• CFR Globalist: End U.S. States, Build China-style Regional Gov't

    Writing in the New York Times last month, a mid-level globalist operative with the war-mongering, global government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations argued that there needs to be a “new map for America.” “Advanced economies in Western Europe and Asia are reorienting themselves around robust urban clusters of advanced industry,” wrote Parag Khanna, a CFR globalist and self-styled “leading global strategist,” whatever that means. “Unfortunately, American policy making remains wedded to an antiquated political structure of 50 distinct states.”
    Writing in the New York Times last month, a mid-level globalist operative with the war-mongering, global government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations argued that there needs to be a “new map for America.” “Advanced economies in Western Europe and Asia are reorienting themselves around robust urban clusters of advanced industry,” wrote Parag Khanna, a CFR globalist and self-styled “leading global strategist,” whatever that means. “Unfortunately, American policy making remains wedded to an antiquated political structure of 50 distinct states.”

    Instead of the 50 states, Khanna argues that America's new map should be based on regions, each with its own regional government. “We don’t have to create these regions; they already exist, on two levels,” the CFR operative explained. “First, there are now seven distinct super-regions, defined by common economics and demographics, like the Pacific Coast and the Great Lakes. Within these, in addition to America’s main metro hubs, we find new urban archipelagos.” Federal policy should be used to bring it all about, he said.
    But it will not be enough just to abolish and make irrelevant America's state borders. National borders need to go, too. “Where possible, such planning should even jump over international borders,” Khanna argues, citing the “Detroit-Windsor region” as a good target for the effort. “Both sides are deeply interdependent because of their automobile and steel industries and would benefit from scaling together rather than bickering over who pays for a new bridge between them. Detroit’s destiny seems almost obvious if we are brave enough to build it: a midpoint of the Chicago-Toronto corridor in an emerging North American Union.” (Emphasis added)
    much more here...


    Sign up for a free account to add your comment!


    Comments 9 Comments
    1. LibertyEagle's Avatar
      LibertyEagle -
      Those who do not believe in our nation having borders are knowingly or not, helping the globalists.
    1. acptulsa's Avatar
      acptulsa -
      Um, this idiot isn't saying no borders. This idiot is saying no state governments, like a right proper Soviet Communist. You did notice that, right? Why pretend that someone talking about apples is extolling the virtues of oranges? No one with eyes to see will believe it.

      Or are you advocating for restricting free travel between the states, now, O Great Constitutionalist?

      Now that we have done what Thomas Jefferson said not to do and concentrated all the power in Washington, and now that Jefferson was proven right and Washington turned into the most corrupt government on the face of the earth, The CFR wants us to entrench that corruption by eliminating our states, quick. You'd almost think the CFR was somehow getting a piece of the action.

      And of course they hold Europe up as some kind of grand example. Even though, since the EU was formed, it has been slowly falling apart.

      The national border is strictly an afterthought to this one. And a joke--a bridge between Detroit and Windsor, where a bridge is difficult and the tunnel works pretty darned well? There are much stronger arguments for local control than let's piss off the CFR and delay the North American Union.
    1. presence's Avatar
      presence -
      “Both sides are deeply interdependent because of their automobile and steel industries and would benefit from scaling together rather than bickering over who pays for a new bridge between them.
      There shouldn't be any bickering over who pays for "a new bridge".... if you want a bridge... buy the land on both sides and pay for everything in between.

      Problem solved.

      Next.
    1. Ronin Truth's Avatar
      Ronin Truth -
      Move the CFR to North Korea.
    1. Anti Federalist's Avatar
      Anti Federalist -
      Might as well.

      The states are nothing more than vassals and prefectures of the central government now.
    1. Warlord's Avatar
      Warlord -
      Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
      Might as well.

      The states are nothing more than vassals and prefectures of the central government now.
      We are seeing tremendous resistance with nullification of things like weed. Even you can acknowledge that AF.
    1. brushfire's Avatar
      brushfire -
      Interesting...

      Globalists are for no borders. Just as with the states, the sovereign need a border. Property rights are a fundamental component of a free society. I suppose you could be a "citizen of the world" and believe in global anarchy, and this concept of an open border might not make sense. I appreciate that view, but most "citizens of the world" are looking towards world government and not anarchy. So the border is not so much about property, its about control. No border, no control? That doesnt really resonate with me.

      To me, the typical border discussion is often complicated by other things. Just like when talking about so called "gun violence", drugs, and gangs. You cannot have an honest discussion about "gun violence" without also talking about drug policy, and creating black markets.

      The illegal immigration issue is more of a problem that stems from the welfare state, and less of a problem caused by not having a wall or a fence. You must take away the incentive... Want to stop gang violence? Eliminate the black market caused by prohibition. Want to stop illegal immigration? Quit giving the illegals "free" health care and education. There's a strong tendency for people to want to focus on the inanimate, rather than the behavior (take the gun, build a wall)

      As for security, there is another aspect to that too... Quit incentivizing terrorism by putting your nose in arab/eastern affairs. As noble of a thought that it might be for most, we should not be the policemen of the world - its not our place. We need to mind our business, and quit being manipulated by Israel, Saudi, and other foreign interests. There's no good that can come from these "entangling alliances". Where is the border wall in Switzerland? Why do the evil muslims only want to live under the beds of the Americans and not the Swiss? Will building a wall and further empowering a corrupt federal government make us safer? Personally, I dont think it will.
    1. Ronin Truth's Avatar
      Ronin Truth -
      Quote Originally Posted by brushfire View Post
      Interesting...

      Globalists are for no borders. Just as with the states, the sovereign need a border. Property rights are a fundamental component of a free society. I suppose you could be a "citizen of the world" and believe in global anarchy, and this concept of an open border might not make sense. I appreciate that view, but most "citizens of the world" are looking towards world government and not anarchy. So the border is not so much about property, its about control. No border, no control? That doesnt really resonate with me.

      To me, the typical border discussion is often complicated by other things. Just like when talking about so called "gun violence", drugs, and gangs. You cannot have an honest discussion about "gun violence" without also talking about drug policy, and creating black markets.

      The illegal immigration issue is more of a problem that stems from the welfare state, and less of a problem caused by not having a wall or a fence. You must take away the incentive... Want to stop gang violence? Eliminate the black market caused by prohibition. Want to stop illegal immigration? Quit giving the illegals "free" health care and education. There's a strong tendency for people to want to focus on the inanimate, rather than the behavior (take the gun, build a wall)

      As for security, there is another aspect to that too... Quit incentivizing terrorism by putting your nose in arab/eastern affairs. As noble of a thought that it might be for most, we should not be the policemen of the world - its not our place. We need to mind our business, and quit being manipulated by Israel, Saudi, and other foreign interests. There's no good that can come from these "entangling alliances". Where is the border wall in Switzerland? Why do the evil muslims only want to live under the beds of the Americans and not the Swiss? Will building a wall and further empowering a corrupt federal government make us safer? Personally, I dont think it will.
      The Alps, actually, until relatively recently used to provide a pretty good border wall for the Swiss, for quite some time.

      There is probably a very similar situation with the Nepalese, in the Himalayas. Then there is Zomia in the Asian highlands.

      Good walls make for good neighbors.
    1. brushfire's Avatar
      brushfire -
      Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
      The Alps, actually, until relatively recently used to provide a pretty good border wall for the Swiss, for quite some time.

      There is probably a very similar situation with the Nepalese, in the Himalayas. Then there is Zomia in the Asian highlands.

      Good walls make for good neighbors.
      I dont know that I agree with the wall theory in this context. Germany and Switzerland reside on the same side of "the wall".




      Nepal is actually "the wall". It resides within the range, but much like Afghanistan, it probably doesnt offer much incentive for invasion as they have limited resources (no reason to invade). I guess that doesnt stop morons in the US, but I'll go out on a limb and say that "the wall" is not what has kept them from being invaded - its the lack of incentive.


      Another example - China has found their mountains to be insufficient. Mao Tse Trump, or whatever dictator of the day, must have decided that a wall would augment the security their mountains.



      To be fair, I'm partially poking fun. Those "mountains" have grass on them - hardly what is seen in Switzerland or the Himalayas. Still, I think if there is enough incentive, even mountains are trivial walls, and good neighbors are just as hard to keep.


    Sign up for a free account to add your comment!





    Continue / discuss in the forums Read More

  • Follow us on Twitter! Like us on Facebook! Subscribe to our top news RSS Feed! New! Subscribe to us on YouTube!