from the Congress Action newsletter

Global Totalitarians

by: Kim Weissman
April 28, 2002

Anyone who thought that the collapse of the Soviet Union meant an end to totalitarian efforts to dominate the world are sadly mistaken. The haters of individual liberty and freedom of choice (except the freedom of choice to kill unborn babies, of course) continue unabated in their efforts to overthrow representative government and to impose their tyrannical ideology on everyone else, and in the worst traditions of despots throughout history, to destroy anyone who gets in their way. They demand total obedience to their world-view and tolerate no deviation, threatening destruction for anyone who dares disagree with them. Their ultimate objective is control not only of society as a whole and all of its institutions, but of the very minds and thoughts of everyone else, who they see as nothing more than vassals to command and control.

The globalist busy-bodies claiming the most authority to impose their vision on the world operate at the United Nations. Since its creation, the U.N. has spawned a host of agencies concerned with everything from population control to gun control, environmental protection (the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change led to the Kyoto Treaty) to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The U.N. was formed to preserve "fundamental human rights", such as those protected by our Bill of Rights; many of which rights are, ironically, ignored by the ICC. Having been ratified by the requisite 60 nations (note that's a minority, constituting less than one-third of the 189 U.N. member nations, imposing this legal system on the world by fiat), the ICC officially goes into effect on July 1.

The ICC is an attempt by unaccountable global bureaucrats to override national sovereignty, national laws and constitutions, and representative government. The putative purpose of the ICC is to prosecute war crimes and crimes of aggression.

* There is no oversight of any kind and the ICC is answerable only to itself, it claims universal jurisdiction over the majority of the world's nations that have not agreed to it and over citizens who have no input into the judges that it seats.

* It is not limited by any country's laws or constitutions, it has already forced some ratifying nations to alter their own laws and constitutions, and the only avenue of appeal is to its own internal Appeals Chamber. Even then, appeals over "the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings" — for example, the ICC denies any right of the accused to confront witnesses against them — can only be appealed with permission of the ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber.

Congressman Ron Paul introduced H.R. 4169, the American Servicemember and Citizen Protection Act of 2002, and addressed U.N. claims that the ICC is authorized by General Assembly legislation. He said that the U.N. has no such legislative authority, and that the countries creating the U.N. were assured "that the body would never be able to pass laws". But totalitarians never let small details such as legitimacy and the limits of their own constituting authority stand in their way — whether those limits are contained in our own U.S. Constitution or in the United Nations Charter itself.

In practice, the ICC will only provide a forum for the very people it is nominally intended to prosecute, from which they can launch political attacks and gain the imprimatur of respectability for their own conduct by diverting the world's attention. The U.N. maintains sanctions against Iraq because Saddam Hussein kicked out weapons inspectors, but so-called human rights groups — the groups that never seem to notice human rights abuses by the likes of Syria, Iran, or Cuba, but never fail to find abuses by Israel and the United States — claim that the sanctions are starving children, for which they blame the U.S. Ignoring the possibility that starvation might be caused by Saddam spending his oil revenue billions on weapons of mass destruction and ornate palaces instead of food, they can simply charge the U.S. with "war crimes" by starving children, and the world will ignore Saddam's conduct, including his payments to terrorist families. Yasser Arafat's decades-long terrorism has not destroyed Israel, so charge Israel with "war crimes" for retaliating against suicide bombing, and the world will ignore Arafat's support for that abominable practice.

Under U.N. Security Council Resolution # 1405, the U.N. is sending a fact-finding mission to investigate Palestinian claims that the Israel Defense Force (IDF) massacred civilians at the Jenin refugee camp. Will the mission, in the words of former U.N. Ambassador Ken Adelman, "Ask the right questions" — whether Jenin was a terrorist staging area for launching suicide attacks against Israeli civilians? If police investigate a shooting, would it be relevant to know whether the deceased was an innocent bystander, or was a rampage killer who had already stabbed three people and was holding a knife to the throat of his next victim? Will the U.N. mission ask these sorts of questions? We shall see. It goes without saying that a massacre of civilians is never justified. But in Vietnam, U.S. soldiers found out how difficult it is to distinguish between non-uniformed combatants, and non-combatant civilians, when both are in the same area together in the heat of a battle. But the question to be answered by the U.N., if it's mission is to have any validity, is whether those targeted by the IDF were non-combatant civilians, or non-uniformed combatants — terrorists using the civilians for cover.

U.N. intermeddling is bad enough, but the most pervasive threat to freedom comes from radical environmentalists. Their determination to impose their ideology on the world is the most dangerous, since they cloak themselves in the guise of saviors and pursue their goals with the religious zeal of true fanatics. The U.S. rejection of the Kyoto Treaty has caused other nations to reconsider their own support for Kyoto, fearing that if they adopt what the U.S. rejected, their industries would be at a competitive disadvantage with U.S. industry. The anger of enviros at the U.S. rejection of Kyoto is not so much motivated by fear of a (non-existent) environmental catastrophe, but by their arrogant disbelief that when they thought they had convinced the world to jump off an economic cliff, America had the temerity not to follow. The reconsideration of Kyoto by other nations has command-and-control greens outraged, because they see a golden opportunity to drive the entire capitalist world into economic chaos slipping out of their grasp.

Climate change represents merely one avenue of the attack against civil society and capitalism being pursued by environmental extremists. Lies and fearmongering over miniscule amounts of relatively harmless chemicals and substances drive major corporations into bankruptcy. New technologies with the potential of conquering disease and ending starvation, such as biotechnology, are mischaracterized and attacked by cynics exploiting the natural fear of the unknown. The use of natural resources is restricted based on fantasies of non-existent dangers. Suspicion and fear dominate the public's reaction to anything new, anything that ordinary people cannot understand, and with the increasing complexity of science and the rampant spread of public ignorance, this encompasses a larger field of human endeavor every day. But the loss of economically and socially beneficial products, the loss of jobs, even the unnecessary loss of human lives, are only part of the devastation this anti-progress mind-set wreaks.

More insidious is the dampening effect on scientific innovation and risk-taking, and the stifling of objective scientific inquiry itself. Anyone pursuing scientific innovation has to cope with the certain knowledge that opportunistic lawyers, proficient at manipulating a dysfunctional legal system and ignorant juries, are waiting to pounce and bring ruin on the innovator. So thoroughly have environmental Luddites infected our institutions of education, politics, law, and the media, that the very concept of scientific progress is viewed with suspicion. Grade-schools are flooded with unending environmentalist propaganda, and feelings and beliefs have become preferred substitutes for critical thinking. So conditioned by the environmentalist dogma has the general population become that anyone who dares to contradict the ideological straightjacket of anti-human, anti-development environmentalism is immediately lashed with severe public opprobrium.

Even the scientific community itself has become so suborned by government grant money, tailored to the pursuit of politically and ideologically correct research, that a gaggle of government-paid scientists can always be counted on to instantly appear to condemn any hint of scientific doctrinal divergence among any of their colleagues who dare try to present their heretical ideas outside of isolated scientific journals — no matter how much factual data supports those divergent ideas. And when those heresies are presented in a political or public forum, the proponents are portrayed either as simply ignorant, or in the pay of some insidious force bent on the destruction of the planet. The ignorance that burned witches in the 16th and 17th centuries was no worse than that which confronts scientific apostasy today.

The face of radical environmentalism also shows itself in opposition to global trade. In the guise of environmental protection and prevention of unfair trade practices, protesters seek to stop global trade and undermine free markets. If they succeed, Third World nations will be frozen into eternal poverty, with continuing human misery and further degradation to the very environment the know-nothings claim to want to protect. Studies have shown that increased global trade raises the living standards of everyone involved, and with increased wealth comes increased concern about the environment, and the financial resources to clean it up. When people are worried about where their next meal is coming from, about rampant disease and starvation of their children, they have little time or inclination to worry about the quality of their environment. And even if they do, they have insufficient resources to do anything about it.

An observation of conditions around the world shows that the wealthiest nations are most concerned with, and spend the most, protecting the environment, and also accomplish the most environmental remediation. The poorest societies are the ones that suffer the worst environmental quality and the poorest sanitary conditions. If the know-nothings really cared about improving poor societies, elevating everyone's living standards, and preserving the environment, they would demand more global trade, not less. But poverty is a fertile breeding ground for socialism, and it is the spread of socialism and the destruction of capitalism that stand as the true ultimate objectives of the free trade opponents.

The good news is that while socialism flourishes in international organizations, in the environmental movement, and is eternally popular among society's intellectual elites and the media, socialist ideas are increasingly marginalized by the general public around the world. The media is hysterical, for example, that the presidential election in France will pit a moderate against an extreme nationalist. While most of the media's attention is focused on the extremism of the nationalist candidate, more significant is that there will not be a socialist on the presidential ballot at all in France, the socialist heart of Europe.

Across Europe formerly dominant socialist and communist parties have so decimated country after country with their unworkable and inhumane economic and social schemes, and have gone so far off the deep end of left-wing extremism, that people are fed up. They are realizing that the same ideas that destroyed the Soviet Union, that turned Cuba and North Korea into basket cases, are threatening to do the same to them. Even Russia instituted a flat tax that is reigning in bureaucracies and energizing their economy.

Nor is the reawakening of individual freedom confined to Europe. According to reports, when a couple of democrat U.S. Senators issued the call "workers of the world unite", a large block of American workers, didn't. The Senators wanted to enact government paternalism and class warfare in the form of limits on how people could invest their retirement money. Union members rejected the idea — they didn't want government telling them how to invest their own money. Even so, there is a growing reliance on big government, top-down, command-and-control approaches to many issues, as the energy bills in Congress show. Both parties push ideas for government to dictate energy policy, yet nobody is willing to simply allow free markets to work. It can still be said that the most influential pockets of socialism remaining in the world are right here in America — among the left-wingers in our Congress and our intellectual elites. Perhaps the voters in this country will soon regain their own common sense, and relegate these dinosaurs to the ash-heap of history along with their socialist forebears.

storyend_dingbat.gif (896 bytes)


Rules of the International Criminal Court:

Legislative Text:

Socialist Members of the U.S. Congress:

The above article is the property of Kim Weissman, and is reprinted with his permission.
Contact him prior to reproducing.

BACK New World Order

TYSK eagle

News Depts Articles Library
Lite Stuff Links Credits Home



28 apr 2002