See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: The Birth of the Global Nation - "Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority"
Source:
Time Magazine
URL Source: http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,976015,00.html
Published: Jul 20, 1992
Author: By STROBE TALBOTT
Post Date: 2006-08-11 04:27:10 by Uncle Bill
Keywords: One, World, Government
Views: 124
Comments: 10
TIME MAGAZINE The human drama, whether played out in history books or headlines, is often not just a confusing spectacle but a spectacle about confusion. The big question these days is which political forces will prevail, those stitching nations together or those tearing them apart ? Here is one optimist's reason for believing unity will prevail over disunity, integration over disintegration. In fact, I'll bet that within the next hundred years nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century--"citizen of the world"--will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st century. All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary. Through the ages, there has been an overall trend toward larger units claiming sovereignty and paradoxically, a gradual diminution of how much true sovereignty any one country actually has. The forerunner of the nation was a prehistoric band clustered around a fire beside a river in a valley. It's members had a language, a set of supernatural beliefs and a repertoire of legends about their ancestors. Eventually they forged primitive weapons and set off over the mountain, mumbling phrases that could be loosely translated as having something to do with "vital national interests" and a "manifest destiny." When they reached the next valley, they massacred and enslaved some weaker band of people they found clustered around some smaller fire and thus became the world's first imperialists. Empires were a powerful force for obliterating natural and demographic barriers and forging connections among far-flung parts of the world. The British left their system of civil service in India, Kenya and Guyana, while the Spaniards, Portuguese and French spread Roman Catholicism to almost every continent. Empire eventually yielded to the nation-state, made up primarily of a single tribe. China, France, Germany and Japan are surviving examples. Yet each of them too is the consequence of a centuries-long process of accretion. It took the shedding of much blood in many valleys for Normandy, Brittany and Gascony to become part of France. Today fewer than 10% of the 186 countries on earth are ethnically homogeneous. The rest are multinational states. Most of them have pushed their boundaries outward, often until they reached the sea. That's how California became part of the U.S. and the Kamchatka Peninsula part of Russia. The main goal driving the process of political expansion and consolidation was conquest. The big absorbed the small, the strong the weak. National might made international right. Such a world was in a more or less constant state of war. From time to time the best minds wondered whether wasn't a hell of a way to run a planet; perhaps national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all. Dante in the 14th century, Erasmus in the 16th and Grotius in the 17th all envisioned international law as a means of overcoming the natural tendancy of states to settle their differences by force. In the 18th century the Enlightenment--represented by Rousseau in France, Hume in Scotland, Kant in Germany, Paine and Jefferson in the U.S.--gave rise to the idea that all human beings are born equal and should, as citizens, enjoy certain basic liberties and rights, including that of choosing their leaders. Once there was a universal ideology to govern the conduct of nation toward one another. In 1795 Kant advocated a |"peaceful league of democracies". But it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible to clinch the case for world government. With the advent of electricity, radio and air travel, the planet has become smaller than ever, its commercial life freer, its nations more inter-dependent and its conflicts bloodier. The price of settling international disputes by force was rapidly becoming too high for the victors, not to mention the vanquished. That conclusion should have been clear enough at the battle of the Somme in 1916; by the destruction of Hiroshima in 1945, it was unavoidable. Once again great minds thought alike: Einstein, Ghandi, Toynbee and Camus all favored giving primacy to interests higher than those of the nation. So, finally, did the statesmen. Each world war inspired the creation of an international organization, The League of Nations in the 1920's and the United Nations in the '40s. The plot thickened with the heavy breathing arrival on the scene of a new species of ideology--expansionist totalitarianism--as perpetrated by the Nazis and the Soviets. It threatened the very idea of democracy and divided the world. The advocacy of any kind of world government became highly suspect. By 1950 "one-worlder" was a term of derision for those suspected of being wooly-headed naïfs, if not crypto-communists. At the same time, however, Stalin's conquest of Eastern Europe spurred the Western democracies to form NATO, history's most ambitious, enduring and successful exercise in collective security. The U.S. and the Soviet Union also scared each other into negotiating nuclear-arms-control treaties that set in place two vital principals: adversary states have a mutual interest in eliminating the danger of strategic surprise, and each legitimately has a say in the composition of the other's arsenal of last resort. The result was further dilution of national sovereignty and a useful precedent for the management of relations between nuclear-armed rivals in the future. The cold war also saw the European Community pioneer the kind of regional cohesion that may pave the way for globalism. Meanwhile, the free world formed multilateral financial institutions that depend on member states' willingness to give up a degree of sovereignty. The International Monetary Fund can virtually dictate fiscal policies, even including how much tax a government should levy on its citizens. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade regulates how much a nation can charge on imports. These organizations can be seen as the proto-ministries of trade, finance and development for a united world. The internal affairs of a nation used to be off limits to the world community. Now the principal of "humanitarian intervention" is gaining acceptance. A turning point came in April 1991, shortly after Saddam Hussein's withdrawal from Kuwait, when the U.N. Security Council authorized allied troops to assist starving Kurds in northern Iraq. Globalization has also contributed to the spread of terrorism, drug trafficking, AIDS and environmental degradation. But because those threats are more than any one nation can cope with on its own, they constitute an incentive for international cooperation. However limited its accomplishments, last month's Earth Summit in Rio signified the participants' acceptance of what Maurice Strong, the main impresario of the event, called "the transcending sovereignty of nature": since the by-products of industrial civilization cross boarders, so must the authority to deal with them. Collective action on a global scale will be easier to achieve in a world already knit together by cables and air waves. The fax machine had much to do with the downfall of tyrants in Eastern Europe. Two years ago I was assigned an interpreter in Estonia who spoke with a slight southern accent because she had learned English watching Dallas, courtesy of TV signals beamed over the border from neighboring Finland. The Cosby Show, aired on South African television, has no doubt helped erode apartheid. The ideological and cultural blending strikes some observers as too much of a good thing. Writing in the Atlantic, Rutgers political scientist Benjamin Barber laments what he calls "McWorld." He also identifies the countertrend, the re-emergence of nationalism in its ugliest, most divisive and violent form. Yet Azerbaijan, Moldova, and Czechoslovakia were part of the world's last, now deceased empire. Their breakup may turn out to be the old business of history, not the wave of the future. National self-assertiveness in the West can be mighty ugly, especially in its more extreme Irish and Basque versions. But when Scots, Quebecois, Catalans and Bretons talk separatism, they are, in the main, actually renegotiating their ties to London, Ottawa, Madrid and Paris. They are the disputatious representatives of a larger, basically positive phenomenon: a devolution of power not only upward toward supranational bodies and outward toward common-wealths and common markets, but also downward toward freer, more autonomous units of administration that permit distinct societies to preserve their cultural identities and govern themselves as much as possible. That American buzzward empowerment--and the European one, subsidiary--is being defined locally, regionally and globally all at the same time. Humanity has discovered, through much trial and horrendous error, that differences need not divide. Switzerland is made up of four nationalities crammed into an area considerably smaller than what used to be Yugoslavia. The air in the Alps is no more conducive to comity than the air in the Balkans. Switzerland has thrived, while Yugoslavia has failed because of what Kant realized 200 years ago: to be in peaceful league with one another, people--and peoples--must have the benefits of democracy. The best mechanism for democracy, whether at the level of the multinational state or that of the planet as a whole, is not an all-powerful Leviathan or centralized superstate, but a federation, a union of separate states that allocate certain powers to a central government while retaining many others for themselves. Federalism has already proved the most successful of all political experiments, and organizations like the World Federalist Association have for decades advocated it as the basis for global government. Federalism is largely an American invention. For all its troubles, including its own serious bout of secessionism 130 years ago and the persistence of various forms of tribalism today, the U.S. is still the best example of a multinational federal state. If that model does indeed work globally, it would be the logical extension of the Founding Fathers' wisdom, therefore a special source of pride for a world government's American constituents. As for humanity as a whole, if federally united, we won't really be so very far from those much earlier ancestors, the ones huddled around that primeval fire beside the river; it's just that by then the whole world will be our valley. VIDEO: Hillary Clinton, Strobe Talbot, and Walter Cronkite Push for One World Government George Bush Pushes for One World Government George H.W. Bush - 4 years
AMERICA ABROAD - The Birth of the Global Nation
By: Strobe Talbot
July 20, 1992 
Bill Clinton - 4 years
Bill Clinton - 4 years
George W. Bush - 4 years
George W. Bush - 4 years
Hillary Clinton - 4 years
Hillary Clinton - 4 years
Jeb Bush - 4 years
Jeb Bush - 4 years
Satan - 7 years
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
It didn't work for the U.S., and it won't work for the world. You can't unite unlike parts.
Dr. Michael Parenti: "Terrorism, Globalism and Conspiracy" 1 hr OCTOBER 9, 2002, VANCOUVER: Dr. Michael Parenti, one of North America's leading radical writers on U.S. imperialism and interventionism, ... all » fascism, democracy and the media, spoke to several hunded people at St. Andrews Wesley Church in Vancouver. Dr. Parenti has taught political science at a number of colleges and universities in the United States and other countries. He was written 250 majro magazine articles and 15 books and is frequently heard on public and alternative radio. The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
This is nonsense. The world is breaking up along tribal lines; Iraq is a perfect example. It's even happening in the U.S., as like moves to live with like. The NWO/globalist loonies can live in their fantasyland all they want; it will never happen.
"Benjamin Franklin was shown the new American constitution, and he said, 'I don't like it, but I will vote for it because we need something right now. But this constitution in time will fail, as all such efforts do. And it will fail because of the corruption of the people, in a general sense.' And that is what it has come to now, exactly as Franklin predicted." -- Gore Vidal
I tend to agree that one central global government is a pipe dream (see Hitler and Stalin), but the globalists do plan on developing regions of former nations turned trading blocks, this along the lines of what David Riccardo suggested with his comparative advantage. I'm sure you've seen The CFRs whitepaper on building a North American community. Nothing explains better the open border policy of this nation.
It's happening as we speak. The central planners are taking small steps so as not to be on the radar. We will have a North American Union similar to the EU in a couple of years and we'll even have a new regional currency. The central governing/ruling authority will be unaccontable to the average citizen. Here is a good detailed explanation of how it is happening. Richard W.
I repeat what I said: the world is breaking up along tribal lines, in a firestorm of blood and destruction. No one has ever "conquered the world," contrary to the hallucinations of the paranoid. The British were the closest, and look at them now. There will be no North American Union or a new regionial currency. The ideas of merging the U.S., Mexico and Canada is one of the funniest hallucinations I've heard in a long time. There has never been a case in the world where different tribes have tried to share the same land without genocide, and it will be Mexicans who cease to exist, not Americans.
"Benjamin Franklin was shown the new American constitution, and he said, 'I don't like it, but I will vote for it because we need something right now. But this constitution in time will fail, as all such efforts do. And it will fail because of the corruption of the people, in a general sense.' And that is what it has come to now, exactly as Franklin predicted." -- Gore Vidal
The bureauRATS are still moving ahead on this no matter what. It's a bit like what they did to Europe with the EU. I don't like it either. And there's too many of these brainwashed baboons who make their daily bread from the coffers of the gubmit who support it all. If the beaners EVER get so far out there is enough lead around to take out lots of them. Right now it is the criminal elements within La Raza and the mafias such as MS13 which deserve our unmitigated wrath. Destruction should be rained down on them. Give no quarter and raise the black flag.
"Never has so much military and economic and diplomatic power been used so ineffectively, and if after all of this time, and all of this sacrifice, and all of this support, there is still no end in sight, then I say the time has come for the American people to turn to new leadership not tied to the mistakes and policies of the past." Richard M. Nixon
You are in for a big surprise in the near future. Richard W.
http://video.google.com/videoplay? docid=1620137662471578899&q=iron+mountain Iron Mountain: Blue Print for Tyranny A Christian alert video 2hr 21min In 1961 the Kennedy administration ordered a top secret study, to determine the problems facing the United States if the world moved from ... all » an era of war to a golden age of peace. By 1963, the selection of specialists had been made. The final study group consisted of 15 experts in various academic disciplines, selected for their expertise in their respective fields. Their first and last meetings were held at an underground nuclear survival retreat called Iron Mountain. This study was concluded in 1966. President Lyndon Johnson gave the order that the report was never to be released, due to the nature of the conclusions reached. One of the men involved in this study elected to release it to the public, at great risk to himself, under the name of John Doe. It was published in 1967 by Dial Press. The establishment promptly renounced it as a hoax. It was no hoax. Iron Mountain is now hard to obtain, but many large libraries still have copies of it. This report looks deep into the soul of the New World Order. Iron Mountain is the covert agenda to bring the world, and America, under the control of the United Nations. The conclusions reached are now being implemented upon the American people, without their knowledge or consent, as this documentary will prove beyond all doubt. What you are about to see and hear is real. 1993 «
The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
"President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin have already signed this SPP Agreement in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The SPP Agreement is currently being implemented without the knowledge or participation of the vast majority of the American people." "The Security and Prosperity Partnership is the culmination of a long-term project of the prestigious Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) founded in 1921. Prior to the signing of the SPP Agreement on March 23, 2005 by the Presidents of the three major North American countries, the CFR issued a Media Release (on March 14, 2005)." "The Media Release stated that the findings and recommendations of the CFR were that a "North American Economic and Security Community" should be built by 2010. As planned by CFR, this community would have "an outer security perimeter" which would achieve "the freer flow of people within North America." The document spells out an "integrated" strategy to achieve an "open border for the movement of goods and people" in which "trade, capital and people flow freely." MASSIVE FINANCIAL-GEOPOLITICAL SCHEME NOT REPORTED BY BIG MEDIA Richard W.
The best mechanism for democracy, whether at the level of the multinational state or that of the planet as a whole, is not an all-powerful Leviathan or centralized superstate, but a federation, a union of separate states that allocate certain powers to a central government while retaining many others for themselves.
#2. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
#3. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority.
#4. To: YertleTurtle (#3)
#5. To: YertleTurtle (#3)
The NWO/globalist loonies can live in their fantasyland all they want; it will never happen.
#6. To: Arete (#5)
We will have a North American Union similar to the EU in a couple of years and we'll even have a new regional currenc
#7. To: YertleTurtle (#6)
There will be no North American Union or a new regionial currency. The ideas of merging the U.S., Mexico and Canada is one of the funniest hallucinations I've heard in a long time. There has never been a case in the world where different tribes have tried to share the same land without genocide, and it will be Mexicans who cease to exist, not Americans.
#8. To: YertleTurtle (#6)
There will be no North American Union or a new regionial currency. The ideas of merging the U.S., Mexico and Canada is one of the funniest hallucinations I've heard in a long time. There has never been a case in the world where different tribes have tried to share the same land without genocide, and it will be Mexicans who cease to exist, not Americans.
#9. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
#10. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#9)
now being implemented upon the American people, without their knowledge or consent
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest