Montreal, December 7, 2002  /  No 115  
<< page précédente 
Ralph Maddocks is a retired textile executive and former management consultant. He lives in Cowansville, Quebec.
by Ralph Maddocks
          Sometimes one comes across something, said or written by someone, which comes as a bit of a surprise, especially if that statement was made a long time ago. Such a surprise was mine when first I came across the following statement by Brock Chisholm, 1959 Humanist of the Year, the Canadian psychiatrist who became the first Director General of the World Health Organisation. In the February 1946 issue of Psychiatry, Chisholm wrote, "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."
I'd love to change the world... 
          The above is the extract most often quoted, but his statement continued as follows, "We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school teachers, our politicians, our priests....The reinterpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of old people, these are the belated objectives... for charting the changes in human behaviour." 
          Of course, not having the entire context in which he made the statement one can attribute two possible meanings, at least to its first part. Chisholm could have been saying that, before a World Government could come about these things would have to have been done, or alternately that there is an intention, which he supports, to do these things in order to bring about World Government. It seems though that the most common interpretation of Chisholm's remark is the second one. Amongst the evidence which exists to support this conclusion would be, for example, the creation of the European Union. The EU seems to be acting along these lines – not to create a World Government of course, or at least not yet – but to create a European entity where the nation-state is no longer important. 
          The late and unlamented Karl Marx thought that socialists should not waste their time trying to explain the world but should get on with the business of changing it. Consider what this kind of ideology has accomplished. By portraying a society, or elements within it, as "racist," "discriminatory," "xenophobic," "old fashioned," "oppressive," and "ignorant," and by using similarly selective code words, the social globalists create the impression in people's minds that present society must be put aside. Even if you really don't like the strange habits of those striped pink people from Gamma Cephei, the ones who just moved in next door, you aren't going to tell anyone for fear of being labelled a racist. 
          Much of this has its origins in the doctrines of Marx and Engels whose Communist Manifesto outlined clearly what was to be destroyed. Interestingly, they are much the same as those things of which our social globalists speak. Things such as culture, religion, traditional family values, morality as we knew it, education, liberty, individualism, nationality and countries, etc. The only real difference that one can see is in the choice of method, the communists using force and the social globalists employing stealth.  
          By trying to destroy individualism and the family, and by substituting interest groups in their stead, the social globalists have managed to create discord among the various elements of society. The class struggle, between the owners and the workers, of the communists has been supplanted by a culture war between society and various groups of victims. Classes of victims have been created, groups such as women, "people of colour" to employ the politically correct term and other easily identifiable minorities. The result of this has been to generate strains within society, to erect partitions between groups, to create divisions between young and old, between blacks and whites, between ethnic or religious minorities and majorities, etc. 
Un-assimilated nationalities 
          Racial unrest in Europe today is a direct result of the unrestricted legal and illegal immigration of people with vastly different values from the countries of North of Africa and the sub-continent of Asia. The refusal by many to integrate into the host society, because they must retain their allegiance to Darul Islam, or the like, also means that they will be a constantly growing problem for their hosts. At the same time, this unrestricted immigration has caused a loss of their sense of identity among many of the "native" inhabitants of the country. 
          The EU is busily removing the "Western" identity from within its component countries and those historical nationalities of Europe which we knew so well are being replaced by the abstraction of a "European" identity. Uncontrolled immigration can only change the former homogeneity within each nation state so that any existing differences of opinion will in future be exponentially augmented by the presence of many nationalities and interest groups within that state. 
          One example comes from Belgium where one Abou Jahjah – a Lebanese born extremist and former Hizbollah fighter, now known as the Malcolm X of ethnic politics – is advocating a form of separatist apartheid for Belgium's 400,000 Muslims. He is demanding segregated schools, an end to "Flemish cultural terrorism" and recognition of Arabic as the fourth official language after Dutch, French and German. Future differences of political opinion within each of the various separate states or nationalities – French, German, Italian, Greek, etc. – will now be mixed up with those of the un-assimilated nationalities comprising the coming European Superstate. This does not augur well for the survival of what we have been pleased to call liberal democracy, as can be seen from the growth of unaccountable bureaucratic edicts issuing from within the EU. 
     « Uncontrolled immigration can only change the former homogeneity within each nation state so that any existing differences of opinion will in future be exponentially augmented by the presence of many nationalities and interest groups within that state. »
          Before we become too complacent, consider the situation in the USA where similar large scale immigration is producing a plethora of hyphenated identities. This in turn has reduced the range of issues which are capable of resolution by persuasion and consent, hence the presence of an increasing number of coercive regulations enforcing the rights of so-called victim groups. The US response to terrorism has been to introduce legislation riding roughshod over the long cherished rights of the citizens. Legislation which allows officialdom to put aside civil liberties and creates files on each citizen, removing whatever privacy they may have hitherto enjoyed. Is this an opportunistic move to begin destruction of the US Constitution? 
Code word: multiculturalism 
          It is obvious that the massive inflow of immigrant populations, from countries where replacement rates are well over those considered necessary for a population to replenish itself, is no accident. Taken to its logical conclusion there will be a small or no "native" population in many of the host countries within a century or two. The code word for all this is multiculturalism, and one is expected to believe that this is the same thing as immigration and assimilation. It isn't. Any insistence by people in the host country that the immigrants should assimilate, brings forth instantly loud cries of "racism." 
          Strobe Talbot, a former Undersecretary of State, when he was an editor of Time magazine wrote that he was optimistic that by the end of the 21st century "nationhood as we know it will be obsolete: all states will recognize a single global authority. [...] 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." Further, he declared that the devolution of national sovereignty "upward toward supranational bodies" and "downward toward" autonomous units is a "basically positive phenomenon." 
          Another tactic being used by our social globalists is to weaken nation states is by introducing the concept of regionalisation. I touched on this in a previous article with particular reference to England (see DIVIDE ET IMPERA, le QL, no 110). During the UK Census in 2001, the form gave no box to tick showing one's nationality to be English. Queries of the government were answered along the following lines. "This is because there is no such nationality as English as laid down by various acts of Parliament and accession. Persons born in the United Kingdom are citizens of the United Kingdom are therefore British/English." The various acts of Parliament that removed this right to English identity were not stated in the letter. No answer has been given either to the question asking when the Act of Union between Scotland and England (1707) was repealed or amended. 
          Yet in 1999, Mr. Blair publicly stated that the Scots were given their own parliament because Scotland is a proud, historic nation. Is this a case of the kind of discrimination criminalized by that same Mr. Blair? Many years ago in England, those brown envelopes endorsed with the letters OHMS meant that the communication was being delivered On Her Majesty's Service. These days I have heard it suggested that what those initials really mean is Only Hindus, Moslems and Sikhs, but then I imagine that is really what the politically correct mean by a racist comment. 
          I should mention another country where similar tactics are being employed. It is Australia, a country which appears rarely in our radio or television newscasts or our morning papers. Here too, regionalisation is proceeding by stealth, and the citizenry are unaware of the likely end result. As in Quebec, mergers of local councils are taking place, although in the Australian case seemingly without even the knowledge, and certainly not with the consent, of those involved. According to the Sydney Morning Herald archive for March 27, 2001, the town councils of Albury and Wodonga were to be abolished and replaced by a new council. Not very abnormal one might think, except that each town is situated at the border of a different state. Albury being in New South Wales and Wodonga in Victoria, the two being separated by the Murray River. The Albury-Wodonga Region, as their Website claims, was a meeting place for some 2000 years a place where it was the custom for district Aboriginal tribes to meet at "Mungabareena" or Pleasant Place for very long talk. Nothing on their site mentions local government, or its structure. Perhaps the most charitable explanation is that the site is incomplete. 
          This is similar to the process used by our beloved Quebec government when it decided that the component parts of Montreal should unite. What has happened in Australia is analogous to the merging of the cities of Ottawa and Hull without a referendum, an event to which the sovereignist community in Quebec might object. Continuation of similar mergers can only lead to the disappearance of the Australian or English state as we know it. Of course since, as we have learned, there is no English nationality this should not take long. 
Beyond the nation-state 
          Another proponent of this New World Order is Henry Kissinger who, according to one Professor Henry Paolucci, of St. John's University, writing in a study about Kissinger which appeared in the Congressional Record of August 4, 1971, stated: "Henry Kissinger, too, expressed as recently as 1965 the conviction that the time was at hand for a surrender of nationhood because 'institutions based on present concepts of national sovereignty are not enough.' The ultimate goal of a supranationalist world community, he wrote, 'will not come quickly; many intermediate stages must be traversed before it can be reached. It is not too early, however, to prepare ourselves for this step beyond the nation-state.'" 
          Even the most casual of Internet users will have come across the suggestion that there is some kind of global conspiracy involving the United Nations and other international institutions such as the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, the international bankers, etc. Much of this can be found to have its origins in statements such as that quoted earlier by Chisholm. Interference in a nation's sovereignty has arisen in recent times in the economic field. The so-called transnational companies seem to be benefiting from changes to the law made within some countries. This in turn leads to strange occurrences such as that in Canada where – albeit under the agreed NAFTA rules the Canadian government itself negotiated – Canadians were obliged to pay penalties of some $350 millions to a private US company. This was because the Canadian government banned, on environmental grounds, use of a substance which that private company was exporting to Canada. The claim made by the USA was that the Canadian government did not act out of concern for the environment but used the ban as a non-tariff barrier. A claim which may well be true, certainly we shall never know. Such losses of sovereignty may be simply aberrations and purely of local significance, but in the context of such manifestations as the Kyoto Treaty the above incident makes little sense. Not that anything a governments does has to be either logical or beneficial. 
          For some time now there has been a Global Government Institute with branches around the world, including here in Canada, claiming that the basic benefits from the World Government are: 
  • World Government can reduce or prevent the war and so the destruction by war is reduced or prevented; 
  • World Government can reduce the military expenditure;
  • Fluctuation of exchange rate will be removed because the World Central Bank will issue the international common currency.
          They believe that though establishing the World Government is a political policy, at the same time it is the most effective economic policy. They believe especially that these benefits are important for developing countries. To this end they have proposed a World Parliament composed of 2 houses with each house having basically 1,000 members. The idea being apparently to get the support of people by electing representatives from each country in proportion to its population. This is based on the thought that only the support of the people can establish and maintain a World Government. Assuming that the world population is around 6 billion, of which China has 1.18 million, India 956 million, the USA 266 million, Japan 132 million, Western Samoa 161 thousand, and the Cocos Islands 1 thousand.  
          Given the total number of parliament members being basically 1,000, the members from China would be 196.6667, India 159.3333, the USA 44.3333, Japan 22.0000, Western Samoa 0.0268, and the Cocos Islands 0.0002. They would round out the numbers so that the members from China would be 197 of which the last member would have  0.6667 of a vote. Similarly, members from India would be 160 of which the last member would have 0.3333 of a vote, the USA would have 45 members of which the last member would have 0.3333 vote, Japan 22 members. The member from Western Samoa is 1 who would have 0.0268 vote and the member from the Cocos Islands would have 0.0002 of a vote. Therefore, the total number of votes is approximately 1,000 but the total number of members would be more than 1,000. 
          One wonders when we shall begin to hear support for this idea coming from the mouths of Mr George W. Bush and his acolytes. Perhaps now that Henry Kissinger is on board we may not have to wait too long. 
Previous articles by Ralph Maddocks
<< retour au sommaire