From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: What the Trilateralists truly intend
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:43:51 GMT

In article <1js829INN399@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>
>In a previous article, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) says:
>
>>In article <1jr0doINNciq@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>
>>>Since objectivity is ALWAYS absent in any publication, it behooves the
>>>reader to ask himself, "What axe is being ground here?"  The axe ground
>>>over time by FOREIGN AFFAIRS is the axe of globalism.  They want to see
>>>a New World Order, a global government.
>>
>>1) Even assuming this were true, so what?
>>
>>2) What evidence do you have that this is true in the first place?
>>
>>3) What evidence do you have that FOREIGN AFFAIRS is more sinister than,
>>   say, the Yale Law Journal?  After all, I've *seen* courts cite to the
>>   Yale Law Journal...
>
>My answers: 1) If the United States is incorporated into a global
>superstate, as I maintain the CFR and the Trilateral Commission are
>trying to promote, our nation would lose its sovereignty and our
>citizens would lose the Constitutional protections of their most basic
>rights because the charter of the superstate (UN charter?) would
>supercede it.  

Okay.  A legitimate fear, though an implausible one.

Of course, there's no evidence the CFR or the Trilateralists are trying
to promote this.

>2) The growing power of the United Nations and the
>dwindling influence of the U.S. Constitution in national and
>international affairs ought to be evidence enough for anyone who really
>wants to see the problem.  

Correlation does not imply causation.  Did the election of Eisenhower
cause the Dodgers to leave Brooklyn?

>For one who does not want to see the problem,
>probably no amount of evidence will persuade.  How do we prove that
>trees are taller than grass?  One can always produce a very short tree
>with a very tall blade of grass.  

On the other hand, if someone cannot produce a single short blade of grass,
I become skeptical.  I'll buy the "growing power of the UN" -- but the
growing power of the UN is utterly and completely constrained by the fact
that the United States has a veto.  The UN does nothing the US doesn't want
it to.  Other nations have far more worry that the US will infringe upon
the UN than vice versa.  The UN is "more powerful" in name only -- the US
has been conducting its own foreign policy however it wants, and is merely
hiding behind the UN to avoid anti-Americanism.  It's not a bad strategy.
The United Nations could not exist without the United States.  Simple
game theory will predict the inevitable result -- the UN becomes a mouthpiece
for US foreign policy.  It's made possible the promotion of US interests
and democracy in ways that the US alone could not act.  Compare Bush's
foreign policy successes with, say, Carter's.

I see no evidence of "the dwindling influence of the US Constitution" in
international affairs.  Nor has any been presented.  Not even quotes from
Foreign Affairs, calling for an end to the Constitution.  Here's where
the conspiracy theory leaps into pure unsupported conjecture.

>3) FOREIGN AFFAIRS is NOT sinister IF 
>you approve of what Henry Kissenger and Lawrence Eagleburger, et al are
>trying to do in the world.  If you do not approve of the emergence of a
>world superstate and the trashing of the U.S. Constitution, then
>FOREIGN AFFAIRS is sinister because it is the official publication of
>that elitist organization in this country most devoted to a so-called
>New World Order.

Unfortunately, your last sentence assumes the conclusion.  You've left
out some crucial intermediate steps.   
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,soc.culture.jewish