The United Nations Exposed Jasper 2001

Below the surface of public attention, internationalists have
been working for decades to build the United Nations into an allpowerful
world government. In this carefully documented study,
William F. Jasper shows that, with the United Nations, the
American people are being offered what amounts to poison
disguised as candy.
From all directions we hear that global problems require global

solutions which means, we are told, that America must surrender
more authority to the United Nations. Mr. Jasper exposes that
power grab, one of the greatest "trust me" schemes in all of history,
as totally corrupt. Behind the humanitarian pretexts, he
demonstrates a much more sinister agenda at work.
In The United Nations Exposed, the author offers readers an

incredible treasure of understanding of what is happening to
America � how and by whom. But most importantly, Mr. Jasper
concludes his expose by explaining how responsible Americans
can use an understanding of the threat to preserve freedom.
Contents
Introduction ......................................................................
... ix
Prologue ..........................................................................
...1
Part I: Foundations
1. The
Threat ....................................................................13
2. Disarmament and Submission......................................27
3. The Secret Network of Power .................................. 41
4. "Capitalists" and the Communist Dimension ... .53
Part II: Stealth Strategies for Building the

Superstate
5. Orchestrating the Globalist Concert ..........................71
6. Enviromania ............................................................. 93
7. UN's War on Private Property....................................119
8. UN's International Court of Criminals ................... 129
9. Civilian Disarmament ................................................155
10. Regionalism ............................................................. 189
11. World Money System ............................................... 215
Part III: Bringing It Home
12. UN's One-World Religion......................................... 235
13. UN Declares Total War on the Family ..................... 261
14. What Must Be Done.................................................. 279

Notes..............................................................................
... 299
Index .............................................................................
.... 325
Personal Acknowledgments ............................................. 351
About the Author ........................................................... 353
Introduction
In his famous "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" oration at St.

John's Church on March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry said: "For my
part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know
the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." At that time,
Americans stood at a crossroads, facing great danger. Today,
Americans face a different but in many ways even greater danger
� in large part because too few of us understand the threat. This

book is intended for those who want to know the worst and by
knowing the worst will want to take responsible steps to see that
the worst does not happen.
Another great statesman, the Englishman Edmund Burke, wisely
observed: "The people never give up their liberties but under some
delusion." As William F. Jasper establishes in this book, the
American people are the target of an incredibly well organized
campaign of deception. That deception is designed to rob each of
us of our heritage of freedom and build what would inevitably
become an Orwellian global tyranny.
Determined to contribute what he could to prevent that from

happening, Mr. Jasper has tapped his more than 25 years of
experience studying the United Nations and subversive organizations
to provide us an incredible tool. Not since Gary Allen's
None Dare Call It Conspiracy (1972) has one book provided so
much documented perspective to help Americans grapple with
dangerous and cleverly orchestrated misconceptions.
As Mr. Jasper clearly demonstrates, the danger we are speaking

of does not spring from the United Nations itself. For the moment,
at least, the UN is still largely a paper tiger. Instead, the danger
comes from the very serious plans and actions of powerful elites,
particularly American elites.
These internationalists see the UN as their primary vehicle for

gaining unrestrained power. Below the surface of public atten-
IX
tion, they have been working for decades to disarm America and
build the United Nations into an all-powerful world government.
We are now facing the culmination of their subversive schemes. In
this carefully documented study, Mr. Jasper shows that with the
United Nations the American people are being offered what
amounts to poison disguised as candy. From all directions we are
being propagandized that "global problems require global solutions."
And we are told this means that we have to give more
power to the UN. Mr. Jasper exposes that power grab � one of the
greatest "trust me" schemes in all of history � as totally corrupt.
Terrorists R Us
In The United Nations Exposed, William Jasper helps us all confront
fundamental facts so we can step back and question the
received wisdom. For example, why should we expect that justice
can be served by giving supreme power to an organization that
warmly embraces the most murderous regimes in all history?
The men who gave us our Constitution had a profound understanding

of history and a resulting deep distrust of human nature.
They designed a system of government that was based not on
confidence in men but on a recognition that not even the best of
men, let alone the worst, could be "trusted" with power. They
designed a system of checks and balances to impede the improper
ambitions of men to seek and abuse power over others.
The United Nations embodies few of those checks and balances.

