> World Government: Objective of the Communist International
One of the primary goals of the continuing world revolution is to establish a global superstate to implement the social, economic and political transformation of mankind according to the communist “gospel.” The proclamations of the progenitors of Bolshevism, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, stated as much at various congresses of the Communist International.
If our comrades in all lands help us now to organise a united army, no shortcomings will prevent us from accomplishing our task. That task is the world proletarian revolution, the creation of a world Soviet republic.
— Vladimir Lenin, Second Congress of the Communist International, July 19-August 7, 1920
There is no justifying the omission of the slogan of the Soviet United States of Europe from the new draft program, a slogan which was accepted by the Comintern back in 1923, after a rather protracted internal struggle.
The revolution in Europe, as has already been said, will in the final analysis be of decisive importance for America as well. But directly, in the immediate course of history, a revolution in Germany will have an immeasurably greater significance for France than for the United States of America. It is precisely from this historically developed relationship that there flows the political vitality of the slogan of the European Soviet Federation. We speak of its relative vitality because it stands to reason that this Federation will extend, across the great bridge of the Soviet Union, to Asia, and will then effect a union of the World Socialist Republics. But this will constitute a second epoch or a subsequent great chapter of the imperialist epoch, and when we approach it more closely, we will also find the corresponding formulas for it.
It can be proven without any difficulty by further quotations that our difference with Lenin in 1915 over the question of the United States of Europe was of a restricted, tactical, and, by its very essence, temporary character; but it is best proven by the subsequent course of events. In 1923 the Communist International adopted the controversial slogan.
— Leon Trotsky, The Draft Program of the Communist International: A Criticism of Fundamentals, “The Slogan of the Soviet United States of Europe,” 1928
Note that in the second paragraph in Trotsky’s quote, reference is made to a “second epoch” of the imperialist era in which the communists will devise new “formulas” to advance their revolution across Europe, the Soviet Union, and Asia. The advance of communism into Eastern Europe after the Second World War and into Western Europe with the construction of the European Union and the “collapse” of communism in the Soviet Bloc clearly heralded that new epoch
The prescient KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn exposes the communist plan for world government in New Lies for Old (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co, 1984) in the last part of his book: “The Final Phase and the Western Counter-Strategy.” Of course, the West has no counter-strategy to communism’s plan for global domination. Nevertheless, Golitsyn explains:
All the countries of the European and Asiatic communist zones [Shanghai Cooperation Organization, 2001], together with new communist states in Europe [Italy, 2006] and the Third World [South American Community of Nations, 2007], would join a supranational economic and political communist federation. Soviet-Albanian, Soviet-Yugoslav, and Soviet-Romanian disputes and differences would be resolved in the wake, or possibly in advance of, Sino-Soviet reconciliation. The political, economic, military, diplomatic, and ideological cooperation between all the communist states, at present partially concealed, would become clearly visible. There might even be public acknowledgment that the splits and disputes were long-term disinformation operations that had successfully deceived the “imperialist” powers. The effect on Western morale can be imagined (page 346).
The European Union: Stepping Stone Toward Red World Order
When Mike (“I’ll Always Be a Communist”) Gorbachev visited London on March 23, 2000 he referred to the European Union as the “new European Soviet.” Five years later, as reported by Radio Prague, Czech President Vaclav Klaus made the following remarks about the similarity between the EU and the (apparently) defunct Soviet Bloc Council for Mutual Economic Assistance:
President Vaclav Klaus has compared the European Union to the Communist-era international organization Comecon, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. Speaking in the US magazine Time, Mr Klaus said the EU was structurally similar to the old Eastern bloc organisation, although ideologically different. He also reiterated his call for the EU to be widened rather than more deeply integrated, saying it should accept countries like Kazakhstan and Morocco as members.
Klaus could very well be in a position to know. Czech dissident and Right Bloc founder Petr Cibulka contends that Klaus is of Russian descent and, like many other “post”-Velvet Revolution Czech politicians, a secret communist agent or controlled dissident, of which Golitsyn warned. “This rumor has been circulating in the Czech Republic,” explains Cibulka, “for several years now and Vaclav Klaus has never denied it; so I think this could be true.” He continues:
It is said that the Pruzhinskiys came to Prague in 1937 from the Stalinist Soviet Union. We all know that in 1937 there was no possibility to leave the Soviet Union. So it is important to verify this information. If it is true, it would mean that Vaclav Klaus’s family was sent to the West by Stalin’s regime.
The Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has also identified the connection between the EU and communist structures by asserting that the “new European Soviet” is a joint collaboration between Eurocommunists and the continuing Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Brussels Journal reprinted a transcript of Bukovsky’s speech at a Brussels restaurant in the Trier straat, opposite the European Parliament, where he spoke at the invitation of the United Kingdom Independence Party, in February 2006. Startling excerpts that should concern all Western Europeans and North Americans follow:
In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home” . . .
It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top . . .
Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness. I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads and becomes an oppressive ideology, not to mention the fact that they forbid smoking almost everywhere now. Look as the persecution of the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve of homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol.
According to Bukovsky, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger (who may very well be Soviet agent “Bor” according to geopolitical analyst Jeff Nyquist and others), former French President Giscard D’Estaing, and former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone formed a delegation of the Trilateral Commission that visited Soviet President Gorbachev in January 1989. At that time, the delegation demanded that the USSR integrate itself into the GATT, IMF, and World Bank. Apparently oblivious to Moscow’s still-unfolding, long-range strategic deception plan, instigated in or around 1960, Bukovsky mistakenly contends that the:
Soviet part of the conspiracy collapsed earlier and it did not reach the point where Moscow could influence the course of events. But the original idea was to have what they called ‘convergency,’ whereby the Soviet Union would mellow somewhat and become more social-democratic, while Western Europe would bcome more social-democratic and socialist.
The manner in which Bukovsky apparently obtained his knowledge of the Eurocommunist-CPSU collaboration is intriguing. First, the interviewer notes: “In 1976 the Soviets expelled him to the West.” During the years of overt communism, no one entered or exited the Soviet Union apart from the watchful gaze of the authorities. The interviewer then describes Bukovsky’s alleged access, after the Soviet Union “collapsed,” to clandestine communist files:
In 1992 he was invited by the Russian government to serve as an expert testifying at the trial conducted to determine whether the Soviet Communist Party had been a criminal institution. To prepare for his testimony Mr. Bukovsky was granted access to a large number of documents from Soviet secret archives. He is one of the few people ever to have seen these documents because they are still classified. Using a small handheld scanner and a laptop computer, however, he managed to copy many documents (some with high security clearance), including KGB reports to the Soviet government.
In view of Bukovsky’s unprecedented access to secret Soviet archives and, moreover, the “post”-communist Russian Federation’s failure to condemn the crimes of the preceding regime, by trying those many members of the CPSU who were guilty of perpetuating the Soviet gulag state, one can only wonder if Bukovsky falls into Golitsyn’s category of “controlled dissident.” In either case, the essence of his interview wonderfully confirms the Golitsynian thesis regarding the establishment of a “neutral” and “socialist” Europe via Moscow’s machinations.
The fact that the past president of the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, and current leader of the governing left-communist coalition in Italy, Prime Minister Romano Prodi is a reputed KGB/FSB agent, per the revelations of Alexander Litvinenko, should therefore come as no surprise. The EU is a stunning fulfilment of Lenin and Trotsky’s “prophecies” of a Soviet United States of Europe, while the Shanghai Cooperation Organization simply extends Gorbachev’s “common European home” across the Eurasian landmass to Beijing and Pyongyang.
As recently as September 18, 2006 Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, a career Soviet apparatchik, revealed the Kremlin leadership’s still-current plan for a Moscow-led “collective leadership” over the world, as reported by ITAR-TASS: “Russia does not see a reasonable alternative to the creation of a new collective leader comprising key, highly industrialized countries in the world, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an article published in the Portuguese newspaper Diario de Noticias over his two-day visit in Lisbon that will begin on Monday.” Diario de Noticias quoted Lavrov, who employed standard communist terminology by referencing “collective leadership,” as saying: “The Group of Eight (G8) [of which Russia currently holds the presidency] may become an important aspect of an informal mechanism of a new collective leader.”
The Council on Foreign Relations’ North American Union: Another Stepping Stone Toward Red World Order
In addition to Soviet communists and Eurocommunists, capitalists also view world and regional government as a vehicle to promote their ideology and consolidate their power. This applies especially to the Western capitalist elite, or globalists. For this reason we have witnessed for 60 years a tug of war between internationalists of both ideologies in institutions such as the United Nations, which is not only a creature of the pro-communist Council on Foreign Relations, but also the Red International.
The CFR and the Trilateral Commission in the USA, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs (CIIA) and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives in Canada, and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations are important loci of influence for North America’s powerbrokers and globalization in general. The CFR and CIIA, in particular, trace their origins to a “sister” institution in the United Kingdom, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the first honorary secretary of which was Lionel Curtis, an advocate of British Empire Federalism who co-founded The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs.
Robert Pastor, the “Father” of the proposed North American Union (NAU) who co-chaired the 2005 CFR report Building a North American Community, previously consorted with the KGB-controlled think tank, the Institute of Policy Studies, on whose Board of Directors Harry (“Bananas for Chavez”) Belafonte sits; penned a work on US-Mexican relations with the Mexican Communist Party member and Che-worshipping Sao Paulo Forum attendee Jorge G. Castañeda; and endorsed pro-communist John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. Castañeda was outgoing Mexican President Vicente Fox’s Foreign Minister and supported the US-Mexican Partnership for Prosperity, signed five days before September 11, 2001. This arrangement later evolved into the tripartite US-Mexican-Canadian Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). That Fox represented Mexico’s conservative National Action Party did not stop him from inviting a communist into his cabinet. Excerpts about Pastor, in particular, from an article by Jerome Corsi follow:
Dr. Pastor . . . argued that the Security and Prosperity Partnership signed by President Bush with Mexico and Canada on March 23, 2005 should become by 2010 a “North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.” According to his published c.v., Dr. Pastor was the “principal editor” of this CFR report as well as the vice chair of the task force that produced it.
The May 2005 CFR task force report made clear that the borders between the U.S. and Mexico and between the U.S. and Canada would be erased, with the only border to be protected to be around North America. As the report stated on page 3, the boundaries of the North American Union “will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe.” The “outer security perimeter” referred specifically to the border around Canada, the U.S., and Mexico — such that the borders between these countries would be virtually erased. Dr. Pastor left no doubt about his view of U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada in his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee . . .
Dr. Pastor himself proclaims that the May 2005 CFR task force report on which he was vice chair and principal editor was a “blueprint” for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). In his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate, Dr. Pastor informed the Foreign Relations Committee of this link:
Entitled “Building a North American Community,” the report offered a blueprint of the goals that the three countries of North America should pursue and the steps needed to achieve these goals.
The CFR report, under Robert Pastor’s direction, recommended expanding the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) into a North American military command, creating a North American Development Fund to help pay for Mexico’s economic development, establishing a North American Union Court to resolve disputes, establishing a North American Advisory Council to serve as the NAU executive branch, and creating a North American Inter-Parliamentary Group to act as NAU lawmaker. These recommendations derive directly from Robert Pastor’s many published books and papers, as well as his extensive professional testimony to Congress and groups such as the Tri-Lateral Commission. His most comprehensive statement of his views on creating the NAU by transforming NAFTA into a political entity were expressed in his 2001 book, “Toward a North American Community”, where he also advocated the creation of a common NAU currency, the Amero, as first proposed by Canadian economist Herbert Grubel.
Critics who argue that the NAU is a “conspiracy theory” are well advised to take a hard look at Robert Pastor. With U.S. policy toward Latin America, Dr. Pastor first approached the issue in writing (for the radical IPS, as we have noted), next as a university professor, and finally as a government official. Had John Kerry won the 2004 presidential election, Robert Pastor most likely would have emerged with a government position from which he could have pursued his NAU agenda. Given the re-election of George Bush, Dr. Pastor has surfaced within the CFR, an influential “think-tank” NGO whose history of impacting U.S. policy would suggest the CFR impact on SPP.gov could easily be more than academic.
Pastor himself admits that the CFR report served as a template for the SPP, although the US site of the SPP flatly denies that the partnership is a prelude to continental union: “The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.” ‘Nuff said, at least for dot.gov types.
Neo-Communism, Anti-Globalism, and the Nationalist Left in Canada
The nationalist Left in Canada, which includes the Socialist International-affiliated New Democratic Party and the newer Canadian Action Party (CAP), however, following the neo-communist line, opposes globalization, which represents the ongoing internationalization of capital as articulated by elite groups such as the World Economic Forum. The nationalist left is correct in realizing that globalization, under the guidance of seemingly omnipotent multinational corporations, threatens the sovereignty of Canada and other small and middle powers. Sometimes the nationalist left’s position on world and regional government is ambiguous, like the communists, since socialists in general only oppose regional and world government inasmuch as it fails to advance some form of socialism rather than capitalism.
In another article on the NAU, Corsi quotes Connie Fogal, leader of the CAP: “We are opposed to the plan to develop the Security and Prosperity Partnership into a EU-style North American Union government [which] amounts to treason and is a total violation of the constitutional rights of Canadian citizens.” In protest the CAP recently decided to fly the Canadian flag upside down at its September 8-10, 2006 convention “as a signal of our distress and resistance against the integration of Canada with the United States and Mexico.” According to Fogal, “The plan is to create the NAU incrementally because if any of the three governments were up front about their true intentions, the SPP plan would never fly.” Fogal was also quoted as stating: “The rapid integration of North America into one entity ruled by an unaccountable, unrepresented and unelected group cabal of administrative executive branch officials is treason pure and simple,” she said. Corsi observes that: “The Canadian Action Party is recognized by Canadian federal elections officials as an official Canadian political party. In the 2006 federal election, the party fielded some 36 candidates but received only some .04% of the vote.”
The CAP was founded by the UFO-tracking, Lyndon LaRouche-esque political nomad Paul Hellyer, Deputy Prime Minister under crypto-communist Pierre Trudeau. Hellyer ran unsuccessfully for the leadership of the Liberal Party in 1968 and the defunct, pseudo-conservative Progressive Conservative Party in 1976. The CAP supports the abrogation of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the new SPP (with corresponding Canadian and Mexican websites), and opposes the implementation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and Pastor’s CFR project, the proposed NAU. On this issue, at least, the CAP differs little from the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), which demands that the country withdraw from NAFTA, NORAD, and NATO, arguing that these are capitalist entities and inimical to communism.
Hellyer has published a number of books, including The Evil Empire: Globalization’s Darker Side (Toronto: Chimo Media, 1997) and Goodbye Canada (Toronto: Chimo Media, 2001), the latter of which has a back-cover endorsement from Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics at the very-left-wing University of Ottawa, Canada’s “national university.” Chossudovsky is the founder of the anti-globalist Centre for Research on Globalization, which promotes the lie, advanced by Western leftists and faux rightists, as well as communists worldwide, that the Bush administration, fronting for the conservative think tank, Project for the New American Century, orchestrated the 911 terror attacks. Among other alleged plots, the CIA, the Left’s favorite bugbear, was responsible for bringing down the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC 7 with explosives. Sane correctives debunking anti-American 911 conspiracy theories are found at the bottom of this blogsite’s right column.
Anti-globalism, of course, is a post-Soviet euphemism for anti-capitalism and neo-communism, as embodied by the anti-FTAA Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, concocted by Comrades Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, with the later addition of Bolivia, under the leadership of Evo Morales, and the possible addition of Nicaragua, if long-time Sandinista comandante Daniel Ortega wins that country’s presidential election in November 2006. The World Social Forum, which was last held in “Bolivarian” Venezuela earlier this year, is an important component in the Red International’s opposition to globalization. The spat between the FTAA and the socialist Bolivarian bloc is simply another example of communists and capitalists struggling to control the reins of regional and world government.
Communism’s Red World Order versus Capitalism’s New World Order
In a classic case of “projection,” Soviet communists have attributed to the Western capitalist elite the same goal of world dictatorship that the Red International is assiduously pursuing through the United Nations, EU and now, apparently, the NAU. For example, in 1995 Aleksandr Rutskoi attested: “[Russia’s main enemy is] the creation of a global dicatorship by the West under the crafty label ‘New World Order'” (quoted in The Sunday Times, London, April 9, 1995; reprinted in Anatoliy Golitsyn, The Perestroika Deception [London: Edward Harle, 1995, 1998], page 247). Among other posts, Rutskoi served as vice president of Russia between July 10, 1991, when that state was still known as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, and September 21, 1993, when the Soviet behemoth putatively abandoned communism.
Similarly, in 1996 Gennady Zyuganov, chair of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), which pretends to the succession of the CPSU in order to obscure the fact that the latter maintains a separate, continuing existence, affirmed: “We [Russians] are the last power on this planet that is capable of mounting a challenge to the New World Order–the global cosmopolitan dictatorship” (quoted in Martin A. Lee, The Beast Reawakens [Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1997], page 320; reported in The Spotlight, May 20, 1996).
Lastly, one need only listen to the rantings of CPRF Duma deputy General Albert Makashov who, like the czars and their minions, in 1999 attributed Russia’s woes to the country’s nouveau riche oligarchs, some of whom are admittedly Jewish: “Life in our country is getting worse and worse. Never has it been this bad in Russia, even under the Mongol yoke. Who is to blame? The executive branch, the bankers, and the mass media are to blame. Usury, deceit, corruption, and thievery are flourishing in the country. That is why I call the reformers yids. Who are these Jews? In English they are called Jews, in French — Juif, and in Yiddish — Yid.”
Incidentally, the Nazis adopted the same deceptive strategy with respect to international Jewry’s alleged plot for global domination. Since Russia, not Germany, has been the world epicenter for anti-Semitism for at least one hundred years, communist rantings frequently feature tales of a “Zionist-Masonic-capitalist conspiracy” to dominate the globe. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, after all, were a concoction of the czarist secret police that migrated to Western Europe and into Adolf Hitler’s eager hands with the post-Bolshevik Revolution flight of Russia’s aristocracy. Anti-Zionism/anti-semitism, like anticapitalism, forms the heart and soul of Soviet communism. At this point the far left and faux right converge.
Whither the West?
In advancing the cause of regional and world government, the Western capitalist elite who sign onto such dangerous, self-aggrandizing schemes are only providing the communists with the rope that will be used to hang us all. Officialdom in all three North American countries deny that NAFTA and SPP truly lead in the direction of regional government. Still, there is no question that the capitalist nations committed a lethal error 60 years ago in joining the United Nations which is, without question, an embryonic, albeit inefficient, world government dominated by communist, “post”-communist, and anti-American states that are now demanding the power to levy taxes worldwide to regenerate their corrupt regimes at the West’s expense.
Herein, therefore, lies a dilemma for the true rightist. On the one hand, the true rightist supports private property and capital accumulation. On the other hand, unlike the globalists, the true rightist is a patriot and refuses to do business with communist regimes or sell the sovereignty of his country to the United Nations, regional trading blocs or governments, or some other international entity. The true rightist despises the Nepmen and is a “patriotic capitalist” who respects profit, but nevertheless places morality above worldly wealth.
In a previous blog we offered the following scenario: First imagine the implementation of the North American Union per the CFR recommendation. Next imagine communist revolution in Mexico with some agitation from Obrador and a few nudges from Chavez and Castro. Finally, imagine a victorious Hillary Clinton in the USA’s 2008 presidential election. Take if from there . . .