On Wednesday, February 26, 1997, Chilean President Eduardo Frei arrived in Washington for a state visit. He was met on the south lawn of the White House by President Clinton and a pomp-filled welcoming ceremony. At a joint news conference that followed, President Clinton stood with Chile's president and urged freer trade within the Americas to "fulfill the promise of our times." Chile's president added, "What we need immediately is for our economies to flourish in full freedom, a freedom that allows us to produce and to trade as if there were no frontiers." The addition of Chile to NAFTA would only be the first step in the goal of a massive free-trade zone throughout North and South America.
President Clinton has asked Congress for "fast-track authority" to negotiate the entrance of Chile to NAFTA. Huge trade deficits with Canada and Mexico have spooked a large number of lawmakers into opposing the special authority the president wants. Even House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO) is opposing NAFTA because it has not worked. "We must not negotiate away our jobs and our living standards," said Gephardt. Not to fear, however. The president faced opposition from those within his own party when NAFTA was initially rammed through Congress, and he can count on his internationalist friends again as it is expanded further. Republican Newt Gingrich has pledged to support the "fast-track" authority the president wants.
"By acting together to deepen our democracy, to spur economic growth, to strengthen our partnership, the United States and Chile can bring concrete benefits to our own people, to all the Americas and to the world, and fulfill the promise of our times," - Bill Clinton
Since NAFTA gave away the opportunities for many Americans to earn a decent living, it is unclear how expanding it will "deepen" our democracy, and it is also a puzzle how a lower standard of living will "fulfill the promise of our times". However, "deep democracy" has a nice ring to it and therefore expanding NAFTA must be the right thing to do.
The latest move to expand NAFTA is only one more step in a process that is occurring globally. It may sound as if President Clinton handed the Chilean leader his script upon his arrival at the south lawn, but, in reality, both presidents, as well as the leader of nearly every nation on the globe, are reading from scripts that have been crafted for them by the forces of internationalism.
The movement for world government has been a long and arduous process, taking many decades, even centuries, and a patient persistence almost universally unrecognized. The leading minds involved in this "evolutionary process" have recognized the futility of conquering the world by force, as this has been attempted by many skilled generals from Alexander the Great to Napoleon. The great ones of the earth have chosen instead to promote a dialectical process that involves a reeducation of the world's population and the building of stable, regional alliances such as NAFTA. This concept was expressed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor under President Carter, at Gorbachev's State of the World Forum in '95. He said,
"We cannot leap into world government through one quick step. A consensual global system requires a process....The precondition for eventual and genuine globalization is progressive regionalization because by that we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units."
Alexander, Napoleon and Hitler tried the "quick step" or blitzkrieg method. The modern conquerors of our age are more sophisticated and stand at the threshold of success.
Richard Gardner, appointed by Carter as his Ambassador to Italy, made the following candid confession in Foreign Affairs (April, '74) in his article titled, "Hard Road to World Order." He wrote:
"The 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down..., but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."
Once the trading blocks of Europe, Asia and the Americas have expanded to include all of the "democratic" (or make that "cooperative") nations in their regions, it is a simple matter to link the blocks together into a single "free trade" zone. Since materialism has captured the minds of the masses, the institutions of global trade and finance will be the true rulers of the world, as they already are to a great extent. Once trade barriers and protections are eliminated, national sovereignty will be surrendered to the necessity of the rule of law, with sanctions and economic strangulation persuading the less-than-cooperative.
As Mr. Brzezinski stated, this global system requires a degree of consent, and this global consensus has been cultivated over the decades through a dialectical process. Dialectic is a process described by the German philosopher, Hegel, whereby a certain belief is exposed to its negative opposite and in the ensuing conflict, a synthesis occurs. The two opposing beliefs combine to create a new belief. This is precisely what the Cold War was about on the global level. It was the epic conflict between capitalism and doctrinaire Marxism which ended in what appeared to be the collapse of communism, but, in reality, was the merging of the ideologies into the final synthesis prophesied by Hegel, which would bring about the inevitable advent of world socialism and world government. This was the goal of Lenin in 1916 when he said,
"The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them."
In the Cold War we saw the clash of the titanic ideologies, but as the Cold War ended, the icons of both ideologies were torn down. Lenin's statue was yanked from Red Square after the farcical attempted coup d'etat by communist "hard liners" in Moscow. Russia repented of communism and the West gloated. Meanwhile, in the U.S. the icons of American culture were desecrated in its schools and universities. The old capitalism gasped its last, dying breath almost unnoticed, after a long illness brought on by FDR's New Deal.
In the U.S. on the national level the same dialectical process was occurring. For years the electorate swung between Republican and Democrat, liberalism and conservatism. The end of the Cold War also brought with it a new political ideal called the "moderate" or "centrist". Synthesis had occurred and modern socialism in the U.S. became a reality. With it came a new era of "cooperation" and "opportunity", words used to replace the more descriptive political phrases of the old order. What used to be political gridlock on the national and international level gave way to the "fast-track" agreements on trade and environmental issues. It appeared the needed consensus was in line for a global super-state, or rather, the "kinder, gentler" New World Order as announced by President George Bush in his speech before the U.N. in 1991.
"When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us....We convert him. We capture his inner mind, we reshape him." "Big Brother's" agent, O'Brien, in George Orwell's 1984.
One of the more Orwellian characteristics of this new world socialism is its view of and role in regional conflicts. It is clear that those who have been promoting world government over the years have also promoted conflict as a way to create synthesis. They see small regional wars as a healthy thing, much like some naturalists view a forest fire. Jim Garrison, President of Gorbachev Foundation / USA shared this outlook in an article entitled "One World, Under Gorby" (San Francisco Weekly, May 31, 1995) where he said:
"Over the next 20 to 30 years, we are going to end up with world government. It's inevitable....You are going to see more Yugoslavias...but in and through this turbulence is the recognition that we have to empower the United Nations and that we have to govern and regulate human interaction....There's going to be conflict, coercion and consensus. That's all part of what will be required as we give birth to the first global civilization."
As one considers the host of U.N. interventions in ongoing conflicts from Cambodia to Angola to Yugoslavia, without a single example of successful "peacekeeping", it becomes evident that there is a pattern of preserving conflict rather than resolving it, albeit under a humanitarian guise. It is the modus operandi of the globalist dialectical approach - wearing down the population with war and want till they beg for outside intervention. In this day and age the world dictator comes as a deliverer.
Religion has also entered into this process of synthesis and nowhere in the world is this more evident than in modern Christianity. In the fourth century A.D. the Christian Church made certain concessions to pagan Rome, and a type of synthesis, or blending, occurred between the two. The fruit of this marriage is what we call the "dark ages".
The Christian denominations of the twentieth century have repeated this apostasy by standing in line to grovel at the feet of the modern paganistic state. Like their predecessors, they have thrown out God's law for the pagan SUNday, and are finding out that the demand for concessions never ends. Their pastors preach nice sermons that are politically correct and contain no offensive, controversial dogma. Their pretty, highly paid television preachers cozy up to politicians who support infanticide and sodomy when they should cry aloud and spare not. Like the prostitute of Ezek. 16:33, they pay their lovers.
The synthesis of modern Christianity and the emerging global humanism was completed when the Christian denominations secularized their goals. Duties and obligations to God and His kingdom were tossed out as dogmatic and extreme. They were replaced by nice, worthless sermons on how to be good citizens for the state. While these fake Christians make a pretense of protesting abortion and moral corruption, they will not even consider for a moment any form of protest that might offend the state, such as refusing to support the system that purpetuates such crimes. This religion is salt that has lost its savor, palatable to socialists but spewed out by God.
It is not only the addition of Chile to NAFTA, but in every realm of life that we find change on a fast-track schedule. Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells predicted the speed of the New World Order's advent in his book Experiment in Autobiography , (1934) where he wrote:
"It's coming is likely to happen very quickly....Sometimes I feel that generations of propaganda and education may have to precede it....Plans for political synthesis seem to grow bolder and more extensive."
Pressure to conform to the New Order will take the form of conflict and coercion. Those who cannot "synthesize" will find themselves the target of those who have. Non-conformity is not an option. Alice Bailey was a contemporary of H.G. Wells and the leading occultist of her day. She was also a fan of FDR. In The Externalisation of the Hierarchy she wrote about those who are now developing "the new world religion...(and) the new civilization....They can, however, be delayed by the reactionary types of people, by the ultra-conservative and closed minds....These must all be brought under the power of death."
The creators of the atom bomb weren't sure what would happen when they exploded the first atomic device in the desert of New Mexico. They were relying entirely on theory and they had no guarantee that the first explosion wouldn't create a chain reaction that would end the world.
Like those physicists, the creators of the New Order are relying on a theory that has never been tested globally. This dialectical theory is now creating a cataclysmic event that will not stop at the desired boundaries, but will engulf them all as well.
Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of
material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.
This page is in the public domain.