It recognizes no authority greater than itself and what serves the
purportedly noble purposes of the UN, as interpreted by the UN.
Has human nature changed since our nation was founded? Has
experience in the recent, deadly 20th century given us reason to
now have confidence that smiling, well-spoken leaders can be
trusted with enormous power? Of course not! In this book, Mr.
Jasper gives us plenty of reasons not just for caution but for
outright alarm at the "trust me" schemes proposed.
At UN conferences, as Mr. Jasper has observed firsthand, the

atmosphere is decidedly anti-American. Fidel Castro regularly
receives enthusiastic ovations at UN functions, as do other sim
ilarly oppressive dictators. As another indication of the anti-freedom
mind-set at the UN, consider that Sam Nujoma, the former
terrorist leader of SWAPO, who is now the UN-installed president
of Namibia, was selected to be honorary co-chair for the UN
Millennium Summit of World Leaders in New York.
Expecting an empowered UN to dispense global justice is like

inviting the criminals to join the police force, the prosecution, and
the judiciary in order to stamp out crime. Mr. Jasper shows us that
behind the humanitarian rhetoric, a much more sinister agenda is at
work, the agenda of a highly organized cabal that every responsible
American needs to understand. In The United Nations Exposed,
William Jasper shines a powerful spotlight on that agenda.
After years of reporting and research on this topic, Mr. Jasper is

uniquely qualified to write this book (see "About the Author," page
353). He shows indisputably, in the UN proponents' own words,
that their real agenda is world government, whether they
deceptively call it world governance (same definition), or the
international rule of law.
Mr. Jasper also shows that those who are working to empower
the UN fully realize that they cannot sell their desired "revolution
in political arrangements" on its merits. They have to deceive and
are quite willing to do so to obtain the power they seek. The
evidence of such arrogant duplicity alone should inspire any
prudent American to withdraw all trust and seek different
leadership.
The subversive drive to empower the UN is succeeding primarily

because most Americans neither perceive the danger nor the
direction from which the threat is coming � we are being betrayed
from within our own camp.
The tough reality, one that most otherwise informed Americans

have yet to recognize, is that many of our top leaders, despite their
smiles and nice-sounding words, are up to their eyeballs in
advancing this subversive revolution. The main threat does not
come from the plans of petty bureaucrats or wide-eyed radicals or
even as a Communist plot from abroad. It comes from
within. And that circumstance makes the threat much more dangerous
and difficult to combat.
Fortunately, Mr. Jasper doesn't just leave us with a horrible

problem. In the last chapter of The United Nations Exposed, the
author explains what responsible, freedom-loving Americans can
and must do to escape a looming tyranny.
Unique Contribution
In this major expose, William Jasper has accomplished something
truly unique and important. Throughout his book, he demonstrates
that it is American elitists � in particular members of the New
York-based Council on Foreign Relations � who are pulling the
strings and orchestrating the "consensus" for empowering the
United Nations. In that work, they are amply supported by
associated think tanks and foundations.
If one understands that the United Nations was designed and

brought to life by the Council on Foreign Relations, then the parent's
continued interest in and domination of its offspring should
not be surprising. However, the Council has gone to great lengths
to hide its domination and to create the illusion that the United
Nations truly represents the interests of a community of
independent member nations. William Jasper has performed a great
service in exposing that deception so credibly.
Another stellar accomplishment of The United Nations Exposed

is the clear explanation of the strategies and tactics being employed
today to deceive Congress and the American people into allowing
a steady transfer of power to the United Nations.
Certainly one of the greatest deceptions is the appearance of

nearly universal support for the UN agenda. Mr. Jasper documents,
better than anyone else has yet done, how this orchestrated
"consensus" is accomplished. Even veteran critics of the UN will
learn much from Mr. Jasper's work.
Organization and Approach

