North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

European Union (EU)

The European Union (EU) has come a long way from the initial European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC) created by six founding countries some 60 years ago. Today, it is a community of 27 member states that is nothing like a market compact and far more reminiscent of Charlemagne’s pan-European Holy Roman Empire. The Maastricht Treaty created the current European Union in 1993; the Lisbon Treaty considerably expanded and centralized its powers.

There are many aspects to the confusing EU political structure, which has grown like a bad weed as the EU has expanded and added powers. There is the EU Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Central Bank. A European Parliament elected by EU citizens serves five years at a time.

In truth, however, many have pointed out that despite the plethora of legislative entities, real power lies with the European Council, which is basically answerable to no one. The EU, therefore, despite its pretences, is a profoundly anti-democratic body with few checks and balances on the enormous power it wields.

As the EU has grown larger and its leaders more arrogant, a torrent of legislation and regulations have poured out of its headquarters in Brussels. These have not always been well received, though regulation is certainly part of the EU mandate. Theoretically, the EU is responsible for creating an ever more perfect single market by abolishing passports and ensuring efficient movement of people, goods and capital throughout the EU. The EU also has its own central bank, the ECB, and its own currency, the euro. It maintains permanent diplomatic missions and is represented at the UN. It has military ambitions, as well.

All of this illustrates amply that the EU fully intends to become a United States of Europe despite the long and ancient tradition of its member states, which, unlike the colonies, are cohesive tribal cultures that go back thousands of years. The parallels between the US, a political entity that has been around 200 years, and Europe, which has been settled for some 10,000 years, are minimal at best.

Anglo-American Axis

The Anglo-American axis, within the context of the power elite, is the unacknowledged cultural cradle of the latest effort to consolidate countries and governments into a global order. One needs to see the axis from a historical perspective to understand its evolution and the strength that it derives from successive waves of immigration.

From Wikipedia we learn that “Anglo-Saxons” – the Germanic tribes that entered England after the fall of Rome – drove the indigenous people out of most of the region and into Wales. There were at least three tribes. First, the Angles from Angeln, the whole nation of which apparently entered Britain, “leaving their former land empty.” (The etymology, then, would be Anglo-Saxon ‘Engla land’ or ‘Ængla land’.) Second, were the Saxons from Lower Saxony and, third, apparently, the Jutes from Denmark.

The Anglo-Saxons in England were in turn invaded by the Viking Normans. According to Wikipedia, “The name ‘Normans’ derives from ‘Northmen’ or ‘Norsemen’, after the Vikings from Scandinavia who founded (French) Normandy. … In 1066, Duke William II of Normandy conquered England killing King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings. The invading Normans and their descendants replaced the Anglo-Saxons as the ruling class of England … Eventually, the Normans merged with the natives, combining languages and traditions. In the course of the Hundred Years War, the Norman aristocracy often identified themselves as English. The Anglo-Norman language became distinct from the French language.”

There was yet, perhaps, one more cultural overlay, a most controversial one and part of what may be termed “secret history.” This, according to certain historians, was a migration of various Venetian banking families to England during a period of perhaps 200 years (1500-1700). These wealthy and powerful families, some apparently with Jewish antecedents, are said to have established themselves within the independent enclave of the “City of London,” a financial district and the epicenter of world-spanning Anglo-American financial power. Eventually, these families, inter-marrying with Anglo-Saxons, are said to have become part of the royalty of Britain with familial branches through Europe and especially in Germany, France and Italy.

The “Anglo” power elite that emerged from the above waves of conquest, if such “secret history” is deemed to be true, was highly militant and manipulative – perhaps the most ruthless and vibrant power-culture on the planet. It utilized fiat money and central banking as tools to impose its will throughout Europe. Set back by the communication explosion of the Gutenberg Press and resultant Reformation, it nonetheless persevered and created, eventually, a “democratic” facade of governance behind which it could continue to exercise leadership and further consolidate hidden authority.

