NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/conspira/14677

Text File | 1993-01-27 | 6.9 KB | 139 lines

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Path: sparky!uunet!peora!usenet.ccur.com!harty
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Harty)
Subject: Re: Globalist Influence in US Government
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (UNIX News)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kevin Harty)
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp. Westford MA.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:39:34 GMT
Lines: 126


Kevin, post as follow up to article by [e-mail] (Marquis de Freud)
--------------------------------------
Posted for pat daly [e-mail] who can not post from his site.
--------------------------------------

> I can't really understand why groups like the John Birch Society and their
> followers are so upset about globalism. The JBS claims to be "Americanist",
> or at least very patriotic toward the USA. From every post I've seen about
> the Evil CFR / Trilateral Commission, assuming the *very worst* about the
> groups, the One World Government would have its capitol in Washington, DC.

The JBS was founded to combat world government (New World Order).
A OWG under the UN will be socialist, authoritarian, and freedom limiting.
The American system of government is the complete opposite in principle
from the United Nations:

The American system is libertarian based: rights are inherent.
The Declaration of Independence states that it is "self-evident" that
we are endowed by the "Creator with certain unalienable Rights".
For the non-religious libertarian, he/she might prefer to say that these
rights are "natural".   Either way, the basic idea is that Americanists do
not recognize rights as government-granted.  The Bill of Rights in this
view, therefore, does not grant rights.  It was designed to be a formal
recognition of inherent rights.  Thus the authors believed "Congress shall
make no law" concerning these rights.

The American system was created with the idea that there exists a Creator,
granting rights to individuals.  This much at least was assumed by the
Founders as evident in the text of the Declaration of Independence.  The first
amendment indicates, however, that government should go no further in defining
any particular religion to be established.  A hierarchy exists in this
perspective: God->Individual->Government.  Government is subservient to the
individual and exists to protect rights of the individual (and mainly for
this reason).

Consider now the UN Declaration of Human Rights.  The UN view is something
completely different.  The difference is fundamental.  There is no mention of
God anywhere, nor is there is no alternative non-religous recognition
of natural rights.  The hierarchy in this perspective: Government->Individual.

The preface does say that "these rights belong to you", but this is not
the same as saying the rights are granted by an authority higher than the UN.
One has to assume that it is the UN granting the rights.

Indeed, as you read on you will see that article 29 paragraph (3) blows
all guarantees of rights to the winds by a blanket clause that states:
    "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary
    to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

(Perhaps my negative comments on the UN are against its principles...)

Likewise, the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is riddled
with escape clauses that destroy rather than secure rights.
In the act of "granting" a right, it qualifies it out of existence.
The parallels between such UN documents and a Soviet style constitution
("we'll tell you what rights you have") are very strong.

For example, Article 22:
    "Everyone shall have the right to freedom or association
    with others"

    "No restriction may be placed on the exercise of this right
    other than those which are prescribed by law..."

So, in the UN scheme, a government can pass laws to restrict this right
out of existence.  Compare this with the American Constitution which
states "Congress shall make no law..."

Gun owners should be aware that there is not even a hint of a right to
bear arms in any UN document anywhere.  Go to the UN plaza and you will be
confronted by a large and obnoxious sculpture of a revolver having its
barrel tied in a knot.  Somebody recently posted the State Department
publication 7277 which outlines a plan for disarming national armies
and handing over the military to control of the UN.  This plan has not been
withdrawn and will proceed only as fast as globalists dare push it along.
Now think about the future chances of survival for the individual RKBA in a
New World Order that wants to disarm national armies.


> Personally, I don't think these groups are much more than social clubs with
> a civic/academic bent. C. Wright Mill's *The Power Elite* seems to have come
> closer to the point -- that "conspiracies" are just cliques in a political
> culture.

Government officials, including our President, belong to these groups.
The CFR does not allow disclosure of its meetings and may dismiss a member
who does so.  Considering the high powered officials who belong, I think
the meetings should be on C-SPAN.  After all, what they discuss and come
to consensus on affects us all immensely.  If they had no power to set
plans in motion, then I would agree that it would be a "social club".

However, when you have the President, Secretary of State, CIA Director,
National Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Treasury,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many others belonging to an
an organization such as the CFR having a closed-door meeting policy,
meeting with similarly high-ranking government officials, then I worry.

The JBS views this organization as a de facto stand-aside government
advocating destruction of our sovereignty which would mean great loss
of freedom.  Here's an infamous quote by a State Department veteran and
CFR member Richard Gardner from the CFR journal "Foreign Affairs", April 1974
(article entitled "Hard Road to World Order"):

    "An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece,
    is likely to get us to world order faster than the old-fashioned
    frontal attack."

Gardner is now a Clinton advisor.  He was a former Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State, and a former Ambassador to Italy.


> I'm sure there are plenty of things to worry about from the circles of power
> throughout the world. I greatly doubt "globalism" is one of them.

In One World Government, where do you run and hide when the government
becomes abusive?  With individual nation-states, at least you can seek
refuge in a freer country.  Even as things stand today, we have seen that
a government can hold a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, perform
mass murder of its citizens, including running over them with tanks, and
then get granted Most Favored Nation trade status.  Imagine how much worse
OWG can be when political dissenters have no place to escape.

> ------
> [e-mail] (Marquis de Freud)
> The Cellar BBS - [phone]