Globalism Through Regionalism | Michael Shaw

By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet

Regionalism is communism.

Via Charlotte Iserbyt’s The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America (p. 134), my emphasis:

THE DAILY WORLD OF NOVEMBER 8, 1975 CARRIED A VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE ENTITLED “Planning Is Socialism’s Trademark” by Morris Zeitlin. The Daily World (newspaper of the Communist Party USA) was formerly known as The Daily Worker and was founded in 1924. The importance of this article lies in its blatant admission that [regionalism], which is gradually becoming the accepted method of unelected governance in the United States (unelected councils and task forces, participatory democracy, public-private partnerships, etc.) is the form of government used in democratic socialist and communist countries. The following are excerpts from this article:

Cities in industrially advanced countries develop complex economic, social and political interaction. In this process, major cities tend to consolidate neighboring smaller cities and settlements into metropolitan regions. Rationally, metropolitan regions should constitute governmental units having comprehensive planning and administrative powers within their boundaries.

In our country (the United States), rival capitalist groups, jealously guarding their special prerogatives, have rigidly maintained the traditional boundaries of states and counties while national economic and social development has created metropolitan regions that overlap those boundaries. We have no regional government and no comprehensive regional planning to speak of. Regional government and planning remain concepts our urban scholars and planners have long advocated in vain….

In socialist countries, metropolitan regions enjoy metropolitan regional government and comprehensive planning. Of the many regions on the vast territory of the Soviet Union, the Moscow Region commands special attention, for it has been, since the 1917 Revolution, the country’s economic and political center.

The economic and functional efficiencies and the social benefits that comprehensive national, regional and city planning make possible in socialist society explain the Soviet Union’s enormous and rapid economic and social progress. Conversely, our profit-oriented ruling capitalist class makes comprehensive social and economic planning impossible, causing waste and chaos and dragging the entire nation into misery and suffering as its rule deteriorates and declines.

The push to consolidate school districts is a prime example of regionalism. For example, one New York school district comprises some 1,700 schools. So much for local control of schools by parents and teachers. It amounts to an educational collective, custom-made for total federal control.

On a broader and more disturbing scale, the collusion of nations like Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) is a global form of regionalism that is aligning itself against the U.S. dollar.

We’ve already seen the result of regionalism in the creation of the European Union (EU). The EU’s governmental system more resembles the model set forth in Plato’s Republic, whereby an elite cadre of “philosopher-kings” rule the masses, and the notion of national sovereignty is wiped out, i.e. globalism.

There has long been talk of a North American Union (NAU)—the merger of Canada, United States and Mexico.

By the way, I hear Barack Obama is a big fan of “regionalism.”


Author: Admin

Related Articles

2 thoughts on “Globalism Through Regionalism | Michael Shaw

  1. Precisely! A “federal” Region is an American “Soviet” which converts States into functioning as “territories” under control of Congress.

    The original structure of our government had the States sovereign over the national government, which they created. States were not subject to the authority of Congress, except in the specific instances enumerated in the US Const. where States ceded part of their sovereignty in order for Congress to perform its assigned duties.

    The Const. gives Congress jurisdiction only over “Territories”, when they become States, Congress’ authority over them ceases. State governments administer the common-law of liberty (the Law of the Land) which protects our God given natural rights; the national government exercises an international commercial law authority (the Law of the Sea) which does not protect rights (other than statutory “civil rights” conferred by Congress upon minorities), but enforces statute and contract.

    The Social Security Act of 1933 compelled the States to act as “Territories”, administrative agencies of Congress, administering the Soviet programs written in to the Act, the States taking on a secondary role.

    The S. Ct. correctly ruled that obamacare was simply an extension of the SSA. This is how we “signed up” for communism, we are now bound to it by contract and cannot now object to its terms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *