Policies that best reflect the nature of our institutions; policies that have served us well in the past and, given the predictable realities of the 21st Century, will serve us even better in the future.
Nor do we suggest that Clinton was studying or imbibing Rhodes' views of Nordic domination while in England. His ideological associates--picketing our embassy, burning our flag--would have been much further left than those of the empire building diamond magnate. But then, everything about the Arkansan--slick and deceptive to the core of his being--shouts out the Fabian orientation he came home with. [For those unfamiliar with the term: The British Fabian Society were the original modern exponents of the concept of promoting socialist revolution in the parlance of polite middle-class debate; calling radical proposals by moderate names; in short, revolution by subterfuge, accomplished by skilled manipulators (the wolves in sheep's clothing in the favorite Fabian metaphor), before the bemused bourgeoisie would ever know what hit them.]
Of course, there have been many approaches to the idea of creating a New World Order--an idea which has appealed to empire builders, dreamers, mystics and fools, as well as tyrants, since the fall of Rome. When President Wilson came back from Europe in November, 1918 with a proposed "League of Nations," the idea was overwhelmingly accepted. It was only little by little that an articulate, organized opposition emerged. The first shot was fired on November 21, 1918, when Senator James A. Reed of Missouri--a conservative Democrat familiar to regular visitors to this web site--rose on the floor of the United States Senate in open and total opposition. He was soon joined by a small band of Republicans, and the great debate began. There is no question but that the exponents of the traditional American foreign policy--explained below--won that debate; and America rejected the League of Nations.
That defeat was a bitter one for the exponents of the new Internationalism. Yet they bided their time, continuing to extend their influence in academic circles and in the media; and when, 27 years later, a similar "United Nations" was proposed, they were more than ready. Every effort was made to force ratification before there could be an equivalent debate. The tactics--the standard mainstays of the academic left, the sneer and the raised eyebrow--worked well in those days; the result, a quick ratification, with only a couple of dissenting votes.
But the exponents of the new foreign policy did not pause long to celebrate. Almost immediately, they began to maneuver to push America yet further along the path to "World Government"; to reverse by subterfuge, the victory of the Revolution, without ever acknowledging that that indeed was the ultimate issue. Groups such as the United World Federalists and the proponents of Streit's Atlantic Union sprang up on College campuses across America, rallied by speakers such as the late Norman Cousins--men who specialized in terrorizing coeds with tales of a nuclear holocaust, before they introduced their proposals. What little debate there was usually devolved upon questions of what form the new World Government should take, or when it would be practical to take the next step.
The bottom line is that not only when President Clinton was in school, at home and in Britain, but when most of his instructors were in school; the dominant academic ethos was that World Government was both idealistic and inevitable. The men who had rallied to the concepts of Washington and Jefferson to reject the League of Nations, were pictured as fearful and benighted, "narrow isolationists" who lacked any vision of the future. The actual Senate debate, where Reed and his cohorts took the internationalists apart intellectually, point by point, were never even read. It was all done by the raised eyebrow and the sneer--and above all with fear; fear of war, fear of the "bomb," the fear of having to defend what better men had won. Does anyone have any doubt at all, where Bill Clinton stood on this issue?
The then growing threat of International Communism provided both a complication and an advantage to those endeavoring to promote World Government. Even most of the Fabian Socialists of the Anglo-American world rebelled at the idea of being part of a common government with the likes of Stalin. On the other hand, the threat or danger forced conservative Americans, ordinarily skeptical of foreign alliances, to openly embrace what Washington had dubbed "temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies." NATO and other strategic groupings grew not only out of an alliance between Nations but out of one at home, among all major non-Communist factions, to deal with a long term crisis. The idea made great sense at the time.
Over the decades, NATO developed its own bureaucracy; an army of uniformed paper pushers, discharging the day to day necessities of an ever ready structure. That was unavoidable. The planning for any modern War, defensive or offensive, intended or merely possible, involves incredible attention to detail.
The collapse of Communism--truly a joyous event to all Conservatives--changed the prospects for a number of key players in the present drama. It obviously threatened both the jobs and sense of importance of the NATO bureaucracy. It also removed the major reason for Conservatives to work with "Liberals" for a common Foreign Policy. That this, coupled with the new stronger more independent America, which emerged from the Reagan years, was seen as a crisis by the Fabian Socialist Internationalists is a given. President Clinton's initial personal response was to go to Brussels in January, 1994, and try to change the very nature of NATO; persuading the alliance to launch a new "Partnership for Peace"; an outreach to Eastern Europe. We hate to be so crass, but killing for "peace" in the Balkans, today, serves a definite functional purpose for some of these players. Is it only a coincidence?
Early in the War, it was reported on the internet that the Serbs had given our out-of-control American President, the appellation of "Adolph" Clinton; apparently hoping to call attention to an obvious comparison between the present aggression and that of an earlier bully who had also given them deadly ultimatums, followed by unwarranted cruelty and disproportionate violence. Predictably, the pro-Clinton U.S. media have thus far declined to explore the aptness of the comparison. But it may indeed be more apt than even the spokesmen for Clinton's victims have thus far suggested. Consider if you will the little dance of usurpation, which we have dubbed:
STEP ONE. Create a Crisis: Select or create an incident with the emotional potential to become the focal point of popular attention.
First Example: Hitler's friends and a Communist dupe manage to burn the Reichstag. Hitler claims Communist plot threatening nation.
Second Example: Clinton and the European Social Democrats claim to discover Nazi style genocide in Serbian civil war. Claim need to involve NATO to preserve Balkan stability and prevent escalation of savagery.
STEP TWO. Take dramatic action--with as much self-righteous fanfare as possible--not to meet a real problem, if any, but to overturn norms of conduct inconvenient to the usurper.
First Example: Force a suspension of the civil law. Begin rule by decree, appealing to the patriotism of the German people to help suppress any protest. Take over all communications to propagandize self and demonize others.
Second Example: Threaten to bomb Serbia, unless the Serbs submit to an impossible demand to allow foreign occupation of their soil. Unleash propaganda war to turn defensive alliance against Communism into new International vehicle to promote Fabian Socialist version of European unity and "Democracy" via armed intervention (war).
STEP THREE. Press on, using the propaganda technique we now know as "the Big Lie," to turn all protests and all bits of inconvenient reality into a further justification for ever more extreme action. Use the diversion of public attention to further consolidate your position and avoid public scrutiny of other forms of your misconduct.
First example: Viciously suppress all dissent--always claiming it to be proof of the original crisis, while disarming potential dissidents and destroying the rights of the once sovereign German States. (At the same time, the usurper makes his private piece with the armed forces; talking of the glory of the German nation, even as he destroys their ancient culture.)
Second Example: Begin the bombing of Serbia. When the Serbs react as you knew they would--as you have to have known they would, if you are not an idiot--by escalating the campaign against those you claim to be trying to protect; claim vindication for your aggression, and begin a studied escalation of the conflict; always calling for "stability" while blaming others for the destabilization that you produce. Meanwhile, find excuses to gradually disarm the American people and to further erode their ancient institutions; now appealing to the pride in and among the Armed Forces to support your despicable aggression in an international cause completely outside America's interest.
STEP FOUR. Proceed now to your true purpose: In our parallel examples, to impose your version of a New World Order on as much of humanity as possible--whatever the cost to your nation and those around it.
First Example: Seize Austria in the name of a united Germany; seize Czechoslovakia to protect the rights of the German minority; invade Poland on similar rationalizations, promising a new European unity. You know the rest!
Second Example: Use the chaos you have created in the Balkans to necessitate a permanent NATO presence, together with enormous expenditures for rebuilding the damaged communities. Use the weakening of America, via the expenditure of weapon stocks and the undermining of morale, to reverse the greater pride and strength of the Reagan years, in order to make the idea of dependence upon an international body more acceptable. Finally, convert the new aggressive NATO into the Atlantic Union, which has been a Fabian dream (as an essential step towards World Government) since the 1930s.
Note that both Hitler and Clinton have been true masters of subliminal mind control. While the German Socialist Dictator was destroying the traditional monarchical culture of the German States--and imposing a Socialist society, which (like some of its American and British Fabian counterparts) remained nominally capitalistic--he staged magnificent pageants that suggested a celebration of the very heritage he was destroying. (Many academics on the non-Nazi left have never really understood this technique. To this day they will seriously contend that Hitler was on the "Far Right!")
Clinton uses words of moderation when he proposes that which would change the whole warp and woof of our American heritage; making it very difficult for those unfamiliar with Constitutional Law and historic issues to believe him anything but a mainstream American:
The ultimate Fabian, he proposes an increasing Federal role in the exercise of local police power--traditionally the most important function of State and local Government--and makes it sound like support for a middle-class concern with "law and order." He proposes an increasing Federal involvement with local public Education--again something completely outside the Constitutional purview of the Federal Government--and makes it sound so moderate that even some of the most conservative Republicans are afraid to answer. In the midst of a war, which he started; he uses the excuse of a high school tragedy, clearly attributable not to guns but to policies that he endorses (see article on "Something of Value", below), to propose disarming every American under the age of 21! [A direct violation of the 2nd Amendment, and tantamount to a repudiation of the Washington/Jefferson policy, which recommended arming boys 16 and over with military grade weapons, as America's first line of defense (against enemies abroad and usurpers at home).] And given the sheep like quality of America's "Liberal" media, he is able to make it sound like the most reasonable thing in all the world.
Or reflect on what the Clinton health care proposals could really mean for the American future!
Was it merely coincidence that both Hitler and Clinton first gained office with the support of militant and aggressive homosexual activists? (We are not talking about people with a problem in orientation, for whom one may feel some compassion; but in each case, with aggressive and very angry perverts.) And there are other parallels. [Given the total cynicism of the pair, one must even wonder whether the loss of atomic secrets to Red China--now enabling the internationalists to again raise the spectre of a holocaust with which to promote their "idealism"--was really the result of incompetent security?]
While the concept of driving any people from their homes--even without other injury--is offensive to this correspondent, the idea of NATO lecturing the World on "ethnic cleansing," comes with a very strange grace, indeed. Bear with us, while we allude to a few of the relevant events from the past 507 years:
The Spanish NATO ally expelled the Moors and Jews from Spain in 1492. In the next Century, her empire builders brutalized many of the Indian Cultures in what is now Latin America in ways far exceeding anything done in Kosovo before the bombing.
Also, in the late 1500s, the British NATO ally, uprooted the Catholic landowners in six counties of Ulster, and replaced them with transplanted Scots. (People are still killing each other, over that one. So don't dismiss it as ancient history.) We will pass over some incidents in other areas in the interim, but return to Britain shortly.
The American NATO ally--we can't lie about it--engaged in frequent "ethnic cleansing" with respect to many of the Indian tribes, in the last Century. (One wonders how we might have reacted, had the British and French decided to blockade and bombard our ports to stop General Jackson from driving the Indians out of North Florida, Georgia and Western Carolina? Will anyone suggest that that would have helped the lot of the Creeks or Seminoles? Would it have kept the General off the $20 bill?) In 1864, our fellow Ohioan--a great soldier, but a terrible humanitarian--General Sherman, fought in a domestic War against intended secession by burning a 60 mile wide strip across Georgia and South Carolina. Even Clinton has not claimed that the Serbs did anything like that in fighting secession in Kosovo.
In 1915, the Turkish NATO ally eliminated most of her Armenian population by a massacre, which also still precipitates periodic acts of vengeance.
In the early 1920s, the Greek and Turkish NATO allies fought a little war in which both sides engaged in various adventures in ethnic cleansing, before the Turks finally succeeded in driving the Greeks from Anatolia.
In World War II, the German NATO ally engaged in one ethnic outrage after another; indeed giving "genocide" its modern definition. And these outrages triggered, in turn, a whole raft of more recent "ethnic cleansings:"
Immediately after World War II, the American, British and French NATO allies, all acquiesced in sending members of various Eastern European minorities, who had fought with the Germans against the Communists in Russia, back to Stalin to face certain torture and death. Almost immediately thereafter, the same NATO allies acquiesced in the "ethnic cleansing" of Germans from Eastern Europe--the new Polish NATO allies participating in that purge. (These actions had no relationship, whatsoever, to any specific conduct by the men, women and children, being purged.)
Shortly after that, the British, American and French Nato allies acquiesced again, when the Israelis, using the justification of repelling an attack by their Arab neighbors, drove hundreds of thousands of indigenous Arabs from the new State of Israel; thus creating the Palestinian refugee problem that is still with us.
During the 1960s, the British NATO ally, under Fabian control, deliberately betrayed the interests and vested rights of conservative British ethnic minorities in several African nations; and, with the American NATO ally, sat on their hands when the mixed racial Moslem power structure in their former colony of Nigeria crushed the ethnic aspirations of the Negro Christian Ibo tribesmen in Biafra.
One could go on and on. What was the slaughter at Waco, but an "ethnic cleansing" of a religious sect that the Clinton Administration considered an embarrassment?
In a letter to the Earl of Buchan (Scotland), dated April 22, 1793, our First President, whose personal integrity was all that the present President's is not, wrote:
I believe it is the sincere wish of United America to have nothing to do with the political intrigues, or the squabbles of European Nations; but on the contrary, to exchange commodities and live in peace and amity with all the inhabitants of the Earth. And this I am persuaded they will do, if rightfully it can be done. To administer justice to, and receive it from every power with whom they are connected will I hope, be always found the most prominent feature in the Administration of this Country; and I flatter myself that nothing short of imperious necessity can occasion a breach with any of them.
Under such a system, if we are allowed to pursue it; the agriculture and Mechanical Arts; the wealth and population of these States will increase with that degree of rapidity as to baffle all calculation.
In his celebrated Farewell Address, President Washington--after discussing many of the considerations that go into the formulation of a foreign policy--put it thus:
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence,... the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But the jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided ...Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side... Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little POLITICAL connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence... it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves ...in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships, or enmities:
...'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances with any portion of the foreign world.... Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Washington's Secretary of State, the first five years, was his fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson. In a Memo requested by our First President in 1793, two hundred years before William Clinton began to misuse the same Office to pass judgment on the internal affairs of other Nations, our first Secretary of State stated the essential law of sovereignty, "Nations are to be judges for themselves, since no one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another." That Jefferson's aversion to intervention was, like General Washington's, based upon strength, justice and respect, never a desire for isolation, is amply demonstrated by his August 23rd, 1785, letter from Paris to John Jay, discussing the coming involvement of the newly independent Americans with commerce and transportation on the seas:
We should in every instance preserve an equality of right to them in the transportation of commodities, in the right of fishing, & in the other uses of the sea. But what will be the consequence? Frequent wars without a doubt. Their property will be violated... their persons will be insulted, imprisoned etc. for pretended debts, contracts, crimes, contraband, etc. ... These insults must be resented... yet to prevent their eternal repetition ... our commerce on the ocean & in other countries must be paid for by frequent war....
Justice indeed on our part will save us from those wars which would have been produced by a contrary disposition. But to prevent those produced by the wrongs of other nations? By putting ourselves in a condition to punish them. Weakness provokes insult and injury, while a condition to punish it often prevents it. This reasoning leads to the necessity of some naval force, that being the only weapon with which we can reach an enemy. I think it to our interest to punish the first insult; because an insult unpunished is the parent of many others.
The ultimate danger of the trap which Clinton has set for America, then, is a permanent repudiation of the wise, sound policy, which made us the envy of the ages--the one people on this earth respected by all just men. It was no accident that we prospered, even as Washington predicted. By avoiding the expensive confrontations of the old world, we did not periodically wipe out the fruits of generations of labor. We also avoided the destructive enmity of those victimized by old intrigues. What Clinton and the Internationalists ask us to give up, then, is the basis for our present strength. At the same time, the Administration has been expending weapons, they have no plan or authorization to replace: In brief, disarming America by subterfuge; even as they surrender our sovereignty by indirection; leaving us increasingly dependent upon International bodies, which will suck at our substance even as they destroy all the values that have made us unique.
The issue in the American Revolution was the sovereignty of our peoples--our freedom to go our own path, unfettered by the whims or theories of any other nation. The issue when Jefferson sent the frigates and Marines to deal with the Barbary Pirates at Tripoli in 1801 was the freedom of Americans to navigate the High Seas, unfettered by the avarice of others. (We gave them a whipping, and returned their ship. We did not go in and reform their culture!) The issue in the War of 1812 was something of a composite of those first two conflicts.
The issues in the innumerable Indian Wars, and those with Mexico and Spain may not have been so straight forward; but at least we fought in our own interest--the result a stronger America. Most of the wars in this century were to deal with one or the other of two world-wide threats: The Axis powers or the Communist conspiracy; what George Washington called "extraordinary emergencies," which necessitated "temporary alliances."
With improved communications and a logistical shortening of distances, the importance of keeping free of permanent entanglements will be far more important in the Twenty-First Century than it ever was in the Eighteenth or Nineteenth. The issue then as now is American sovereignty and the American way of life; but the danger now of foreign interference is many times what it was in the beginning. This then--here at home--is the one fight, we have to win!