The Belcher Papers - Camerica: Trilateral Center of the New World Order

By the first half of the 18th century it is fully realized by several European powers that North America, with its vast resources and geographical position, is ideally situated for the projection of global power. With Spanish influence in the Americas on the wane, and French defeat looming at the hands of the English in the French and Indian War of 1754-63, plans are made for strategic purposes to move the center of power of the British Empire from England to North America. A twenty mile wide channel is nice for defense and protection, an ocean thousands of miles wide on one’s either flank is much, much, better. However, the 1776 North American Revolution would seem to have precluded these plans…or did it?

US aircraft fly over the British and American fleets at surrender of Japan ceremony in Tokyo Harbor (1945)

Camerica:

Trilateral Center of the New World Order

“The United States is the Trilateral Center—both for the Americas, and for the world’s other continents. It was designed to be the Trilateral Center for the rest of the world’s nations. And there’s a geographical reason for that: The Americas are situated in the middle of the globe between the world’s other strategic continents. Thus, potentially the United States can reach out either of its arms—the Western arm, toward Asia, or the Eastern arm, toward Europe, to aid and influence foreign affairs.

In Spring 2001, and again in Spring 2002, the United States took steps closer to the goal of achieving what can be called “Camerica”—a zone of closer cooperation between Canada, the United States of America, Mexico, Central America, and South America. The Monterey, Mexico summit in March 2002 further encouraged Mexico, Central, and South America to develop democratic principles in accordance with those advocated by the international community that is the New World Order….

A next, further step in the emergence of the Camerica region—the expanded Trilateral Center—was explored in 2001-2002, also: the cooperation of a large interAmerican, intercontinental free trade zone stretching all the way from Canada to Mexico (and potentially to South America), with the United States of America anchoring the center and occupying the middle position between the upper North American and Central-South American regions. Eventually, this may lead at some point in the future to a possible political alliance or confederation between the nations of the American continents (collectively, Camerica: Canada + the rest of North America, Central America, and South America). In the economic, political, ideological, and military regard, the United States would then serve as the Trilateral Center for the Americas—as it has already fulfilled the goal of being the Trilateral Center for the world through the exportation of its democratic ideology, its trade, its political/legal advisers, and, in the post-World War II era, its military advisers and peacekeeping troops. The United States of America serves as the command center and headquarters of the New World Order; it is the Trilateral Center. And its new American empire secured its beginnings through a war involving a clash of two empires: the Great War for Empire that was fought in the mid-eighteenth century…”

North America at the time of the French and Indian War (1754-1763)

America Becomes the Empire’s Peripheral Center

“However, there were ideological undercurrents submerged beneath the imperialistic surface that churned the stream of the Great War for Empire. Some British officials in the American Periphery, allied with Whig imperialist officials in London, wanted the Great War for Empire to be a war for American expansion and even an Anglo-American political union in which the American continent would possess its own central government institution attached to or independent from the British central government at Whitehall—i.e., to switch the center of empire to the periphery, making America Britain’s Peripheral Center….”

“During the Anglo-French conflict the ideology of the American Peripheral Center—the emerging Trilateral Center—was European and imperialistic because in the mid-eighteenth century, the colonists still considered themselves to be Europeans, defending and supporting the European colonial system. That was the attitude which certain British officials sought to make use of throughout the course of the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748) (the American phase of which was known as King George’s War) and the Great War for Empire (1754-1763) (the American phase of which was known as the French and Indian War).

“During both wars, the policy for the development of a Peripheral Center was created and carried out by a circle of British officials in London and their agents in the American colonies. (It should be remembered that the colonial system in America was a British constitutional system; thus British imperialism was not the same as French absolutism. In fact, the British constitutional system of government was the major basis for the later United States Constitutional system of government.) Two strains of thought in the American colonies contributed to this development of a center in the American periphery: (1) the efforts of British officials and their colonial followers who followed expansionist practices and a war-like philosophy akin to that of political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, and (2) the “friends of liberty” circle, headed in Revolutionary times by Benjamin Franklin and others. (The Hobbesian view was offset and countered by the political philosophy of John Locke, focusing on individual rights and liberties, which reached its culmination in the ideology of the American Revolution.)”

Camerica: Trilateral Center of the New World Order

Posted by Alex on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 12:37 PM in History
Comments (6) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Alex on July 28, 2009, 12:58 PM | #

Every person, whether they visit this site or not, but particularly those from either the US or UK, should visit the linked source and read the entire paper there, and ponder the implications.

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 28, 2009, 02:28 PM | #

Ironically, the smashing imperial victory over France in 1757-1763 undermined the political compromise that had been worked out in the 1690s and led directly to the breakup of the British Empire in America in 1763-1783. It gave John Adams, exactly what he desired, removal of the turbulent Gallic.

During the 1650s and 1660s, the English government finally began to play a more active role in American colonial development. Parliament passed a series of Navigation Acts, designed to exclude the Dutch from trading in English America and to channel the shipment of all Chesapeake tobacco and Caribbean sugar to the mother country. Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell (1653-1658) seized the Spanish island of Jamaica in 1655, and Charles II (1660-1685) seized the Dutch colony of New Netherland in 1664. But the king handed over this colony to his brother, the duke of York, and permitted other court favorites to establish proprietary colonies in the Carolinas and Pennsylvania. By the mid-1670s, only seven of the twenty English colonies in America were under direct Crown control. In the royal colony of Jamaica, the governor was conducting his own privateering war against Spanish commerce. In the royal colony of Virginia, the governor was nearly overthrown in a rebellion led by Nathaniel Bacon. In Puritan New England, the colonists ignored the Navigation Acts and fought a long and bloody Indian war—King Philip’s War—without bothering to consult the home authorities.

Faced with this evidence of colonial chaos and disobedience, the royal government from 1675 onward made serious efforts to regulate the American colonies and establish an imperial system. A colonial office was finally created, and agents were dispatched to America to enforce the Navigation Acts. In the 1680s, energetic royal governors with military experience pressured the legislative assemblies of Virginia and Jamaica into granting permanent tax revenues, and Massachusetts lost its chartered powers of self-government.

The trend toward centralized authority accelerated under James II (1685-1688), who aimed at a Spanish style of viceregal colonial administration. His most spectacular innovation was to combine seven colonies into a single unit, the Dominion of New England, which was ruled by a royal governor backed by troops and unimpeded by a representative assembly. James’s authoritarian style, however, proved to be as unpopular and ineffectual in the colonies as at home. The Glorious Revolution in England in 1688 spread to America in 1689. The colonists in Boston and New York City dismantled the Dominion of New England and asked the new king William III to restore their lost privileges.

The postrevolutionary reorganization of the American colonies in the 1690s proved to be of great importance. It established a new imperial formula that for sixty years satisfied all interested parties reasonably well but then failed disastrously in the 1760s and 1770s. The royal policymakers under William III (1689-1702) and Anne (1702-1714) abandoned James II’s autocratic mode while retaining his policy of central planning and administration. They were much influenced by strategic considerations. From 1689 to 1713, Britain was almost continuously at war with France, and the Crown invested heavily for the first time in American military and naval operations, particularly in the Caribbean. Many of the royal governors in America during these years were military men, who tried zealously to enforce orders from home. A number of previously self-governing or proprietary colonies, including Massachusetts and Maryland, were brought under direct royal rule. A new supervisory body, the Board of Trade and Plantations, was created in 1696, and in this same year Parliament legislated the most comprehensive of its Navigation Acts, which effectually tied colonial commerce to the mother country.

London was now the acknowledged imperial entrepôt. On the fringes of the empire the North American and Caribbean colonies settled into a mutually beneficial trading partnership, in which merchants in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia supplied food and timber to the sugar islands in exchange for molasses and rum. In 1707 England entered into political union with Scotland, which further strengthened the empire by opening the colonies to Scottish talent; by the 1760s, Glasgow merchants were surpassing London merchants in the Chesapeake tobacco trade.

If there is a case to be made for shifting the center of the English empire, it would be after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Removing the French threat meant the end of the empire in America.

Posted by Rollory on July 29, 2009, 07:52 AM | #

Repeating “Camerica” and “trilateral center” over and over doesn’t actually constitute evidence (nor does “trilateral” mean what he is using it to mean). If there was actual documentary evidence from sources at that time - something as clearly written and as disruptive to the common historical understanding as Hutchison’s Strictures on the Declaration of Independence - that would be worth taking seriously. This isn’t.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 29, 2009, 09:04 PM | #

Alex’s discussion of the splitting of the British Empire into two is reminiscent of the splitting of another empire into two, the Roman, split into two by the Emperor Constantine in 330, after which both halves, the Eastern ruled from Constantinople and the Western from Rome, were still the Roman Empire, just as both halves of the Anglo-Saxon Empire, which split in 1783 into eastern and western halves, ruled, respectively, from London and Philadelphia (later Washington D.C.), were still the Anglo-Saxon Empire: the American Empire is really the Western Anglo-Saxon Empire, as the Roman Empire after 330 was really the Western Roman Empire, and the British Empire after 1783 was really the Eastern Anglo-Saxon Empire — and once again the analogy of the U.S. to Ancient Rome and Britain to Ancient Greece is preserved.

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 29, 2009, 10:36 PM | #

Rome, also part of the NWO, Fred?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 30, 2009, 12:05 AM | #

Mutatis mutandis, Des.

Next entry: Citizen’s Dividends To Capture Parliamentary Governments

Previous entry: The Bear’s Lair: The Return of Thomas Mun

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa