RHB, Jan. 2000

Robert Harris Brevig

Globalism is inevitable! It is inescapable...a juggernaut which cannot be deterred. The sorcerers apprentices have successfully automated the "broom", and the "broom" is presently replicating itself exponentially. It is "sweeping" the entire planet without regard for boundaries, political or religious ideals, economic status, or cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Nothing can stop it! We must now follow it to its natural, or contrived destiny, whatever that may turn out to be. We’re all in it together and we must all follow its inevitabilities, at least with regard to its effect upon the whole.

As our vignette above states: "The question before Americans (humanity, in fact) is not how shall we stop or deter globalization, but rather, how shall we integrate it...?"

In view of the inevitability of Globalism, it is just as inevitable that pockets of resistance will develop and perhaps appear to maintain themselves for a while. Yet, even they will be forced to maintain themselves within a psychological "bubble" that, in reality, is supported by the economic infrastructure which surrounds and embraces it.

Gradually, even these holdouts, these adherents to resistance will be forced to acknowledge that their ideals are redundant in a world headed in another direction. Eventually, they will begin to emerge from their "bubble" and will quietly become absorbed by the new mainstream.

It takes but a single generation for the questions to begin to form in the minds of the progeny that follows. It happened among the "beat" and the "hippie" generations of the late 60's and early 70's when the key slogan was "Tune in, turn on and drop out!" The young people of the period who adopted this credo simply produced a generation of children who became the antithesis to themselves...Their "Yuppie" offspring were drawn back to the things of the world. They became the upwardly mobile, insatiably hungry for status and "stuff". Love, bliss and peace was soon replaced by sex, a BMW and a quest for the ultimate "buzz". The rest, of course, is history.

The inevitability of this course we are on does not suggest that we, as citizens, should lie down and succumb, however. Resistance is an essential part of the equation. It should be remembered that there are such things as peaceful resistance, and not just violent resistance. Intelligently guided, creative resistance is how "checks and balances" are established. It can apply the brakes to a movement going in a direction in which people do not wish to go. It tends to slow the process sufficiently to remove some of the blurred hidden agendas and allows a clearer focus upon some of the more threatening issues which always seem to accompany grandiose political schemes.

If it were not for these "vigilantes" and watch-dog groups, the rest of us would, no doubt, be coerced into outright tyranny. The important question here is, whether this resistance is exercised intelligently or impulsively. The same will be true of those who advocate and are advancing the cause of Globalism and see it as their duty to overcome the resistance. An example of this is what seems to have occurred at the Waco "siege" in Texas (the Branch Davidian massacre); the Ruby Ridge incident in Idaho (the Randy Weaver massacre); and the recent protest riots in Seattle, Washington (the World Trade Conference protest), to name a few.

We must ALL be constantly mindful that the Global "situation" in which we ALL find ourselves today, like it or not, is the result of many decades of secret planning and execution of strategies which the vast majority of world citizens have been completely unaware. This, it MUST be understood, is no accident, and thus, will not go away overnight. This "situation" is upon us because of our own lack of vigilance.

A suggestion for those who feel compelled to resist this juggernaut might be: Resist if you must, but do not "fight" it! It "feeds on fight". If you attempt to destroy "it", "it" will destroy you. If you are against it, your best defense is to understand it, to become as aware of it as you are able. Once you understand your adversary, they are transformed, diminished, sometimes eliminated as an enemy in your life altogether. Understanding your adversaries is the key to defeating them.

There is a scene in a rather disturbing, but enlightening film, "JACOB’S LADDER", in which the chiropractor and spiritual mentor (Danny Aielo) tells his patient (Tim Robbins), "Your devils are really your angels, depending upon how you see them."

This thought is well worth pondering in view of the present volatility harbored in our society. What is it that an adversary really expects and demands of you. Does he seek to arouse a violent reaction from you that will give him the ultimate edge on you, or does he seek to evoke a more passive and tolerant response that encourages his aggressiveness, yet which may give you the ultimate edge.

The more effective and erudite "resistor" may benefit from a perusal of Sun Tzu’s great Chinese classic, "THE ART OF WAR". Or, perhaps examine the philosophy behind the more popular of the ancient Martial Arts, such as Tai Chi Kwando, or Kung Fu. Understanding the principle revealed in these disciplines can lead from being a victim to being a victor.

Is it an either/or "situation", or is it a "situation" that requires negotiation, arbitration, or mediation? (What a republican "representative" form of government is supposed to provide.) Are we really polarized (balanced) as we need to be at this point in our political and social evolution, or is it time for a "third force" to intervene? Do we need to dampen the aggressive and officious trespasses of one side while strengthening the integrity and resolve of the other. It may become our good fortune to discover that, if our citizen’s integrity and resolve are sufficiently sound, truly beneficial solutions will emerge from intelligently guided negotiations, rather than from brutally aggressive dictation.

If we need examples, history now reveals to us that in any case wherein a violent, revolutionary movement, righteous at the time of its inception, or not, successfully overthrows the concurrent tyranny, as has occurred in both Russia and in America, that counter-aggression eventually led to further tyranny of its own making.

It may be that the old style of political "cold war" brinkmanship is now outdated and that to break some of the hangover stalemates in our society, it will require a "third force".

How might such a "third force" manifest in a country such as America where it seems we are becoming more and more internally stalemated, as a result of political infidelity and ineffectuality. What sort of response might be anticipated from a society "governed" in such a manner. The natural expectation would be resistance, at best, and retaliation, at worst.

If such a trend is allowed to continue, our political system will soon become so impotent that the only alternative will be to degenerate by default into some form of political monarchy and dictatorship once again.

The only way to divert such a tragedy, if it is not already too late, would be to create a third "party", or political "pressure group" that embodies and reflects the values and integrity of the "moral minority" of Americans. In-other-words, in order to bring our two traditional, but dubiously motivated and directed political parties back on track, a third "moral force", an "American Values Party" which existed, not so much for itself, but rather, to force some values and integrity back into the existing political system. In such a manner, a relatively small block of voters, a minority guided by intelligence and integrity, could amass their votes within their own party and then agree to sacrifice those votes to the major party who agrees to adopt their moral platform. The minority could "swing" the election in the direction of the party that is most agreeable to the most desired and beneficial change.

Our political elections in America are usually sufficiently close that a relatively small consortium of righteous and determined voters could offer their block of votes to the party that would, by contractual agreement, adopt a platform that was less oriented to special interests and to self-interest, and more directed at the citizens interests, and the nation’s interests as a whole. Thus, an election can be "swung" by its wiser minority on behalf of its indifferent and uncaring majority.

This strategy was used quite obviously during the Bush/Clinton Campaign when Ross Perot entered the fray as an independent, drew the moral minority vote to himself, then defaulted, pouring all those votes into a political vacuum, a black hole, splitting the "values" vote away from the traditional vote and assuring the victory of the "elitists" choice rather than the popular choice. This was a negative, divide and conquer, use of the same strategy.

The way our political system is set up, a vote for a minority party is a wasted voted, which benefits the traditional "one-party-with-two-faces" cabal. The "third party" would thus become more a "pressure group", a political conscience, rather than a full-blown political party and, as such, could force some moral integrity back into modern politics.

Any major political party elected to office in such a manner that elected to default and did not deliver on its platform promises could be removed from said office for breaking its contract by a popular demand for a "snap election", a plebiscite. Such a thing actually occurred a few years ago while the author of this commentary resided in the small island nation of New Zealand. In this instance a third minority party, during a very close major election, pressured the traditional parties, by offering their block of votes to the party that would accept the bulk of their platform. Their platform of course reflected the greater integrity and real concern for the long term advantage of the majority of citizens. Hence this minority party, acting as a "pressure group" was able to "swing" the election in the direction of the traditional party showing the greatest compliance to their political objectives.

Naturally, the more compliant party that won to themselves the minority vote was successfully installed in government and then obnoxiously proceeded along with its own agenda ignoring its "contract" with the voters who, in good faith actually placed them in office. The much chagrined minority party and the now newly aware and aroused majority of voters, ignoring impeachment proceedings, demanded a plebiscite, a "snap election" was held, and a very unhappy and embarrassed administration, with its leader was "ceremoniously" removed from its seat in government by popular vote. A remarkably enlightened and humbled opposition party then took the reins of government and honored the major concerns of the aroused voters.

Could such a thing happen in America...the supposed land of the free and home of the brave? You can be sure our political leaders would begin to whine and hedge with excuses like: "But, the political system in America doesn’t work like that!" After having seen how well it worked somewhere else, I would ask: "Why not?" If our political leaders tried to tell us: "There is no provision in our system for such political wrangling!" Being aware of the effectiveness of such a voting pressure strategy, I would demand: "Create them!" They may cry: "We’ve got rules!" I would ask: "Who makes them?" And they would have to respond: "We do!" Of course, I would ask: "Who benefits from them?" The answer to this question is obvious, is it not?

This country does belong to its people, not its politicians, or have we completely forgotten that? For those who may still be missing my point here, what is being suggested is an incredibly powerful, yet non-violent and peaceful strategy for protesting political corruption and ineffectiveness. Further, it becomes possible to force the hand of a seemingly omnipotent onslaught of political tyranny that quietly, yet continually, plays we, the people, off against each other.

If our present "two-faced" political system is already so stalemated, so rigidly corrupted and decadent...so dead, that it is incapable of recreating itself from within, or if we, the people are incapable of recreating it with the ballot box from without, then why even bother to vote? Why go on pretending to be a participant?

There are many ways to abandon a sinking ship of state. One is to leap for the life boats and get away before she goes to the bottom. Another way is to simply refuse to plug the leaks that are causing her to go down in the first place. Either way, the ship goes down and the responsibility for the tragedy falls upon the same shoulders...the officers and crew, and yes, even the passengers, when it comes right down to shear denial of responsibility.

America, if it comes to it, will certainly not be the first nation to die, choking on its own perfidy, avarice and licentiousness, nor will it likely be the last. What is so unique about America is that the dream, the objective was so exquisite, so magnificent that the tragedy is so much greater because it was so avoidable. Vigilance and an exercise of the collective will of the people is all it would require.

Where is there any evidence of this happening? I invite your further scrutiny of this Web-site. Browse around! Read some of the visitors contributions...Gradually, we are finding more and more brave and sincere Americans whose aspirations go beyond mere patriotism and nationalistic thinking. Their dream is to remain FREE and INDEPENDENT and they are not afraid to declare it so and to work at it. These are the sort of people you will find on this Web-site. Bon Voyage!

R.H.B., Jan. 2000

Readers comments are welcome and encouraged.  They can submitted by Email to cfpress@nationmakers.com or discussed in the NATIONMAKERS INTERNATIONAL DISCUSSION GROUP.

All Written Materials Copyright, 1997,1998,1999  Robert H. Brevig
All Rights Are Reserved, Without Prejudice.
U.C.C. 1-207.4 U.C.C. 1-103.6,.7