The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersSam Francis Blogview
New World Order

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

If the country is going to have a New World Order population, which is what President Bush’s open invitation to mass Third World immigration will create, it ought also to have a New World Order educational system, which the administration is in the process of setting up.

Last week the Washington Times reported just how the Bush administration is pushing a United Nations- designed program for a “culturally neutral” “universal curriculum” for teaching what the Times calls “global citizenship, peace studies and equality of world cultures.” [Learning globally, By George Archibald, January 18, 2004]

The program is called the International Baccalaureate program for middle schools, and the U.S. Education Department under Secretary Rod Paige is already funding it.

The department has issued its first $1.2 million grant to implement the program for “feeder schools” in low-income school districts.

Mr. Paige defends the program faithfully:

“We are ever mindful of the lessons of September 11, one of which is that all future measures of a rigorous K-12 education must include a solid grounding in other cultures, other languages and other histories,” Mr. Paige said last year when he announced the new globo-education programs. “In other words, we need to put the ‘world’ back into ‘world-class’ education.”

Actually, we don’t. If September 11 taught us anything, it was that other cultures need to learn something about ours, not the other way around, which is what Mr. Paige says.

But aside from that minor point, there are lots of other things wrong with what the Bush crowd is doing.

The Washington Times story quotes a document describing the goals of the program as being to teach “a set of culturally neutral universal values to which all people aspire,” based on human rights, equality of the sexes and “open-mindedness to change and obligation to environmental protection and sustainable development.” The program started with UNESCO in 1996, and its director in Geneva described it last June as what the Times calls “committed to changing children’s values so they think globally, rather than in parochial national terms from their own country’s viewpoint.”

“International education offers people a state of mind; international-mindedness,” he wrote in a recent background paper on the program. “Education weaves together the threads of peace,” and “We need an education that recognizes the realities of the 21st century. We’re living on a planet that is becoming exhausted. People everywhere aspire to the standards of living that people in the West take for granted, and at the same time, they want to maintain cultural differences that they feel make life worth living.”

The curriculum is an obvious effort to strip what are called “cultural particularities” out of the school curriculum and therefore out of the minds of those unfortunate enough to be educated in it.

More precisely, it’s a transparent attempt to destroy the unique Western and American cultural legacies by wiping the mental slates of its young subjects clean—and to replace Western and American culture with what its architects imagine is “universal” and “culture-neutral”content.

The curriculum is also pretty obviously founded on a major fallacy—that there is such a beast at all as “culture-neutral” or “universal”content.

The truth is that all the values and ideas the “culture-neutral”curriculum jabbers about are themselves of Western origin—the ideals of “peace,” and “end to war,” “tolerance,” “open-mindedness to change,” and the need for environmental protection.

In so far as such beliefs exist outside the West, it’s because Western countries have exported them.

But most of these ideals flourish in the West at all because of the cultural framework in which they arose. Strip away that framework, which is what traditional education tries to conserve and pass on, and you’ll probably wind up losing the ideals (though not all of them are worth keeping anyway).

The anti-Western and anti-American flaws of this foolish and destructive program ought to be clear enough, but what is not so clear is why the Bush administration is embracing it and pushing it at all.

It’s not as much of a mystery as it may seem, since the administration is guided by its own intellectual goop of “compassionate conservatism,” which merely repackages liberalism as conservatism, and by the transnationalism the president’s father immortalized in the phrase “New World Order” after the 1991 Iraq war.

In the New World Order, there will be neither national sovereignty nor national identity, and just as the population of the nation is to be replaced by Third World immigrants, so the culture of the nation is to be replaced by one suitable only for rootless and deracinated people—a people that can be deluded that what it is told to think and believe is really “universal” and “culture-neutral” because it has long since ceased to have any real culture of its own.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: New World Order 
🔊 Listen RSS

Saddam Hussein may stand a better chance of a fair trial in Iraq, where he will face trial, than in the International Criminal Court, into whose clutches the Bush administration has decided the former Iraqi dictator won’t fall.

A body similar to the ICC, set up to try such offenses as “genocide”and “human rights abuses,” is well on the way to outlawing actions—including speech—that are not criminal, and the ICC itself may soon do the same.

Last month, when Saddam was still huddled in his hiding place, the United Nations’ International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, seated in Tanzania, convicted three Rwandan media executives for their role in causing the mass slaughter of the Tutsi tribe in 1994. What they did to “cause” the genocide was simply talk about it.

Two of the Rwandan defendants—Ferdinand Nahimana and Hassan Ngeze—were sentenced to life imprisonment; the third, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, got 35 years in the pokey. Not one of them ever lifted a finger to commit violence, as the court’s judges readily acknowledged.

“You were fully aware of the power of words, and you used the radio—the medium of communication with the widest public reach—to disseminate hatred and violence,” intoned the presiding judge, Navanethem Pillay. “Without a firearm, machete or any physical weapon, you caused the death of thousands of innocent civilians.”

What the defendants really did was run radio stations sponsored by the Rwandan government under the dominant rival tribe of the Hutus called “Radio Machete” and “Radio Hate,” as well as a weekly newspaper that devoted itself to urging the extermination of the Tutsis.

No doubt what the stations broadcast and the newspaper published was not very edifying. But as a serious act of law and morality, the sentences they received are preposterous.

They’re preposterous because, contrary to what the judge pronounced, words do not and cannot “cause” murder, let alone “thousands” of murders. There are legitimate laws that circumscribe irresponsible speech (shouting fire in a theater is the classic case) or inciting violence, but merely advocating murder is not the same thing.

Even if it falls under incitement, it’s still not the same as murder itself, which is what the three were punished for. The people who do the actual killing make their own decisions to carry it out, regardless of what they’ve read in the newspapers or heard on the radio. You punish the killers, not the people who wrote or spoke the words, let alone the managers who ran the stations or the papers.

Nevertheless, “human rights advocates” hailed the verdicts as a giant step toward the Global Reign of Virtue they are licking their whiskers to set up and run.

“This is the first time that journalists have been convicted for their participation in genocide, and I think it’s a wake-up call to hatemongers everywhere that they can’t incite people to commit genocide or ethnic cleansing,” gloated Reed Brody of the Human Rights Watch. “If you fan the flames, you’ll have to face the consequences.” [Hateful words a war crime, By Betsy Pisik, The Washington Times, December 4, 2003]

The Tribunal’s verdict comes right out of the law that set it up. The U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a signatory, explicitly outlaws “hate speech”: “Any advocacy of national racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

We now know that covers advocating genocide. What else does it cover?

Mel Gibson’s movie about the crucifixion of Christ? Scientific research on racial differences in IQ? Defense of slavery or the Confederate flag? Denial of the Holocaust?

There are many people who say each and every one of these incites “discrimination, hostility or violence” and constitutes “national racial or religious hatred.”

What the ICC does is not necessarily law in the United States, but one danger of the court’s verdict is that it could be used to enact such laws and sets a precedent for the International Criminal Court itself.

In this country, there are lots of people who would like to outlaw any expression of dissent on racial, national or religious matters. Several otherwise law-abiding people who express such dissent have already been victims of police crackdowns, mainly for their views and associations.

The criminalization of dissident speech and thought in race, ethnicity, nationality and religion is a basic pillar of the New World Order now taking shape under American bayonets in Iraq and across the planet.

The masters of the New Order can’t expect to run it harmoniously if the different races, religions and nations they manage are free to think and say what they want about each other.

Therefore, freedom has to go.

The power of the planet’s new master class will stay.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Civil Liberties, New World Order 
🔊 Listen RSS

In the globalist New World Order, not only can we not have sovereign nation-states, but also we can’t have any distinctions between peoples, nations and races at all. Hence, the latest slab of meat on the United Nations’ platter of global do-good is the “World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,” to be held in Durban, South Africa, this summer. Guess which country is the most “intolerant” of all?

The conference’s main architect seems to be Mary Robinson, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and last week she explained that “anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe” as well as “race relations in America” and “ethnic conflict in Africa and the plight of the world’s indigenous peoples” will all be included on the conference’s agenda. Does anyone really doubt that the conference is aimed at any nation other than the United States, with a few hard looks at other, mainly white, countries in Europe?

Among the issues Robinson brought up to mention to Secretary of State Colin Powell were “racial profiling, even of those on death row. Tough issues that need to be looked at. Migration into the United States.” And Powell thinks it’s all swell. He avows he has a “personal and professional interest” in the conference, presumably because he’s been such a victim of racism himself, you see.

“We want to be forward-looking in how we eliminate negative practices that come from racism,” the secretary intoned to Robinson. And Robinson eagerly expanded upon her vision of what the gala event will ponder.

“She said the conference will take up accusations that police in the United States practice racial profiling, that death-row inmates are mostly minorities and that immigrants face discrimination and brutality along the Mexican border.”

What, you might ask, happened to slavery in Africa (today, not 200 years ago), ethnic slaughter in Indonesia, persecution of foreigners in China and other places where “racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” are not exactly unknown? The conference may or may not get around to these, too, but everyone — including Powell — knows which country will be the main target of the new crusade.

Also on the agenda will be what The Associated Press calls “the legacies of colonialism, slavery and current forms of xenophobia.” “Legacies” suggests reparations for these and other wickednesses that whites have inflicted on non-whites. Nothing is said about the “legacies” of cannibalism, head-hunting, scalping, torture, mutilation, burning alive, human sacrifice, and much of the rest of the quaint and curious lore of non-white and non-Western civilizations. As usual, all the wickedness is due to white Westerners, none to non-whites of any region or period and certainly not to what non-whites ever did to whites.

Not only will the Durban conference continue the long march against the white race, but also it will explore legislative measures to punish the victimizers and stamp out the “racism” and “related intolerance” that whites espouse. The conference, Robinson says, will “come up with concrete measures to address complaints and demands of victims — including calls by some for compensation from years of injustice.” This promises to offer a stage for the racial crackpots yelling for “reparations” for slavery in this country, as well as for just about every professional victim, grifter and grouser on the planet.

Moreover, the “concrete measures” will probably include outright violations of this country’s First Amendment by laws that muzzle what the conference will dub “racism.” “I think what this world conference is really about is getting every country to improve its own capacity … to have legislation which outlaws racism, which counters discrimination, which gives remedies,” Robinson announced.

“Legislation which outlaws racism” can only mean laws that silence anyone who expresses dissident views on race and race-related matters: not just skinheads who yell racial insults, but scientists who study racial genetics, social critics who question conventional wisdom about race, and writers and speakers who challenge scientific or historical claims about race. Several European nations are already enlightened by such repression.

What is incredible is not that the United Nations and its professional airbags like Robinson bubble with joy over the prospect of expanding U.N. power on a global scale, but that American officials like Powell — and presumably President Bush — would endorse and encourage it. The Durban conference promises not only to kick U.S. national sovereignty in the teeth yet again, but to trample on constitutional rights and actually dictate what U.S. lawmakers and citizens may and may not do.

Third World backwaters can swallow this stuff if they want, but Americans, in the government or out of it, need to tell Robinson and her cronies to go to Durban and not come back.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: New World Order 
Sam Francis
About Sam Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a leading paleoconservative columnist and intellectual theorist, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and as an editorial writer, columnist, and editor at The Washington Times. He received the Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in both 1989 and 1990, while being a finalist for the National Journalism Award (Walker Stone Prize) for Editorial Writing of the Scripps Howard Foundation those same years. His undergraduate education was at Johns Hopkins and he later earned his Ph.D. in modern history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

His books include The Soviet Strategy of Terror(1981, rev.1985), Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham (1984); Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993); Revolution from the Middle: Essays and Articles from Chronicles, 1989–1996 (1997); and Thinkers of Our Time: James Burnham (1999). His published articles or reviews appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, National Review, The Spectator (London), The New American, The Occidental Quarterly, and Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, of which he was political editor and for which he wrote a monthly column, “Principalities and Powers.”