The principal focus of The United Nations Exposed is the underlying
game plan of UN proponents as opposed to their smoke
screen of pretexts. Mr. Jasper's approach is to explain how key UN
initiatives advance the subversive goal of building an
unchallengeable UN superstate. But in order to expose such plans
credibly, Mr. Jasper first lays a brilliant foundation (Part I) to
clearly establish the globalists' true intentions.
The extreme utopian pronouncements of UN supporters cited in

the Prologue should be enough to convince most Americans that
we should stay clear of the UN. But once the real agenda behind
the United Nations described in Part I is clearly understood, no
citizen or statesman should have to spend a minute deciding
whether to seriously consider committing this nation to a UN
convention or treaty. Any more than one would have trouble
deciding whether to accept candy from a known drug dealer.
The heart of the book � Part II, "Stealth Strategies for Building
the Superstate" � provides the most important new insights. In
this series of chapters, Mr. Jasper shows how, through breathtaking
pretexts and deceptions and elaborate networks, the globalist
architects are building their house of world order. Creating much
wider understanding of these deceptions is the key to countering
the attempted public manipulation.
Part III, "Bringing It Home," shows what the dishonest drive for
world government will mean to the individual and his family.
Chapter 12, "The UN's One-World Religion," exposes the efforts
to undermine Christianity and other traditional faith-based religions.
The goal is to replace them with a strange new mix that is
more compatible with universal worship of the Almighty State as
the object deserving our supreme loyalty. Chapter 13, "The UN
Declares Total War on the Family," lays bare the Orwellian
dimension of the drive to empower the UN.
The last chapter, one of the best in the book, examines not only
the necessity for action, but also the principles of effective action.
A Realistic Solution
It is our hope that after reading this book you will want to help stop
the drive to destroy American freedom and independence that Mr.
Jasper describes. There are a number of steps we recommend.
The first is to take the time to understand the message in this
book and convince yourself of its accuracy. Check out the references.
Visit the websites cited herein for more information. Order
additional literature. Talk to members and staff of The John Birch
Society. Satisfy yourself that our information is reliable and that
our long-range goal � "less government, more responsibility, and,
with God's help, a better world" � is something you too can
recommend with pride.
And then act! Self-education without action merely breeds

frustration. As the saying goes, no one should want to be the best
informed inmate of a concentration camp.
But action must follow an appropriate, realistic plan. As Mr.

Jasper points out, effective action must spring from a clear
understanding of the threat, as well as a solid understanding of the
strengths remaining in our culture and in the American system of
government we have inherited. Otherwise, action will be
ineffective, quite possibly even counterproductive. Rereading the
last chapter in this book is a good starting point.
As another step, we strongly encourage you to share copies of

this book with family, friends, and associates. And finally, contact
us for more information on our organized, concerted-action program.
A very common mistake is to underestimate the problem and

look for the quick fix or the political leader to support who will fix
our problems for us. But the threat Mr. Jasper describes is the
result of decades of work by determined enemies of freedom who
have organized and labored to achieve great influence. There is no
quick fix. They most certainly will not be stopped by an uninformed
public electing a man on a white horse to the presidency.
The challenge we face is nothing less than to change the course

of history. The John Birch Society has much more than a dream.
We have a plan, but we need your help. We hope to hear from you!
Tom Gow
Vice President, The John Birch Society
April 7, 2001
Prologue
For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would
be... Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a
ghastly dew From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue...
Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle-flags
were furl'd In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world. There
the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in
awe, And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law.1 � Alfred
Lord Tennyson, "Locksley Hall," 1842
World peace through world government and world law. It is an ancient

idea that has fastened itself mightily on the minds of men in many ages.
"The abolition of war and the establishment of a world government are
the two main themes of contemporary utopianism," notes philosopher
Thomas Molnar in Utopia: The Perennial Heresy. "These objectives are as
old as Utopian thought itself."2 Never before, however, has our human
race been so close to inaugurating this Utopian "ideal" � to establishing
and empowering government on a planetary scale. Global "crises" �
environmental decay, poverty, overpopulation, economic and political
instability � and the still-present threat of war and nuclear holocaust
demand "global solutions." Transnational problems and growing
interdependence defy our antiquated "world order" of nation states. So
say a growing chorus of media-designated "experts." But our planet and
our age have had more than passing
1
THE UNITED NATIONS EXPOSED
acquaintance with Utopias empowered. And without exception, the

promises of the Utopian dream have yielded to dystopian nightmares. The
tens of millions of victims of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Ho, Kim, Fidel,
Pol Pot, Amin, Lumumba, Qaddafi, Khomeini, and dozens of other
murderous despots cry out to us. They warn us against the Utopian siren
call. They warn us of the fundamental truth embodied in George
Washington's definition of government:
Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it

is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.3
World government, of course, would necessitate worldwide force �

unprecedented power on a global scale. Make no mistake about it, that is
what the advocates of "an empowered United Nations" are really after.
And what is most disturbing is that they have very nearly succeeded in
grasping hold of this power, without most inhabitants of this planet
having the slightest idea of the "happiness" being planned for them.
A chilling insight into the kind of future we might expect under the
global regime of an omnipotent, omni-benevolent United Nations is
provided in a presentation on "world order" given by a high UN official to
the American Association of Systems Analysts. The official, Robert
Muller, held many top UN posts over a 35-year career at the UN,
including that of Secretary of the UN's Economic and Social Council
(ECOSOC). In his book New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality,
Muller recounts how he explained to the systems analysts the myriad
activities in which the UN was even at that time (the 1970s) deeply
involved:
Yes, the UN is concerned with our globe's climate....
Yes, the UN is concerned with the total biosphere through project
Earthwatch, the Global Environment Program of UNEP and
UNESCO's program, "Man and the Biosphere."

PROLOGUE
Yes the UN is dealing with our planet's seas and oceans....
Yes, the UN is dealing with the world's deserts....
Yes, the UN is dealing with the human person, that alpha and omega of our
efforts.... The person's basic rights, justice, health, progress and peace are
being dealt with from the fetus to the time of death.
Yes, the UN is dealing with the atom in the International Atomic Energy
Agency....
Yes, the UN is dealing with art, folklore, nature, the preservation of species,
germ banks, labor, handicrafts, literature, industry, trade, tourism, energy,
finance, birth defects, sicknesses, pollution, politics, the prevention of
accidents, of war and conflicts, the building of peace, the eradication of
armaments, atomic radiation, the settlement of disputes, the development of
worldwide cooperation, the aspirations of East and West, North and South,
black and white, rich and poor, etc.4
Muller then records: "I went on like this for more than an hour.
When I finished, I still had a bagful to say, but I was exhausted by
my exaltation at the vastness of the cooperation I had seen
develop.... Something gigantic was going on, a real turning point in
evolution ... glorious and beautiful like Aphrodite emerging from
the sea. This was the beginning of a new age.... The great hour of
truth had arrived for the human race."5 (Emphasis added.)
The epiphany appears to have nearly overwhelmed him. Later

upon reflection, however, Muller found to his dismay that there
were vital spheres of human and planetary concern not yet brought
within the UN's superintending care. "I had found several gaps," he
records. Gaps? What possible "gaps" could there be? A great
many, it seems. For "there was no worldwide cooperation for the
globe's cold zones, the mountains, our topsoil, standardization,
world safety ... the family, morality, spirituality, world psychology
and sociology, the world of senses, the inner realm of the
individual, his needs, values, perceptions, love and
happiness ... on consumer protection ... on the world's elderly, on

world law, on the ultimate meaning of human life and its objectives."
6(Emphasis added.)
Muller fumed that "political men were still dragging their feet in
antiquated, obsolete quarrels which prevented them from seeing
the vast new universal scheme of evolution which was dawning
upon the world."7 Indeed. Parochial politicians were stifling the
messianic mission of Mr. Muller and his fellow UN savants, whose
only desire is to "transform" the world.
Much has been done to alleviate those hindrances and deficiencies,

however. New United Nations treaties and conventions
are rushing to fill in the "gaps" Muller was so worried about. The
colossal UN bureaucracy Muller outlined in his book has been
greatly augmented. One UN program alone, the massive Agenda
21, "proposes an array of actions which are intended to be
implemented by every person on Earth."8 (See Chapter 6.) And the
UN's newly created International Criminal Court (see Chapter 8)
poses the very real prospect of American citizens being delivered
up for trial before international tribunals, without any of the
protections guaranteed in our Constitution.
Although his name is not universally known, Mr. Muller is not

some inconsequential UN bureaucrat whose Utopian rantings can
be lightly dismissed. He is author of the "World Core Curriculum,"
now used in many schools worldwide, and is chancellor of the
UN's University for Peace in Costa Rica. Muller, who is a self-
professed disciple of the theosophist/satanist Alice Bailey, is
revered in globalist circles and is one of the most frequently quoted
"sages" and architects of the UN's new world religion.*
In his book My Testament to the UN, Muller pays tribute to the

UN's New Age spiritual guru, Sri Chinmoy, and approvingly
quotes Chinmoy's "prophecy" regarding the UN's ultimate destiny:
No human force will ever be able to destroy the United Nations,

for the United Nations is not a mere building or a mere idea; it is
PROLOGUE
not a man-made creation. The United Nations is the vision-light of the

Absolute Supreme, which is slowly, steadily and unerringly illumining the
ignorance, the night of our human life. The divine success and supreme
progress of the United Nations is bound to become a reality. At his choice
hour, the Absolute Supreme will ring His own victory-bell here on Earth
through the loving and serving heart of the United Nations.9
Yes, for Muller and his fellow votaries of one-world paganism,

who populate the higher echelons of the UN and the globalist
movement, the United Nations is divine and is leading us to, as
Muller says, "the apotheosis [deification] of human life on earth."10
Human life, that is, personified by Muller and the UN's spiritual
elites, who, naturally, will lead and rule in this new world order.
Professor Molnar dissects this idolatry and monumental conceit

with piercing precision: "At Utopia's roots there is defiance of
God, pride unlimited, a yearning for enormous power and the
assumption of divine attributes with a view to manipulating and
shaping man's fate."11
Where does this supreme arrogance invariably lead? The record

of history is pitiless. Dr. Molnar continues: "In a raving moment,
the story goes, Caligula wished that mankind had only one head so
that he might chop it off with one blow. So, too, the Utopian: he
wants to deal with one entity so as to simplify his own task of
transforming indomitable human nature into a slave."12
* At the beginning of his World Core Curriculum Muller states that his underlying
philosophy "is based on the teachings set forth in the books of Alice A. Bailey by
the Tibetan teacher Djwhal Khul and the teachings of M. Morya." This is quite an
admission considering that Mrs. Bailey's exalted position in the occult
Theosophical firmament is second only to that of Theosophy founder and high
priestess Madame Blavatsky. Bailey, who alleged that Khul and Morya communicated
with her telepathically, was a rabid Luciferian and founded the Lucifer
Publishing Company and the Theosophical journal Lucifer.
Procrustes, according to Greek legend, was a demented highwayman

who "fit" his victims to his guest bed either by stretching
them, if they were too short, or chopping off their feet, if they were
too tall. Likewise, the Utopian: When the "humanity" he "serves"
fails to fit his Procrustean bed, he lops off not only the feet but the
head too.
Renewed Revolution
The UN's Robert Muller fully recognizes the revolutionary nature
of his mission. "As on the eve of the French Revolution," he
exclaims, "... we must outgrow the increasingly erroneous notion
of good and bad as seen by a particular group ... and define new
concepts of what is good or bad for the entire human family. This
is absolutely essential."13 Muller and other enthusiasts for a "new
world order" under UN hegemonic rule invariably share this
sympathetic fascination and fixation with the abominations and
terror of the French Revolution.
So, too, have the greatest mass murderers of this century. One of
the most notorious is Cambodia's Communist butcher Pol Pot, who
was steeped in the French Revolution while a student in Paris. He
was inspired, no doubt, by Jean-Baptiste Carrier, the French
Revolution's bloodthirsty beast of the Committee of Public Safety,
who pledged: "We shall turn France into a cemetery rather than fail
in her regeneration."14 In his powerful 1994 study Death by
Government, Professor R. J. Rummel writes that "no other
megamurderer comes even close to the lethality of the Communist
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during their 1975 through 1978 rule."15
As advocated by Muller, Pol Pot and his Angka Loeu comrades
"defined new concepts of what is good or bad." And, notes
Rummel, "in less than four years of governing they exterminated
over 31 percent of their men, women, and children...."16 Over two
million souls � slaughtered in the most inhuman ways imaginable.
John Barron and Anthony Paul, in their book Murder of a Gentle

