RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3617/A-Few-Thoughts-on-President-Trumps-UN-Speech.aspx

If I had to pick a title, I might call President Trump’s 2017 UN address, “Something for Everyone.”

For example, Trump supporters heard the words “America first” and “sovereignty” and glowed. Trump haters heard the word “sovereignty” and “American interests above all else” and ignited. So consumed were many by their own respective basking and bonfires, they failed to realize that no matter how many times Trump dropped the word “sovereignty,” it was sometimes in sentences like this: “We must reject threats to sovereignty, from the Ukraine to the South China Sea.” In other words, we must reject threats to the new world order and back again.

I’n guessing that’s why neocons were carving the speech up into way many too portions of red meat (carpaccio?) for comfort. Loving it were Elliott Abrams at National Review, Sohrab Ahmari (“Trump’s Turtle Bay Triumph”), and that third amigo, Lindsay Graham, the kind of people once pertrified by The Great Candidate Trump America First Foreign Policy Speech of 2016. With all of that, there was plenty of smoke coming out of many ears — the New York Times, Stalin supporter Max Boot, to name a couple — which was also entertaining.

Then there were the big lines — including the big and also red line about “obliterating” the regime of North Korea if “Rocket Man” doesn’t stop launching missiles at us or our allies.  Such talk thrills the Deplorables at home, but it troubles me because it tells me the generals are telling Trump what a quickee little war it will be against “Rocket Man” — just forget all about China, Russia, whether this might be a trap door into a larger regional war, and all that other strategy stuff. Here, they seem to be displaying their customary lack of forsight, and also negligence, when it comes to a fair appraisal of what US capabilities are like after 16 years of taxing stress on our military resources, which, by the way, they never seem to want to stop.

For some out of the box thinking on the subject — and just the pleasure of seeing a real strategic mind at work — read Admiral James A Lyons’ thoughts on using food as a point of pressure against the regime, food that is currently being provided by the UN to North Korea, where the regime exploits it.

Admiral Lyons writes: “Using `food’ as a weapon to force regime change is not what civilized nations normally do, but North Korea is not a normal nation. It is rogue nation that not only subjects its people to unimaginable humanitarian crises, but is also is ruled by a destabilizing regime that has threatened to cause the deaths of millions of Americans. Therefore, extreme measures are required prior to taking military actions” (emphasis added).

Back to Trump at the UN. My own eyes certainly lit up when the president explained the problem with Venezuela was not that it had implemented socialism poorly, but that Venezuela had implemented socialism faithfully. A marvelous line. More enjoyable still were the gasps, hiccupped laughs and guffaws the line elicited from all of the assembled socialists. In those moments of global upset I realized I could not think of a single UN “member-state” that was not in some large and fundamental ways itself socialist, and that, tragically, includes the USA.

And here we get to the defective foundation of not only the President’s disappointing appeal to “reform” this insidious World Body, but also of the widest possible academic and political consensus on past events, which, naturally, informs current events. That defective foundation is over three-quarters of a century at least of “court history,” not facts, not conclusions, about the subversion of the nations of the world by agents and supporters of world communism, for most of a century directed and supported by Moscow using extensive domestic networks in many countries. The United Nations is and always has been a massive New York outpost of this same global movement, at its core in direct conflict with our democratic republic and constitutional form of government.

The (unasked) question is, how could the UN possibly be anything else? It was created under the aegis of Soviet agent Alger Hiss, whose cover as a senior State Department official was first revealed publicly by Whittaker Chambers in 1948.

Some additional contex from American Betrayal.

During the war and in its aftermath, the obvious parallels between Dictator Hitler and Dictators Lenin and Stalin were obscured by a new zealotry, a new orthodoxy. A Dies or a Bullitt, a Taft or a Hoover, a Kravchenko, a Krivitsky, a Valtin could speak up and point out that these two emperors of blood wore the same clothes, but in response Stalin’s courtiers by the score would turn on them and boo, yelling the magic word that turned dissenters into toads: “Red-baiter!” Then, suddenly, where once two emperors of blood had threatened each other in mortal combat, there was only one, bigger and more powerful than before, who threatened the world. After four years of “total” war in Europe—ensured by the disastrous Allied policy of “unconditional surrender”—there were no more natural rivals to hem the Communist regime in at the sides.

There was only us, from across the oceans. As first runner-up in the war, our main prize was the “Good War” legacy, wrapped in patriotic bunting, dressing up—disguising—our radical commitment to world governance and global economy that marked the postwar era of “interdependence,” which Lend-Lease kicked off back in 1941. This was, after all, the Kremlin dream, the Communist grail. Now it was real, its headquarters rising in concrete and steel over Turtle Bay in New York City, brought into existence by a bevy of Soviet agents lodged deep in the vitals of the United States and other Western governments. No kidding. Think about what Hopkins, Hiss, and White actually accomplished. Gregor Dallas observes:

Thus the world found itself in 1945 at the conclusion of catastrophe with a whole series of international institutions—ranging from commercial agreements, to exchange rates, to war credits and loans, to the administration of ter- ritories without governments, to an ambulating world without citizenship, to the United Nations itself—which had been imposed by the United States. But even more important was the fact that all the “charters” and constitutions of these world institutions had been composed by America’s leading Soviet agents [emphasis added].12

Former Ambassdor to the UN Jeane J. Kirkpatrick would partly describe the paradox this created.

Also from American Betrayal:

The entire concept of the UN, she wrote, “was based from the outset on falsification.” This began, she continued, with the basic fact that the USSR was not, as the UN Charter assumed of all members, a democracy with democratic values. “Founding the UN required denying and falsifying the nature of the Soviet Union,” she wrote. “Optimism about the new era of peace and the United Nations was maintained only by denial,” and it was falsehood-based “denial and fantasy,” Kirkpatrick observed, that became “permanent features of the postwar world.”

Yes, but denial and fantasy were already permanent features of the world before the war. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine circumstances under which the UN could have or would have been founded if such denial and fantasy were not already regnant.

Denial and fantasy remain regnant. No candy-coated homage to the original “vision” of the UN should be able to hide the evidence that the UN is always and forever an anti-democratic mechanism to advance the destruction of national sovereignty, to subvert national cultures, legitimize Communist regimes, elevate tin-pot-potentates, and expand the power of Marxian global elites. But it does.

To be fair, Trump didn’t wax too terribly rhapsodic about the UN, and perhaps his Marshall Plan paragraphs served as a sop to his pro-America instincts.

This institution was founded in the aftermath of two world wars to help shape this better future. It was based on the vision that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity.

It was in the same period, exactly 70 years ago, that the United States developed the Marshall Plan to help restore Europe. Those three beautiful pillars — they’re pillars of peace, sovereignty, security, and prosperity.

The Marshall Plan was built on the noble idea that the whole world is safer when nations are strong, independent, and free. As President Truman said in his message to Congress at that time, “Our support of European recovery is in full accord with our support of the United Nations. The success of the United Nations depends upon the independent strength of its members.”

Then again, the Marshall Plan was not exactly a helping hand to free markets and rugged individualism across Europe — as we might glean from the words of British Socialist RHS Crossman, whe noted how the Marshall Plan, as executed, helped to turn postwar-Europe socialist! As Crossman explained in 1950, “the Americans who ran it applied to European recovery methods of social planning which are anathema to most business men.”

Bet those “methods of social planning” would also be anathema to business-man-Trump — not that he, or many others for that matter, will ever know it.

The Swamp is that good. It can turn patriotism to globalism every time.