The American exception, especially as enunciated by the American libertarian philosopher and statesman Thomas Jefferson, was a conscious attempt to break away from the mercantile authoritarianism of Europe and the Anglo power elite. These “United States of America” were successful in pursuing a republican, agrarian legislative order until the “War Between the States” – partially funded by New York banks controlled by the Anglo elite – put an end to the republic and ushered in a new order, the Anglo-American axis.

It is this Anglo-American axis (a “special relationship”) that has dominated the Western world for the past 150 years. It is a secretive and closely guarded group of families and individuals with enormous wealth derived from the implementation of mercantilist central banking. In recent years, America has provided the military power and to a large extent the corporate vehicles that have projected the “one world” vision of the Anglo-American elite throughout the West, and even to Africa and Asia.

The ruthless progress of the Anglo-American axis – or Empire – depended in large part on secrecy and on the implementation of fear-based dominant social themes that were used to control the expanding populace and to further consolidate wealth and power. These themes were promoted through an intricate array of think tanks, universities and government organizations that first presented the concepts and then provided authoritarian solutions. The introduction of the Internet, like the Gutenberg Press before it, has exposed the machinations of the Anglo-American power elite and made visible the secret mechanisms of control via dominant social themes. Today, similar to the way the press spawned the Protestant Reformation, the Internet is spawning a sort of Internet Reformation – once again challenging the elite structures of the present day.

The Anglo-American power axis is currently in retreat, its authoritarian promotions giving way to increasingly failed attempts at manipulation via outright force and the implementation of legislation that has not been properly promoted. Since it is impossible for a few thousand to harry the world’s billions into submission via brute authoritarianism, one would assume at some point that the latest efforts at global governance would be abandoned and the Anglo-American power elite would take a step back to come up with new control methodologies as they have before.

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

The 18th and the 19th centuries were game changers in terms of socioeconomic and cultural growth in Europe and North America, and that growth eventually spread around the world. Historians call this chapter in human expansion the Industrial Revolution. There were major changes in agriculture, transportation, mining and manufacturing, and technology became the buzzword for a new generation. Robert E. Lucas Jr., the American economist and 1995 Noble prizewinner wrote, “For the first time in history, the living standards of the masses of ordinary people have begun to undergo substantial growth.”

In 1992, after a few years of bickering and head slapping, George H.W. Bush signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which included the US, Canada and Mexico. Most Americans as well as Canadians welcomed the treaty, especially if it could reduce retail prices on everyday products and not take jobs away from the battered working class that was barely hanging on in the midst of China’s goods, India’s services and Japan’s cars. The agreement had a few political bugs in it and was opposed by several groups in the US as well as Canada so Clinton later modified the agreement in order to make it work.

NAFTA is now composed of 22 chapters that outline the guidelines each country must follow. These chapters supposedly covered every conceivable aspect of country-to-country trade, but several annexations have been applied to the chapters since 1993. These annexations include environmental concerns as well as the separation of state, federal and provincial governments.

Thirty organizations are also involved in NAFTA. They oversee trade policies, as well as NAFTA’s composition, plus they settle disputes and internal issues that slow down the process.

Some legislatures still believe that NAFTA is a bad idea since jobs were lost in certain industries and because there have been NAFTA violations by all three countries. More than this, it has become increasingly clear that NAFTA and other such managed trade agreements are nothing more than ways to bleed America dry of valuable jobs and labor.

The strategy behind such managed trade is apparently to weaken America sufficiently that its citizens eventually become amenable to a larger North American Union of Mexico, Canada and the US. This charge has been denied by America’s elite chattering (bureaucratic) classes. But anyone who bothers to look into the matter on the Internet can easily see the truth of it.

No matter the foundering of the EU, the Anglosphere elites continue with their crazy determination to create one world government from the building blocks of regional entities. These managed trade agreements, like currency unions, are merely more attempts at creating centralized international regions that provide justification for true, formal world government. There are plenty of reasons to celebrate them – or criticize them – but those who do are missing the real point.

Brian Gerrish – Some Things He Knows !



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s