by E. Jeffrey Ludwig
With the power of disturbing hindsight, we can see that the creation of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank in the mid-1940s were opening salvos in a war against American nationalism.
The end of WWII was the beginning of a globalist trajectory hidden behind the mask of “multilateralism.” With the power of disturbing hindsight, we can see that the creation of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank in the mid-1940s were opening salvos in a war against American nationalism.
These forays into globalism seemed at first to be driven by humanitarian values. Peace could more easily be ensured if the countries of the world would discuss their differences. At the same time, the UN, unlike the League of Nations, would have peacekeeping authority, and could under certain circumstances send troops to stop war between conflicting parties or nation states. U.S. sovereignty would presumably be protected by the veto power granted to the great powers on the UN Security Council. Thus, if it were not in the U.S. interest to be drawn into armed conflict by the UN, we could veto the project and thus exempt ourselves from involvement. This plan was, of course, wholly unconstitutional since the war power is granted to Congress under our determinative founding document. By having a vote in the UN determine war or peace, the locus of power for that momentous decision to commit American sacred lives and honor thereby shifted from the Congress to the Executive Branch. And not only to the Executive Branch, but to the Executive Branch acting in combination with the Executive Branches of the great power members of the Security Council.
The International Monetary Fund, likewise bankrolled largely by the USA, would advance funds to undeveloped countries to shore up their currencies. Colonialism would be phased out, and the newly independent countries which would be cash-strapped needed a source of financial stability. The IMF would provide that stability. The self-determination of indigenous people that Pres. Woodrow Wilson had advocated for would become a full-blown reality in the post-WWII world. The Middle East had already benefitted from Wilson’s vision after WWI. The Ottoman Empire was broken up and separate Muslim nation-states came into existence under various mandates. Further, the Balfour Declaration had promised a nice chunk of land to the dispossessed Jewish people who had lived on their own holy land as squatters since their sovereign claims were destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. They too would benefit from the new philosophy of national self-determination.
By the end of WWII, the French and British began to realize that it was politically implausible and economically imprudent to continue to maintain control over large portions of Asia and Africa. Yet, complete independence for those countries would be cruel abandonment, and harmful to the European states. So the IMF and the World Bank were created to help meet the challenge of the emerging third world. This now meant that the American taxpayer would begin underwriting the economic development of third world countries, as well as giving support to their political aspirations through the UN. This was all going to be justified as necessary for U.S. security since an unstable world would be more likely to draw us into other wars. Further, this use of taxpayer moneys to undergird the economies (and corruption) of the third world dovetailed with American altruism and the can-do/must-help Judeo-Christian ethos of the American mindset (never acknowledged by the left that depicts the USA as a land of exploitation, yet manipulated by the left to attain its goals).
Further, the Marshall Plan was put in place to help rebuild former enemy countries, and to defend Europe from the threat of Soviet Communism and a European left energized by a post-WWII Europe in shambles. Since the left understands never to let a crisis go to waste, they saw that a suffering Europe was fertile ground for assailing capitalism (see, capitalism gave you war, suffering, and loss), and seeing that the USSR emerged with greater power than it had prior to WWII, internal disruptions were not uncommon, especially in Greece and Turkey. One might even speculate that were it not for Charles DeGaulle’s mighty presence -- having led the Free French in exile through the war – that France might also have capitulated to a communist vision. Certainly many of their leading intellectuals (as we are experiencing in the USA today) were solidly in the Communist camp.
Yet, the Rooseveltian and Democratic Party’s idea of throwing more and more money at the world’s problems, of humanitarian outsourcing of American wealth, of building national security on the false premises of endless dialogue and relinquishment of American sovereignty did not work. Instead, we were drawn into a false peace called the Cold War. We became musicians replaying ad infinitum the false song of more and more multilateralism, more and more funding of economies throughout the world, more and more integration of the world economy, more and more weakness to create more and more strength abroad, greater and greater dilution of American wealth, U.S. manufacturers and importers setting up factories abroad, and then importing the goods back to the U.S. for sale as we become more and more consumerist in our economic identity. We became more and more disparaging of the national political, economic, and social values that made this country great to begin with.
We can see that the multilateralism that was at first projected as humanitarian and prudent actually became the foundation of a new scenario. The new scenario was that the USA was becoming and should become part of globalist structure. The multilateralism after WWII was presented to the public as strategic and practical – needed to fight communism, to meet humanitarian goals, and to maintain economic stability. However, it has become increasingly apparent that these are lesser goals converging towards the greater goal of suppression of U.S. sovereignty, global hegemony over nation-state hegemony, and a type of world federalism.
It became apparent that all the multilateralism was not ending world hunger and poverty. Local wars are raging. There is no peace in the world. Tyrants abound. Communism in the USSR collapsed under the weight of its own egregious fallacies. The Peoples Republic of China continues to maintain its humorless communist political control while economically shifting to a form of state capitalism. And the U.S. has modified as well so that we are in a state of incredible debt to the PRC as our own national debt is now astronomical and can never be repaid.
The initial multilateralism of the years immediately after WWII became a world federalist agenda almost from the start. It has become an intense globalist commitment by the arrogant elites of our country who rejected the nationalism and national identity based on our open-hearted mores, rights-based ideology, and balanced constitutional legal values. Pres. Donald Trump’s election is a big pushback against 72 years of vacuous thinking about “one world” and manipulation by our elites to move away from U.S. sovereignty. We can only pray that this pushback will be sustained over time, and that we can regain some of the lost sense of being an independent and moral people living lives of hope from sea to shining sea.
These forays into globalism seemed at first to be driven by humanitarian values. Peace could more easily be ensured if the countries of the world would discuss their differences. At the same time, the UN, unlike the League of Nations, would have peacekeeping authority, and could under certain circumstances send troops to stop war between conflicting parties or nation states. U.S. sovereignty would presumably be protected by the veto power granted to the great powers on the UN Security Council. Thus, if it were not in the U.S. interest to be drawn into armed conflict by the UN, we could veto the project and thus exempt ourselves from involvement. This plan was, of course, wholly unconstitutional since the war power is granted to Congress under our determinative founding document. By having a vote in the UN determine war or peace, the locus of power for that momentous decision to commit American sacred lives and honor thereby shifted from the Congress to the Executive Branch. And not only to the Executive Branch, but to the Executive Branch acting in combination with the Executive Branches of the great power members of the Security Council.
The International Monetary Fund, likewise bankrolled largely by the USA, would advance funds to undeveloped countries to shore up their currencies. Colonialism would be phased out, and the newly independent countries which would be cash-strapped needed a source of financial stability. The IMF would provide that stability. The self-determination of indigenous people that Pres. Woodrow Wilson had advocated for would become a full-blown reality in the post-WWII world. The Middle East had already benefitted from Wilson’s vision after WWI. The Ottoman Empire was broken up and separate Muslim nation-states came into existence under various mandates. Further, the Balfour Declaration had promised a nice chunk of land to the dispossessed Jewish people who had lived on their own holy land as squatters since their sovereign claims were destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. They too would benefit from the new philosophy of national self-determination.
By the end of WWII, the French and British began to realize that it was politically implausible and economically imprudent to continue to maintain control over large portions of Asia and Africa. Yet, complete independence for those countries would be cruel abandonment, and harmful to the European states. So the IMF and the World Bank were created to help meet the challenge of the emerging third world. This now meant that the American taxpayer would begin underwriting the economic development of third world countries, as well as giving support to their political aspirations through the UN. This was all going to be justified as necessary for U.S. security since an unstable world would be more likely to draw us into other wars. Further, this use of taxpayer moneys to undergird the economies (and corruption) of the third world dovetailed with American altruism and the can-do/must-help Judeo-Christian ethos of the American mindset (never acknowledged by the left that depicts the USA as a land of exploitation, yet manipulated by the left to attain its goals).
Further, the Marshall Plan was put in place to help rebuild former enemy countries, and to defend Europe from the threat of Soviet Communism and a European left energized by a post-WWII Europe in shambles. Since the left understands never to let a crisis go to waste, they saw that a suffering Europe was fertile ground for assailing capitalism (see, capitalism gave you war, suffering, and loss), and seeing that the USSR emerged with greater power than it had prior to WWII, internal disruptions were not uncommon, especially in Greece and Turkey. One might even speculate that were it not for Charles DeGaulle’s mighty presence -- having led the Free French in exile through the war – that France might also have capitulated to a communist vision. Certainly many of their leading intellectuals (as we are experiencing in the USA today) were solidly in the Communist camp.
Yet, the Rooseveltian and Democratic Party’s idea of throwing more and more money at the world’s problems, of humanitarian outsourcing of American wealth, of building national security on the false premises of endless dialogue and relinquishment of American sovereignty did not work. Instead, we were drawn into a false peace called the Cold War. We became musicians replaying ad infinitum the false song of more and more multilateralism, more and more funding of economies throughout the world, more and more integration of the world economy, more and more weakness to create more and more strength abroad, greater and greater dilution of American wealth, U.S. manufacturers and importers setting up factories abroad, and then importing the goods back to the U.S. for sale as we become more and more consumerist in our economic identity. We became more and more disparaging of the national political, economic, and social values that made this country great to begin with.
We can see that the multilateralism that was at first projected as humanitarian and prudent actually became the foundation of a new scenario. The new scenario was that the USA was becoming and should become part of globalist structure. The multilateralism after WWII was presented to the public as strategic and practical – needed to fight communism, to meet humanitarian goals, and to maintain economic stability. However, it has become increasingly apparent that these are lesser goals converging towards the greater goal of suppression of U.S. sovereignty, global hegemony over nation-state hegemony, and a type of world federalism.
It became apparent that all the multilateralism was not ending world hunger and poverty. Local wars are raging. There is no peace in the world. Tyrants abound. Communism in the USSR collapsed under the weight of its own egregious fallacies. The Peoples Republic of China continues to maintain its humorless communist political control while economically shifting to a form of state capitalism. And the U.S. has modified as well so that we are in a state of incredible debt to the PRC as our own national debt is now astronomical and can never be repaid.
The initial multilateralism of the years immediately after WWII became a world federalist agenda almost from the start. It has become an intense globalist commitment by the arrogant elites of our country who rejected the nationalism and national identity based on our open-hearted mores, rights-based ideology, and balanced constitutional legal values. Pres. Donald Trump’s election is a big pushback against 72 years of vacuous thinking about “one world” and manipulation by our elites to move away from U.S. sovereignty. We can only pray that this pushback will be sustained over time, and that we can regain some of the lost sense of being an independent and moral people living lives of hope from sea to shining sea.
E. Jeffrey Ludwig
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/restoring_nationalism.html
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment