Iteresting revelations from "our" Sec. of State shortly before the US-NATO aggression and terror against Yugoslavia. Pax Americana demands that we shape Orthodox Serbia into our evil image before establishing "American democracy".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fascism On
The Move
Toward "New
Order"
Madeleine
Albright Makes it Plain
On January 18th the San Francisco Chronicle carried a story, originally
published in the Los Angeles Times, detailing the plans of U.S. Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright to establish "a new international order, one that would
revamp existing global institutions and spawn entirely new ones." According to
the L.A. Times, Albright is referring to "the new order" as a kind of
"international democracy club" where the U.S. would be the "organizing
principle." "The 21st century ... ought to be the century of democracy," Albright
told the L.A. Times. "We're going to be putting an awful lot more emphasis on
organizing the democracies, working with them ... so they can work with each
other better." Only those who understand what kind of "democracy" she's
talking about know what this means for the world.
In case the reader fails to grasp the meaning behind Albright's
government-speak, we will translate. "Organize" means nothing less than
"control", and this "new international order" means "world wide control."
Albright said that "we [the foreign policy establishment] are the organizing
principle." Other nations will "either organize with us or against us," she
declared, meaning that those nations who won't play ball will be branded as
pariahs and ostracized by the international community. When Albright says
"democracy" she really means "doing it my way."
Fascism in Democracy's Clothing
In the minds of many well-meaning folks "democracy" is synonymous with
government of, by, and for "the people", self-determination, rule of law and an
open society. Often President Clinton claims to be working "for the American
people," as do many in the U.S. Congress. This is the illusion of democracy,
but the reality is far different. This reality was aptly defined by Noam Chomsky,
a self-defined Socialist and professor at M.I.T. He wrote:
"Democracy," in the United States rhetoric refers to a system of
governance in which elite elements based in the business
community control the state by virtue of their dominance of the
private society, while the population observes quietly. So
understood, democracy is a system of elite decision and public
ratification, as in the United States itself. Correspondingly,
popular involvement in the formation of public policy is
considered a serious threat. It is not a step towards democracy;
rather it constitutes a 'crisis of democracy' that must be overcome.
(Noam Chomsky, On Power and Ideology, 1987)
The evidence is overwhelming that Albright's "new international order" will
not be much different from Hitler's "neue ordnung" and Mussolini's "ordine
nuovo." It is the amalgamation of government and big business, as well as state
direction of the economy that defines fascism, and, when Albright says
"democracy" she really means "fascism" -- the current form of government in
America today.
Perhaps it was their dedication to Western tradition that led our forefathers
to mount the Roman fasces behind the Speaker's chair in the U.S. House of
Representatives. Made up of rods bound about an ax, this ancient symbol has
appropriately become the trademark of modern fascism, "a system of
government characterized by dictatorship, belligerent nationalism, and racism,
militarism, etc..." (Webster's New World Dictionary) This "binding up", or as
Albright puts it, "organizing" of the world's democracies, reveals the truth about
her definition of democracy. The new order will be totalitarian, on the global
scale as it is on the local, which indicates what is ahead for the world if the 21st
century becomes "the century of democracy" as Albright and the rest of the
foreign policy cabal would like.
Hitler solidified his political power by joining an alliance with the
industrialists of Germany. In turn, he protected the large corporations and
extended them favorable treatment. Hitler reigned in Nazi radicals who sought
to topple big business in what was called "the second revolution." On July 1,
1933, Hitler told his S.A. and S.S. leaders: "I will suppress every attempt to
disturb the existing order as ruthlessly as I will deal with the so-called second
revolution, which would lead only to chaos." (William L. Shirer, The Rise and
Fall of the Third Reich, 1950)
The marriage of money and demagoguery was consummated in Hitler's
Third Reich and Mussolini's Italy. While wealth and political power have
always colluded to some degree, there comes a point where apathy,
pseudo-tolerance and ignorance binds the will of the masses to a fanatical idea
that brings their destruction. It is this subjective, enervated, and brain-dead
mental state that led the Germans to embrace the Nazi regime. "The masses are
like an animal that obeys its instincts," Hitler observed of the Germans. "They
do not reach conclusions by reasoning." (Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous
Parallels, p.47) This same collective state-of-mind is what the Hitlers of our
day are using to introduce "democracy" into the world, not a system of
individual freedoms and self-determination, but a fascist system of propaganda,
fanatical ideas, and a controlled economy masquerading as a "free market". In
other words, a fascist war-like police state with a post-modern appearance
and rhetoric.
Following the example of her Nazi (national socialists) predecessors,
Secretary Albright is exporting this political model abroad with the purpose of
including all countries in this "international democracy club", of which "we" will
become the "organizing principle". "[E]ither organize with us or against us," she
warns those nations who might opt out, adding that a "concrete program"
should be in place "by the beginning of the spring."
This "Democracy" Leaves Swath of Destruction
"Democracy" in the rhetoric of cabalistic government insiders, refers to a
deceptive counterfeit used to weaken and control sovereign nations. On the
surface we have a rhetoric of hope, a promise of freedom for the oppressed, of
social justice and equality. Where ever old regimes fall and this democracy
springs up, crime, chaos and tyranny are the result.
For example, one year ago voters in Mexico City, the world's most
populous urban center, chose their first mayor by popular vote. Cuauhtemoc
Cardenas is the first mayor who doesn't belong to the ruling PRI party this
century. He is also a Marxist and the darling of the international press
apparatus who proclaimed that the grip of the PRI was broken and
"democracy" begun in Mexico. When Cardenas took office he was wildly
popular with the people, but in the 12 months since his inauguration, crime in
his city has skyrocketed. On January 12 PBS's Lehrer News Hour ran a
special segment on Mexico City's crime epidemic. After delineating various
aspects of the city's urban nightmare, Charles Kraus reported:
Without question, the city's most serious problem is the general
breakdown of law and order: Assaults, bank robberies,
car-jackings, taxi-jackings, kidnappings -- and policemen on the
take --make living here, and traveling from one part of the city to
another an often dangerous and terrifying experience.
According to this PBS report, a recent poll revealed that eighteen percent
of the city's residents have been a victim of a crime in the last three months.
Also, in a police force that has been corrupt for decades, there are now
officers who routinely commit robberies while off-duty. While crime and official
corruption have long been a problem in this city of 20 million, it is interesting to
note that a "politically correct" mayor schooled in the art and nuances of Third
Way politics has not only failed to address these problems, but has presided
over their exponential increase. Of course, "there are said to be factions within
Mexico's long-ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, the PRI, that have no
interest in allowing Cardenas to succeed," reported Charles Krause. This
boilerplate excuse of the darlings of today's internationalist democracy. "All the
problems are the fault of the old order", they claim.
Mexico's problems are complex, and have as much to do with a defective
economic system as a political. The 1994 peso devaluation sank the country's
economy and it has never recovered. What's more, like all of Latin America,
Mexico is mired in debt to the international banking cartel. This is part of the
scheme of democracy when it moves in -- it imposes a program of financial
austerity designed to enhance the profits of the investment banking cartel.
Follow the money, as they say, and you will find those promoting so-called
democracy.
Brazil is in the same boat as Mexico. Having made the transition from
military dictatorship to democracy several years ago, it is now the apex of the
global economic crisis, its economy sinking rapidly, and its moneyed class
moving in droves to fortified condominium complexes where they seek safety
from gangs of kidnappers and robbers. Crime has become epidemic.
The situation is even worse in Russia, another new "democracy" that has
foundered under the weight of "the global economy" and all it entails. Russia's
economy has collapsed and people buy what they need by bartering.
"Democracy" Terrorizes South Africa
Of all the examples of chaos and social disintegration, none are more
striking than the decline and fall of South Africa (read The new South Africa,
the same old bondage, The WINDS). Home invasions, muggings, carjackings,
blacks murdering whites as well as black on black violence, continue to
increase. Last November the social and economic collapse of this once great
country was dramatically described, not by a racist longing for the glory days,
but by Alan Paton's widow. Paton was the renowned author of "Cry, The
Beloved Country," and he become famous for his impassioned speeches and
writings against apartheid. He died in 1988, ten years before his widow Anne
would describe the "new, democratic" South Africa in an essay published on
Sunday, November 29, in the London Sunday Times.
The title of Anne Paton's essay was "Why I'm fleeing South Africa". She
wrote:
I am leaving South Africa. I have lived here for 35 years, and I
shall leave with anguish. My home and my friends are here, but I
am terrified. I know I shall be in trouble for saying so, because I
am the widow of Alan Paton....
Among my friends and the friends of my friends, I know of nine
people who have been murdered in the past four years ... An old
friend, an elderly lady, was raped and murdered by someone who
broke into her home for no reason at all; another was shot at a
garage....
I have been hijacked, mugged and terrorized. A few years ago
my car was taken from me at gunpoint. I was forced into the
passenger seat. I sat there frozen. But just as one man jumped
into the back and the other fumbled with the starter I opened the
door and ran away ... still clutching my handbag.
On May 1 this year I was mugged in my home at three in the
afternoon.... I came home and omitted to close the security door.
I went upstairs to lie down. After a while I thought I'd heard a
noise, perhaps a bird or something. Without a qualm I got up and
went to the landing; outside was a man. I screamed and two other
men appeared. I was seized by the throat and almost throttled; I
could feel myself losing consciousness.
My mouth was bound with Sellotape and I was threatened with
my own knife and told: "If you make a sound, you die." My hands
were tied tightly behind my back and I was thrown into the guest
room and the door was shut. They took all the electronic
equipment they could find, except the computer. They also, of
course, took the car.
The last straw came a few weeks ago, shortly before my 71st
birthday. I returned home in the middle of the afternoon and
walked into my sitting room. Outside the window two men were
breaking in. I retreated to the hall and pressed the panic alarm ...
one of the men ran around the house, jumped over the fence and
tried to batter down the front door. Meanwhile, his accomplice
was breaking my sitting-room window with a hammer.
This took place while the sirens were shrieking, which was the
frightening part. They kept coming, in broad daylight, while the
alarm was going. They knew that there had to be a time lag of a
few minutes before help arrived - enough time to dash off with the
television and video recorder....
Last week, about 10km from my home, an old couple were taken
out and murdered in the garden. The wife had only one leg and
was in a wheelchair. Yet they were stabbed and strangled - for
very little money. They were the second old couple to be killed
last week. It goes on and on, all the time; we have become a
killing society....
While some people say I have been unlucky, others say: "You are
lucky not to have been raped or murdered." What kind of a
society is this where one is considered "lucky" not to have been
raped or murdered - yet?
Its called a democracy, Mrs. Paton, and you have the United States to
thank for your country's demise. In 1982 Senator Ted Kennedy sponsored
legislation that imposed economic sanctions against white ruled South Africa,
creating more hard ships for black people until "democracy" was finally
permitted. Now things are really hell for everyone in that boiling cauldron.
Don't blame that on the policies of the former white government.
Such conditions have always accompanied democracy, as was seen in the
inspiration for our modern democracies, the French Revolution. At the height of
the "revolution" (democracy), writes historian Otto Scott, "urglaries grew
fearsome; entire homes were invaded and people tortured; murders and
robberies increased. Yet the Government was not interested in crime as such,
only crime that seemed to have political meaning." (Robespierre - the Fool as
Revolutionary, p.216) Today, democracies are more interested in suppressing
"hate crime", or the activities of their "right-wing" and anti-abortion foes, than in
establishing the rule of law based on sound moral, economic, and constitutional
principles. The fruits of lawlessness are everywhere this "democracy" is
praised.
"By their fruits ye shall know them..."
The dichotomy of modern democracy may be seen in the character of its
proponents. Madeleine Albright is a woman who loves to sass the Saddams,
the Milosevics, and the Castros of the world. She is famous for her cocky
sound bites as well as the Stetson and boots she wore on her first official trip
abroad as Secretary of State. As a woman she is devoid of womanly grace and
compassion, as a mother and grandmother she is strangely indifferent to the
deaths of half a million Iraqi children (calling their deaths "worth it"), and as a
Jew who lost both parents in W.W.II, she is not bothered by genocide (as long
as it's committed by the U.S. and Israel). Instead of a mature and graceful
woman Albright resembles the female reincarnation of Karl Adolph Eichmann,
machismo combined with a heart of ice in an old woman's body. Could it be
that she resembles the "new woman" of "[t]he 21st century ... the century of
democracy" and even "democracy" itself? If so, it is appropriate that she be
given the task of organizing it.
Alexander Hamilton once said, "We are a Republican Government. Real
liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy."
This was confirmed by Samuel Adams who stated, "Remember, democracy
never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself! There never was
a democracy that did not commit suicide."
We cannot wish you well, Madam Albright.
[Top of Article]
[Main Page] * [Next Article]
Copyright © 1999, The WINDS. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED.
thewinds.org
Contact The WINDS webmaster. |
