when some parent names a child something as strange as "strobe" you just know ther are gonna be problems down the road. read the following. this guy as his ilk are enough to make your skin crawl. it takes a village indeed.

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1999 19:02:55 ET XXXXX For educational purposes only TALBOTT: NEXT CENTURY, AMERICA WILL NOT EXIST IN CURRENT FORM, 'ALL STATES WILL RECOGNIZE A SINGLE, GLOBAL AUTHORITY'

Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott believes the United States may not exist in its current form in the 21st Century -- because nationhood throughout the world will become obsolete!

Talbott, who is profiled in the NEW YORK TIMES on Monday [for the second time in six months], has defined, shaped and executed the Clinton administration's foreign policy. He has served at the State Department since the first day of the Clinton presidency.

Just before joining the administration, Talbott wrote in TIME magazine -- in an essay titled "The Birth of the Global Nation" -- that he is looking forward to government run by "one global authority."

"Here is one optimist's reason for believing unity will prevail ... within the next hundred years ... nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority," Talbott declared in the July 20, 1992 issue of TIME.

"A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century -- 'citizen of the world' -- will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st."

Talbott continued: "All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary."

Talbott's belief that the United States of America and other nations are "artificial and temporary" continues to cause a rift inside of the State Department, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"I think we are losing sight that we work for the American taxpayer, not Russia, not Asia," one State Department veteran told the DRUDGE REPORT in Washington. "Mr. Talbott is completely consumed with world order and has alienated many career employees here. [His] attitude borders on obsession."

In recent months, Talbott has come under fire for his stand on Russia. The policy of financial and political engagement with Russia as revelations pour forth of massive money-laundering schemes has made Talbott the target of critics, reports John Broder at the TIMES.

"We have to be calm and steady and have a clear sense of purpose," Talbott tells Monday's NEW YORK TIMES.

"One of my modest suggestions to the world is strategic patience. We have to be calm and steady and have a clear sense of purpose when that dynamic is discouraging, as it is today," Talbott explains.

Global government has proven to be slightly more complicate

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), September 27, 1999

Answers

Did anyone who read this feel a sudden chill? I know I did.

I ordered some items from the U.K. recently and guess what designation the British post office used for the U.S.? Region 10 (!)

-- Greg Lawrence (greg@speakeasy.org), September 27, 1999.

What does it take to be tried for treason in this country anyway?

Corrine 1 here's a big NWO kiss for you baby!

-- todays Tom Sawyer (RUSH@2112.rockon!), September 27, 1999.

No folks Strobe is right on this. Just look how peaceful things are in Bosnia, Taiwan and China are one big happy family, Russia and Chechnya. Yeah this guys really smart the worlds just one big happy global nation. I'd be laughing if this guy wasn't so stupid and scary. I thought this kind of nonsensical drivel had been regulated to college professors.

-- (ericnamy@yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.

That dude should not be an employee of the USA, let alone a leader.

TALBOTT: 'ALL STATES WILL RECOGNIZE A SINGLE, GLOBAL AUTHORITY'

Strobe Toll Butt indeed!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 27, 1999.

If I were President today, I'd have Mr. Talbott shot at high noon b4 a firing squad. I would auction off the firing positions as a fund raiser to save social security (to get the support of the bleeding hearts). Then I would try him for treason.

-- enough is (enough@enough.com), September 27, 1999.

I guess that would have to depend on your definition of "treason".

-- x (x@x.mil), September 27, 1999.

todays Tom Sawyer,

Fellow RUSH fan here. Love your address, reconize mine. Oh, and Talbott sux.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), September 27, 1999.

Ooop's, I meant my name, not my address(burnt toast has nothing to do with RUSH)

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), September 27, 1999.

"...the United States may not exist in its current form in the 21st Century..."

Does the United States even exist in its current form right now? (that's just a little joke, gang.)

The trick with this is WHEN in the 21st Century? Frankly, I think that if things were to continue in the current continuum, the march of globalism and global authority is unstoppable. We already have the WTO, etc, and the global corporate state. Most nations are artificial; contructs left over from colonialism and the world wars. Should borders be redrawn so that every ethinic group, or whoever wants one, gets their own country? Much of the history of the last 50 years has been avoiding this. Would this lessen global tension?

Fears of Y2K causing the United States in its current form to cease to exist is certainly cause for concern. A major crisis will certainly lead the power-mongers to monger as much power as they can muster. If because of global crisis, the U.S. "ceases to exist" very early in the 21st century, that will indeed be chilling. If however, a crisis is averted, and the continuum continues... well... next month the world will have 6 billion humans. I don't doubt the the U.S. and the world will be a very different place, maybe even unrecognizable at the end of the 21st century. What would McKinley, the president who died at the birth of this century think of the world at the end of the century?

There is a "global authority" right now, and it's the United States. We're the tough guy on the block, the world cop, and the bully who everyone wants to knock our teeth out. Is this better than giving that role to a UN type authority? (ONLY because the power-mongers seem to feel there is a need for it?) What's a better alternative? I don't like the role we play in the world right now. Will ideas like "National Sovereignty" be relevant in 100 years? Why? I don't have answers, only questions.

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), September 27, 1999.

i'm fairly certain this guy is a "friend of Bill's". if i'm not mistaken, he and young willie go back to oxford. whata ya want to bet he was out protesting with bill against the U.S. while in England?

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), September 27, 1999.

"If I were President today, I'd have Mr. Talbott shot at high noon b4 a firing squad. I would auction off the firing positions as a fund raiser to save social security (to get the support of the bleeding hearts). Then I would try him for treason."

This crap on this forum bothers me, just a little.

Has occurred to any of you morons that Mr. Talbot may be predicting the impact on our future by big, greedy, stupid, lawless, idiotic, giant corporations that you luv so much.

It's not big government, you friggen mooks -- its the boys in the boardroom.

Having said that, are local, nationalistic, tribal alternatives all that much better?

Paranoid ranters!

-- yeahright (scaredofyoumaniacs@inthewoods.net), September 27, 1999.

Nope, troll, read more carefully. It's no longer paranoid, it's no longer ranting. It's

REALITY

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 27, 1999.

Yes, corrine, today's NYTimes piece, Public Lives: An Old Russia Hand Finds Himself the Focus of Debate says (among other things):

"Talbott's platinum-plated resume is familiar to those to whom such things matter... a Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford University... and, importantly, Friend of Bill. Clinton was Talbott's housemate during part of their time at Oxford... His wife, Brooke Shearer, is a senior official at the Interior Department and a longtime friend of the Clintons in her own right. 'I came into this job serendipitously,' he said, not referring explicitly to his friendship with the president because he doesn't have to..."

I don't remember where I read this, but it is my understanding that Talbott played a big part in shaping Clinton's thinking on globalist issues. He also is one of the few FoB's unscathed by scandal. He seems to be fairly untouchable. Protesting the U.S. next to Bill in the sixties? Does it really matter at this point?

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), September 27, 1999.

http://www.southern-style.com/conspiracy_of_the_left.htm

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), September 27, 1999.

"The presence of paranoia does not prove the absence of plots and plans. Remember--it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you." Henry Kissenger

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), September 27, 1999.

Does Talbott remind anyone of the psycho-dude from Stallone's movie Demolition Man? You know, that fruit loop described by Wesley Snipes as "An evil Mr. Rodgers!" Dr Cocteau, I believe his name was. Needless to say, as I recall it was Jesse...pardon Governer Jesse Ventura who plugged the bad guy in that scene...ironic foreshadowing perhaps?

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.

No big swirly one for Strobe, eh, Corrine?

I'm convinced that Y2k is going to crush the designs of the anglo-american banking establishment that "Strobe" represents. As this article states, these bastards are on the ropes now, as the global economy dominos into a depression. The important thing is not to let them spin it; when the crash comes, we need to give credit where credit is due. We also need to focus on the primacy of the U.S. Constitution with Bill of Rights intact, and to spell out for our friends and neighbors the threat that globalism represents to our heritage and our freedom. Multinational corporations running the world through the UN, or the WTO, or any such front, is a bad idea; the coming crash should be held up as an object lesson in that. Those of us on the left should realize that this "one world" hoo-hah is NOT the utopian socialist idea: it's sold to lefties as socialism, but really it's the richest .05 percent of the population winning the game of Monopoly, cashing in their tokens and putting the board away so no one else can play.

Big thanks to R. Wright for the link.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), September 27, 1999.

capitalism,n.-an economic system in which the investment in and ownership of the means of production,distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations,esp.as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. Random House Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged Edition

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), September 27, 1999.

? Does anyone here know what a "Rhodes Scholar" actually is, and what one must do to become one?

-- Hillbilly (Hillbilly@possum.creek), September 27, 1999.

Barb,

Who owns "the state?" If the state is privately owned (as the "global governance" apparatus is most assuredly owned - by bankers), then is it "socialism," or "capitalism?"

No freedom is possible without the freedom to own property, and to freely contract for labor. When a class of capitalists make the state their agency, and use it to infringe the right to property for everyone but themselves, it is socialism in name only. Look to China as an example of the corruption that obtains when human beings attempt to impose a utopian ideal without such considerations.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), September 27, 1999.

socialism,n.-1.a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production,capital,land,etc. in the community as a whole. 2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), September 27, 1999.

Add:source of definitions above Random House Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged edition.

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), September 27, 1999.

Liberty is correct. NWO is as much of a threat to any classic "liberal" values as it is to "conservative." Divide-and- conquer tactics need to be opposed when it comes to this issue.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 27, 1999.

SOMEONE SHOULD INSERT THE BUSINESS END OF AN M-1 GARRAND UP THE TOLL- BUTTS BUTT AND STOP THIS DRIVEL BEFORE IT GETS OUT OF HAND!

-- ftheun (nonwo@usa.org), September 27, 1999.

Speaking of political systems and corruption, I am looking forward to TNT's production of Orwell's Animal Farm. After watching the trailer, my teenaged daughter turned to me and said, "Whoa. That looks... nasty." I had to agree.

Reading about "the pigs taking over" is one thing. Seeing them take over is a bit more... visceral.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), September 27, 1999.

Way to go Liberty, pshannon, yeahright!

The circle goes around and we meet our "opposites" when times get a little too "interesting."

Those of us who have spent our adult lives watching and opposing the corporate-controlled state power of U$A, will more and more appreciate the bedrock upholding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by our libertarian and more-to-the-right brethren.

We just think that they were long-blinded by their capitalist, pro- business bias to the world-devouring successes and dangers of corporatism. WTO and similar excesses should help with that, but does it come too little, too late?

We are all small mammals running 'round between the dinosaurs' legs. Many of us get trampled. We just don't know if we're in early-, mid-, or late-Mesozoic here, give or take a "million years" or so.

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), September 27, 1999.

Methinks that Mr. Talbott fails to adequately recognize much of the long term animosity that exists in the world. Consider the current situations in the mid-east, Northern Ireland, Africa, the remnants of Yugoslavia, Greeks vs. Turks, etc. There are long-standing disputes that may be smoothed over in the short run, but which will tend to flare up in the longer term.

And there is also the question of how to best serve the interests of diverse nations, cultures, and peoples, in a wide variety of environments. Barring the second coming, I doubt that a single government is going to adequarely look after the interests of so many diverse peoples...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), September 27, 1999.

If he is not being quoted out of context, it sounds as if Mr. Talbott is stuck in Pepperland.

Me, I'd just LOVE world government!! The only problem is that not everyone who wants to be in world government wants the rule of law, the right to private property, the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, freeom of the press, freedom of religion, etc. In a nutshell, the cart of world government shouldn't be running before th horse of universal human rights. I don't see human rights being more important than human greed or powerlust in the next 200 years or so, so Talbott is definietely totally positively in fantasyland. Why do my tax dollars pay for this parasite?

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), September 27, 1999.