• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

There is something surreal about the entire Kosovo affair. For the
first time since World War II, a European capital has been bombed by
other European nations in concert with the United States. NATO was
supposedly created to defend its members against attacks from unfriendly
nations. Now NATO has initiated a war against a sovereign power whose
only crime is trying to prevent an insurgency from depriving it of one
of its provinces, a province of great historical significance to the
Serbs.

No one denies that the suppression of the Kosovo independence
movement by the Serbs has been brutal. President Lincoln launched a war
that destroyed the South in order to maintain U.S. sovereignty over the
states that had seceded from the Union. A half million lives were lost
during that conflict. Had an outside power taken sides with the
confederacy and sent troops and armaments to fight against the United
States, that would have been considered a blatant act of war.

But we are living in a different world, in which the idea of a world
government imposing its will on recalcitrant states is becoming more and
more acceptable by a general public that is being weaned away from
patriotic loyalties by their public educators. NATO has suddenly
transformed itself from a defensive alliance into a new international
police force that will impose its will on other nations engaged in
activities it disapproves of. It must succeed in Yugoslavia, because if
it fails, it will be seen as a failure of will. A world government
cannot be meek. It must exercise brute force.

Of course, what NATO wants is essentially benign. We would all like
to see peace in Yugoslavia. We would all like to see a happy and
independent Kosovo. But Yugoslavia is a sovereign power resisting
dismemberment. I’m sure that many Americans would have preferred a
peaceful Confederacy living alongside a peaceful United States in
exchange for a half million lives. The continent was large enough for
the two national entities. But Lincoln decided that he had a sacred duty
to preserve the Union, no matter the cost.

What is surreal about the Serbian situation is that World War I was
started by a Serb who assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian
throne, the Archduke Ferdinand, and his wife, while they were visiting
Sarajevo in June 1914. A month later, Austria-Hungary, with the help of
Germany, declared war on Serbia. Russia immediately mobilized to help
the Serbs, which led Germany to declare war on Russia. France, anxious
to retrieve Alsace-Lorraine, lost in the Franco-Prussian war, then came
in on the side of Russia and the Serbs. Then, when Germany invaded
Belgium, England declared war on Germany. We then entered the war in
1917 on the Allied side. According to President Wilson, it was a war to
end all wars.

The Archduke had represented the Austro-Hungarian Empire that ruled
much of the Balkans at that time. The emperor was able to rule over a
number of disparate ethnic groups with relative peace and stability.
World War I shattered all of that. At the war’s end, the Allied powers
drew up a new map of Europe, giving many ethnic groups the nationhood
they longed for. In the meantime, the Bolsheviks, who were really
serious about remaking mankind, took over Russia. But as we all know,
this Allied exercise in remaking the world was then shattered by Adolf
Hitler in World War II. The conclusion of that war brought Communism to
Eastern Europe, including Yugoslavia.

What we are really witnessing in Kosovo is the New World Order
raising its benign humanist head and making its existence manifest. It
will impose peace in Yugoslavia even if it has to bomb the Serbs into
submission. But what is not clear is why NATO proceeded to act without
first getting the approval of the United Nations Security Council. The
reason may have a lot to do with how this whole world government idea
got started. It was Cecil Rhodes, creator of the world’s greatest gold
and diamond mining combine, who conceived of a means of establishing
world peace by creating a world authority run by the Anglo-Saxons.

All of that was revealed in a New York Times front page story on
April 9, 1902, two weeks after Rhodes’ death in South Africa. The
headline read: “Mr. Rhodes’ Ideal of Anglo-Saxon Greatness. He Believed
a Wealthy Secret Society Should Work to Secure the World’s Peace and a
British-American Federation.” Out of that plan came the Royal Institute
for International Affairs in London, the Council on Foreign Relations in
New York, and the Rhodes Scholarships which were to be used to recruit
the future young leaders to carry the plan forward. Lest we forget, Bill
Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, and we know of the continuity of Cecil
Rhodes’ secret society through the work of Clinton’s professor at
Georgetown University, the late Carroll Quigley, who went to the trouble
of revealing all of this in two books, “Tragedy and Hope,” and “The
Anglo-American Establishment.”

Is it merely a coincidence that it is both Bill Clinton and Tony
Blair who are leading the charge into Kosovo, while the rest of NATO
allies go along reluctantly with this mission to impose “peace” on Slavs
and Albanians? The Russians are quite upset at this Anglo-Saxon elite
bypassing the United Nations with its hordes of strange peoples who may
have a different view of this civil conflict. There is, of course, a
subtle racist undercurrent in all of this. But Cecil Rhodes had no
qualms about his concept of Anglo-Saxons as superior and worthy of
imposing their benign will on the rest of mankind. Yet, as we all know,
the road to hell is well paved with benign intentions.


Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of “The Whole-Language/OBE Fraud”
and seven other books on education. His books are available on
Amazon.com.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.