< Changing Worldviews.Commentary >

Words are powerful - Thoughts shape - Ideas have consequences

Debra Rae

Author, "ABCs of Globalism"
Posted April 19, 2004

The Octopus Chronicles
Reaching Every Arena of Society

Not long ago, personal friend of Bill Clinton and former Foreign Policy Adviser, Strobe Talbot made a startling pronouncement about the future of the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” “The next one hundred years,” he contended, “will render obsolete any concept of nationhood,” for “all states will recognize a single, global authority.” Talbot is not a lone prophet. In fact, the agenda for global governance is well underway.

Looking back in time, recall that Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address recognized America as a nation-state, unequivocally under God. Accordingly, the Civil War battlefield became resting place for patriots who spilled their blood so that self-government “of the people, by the people, and for the people should not perish from the earth.” As we enter the 21st century, death in the name of democracy has taken another course, spotlighting a very different dynamic. This time around, America’s proud sovereignty and rugged individualism are topmost targets. Perhaps surprisingly, the aggressor is a brand of so-called social democracy that, unless restrained, is destined to complete a cynical cycle typifying the world’s greatest civilizations to date.

History confirms that a pure democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. According to Scottish history professor Alexander Tyler (University of Edinburgh, 1787), two hundred years is its estimated average length. You see, once the majority discovers they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury, that democracy is destined to collapse due to loose fiscal policy. Professor Tyler warns that a dictatorship inevitably follows. The pattern is plain—namely, from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back to bondage. Repeated historically by world democracies, this progression is all too familiar to vigilant 21st century Americans.

It is no wonder that founder Benjamin Rush fingered a simple democracy as “the devil’s own government.” With this in view, the US Constitution requires each state to maintain a republican form of government. Today’s global cry to democratize the world exacts a price—that being, forfeiture of America’s Constitutional Republic with its Divinely inspired and uniquely political perspective that rights are endowed by the Creator, not the State. In contrast, the internationalist’s view of democracy means that government decides to allow certain individuals to participate in some of the discussions relating to particular policy proposals. Selected participants support the policy in question. So much for government under God “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Arguably the father of liberal internationalism, Joseph S. Nye, Jr. believes that U.S. choices will influence the make-up of global governance, which by nature necessitates consensus between international capitalism and Marxism. Enter the Council on Foreign Relations. From its conception, America’s preeminent non-governmental foreign affairs organization has consistently demonstrated open intent to consolidate power.

In the Saturday Evening Post (17 July 1926), Arthur D. Howden Smith profiled the principal architect of the council, Colonel Edward Mandell House, one who dismissed the U.S. Constitution as being outdated. Furthermore, House espoused Karl Marx’s doltish dream of a global social democracy, reflecting in the State an egalitarian super-status for the mass proletariat.

On Christmas Day 2000, “citizen of the planet” and would-be environmentalist Mikhail Gorbachev wrote a letter to George W. Bush. Published in the Washington Post, this communiqué insisted that America’s claim to hegemony is not recognized worldwide. That the 21st century can, or even should, be “the American century” is “illusory,” “devoid of meaning,” and “dangerous.” He further asserted that America’s extraordinary privilege is not tenable over the long run. To build Mikhail’s “New Paradigm,” U.S. policy must yield to that of an allegedly superior transnational federal government stripped of the worldwide system of checks and balances inherent in sovereign nation-states.

Former President Ronald Reagan rightly observed that a nation without borders is not a nation at all. Yet Democratic Socialists of America advance the menacing notion that “now is the time to press for the subordination of national sovereignty” to make way for democratic transnationalism (Eco-Socialist Review Summer 1991). Dismantling borders of nation-states has come to be known among its proponents as “harmonization.”

In A Reporter’s Life, the “most trusted man in America” called for a border-less Brave New World—even at the expense of America’s precious sovereignty. When this mainstream media mogul, Walter Cronkite, accepted the prestigious 1999 World Federalist Association Norman Cousins Global Governance Award, he was applauded by fellow globalists. Among them were Nane Annon and Hillary Clinton; 60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl and Ed Bradley; actress Catherine Zeta-Jones and actor Michael Douglas, dubbed “UN Messenger of Peace” (Teichrib 2000).

Liberal popular icons, as these, are collaborating with apparent success to catapult this bankrupt harmonization schema. David Rockefeller’s protégé Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR member and founding director of the Trilateral Commission) grants that “the nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty.” In support of this process, Brzezinski underscores Marxism as a creative, vital stage in what he calls “man’s maturing vision.”

Marx’s Manifesto advances the theory that having evolved through stages of slavery, feudalism, and capitalism, human society must then advance to communism. The apparent collapse of Cold War communism sets the stage, albeit under false pretense, for a comely cousin called commonism. While rendering communism and capitalism passé, commonism transforms private and national assets into common property. Celebrating “the common heritage of mankind,” commonism morphs national identities into “nondescript and indistinguishable arrangements to some unidentified whole” (De Weese 2000).

Not a pretty picture. It’s as if this global utopia were an octopus with eight gangly arms wrapped around the very throat of nationhood. While not considered dangerous, the rare deep-sea giant octopus feeds on small animals and spans in excess of 32 ft./10 m. Moreover, this slithering sea scalawag varies its coloration to match the background and, when threatened, releases clouds of ink to muddy the waters round about. Similarly, the seemingly benign beast of globalism devours nation-states unaware of pending peril. To advance its multifaceted agenda, this creature in the sea of nations effectively plays the chameleon and, when threatened, releases clouds of distraction to befuddle its opponents.

It can be said that arms of the octopus of globalism represent specific unexpectedly interrelated fields of politics, economics, environment, education, philosophy, culture, religion, and technology. In the months ahead, we will take a closer look at each as the Octopus Chronicles unfold.

© Debra Rae 2004 Reprinted with Permission

Debra Rae received her Master of Education degree from the University of Washington, and her Bachelor of Theology Master of Ministries degrees from Pacific School of Theology. Her work spans pre-school through adult education, including teaching at the American School of Kuwait, during which time she tutored the daughter of Kuwait's Head of Parliament. After marrying Debra joined her husband in further exploration of Africa, Asia, East- and West- Europe, North- and South- Americas -- about 70,000 miles their first year of marriage! One trip featured a memorable jaunt on the elegant British Concorde. Her book, ABCs of Globalism has prompted numerous radio interviews aired across the nation, the Western Hemisphere, Russia, and the Middle East. And her latest, the ABC’s of Cultural-isms is its sequel.