As an addition to the article below, see this, this, this, this and this.
The United Nations (UN) has been shelved, sidelined, consigned to the trash heap—at least temporarily—by the one world dreamers who once saw the global body as the means of establishing a world hegemon.
Today’s imperialists—standard bearers for an ancient philosophy hostile to all forms of nationalism other than their own—now envision the United States as the driving force to implement the New
World Order of which they have dreamed for generations. The United States is their “New Jerusalem” and they intend to use America’s military might to achieve their aims.
For nearly 50 years, the major media in America told Americans—and people around the globe—that the UN was “the last best hope for mankind.” That theme was a ritualistic mantra in American public schools. Anyone who dared criticize the UN was marginalized— damned as an “extremist” hostile to humanity itself.
However, in the 1970s, things began to change. As Third World nations emerged from their colonial status, and as Israel’s oppression of the Christian and Muslim people of Palestinian-Arab heritage
became a topic of worldwide concern, the UN took on a new complexion— at least as far as the media monopoly in America was concerned.
Suddenly, the UN was no longer considered such a wonderful thing after all. Finally, when—in 1975—the UN passed its historic resolution condemning Zionism as a form of racism, the wheel turned full circle. For issuing a direct challenge to Zionism, the foundation behind the establishment in 1948 of the State of Israel (as well as a spiritual capital of an impending worldwide Zionist empire), the UN was painted by the media—much of it in the hands of Zionist families and financial interests—as an unquestioned villain.
Suddenly, criticism of the UN was quite “respectable.” And in the United States, an emerging so-called “neo-conservative” movement— led by a tightly-knit clique of Jewish ex-Trotskyite communists under the tutelage of one Irving Kristol and his acolyte, Norman Podhoretz, editor of the American Jewish Committee’s highly influential monthly journal, Commentary—made the burgeoning attack on the UN a centerpiece of its agenda.
However, it was not until the ascension to power in January, 2001 of President George W. Bush’s administration that the effort to “get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of the U.S.” (or variants
thereof) became part of the actual policy-making framework in official Washington.
The appropriation of the American national security establishment by a host of neo-conservatives appointed to office by Bush—every single one of them, to a man, proteges of the aforementioned
Irving Kristol and his son, William Kristol, a powerful media commentator and behind-the-scenes policy maker in his own right—assured that the campaign against the UN would be central to Bush administration policy.
In addition, of course, the anti-UN rhetoric received increasingly even more widespread support throughout the American media. For example, writing in The New York Daily News, a journal published by Mortimer Zuckerman, the former president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (the governing body of the American Zionist movement), one columnist, Andrea Peyser, referred to “the anti-American, anti- Semitic rats infesting the banks of the East River.”
Should anyone still doubt that the reason for opposition to the UN stemmed from the fact that the world body stood in the way of the demands of Israel, note the revealing commentary by
Cal Thomas, a long-time associate of Rev. Jerry Falwell, one of the most vociferous advocates for Israel in America today.
In a Dec. 12, 2004 column for The Washington Times, Thomas endorsed long-time criticisms of the UN which he—by his own admission—previously considered the work of “the fringe.” Thomas said that “the world would be better off without this body.”
Noting that many Americans never felt the UN would be good for America, Thomas asserted that he always felt that those who said such things were to be ignored. Here’s what Thomas wrote:
In college days, I was aware of them. They were the fringe, and beyond, those who believed Dwight Eisenhower was a closet communist; the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations were part of the drive for “one world government”; Jewish bankers ran the world economy, and the United States should get out of the United Nations.
According to Thomas: “Without buying into the paranoia and conspiracy theories, I am now a convert to the last one.” Thomas’s assertion in this regard is a candid exposition of the Zionist
lobby’s attitude toward the UN, now that the world body has very clearly fallen out of the hands of the Zionist movement and is considered, in their view, “un-manageable” or “beyond repair,” so to
speak.
In fact, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the Zionists do indeed perceive the United States as the new mechanism by which they seek to accomplish their goals, pushing the
UN to the sidelines. The grand scheme for a New World Order—in the wake of America’s new “imperial” role—was imparted quite directly in a major two-part policy paper in the Summer 2003 and Winter 2004 issues of The Journal of International Security Affairs, voice of the definitively influential Jewish Institute for National Security Policy (JINSA).
Previously a little-known Washington think tank, JINSA is now often publicly acknowledged as the guiding force behind Bush foreign policy today. One JINSA critic, Professor Edward Herman,
has even gone so far as to describe JINSA as “a virtual agency of the Israeli government.”
The author of the JINSA paper, Alexander H. Joffe, a pro- Israel academic, has been a regularly featured writer in JINSA’s journal, certainly reflecting the high regard in which his views are
held by the Zionist elite. His two-part series was entitled, The Empire That Dared Not Speak Its Name, propounding the theme that “America is an empire,” suggesting that, yes, this is a very
good thing.
The new global regime to be established would find America as “the center of a new international system” in “a world that looks like America, and is therefore safe for all.” However, what
America “looks like” is what the Zionists want it to look like—not necessarily what the American people perceive America to be.
Joffe stated flatly that: “The end of the General Assembly as a credible body may plausibly be ascribed to the infamous ‘Zionism is Racism’ resolution in 1975,” (which, incidentally, has
since been repealed). The JINSA author contended that the world should be “grateful” that the UN has been “discredited, reduced to farce and ultimately ground to a halt.” As a result of the UN being shelved as a world government vehicle, wrote Joffe, “We now have the opportunity, and obligation,
to begin again.” However, he warned that even the emerging European Union (EU) is a threat to the dream of a global empire (at least, obviously, in the view of the Zionist movement).
The JINSA writer asserted that the EU is an “alternative vision for the international community,” one that, as he put it frankly, is “the authentic counter-vision to an American Empire.” According to Joffe, the biggest problem with Europe and the EU is that “culture remains at the core of Europe’s problems. Nationalism was a doctrine born in Europe, as were its vicious mutant offspring: fascism and communism.” (A fervent advocate of Israeli super-nationalism, the writer doesn’t seem to see the logic in his attack on other peoples’ nationalism.)
Joffe complained that although “the new European Empire is multicultural in theory … in reality it is dominated politically and culturally by France and economically by Germany.” Today, in the
EU, he said, “Driven by a sense of postcolonial guilt and postwar ennui, the door has been thrown open to all ideas. At the most sinister levels it has permitted and even legitimized a vast explosion
of unhinged thought and action, namely anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and a wide variety of conspiracy theories.”
In any case, what Joffe described as “the other kind of liberal internationalism” is what the Zionist movement favors. Joffe defined it as such: Given our history and our values, that future lies in leveraging the American Empire in such a way that it becomes the basis of a new democratic
international system.
In the second-part of his extended essay, published in the winter 2004 issue of JINSA’s journal, Joffe pursued this further, expanding on his call for what he described as “an empire that looks like America.”
Yet, in spite of his rhetoric about “democracy,” Joffe frankly talked about the United States engaging in massive imperial conquests in the trouble-torn regions of Africa—presumably after the
United States has already made havoc in the Arab countries of the Middle East: The conditions under which America and its allies would simply take over and restore African countries are far from clear. What are the thresholds for intervention? What are the procedures and outcomes? Who will fight and who will pay? The restoration of Africa would involve long-term commitments and immense costs, of the sort that could only be paid for by Africa itself. That is to say, it would probably require American economic control to go along with political and cultural control.
Colonialism is always pay as you go, and it is not pretty. The question is both whether Africa can pay the price (or afford not to), and whether America has the stomach. Of course, Africa is not the only target of Joffe and his likeminded schemers. Joffe wrote of a wide-ranging global agenda—
well beyond the African continent. In the end, however, Joffe let the cat out of the bag about the real intentions of those who are using United States military power as the mechanism for a bigger agenda.
“New arrangements,” he said, “must come into being under American leadership to provide an alternative for states that are willing to accept rights and responsibilities.” Joffe dreams of a
United Nations that has been re-made under the imperial force of the United States. And ultimately, he predicts the possibility of a world government, writing: Possibly, after a period of chaos and anger,
which in any event would simply intensify existing states of being, the institution [the United Nations] might be bludgeoned into changing. [emphasis added]
Rather than a club that admits all, the 21st century United Nations might—someday, somehow—
be remade into an exclusive, by invitation, members-only group, of free, democratic states,
sharing similar values. Or in the end, replaced by one. That day, however, may be decades off.
Should there be any doubt that he is talking about world government, note Joffe’s concluding words:
The best way to preserve the American empire is to eventually give it up. Setting the stage for
global governance can only be done with American leadership and American-led institutions of the
sort schematically outlined here.
What it all comes down to is the use of America’s military power to advance another (secret) agenda altogether. Here, in the pages of a Zionist journal, we have learned precisely what the “story behind the story” actually is. It has nothing to do, even with a “strong America” or, for that matter, even with America itself.
The United States is simply a pawn—albeit a powerful one—in the game, being ruthlessly shifted about in a scheme for world dominance by an elite few operating behind the scenes. Further evidence that this is indeed the view of the Zionist movement comes from no less a source than Israel’s former ambassador to the UN, Dore Gold. In his 2004 book, Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos, Gold outlined a scenario for a new global regime—under United States diktat—pushing aside the UN. He wrote: The United States and its Western allies won the Cold War but obviously no longer have the common goal of containing Soviet expansionism as the
glue holding together a coalition. Still, a coalition of allies could start with neutralizing the greatest
threat to international peace today: global terrorism, another threat that the UN has failed to counter
effectively … the issue of terrorism relates to a number of other concerns common to all of these nations: the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the proliferation of sensitive military technologies, terrorist financing and money laundering, and the incitement of ethnic hatred and violence in national media as well as in educational institutions. Their commitment to curtailing these threats would lead democracies around the world to join together and take action …
Such a democratic coalition would be far more representative of the national will of each country’s citizens than the UN currently is. Oddly, by going outside the UN, these countries would be
recommitting themselves to the principles of which the UN was originally founded. They would embrace the principles laid out in the UN Charter and insist that members of the coalition fully adhere—not just give lip service—to a basic code of international conduct … in short, while Gold and his Zionist allies see global government worthy of support, they do not see the UN as the means by which to achieve it. Gold elaborated further, describing a new mechanism for achieving a New World Order: Because the UN has lost the moral clarity of its founders, the United States and its allies must take the lead. The world will follow in time. If more than one hundred nations wanted to join the Community of Democracies, the democratic ideal must be powerful.
In fact, although it was not widely noticed at the time, a so called “Community of Democracies” was inaugurated by the Clinton administration’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in June, 2000. So the mechanism is already in place. Gold concluded that the United States and it allies might ultimately “reinvigorate the UN and make the organization’s system of collective security,”
but, he added, “That day is a long way off.” In the meantime, media voices for the Israeli lobby have promoted Gold’s concept of what might be described as a “parallel” UN under the domination of the United States and its purported allies.
For example, on February 6, 2005 writing in The Washington Times, Clifford D. May raised this question: “Is it not high time at least to consider alternatives to the United Nations, to explore
possibly developing new organizations in which democratic societies would work together against common enemies and for common goals?”
However, the evidence is indisputable that this is not just the Zionist propaganda line. This philosophy directed the thinking of the Bush administration. When President George Bush made his
call for a worldwide “democratic” revolution in his second inaugural address, he was doing little more than echoing the opinions of Israeli cabinet minister Natan Sharansky, an influential figure
who is considered more hard-line than even Israel’s ruling premier, Ariel Sharon. Not only did Bush publicly and warmly endorse Sharansky, but media reports revealed that Sharansky played a major part in helping draft Bush’s inaugural address.
This is particularly relevant in the context of Sharansky’s harsh words for the UN and what he has offered in his own work, The Case for Democracy, widely touted as “the bible” of Bush foreign policy. In the closing pages of his book, Sharansky summed it up: To protect and promote democracy around the world, I believe that a new international institution, one in which only those governments who give their people the right to be heard and counted, will themselves have a right to be heard and
counted can be an enormously important force for democratic change … This community of free
nations will not emerge on its own … I am convinced that a successful effort to expand freedom
around the world must be inspired and led by the United States.
So it is once again: the concept of the United States being the force for global realignment. And although there was worldwide criticism—even from so-called “democracies”—of Bush’s call for
worldwide democratic revolution based on the Sharansky model, the American Jewish newspaper, Forward, noted on January 28, 2005 that “one world leader endorsed Bush’s approach unreservedly”— former Israeli Prime Minister (and current finance minister) Benjamin Netanyahu.
Citing a speech the Israeli leader recently gave in Florida, Forward said Netanyahu proclaimed:
President Bush called for democratization and he’s on to something very profound. Can the Arab
world be democratized? Yes—slowly, painfully. And who can democratize it? As in everywhere else in the world, in all societies, whether it’s Latin America, the former Soviet Union, or South Africa, democracy was always achieved by outside pressure. And who delivered that pressure? One country: the U.S.
To say more would belabor this simple conclusion: Although, for years, the Zionists denounced American patriots for saying that it was time to “Get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of
the U.S.,” now that the Zionists have lost control of the UN—which they originally perceived as their vehicle for establishing a New World Order—the Zionists are targeting the UN precisely because
they have determined that the military and financial resources of the United States are their best bet for establishing that New World Order of which they long dreamed. The Zionists want the United States to serve as the engine for assembling a world empire under their control.
In the end, this does tell us who “The High Priests of War” are and what their agenda really is. Remaining to be seen is what the American people—and all other real patriots around the
globe—intend to do about it. The question is this: will the world finally decide that it is time to declare war against The High Priests of War?
No comments:
Post a Comment