“International Community” = Global Governance
This post is part of a series of posts that illustrate the ‘Spirits and Types’ behind the agendas that drive our world. In this series, I will indirectly illustrate these ‘Spirits and Types’ by showing how they manifest themselves into political agendas. This will be done by highlighting specific figures from our modern world and drawing the connections between their ideology and the historic roots behind their ideas. In this manner, it is hoped that the history of these original ideas will be sufficiently self-evident to allow the reader to draw the proper conclusions about their modern manifestations and the people pushing them. If you are on the side of truth, once you learn the connections, you will see the agenda for what it really is. Now, let me explain what I hear when President Obama says the term “International Community.”
Here is the story:
Obama: I didn’t draw the red line on Syria, world did
“I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” Obama said. “My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility’s on the line.”
First, this is a lie. Obama did not ‘misspeak;’ he lied. The Obama Administration did say that they considered use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a ‘red line.”
Obama draws ‘red line’ for Syria on chemical and biological weapons
By NBC’s Shawna Thomas
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
So, let’s be clear: Obama is lying. His mouth did speak these words, and he was speaking for himself – as the President of this nation. He was not speaking for the ‘international community.’ He couldn’t have been: he is not a leader of the ‘international community.’
Next, understand that, when you hear someone refer to the ‘international community’ as the source of authority for whatever action they are proposing, they making an indirect appeal to global governance – period. When a nation defers to the opinion of other nations, it is ceding its sovereignty. If a nation cedes its sovereignty, it is no longer a nation: it is a subject to the greater body to which it is appealing (in this case, the “international community’).
This quest for a global government is nothing new. It is the driving force behind much of human history. In the past, it manifested itself as a quest for empire. In modern times, it has taken the form of the League of Nations and, when that failed, the UN. But make no mistake: all of these represent the desire to rule over the world. And when we do so by a strict democratic means, we establish a global tyranny – the tyranny of the majority. I would remind you that our founders explicitly rejected democracy as a desirable form of government. They rightly said democracy is turbulent and leads to violence. They called it the tyranny of the majority. So, when Obama appeals to the popular will of the “international community,” is ceding our national sovereignty to a global tyranny of the majority.
Now, with all this having been said, let me introduce another factor into this equation. If the “international community” is the driving force behind Obama wanting to attack Syria, then why can’t Obama find another nation willing to join him other than the heavily Muslim-influenced nation of France?
A careful reading of history will reveal that this is not only the path to tyranny, it is also the path toward atrocity. [This is also an act of subversion by President Obama.]
One thought on “AGENDAS: Global Governance & The Progressive Lexicon”