A VERY REAL CONSPIRACY

As an answer to every Bill Clinton indiscretion or any democratic anti-American policy blunder, Hillary Clinton made famous the phrase “right wing conspiracy”. There never was one of course, but it always accomplished the much needed diversion from the endless stream of Clinton scandals by shifting focus off of the immediate scandal, onto the imaginary conspiracy.

However, a very real conspiracy is underway in America today, it isn’t coming from those “nasty right wingers”, and the proof is all around us.

The Democratic Party has been promoting the idea that Republicans intend to steal the 2004 election. The rhetorical theory used to promote this idea is mass voter suppression. The rhetoric reached such a fever pitch that Democrats demanded and received outside international monitoring of the upcoming election, as if we were some third world country struggling with our first election, a move that may forever change our national sovereignty concerning the U.S. election process, and not for the better.

What if I told you that this was no accident? That an evil mastermind who became one of the world’s richest men by crippling the economies of countless nations around the globe, was using his ill gotten billions to control American policy by positioning himself to control the man in the White House?

What if I told you that this evil man has an evil plan for America, a plan that was designed to weaken America by legalizing illicit drug use, promoting free abortions coast to coast, attacking the traditional family unit, abolishing religious speech and gun rights, installing a socialist form of government, outlawing capitalism, and subjecting the governance of the United States to a one world order, under a one world court?

This man exists, his name is George Soros, this is his history, these are his plans, and you better read his book, The Bubble of American Supremacy.

What if I told you he was able to infiltrate one of the two major U.S. political parties, aligning himself with powerful party operatives, buying their loyalty at a time when they would otherwise be given no power at all by the American people through the normal election process?

What if I told you he was able to do so by first successfully pushing for campaign finance reform, then immediately circumventing that reform legislation through a carefully designed web of 527 shadow party organizations set up to outspend and overpower the legitimate election process?

Well he has, his co-conspirators include noteworthy political operatives like Morton H. Halperin, Leslie Gelb, Daniel Ellsberg, John Podesta; Jeremy Rosner, Steven Rosenthal, and others. If you don’t know who these people are, I suggest you search them immediately; they are all part of the far left wing of the Democratic Party, and all powerful party insiders.

Soros was one of the major supporters of campaign finance reform that culminated in the passage of McCain-Feingold, and then the first to circumvent that law through shadow party organization that include 527’s America Coming Together, The Media Fund, MoveOn.org, Center for American Progress, America Votes, Joint Victory Campaign 2004, and The Thunder Road Group, just to name a few.

Most American’s believe these to be innocent grass roots campaign “get out the vote” type efforts led by average concerned American’s, but nothing could be further from the truth. All of these organizations are shadow party groups funded and controlled by George Soros and his band of socialist brothers.

What if I told you that mainstream news rooms across America were working in tandem with these organizations, their backers, and the DNC Kerry Campaign by shaping the headlines to suit the purposes of this so-called “progressive” agenda, in a clear cut attempt to advance their common cause of a socialist America?

If you hadn’t noticed before, it should be clear after watching the events of “memogate” unfold at CBS, involving one of America’s most respected news casters Dan Rather, and his accomplished producer, Mary Mapes.

If that doesn’t convince you, maybe comments from Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw’s defense of Rather and Mapes will, both of whom are more angered by the fact that CBS was caught, than what CBS did, both of whom are more concerned with what they term “White House attempts to smear Dan Rather” than Dan Rather’s fraudulent attempt to smear a sitting war time President.

What if I told you that the international monitors being brought in to oversee the 2004 Presidential election were corrupt left wing operatives themselves, also interested in removing Bush from office in an effort to bring America to its knee’s in the world community? They are…

What if I told you that an attempt to steal this election is underway, not by anyone’s effort to suppress votes, but rather to count illegal fraudulent votes being manufactured by the Democratic “get out the vote” effort, heavily concentrated in Democratic precincts and American prisons? It is…

What if I told you that the Democratic Party has hired 25,000 attorney’s focused on 17 battleground states where the DNC hopes the vote is close enough to challenge, for the purpose of forcing unsuspecting local election volunteers to accept every voter, legitimate or not? They have…

What if I told you that the Democratic ticket, John Kerry and John Edwards, along with all of these co-conspiracy efforts were publicly supported, in part designed by both the Socialist and Communist Parties based right here in the good old United States of America? They are!

And what if I told you that the mainstream press has no intention of reporting any of this, but rather to continue undermining the President, the war on terror, and the U.S. economy in order to assist with the election of John Kerry?

What if I told you that a vote for John Kerry and John Edwards was a vote to support all of this evil activity, against the will of more than 80% of the troops serving in battle today, and at odds with every soldier who has ever given his life for the freedom’s and liberties we so freely abuse today?

What if I told you that more than 40% of the American voting population intends to do just that? This would be the conspiracy of all conspiracies, wouldn’t it?

What if I told you that the Kerry campaign, the national media, and international terrorists are helping each other? They are, every time terrorists strike, the Kerry camp cranks up their anti-war rhetoric, the national press only covers those attacks, none of the rest of the story, resulting in shaken U.S. resolve and support for the war on terror, and terrorists are rewarded for their efforts. The defeat of their strongest opponent, George W. Bush, being their ultimate goal.

The problem is its ALL true, every last word of it, every supporting link, every accusation, and every piece of this sorted puzzle. It isn’t just a conspiracy theory, it is a real life massive conspiracy intended to unseat Bush at any cost, and bring American power down to a level acceptable to the balance of the world.

The world, in particular members of the EU, is not happy with only one remaining superpower, even when it is America, who has liberated more than 70 countries, including most of the EU nations, and has fed the world for decades.

Well, you are the only one who can stop it! By helping to make certain this information reaches the American people, and by casting your vote to defeat these efforts.

No amount of money, no amount of wishing or waiting will make it go away. Only your vote can stop it. Soros supporters will be there November 2nd, every last one of them, even those who have no idea what they are supporting, and don’t want to know.

Montreal, January 18, 2003 / No 117

<< page précédente

Ralph Maddocks is a retired textile executive and former management consultant. He lives in Cowansville, Quebec.

MUSINGS BY MADDOCKS TRANSNATIONAL PROGRESSIVISM (Part Two)

by Ralph Maddocks

          Each year, in a different country, a secret meeting is held which is attended by a number of prominent politicians, government representatives, bankers, industrialists and academics. The conference, known as Bilderberg, is named after the Bilderberg Hotel in Osterbeek, Holland, where the original meeting was held in 1954 under the Chairmanship of HRH Bernard, Prince of the Netherlands. Many countries are represented at each meeting which publishes no proceedings, among them Canada which in 1967 for example sent four representatives: a banker, a Toronto University professor, a former Ambassador and the then Minister for External Affairs. At that time the post was held by none other than the late Paul Martin Sr. Along with the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group is alleged to be among the prime movers in the creation of the New World Order, a collaborative effort to establish "World Government."

          Thus it was not very surprising to read the speech by the late Paul Martin Sr's son at the University of Toronto convocation address on Tuesday 17 December 2002. The younger Mr Martin, heir apparent to the Chrétien legacy of governmental incompetence, believes that Canada is the only country on the planet able to shape the future of global government. Many may have found this surprising since we don't seem to be doing all that well when it comes to governing ourselves as a nation-state, a form of government which Mr Martin seems to believe is no longer adequate in a globalized world. He admits that the USA is not interested in a new model of global governance, the Europeans are too busy building Europe, the countries of the Far East are too busy with old rivalries and Latin America is mired "deep in economic problems" and "poverty and misery." Hence his view that Canada is the one country with the capacity to understand the direction in which the world must go. Mr Martin believes that immigration in Europe and the US has not changed their "core identities" whereas in Canada the immigrants "are in the process of changing and enriching fundamentally" Canada's identity.

The Demographic Imperative

          This brings me back to Transnational Progressivism about which I wrote in my last article. Among the lengthy list of points which John Fonte raised in his article, was one he described as the Demographic Imperative. This, he explained, means that the Tranzis require Americans to alter their value system because of the major demographic changes which are occurring there as massive immigration from non-Western countries takes place. The Tranzis claim that the global interdependence of the world's peoples and the transnational connections among them will increase and that these changes will make the traditional paradigm obsolete. In other words, a society based on individual rights, majority rule, national sovereignty, citizenship, and the assimilation of immigrants must be changed to a system promoting "diversity" or group proportionalism.

          The Tranzis then would redefine democracy and "democratic ideals." The system of majority rule among equal citizens would yield to power sharing among ethnic groups composed of citizens and non-citizens. Fonte provides as an example, the words of the Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castenada who wrote that it is "undemocratic" for California to exclude non-citizens, specifically illegal aliens, from voting. A view which is supported by the former US Immigration and Naturalisation General Counsel, T. Alexander Aleinikoff, who declared that "[we] live in a post assimilationist age," adding that majority preferences simply "reflect the norms and cultures of dominant groups," (as opposed to the norms and cultures of "feminists and people of colour.") In effect what is being said is that American democracy is not authentic and that "real" democracy is yet to be created when the different "peoples" or groups within America "share power" as groups.

          The Tranzis have been active in recent years busily deconstructing the symbols and traditions of the Western democratic nation-states. In the UK, a Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain chaired by the Labour life peer Lord Parekh denounced the concept of "Britishness" as having "systemic [...] racist connotations." The noble peer declared too that, instead of defining itself as a nation, the UK should be considered a "community of communities." The Commission found the concepts of "Britain" and "nation" troubling. Other pronouncements from this gathering of like-minded globalists sought to recognise Britain formally as a "multicultural society," whose history needs to be "revised, rethought, or jettisoned."

          The USA has not escaped similar deconstructionist activity and the view is being advanced that the US civilisation is not a Western nation formed by European settlers, but a "convergence" of three civilisations, Amerindian, West African and European. A proposition which has become dominant in America's public schools.

"Denationalised" citizenship

          Another concept which is being advanced, writes Fonte, is that citizenship should be "denationalised." In the name of "inclusion," "social justice," "democratic engagement" and "human rights" some theorists argue for "transnational citizenship," "postnational citizenship" or even "global citizenship" embedded in international human rights accords and "evolving" forms of transnational arrangements. To this end, a number of books have been published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, dealing with such matters as "challenging traditional understandings of belonging and membership" in nation-states and "rethinking the meaning of citizenship." These essays by authors from countries such as France, Germany, Britain and Canada argue for new and "evolving" transnational forms of citizenship as a normative good.

          Fonte believes that the theory of transnationalism will be the next stage of the multicultural ideology and he expects it to be for the first decade of the 21st century what multiculturalism was during the last decade of the 20th century. A kind of multiculturalism with a human face, a concept that gives the elites an empirical tool (a plausible analysis of what is) and an ideological framework (a vision of what should be). My dictionary defines plausible as being "apparently right, using specious (pleasing to the eye) arguments." Those who argue in favour of transnationalism believe that globalization requires some form of transnational "global governance" because, like our Mr Martin, they think that the nation-state and the concept of national citizenship are not suited to dealing with the global problems we may expect in the future.

          We can expect to be bombarded with all kinds of combinations of terms preceded by the word transnational such as "t-citizenship," "t-actors," "t-organisation," "t-migrants,"and "t-jurisprudence." Academics at public policy conferences will be spouting these words, just as during the last decade they wittered on about multiculturalism and education, law, literature and citizenship. A distinguished anthropologist from the University of Chicago has opined that the USA is in transition from being a "land of immigrants" to "one node in a post-national network of diasporas."

« Fonte believes that the theory of transnationalism will be the next stage of the multicultural ideology and he expects it to be for the first decade of the 21st century what multiculturalism was during the last decade of the 20th century. »

          According to Fonte, the arguments about globalization which will dominate public debate during the early part of this century will use transnationalism to shape it. Those who believe in the concept of the nation-state will be castigated as backward looking anti-globalists, and those who espouse transnationalism will be praised as forward-looking globalists. Those who believe in internationalism and free market economics will have to insist that the argument is not between the globalists and the anti-globalists but over the form that Western global engagement should take in the future: transnationalist or internationalist.

Producers/popularisers/practitioners

          Mr Fonte defines the social base of global progressivism as a "rising post-national intelligentsia," loosely defined as including three elements; the producers of ideas and concepts, the popularisers of ideas and values and the practitioners who implement ideas and values at all levels. He says that to belong to this group intelligence is not particularly required and could include anyone from a Western government official to a kindergarten teacher pushing the crudest form of multiculturalism. He cites as examples, John O'Sullivan's "... lumpenintelligentsia of teachers, librarians, researchers, small-town-newspaper "liberals," clergymen, and assorted ancillary brainworkers," first posited in his article in the October 15, 2001, issue of National Review.

          The leaders in this post-national intelligentsia, according to Fonte, will include law professors at prestigious Western universities, activists in the NGOs, UN and EU bureaucrats and administrators, corporate executives and politicians throughout the West. Fonte cites such luminaries as Anthony Giddens, the "Third Way" theorist who has said already that he is "in favour of pioneering some quasi-utopian trans-national forms of democracy." Others include Martha Nussbaum, the Chicago University Professor of Philosophy, who calls for reinvigorating the concept of "global citizenship" denouncing patriotism as "indistinguishable from jingoism."

          In addition, we have the Italian Marxist theorist – a jailed former associate of Italy's Red Brigade – Toni Negri, and Duke University Literature Professor, Michael Hardt – a former student of his – whose best-selling book Empire has been praised by the New York Times as the next big idea. Empire used Marxist concepts such as the "multitudes" (read "the masses") versus the Empire, attacking the power of the global corporations and called for a new form of "global" or transnational democracy.

          On the other side he quotes Strobe Talbot – of whom we heard in QL no 115 (see SOCIAL GLOBALIZATION) – and the late Carl Gerstacker, Chairman of Dow Chermical in the 1960s and 1970s, who expressed the libertarian thread of transnationalism when he declared "I have long dreamed of buying an island owned by no nation and of establishing the World Headquarters of the Dow Company on the truly neutral ground of such an island, beholden to no nation or society."

Some kind of inevitability

          While some of this may seem diffuse and uncoordinated it should not be forgotten that many of the NGOs spend a great deal of their time trying to bring about transnationalism. These social movements with their ideologies of "global governance" and "transnationalism" imply that there is some kind of inevitability about it all because it is the result of social forces or the movement of history. It isn't. If it happens at all it will be like all the previous movements such as the Bolshevik Revolution, the New Deal, the European Union and the National Socialist Revolution. It will be because of the exercise of political will by elites who mobilised their strengths and conquered all their opponents. Just like "diversity" and "multiculturalism," transnationalism and global governance are not the forces of history but simply ideological tools advocated by the activist elites.

          What is being attempted is the achievement by the NGOs of political ends that cannot be achieved by democratic means. It is done by going outside the democratic framework and is exemplified by such issues as the International Criminal Court, the UN Convention on Women's Rights, the Kyoto Treaty on global warming, etc. The latter being particularly pertinent in Canada where we have just seen the Kyoto Treaty rubber stamped by a parliament whose elected Liberal majority feared the political consequences of opposing their discredited leader in his quest for a so-called legacy. In an Ipsos-Reid poll, almost half of Canadians (45%) said that the Government of Canada "should withdraw from the Kyoto protocol and develop a made-in-Canada plan for reducing greenhouse gasses." Essentially the same number (44%) said that Canada should "ratify the Kyoto Protocol," but, one in ten (9%) said they "don't know" what the federal government should do.

          Dissent was even greater in the West, but objections by the Western Provinces were completely ignored and cosy deals are alleged to have been cut with industry groups located in heavily Liberal voting provinces. The electorate at large was never consulted at all of course. Perhaps not all that surprising, given that few, if any, of our elected representatives understand the treaty's implications or the economic fallout to be expected from its implementation.

          The recent UN Conference Against Racism and Xenophobia in Durban is a perfect example of the NGOs at work. Some fifty of them, including the Mexican-American Legal Defense (sic) and Educational Fund, Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, the NAACP, the International Human Rights Law Group and many more, called upon Mary Robinson, then UN Human Rights Commissioner, to hold the USA "accountable for the intractable and persistent problem of discrimination that men and women of color (sic) face at the hands of the US criminal justice system." The result of this exercise in chicanery was the passing of a number of resolutions demanding reparations for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade of the 17th to 19th centuries, ignoring of course the 14 million African slaves who were sent to Islamic lands during that same period. Demands that the USA "publicly acknowledge the breadth and pervasiveness of institutional racism" which "permeates every institution at every level," accompanied calls for a declaration that "racial bias corrupts every stage of the US criminal justice process from suspicion to investigation, arrest, prosecution, trial and sentencing."

Suggesting a 4th dimension

          The NGOs denounce free market capitalism as "a fundamentally flawed system" and insist that the US ratify all major UN "human rights" treaties. Although, in 1994, the USA ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) it refused to accept the restriction of certain types of speech and political activity permitted by the First Amendment

          For the US to agree to these terms would mean the abandonment of constitutional guarantees of free speech, federalism, and majority rule – all the concepts upon which the US is based. What is interesting is that the language used in almost all UN conventions, such as the Convention on Women's Rights and the International Criminal Court – which ignore the guarantees of the US Constitution – was written by Western NGOs and Americans.

          Many of the international law professors and NGOs advocate the elimination of the distinctions between citizens and non-citizens, vigorously opposing assimilation of immigrants into what they see as the "dominant Anglo culture." They attack what they call "archaic notions of sovereignty" and call for the elimination of the differences between the citizens and non-citizens in all federal laws. They propose dropping the hyphenated American in favour of the "ampersand" individual and suggest that those who are say, "Mexican & American" should be allowed to vote in both countries. One can imagine the damage this might do, where large numbers of people living outside their native country could destroy the policies of the government in their country of origin without suffering the consequences.

          The consequences of transnational progressivism can be seen vividly in the European Union where they are moving to absorb the component nation states into a supranational post-democratic structure. The resulting denial of the authority of the nation state, as well as the transfer of policymaking authority from the governed and their elected representatives to a professional bureaucracy, is a marked change from the idea of popular sovereignty once present in Europe's democracies. That countries such as those from the former communist bloc raise little fuss about the prospect is perhaps understandable, they see little change; but that the populations of democracies such as those of France and especially England seem to be rushing willingly into this bureaucratic maelstrom is beyond this chronicler's comprehension.

          Fonte ends his paper by suggesting that a fourth dimension be added to the conceptual framework of international politics. The three present dimensions are the competition and conflict between and among nation states (and supranational ones like the EU), the competition between civilisations and thirdly, the division (and conflict) between the democratic world and the undemocratic world. Fonte's proposed fourth dimension is the conflict between the forces of liberal democracy and the forces of transnational progressivism. He sees the conflicts and tensions within these dimensions as occurring simultaneously and being affected by each other, believing that they must be incorporated into any understanding of the world in the 21st century.

          He concludes that Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" theory – wherein Fukuyama suggested that liberal democracy is the final form of political governance – is wrong.

<< PART ONE

Previous articles by Ralph Maddocks

<< retour au sommaire

PRÉSENT NUMÉRO

page suivante >>

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.