Land, record the UN's response to the Cambodian bloodbath:
PROLOGUE
After the desolation of the cities, the early massacres, and in the midst of the
first famine, one of the Angka Loeu leaders, Ieng Sary, in his incarnation as
foreign minister, flew to a special session of the United Nations General
Assembly. Upon landing in New York, he boasted, "We have cleansed the
cities," and when he appeared at the United Nations, the delegates from around
the world warmly applauded.17
And why not applaud? They were merely welcoming one of their
own. Butchers, terrorists, and dictators have always received
favored treatment at the UN: Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev,
Fidel Castro, Idi Amin, Yasir Arafat, Colonel Qaddafi, Teng Hsiaoping,
Jiang Zemin, Hafez al-Assad, Nelson Mandela, Sam Nujoma,
and dozens of other murderous thugs � all have received
rapturous greetings, as well as concrete political and economic
support, at and from the United Nations. The hard facts are that
many of the "honored" members of the United Nations are
themselves practitioners of what Professor Rummel calls
democide, the intentional murder, by government, of noncombatants
� by the millions. Just the top 15 democide regimes,
he notes, "have wiped out over 151 million people, almost four
times the almost 38,500,000 battle dead from all this century's
international and civil wars up to 1987."18
"Democide is committed by absolute Power; its agency is government,"

notes Rummel.19 And limiting that agency's power for
democide is a prime civic duty. This is a "fact of life" (and death)
which we cannot afford to ignore. Here are two more from the
professor: "A preeminent fact about government is that some of
them murder millions in cold blood. This is where absolute Power
reigns. A second fact is that some, usually the same that murder
millions, also murder tens of thousands more through foreign
aggression."20
Appeals to "empower" the United Nations are worse than foolish;

they are evil and must be opposed by all honorable people.
History more than amply vindicates Lord Acton's axiom that
"power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."21

This has proven true even when rulers have started out as relatively
virtuous; even more so when already-corrupt men grasp hold of
absolute power.
A Grim Reality
As this study will demonstrate, the primary movers in the ongoing
drive to "transform" the United Nations, and to transfer the powers
of sovereign governments to this global monstrosity, are not
misguided, well-intentioned Utopians. We will not dissuade them
with facts, arguments, and debates pointing out the errors and
dangers inherent in their tyrannical proposals. They are not
interested in facts, arguments, and debates � except as it serves as
a cover for their totalitarian agenda. We are dealing with a self-
perpetuating conspiracy of immensely wealthy, utterly wicked,
power-mad megalomaniacs who want to rule the world. It is that
simple.
During the course of the past century, this cabal of one-world

Insiders has gradually gained control of the levers of power in the
federal government, the Democrat and Republican Parties, and
many major corporations, universities, think tanks, media, and tax-
exempt foundations. Operating through respectable-appearing front
groups � principally the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the
Trilateral Commission (TC), the Bilderberg Group (BG), and the
Committee for Economic Development (CED) � these oneworlders
have hijacked our country. While systematically
destroying our constitutional republic and gradually converting it
into a socialist dictatorship, they also have been busily fomenting
wars and revolutions, toppling free governments that were friendly
to America, and repeatedly aiding ruthless Communist dictators
and Third World thugs who are America's enemies. The blood of
millions of victims is on their hands.
Now they are pressing forward with ever-increasing audacity,

demanding the power to refashion the world according to their
Procrustean logic. If we do not stop their megalomaniacal
PROLOGUE
scheme, they will, in the words of the French Revolutionist

Carrier, turn the world "into a cemetery rather than fail in her
regeneration."
Yes, these are very serious charges, but they reflect a very grim
reality. They are, unfortunately, more than sustained by mountains
of evidence. We have attempted here to clear away some of the
haze that has long hidden these mountains, so that you, the reader,
may make some very serious decisions based upon historical facts,
perspective, and truth that previously have been denied to you.
History is a very bloody and unforgiving crucible that we ignore at
our own great peril. However, history need not fatalistically repeat
itself. Informed, courageous, responsible individuals can and do
change the course of history. We pray that you, dear reader, and
many others like you, will rise to the challenge in this hour of
deadly peril.
Part I
Foundations
Chapter 1
The Threat
America is surrendering its sovereignty to a world government.
Hooray.... World government is coming. Deal with it.1 � The
New Republic magazine, cover story headlines for
January 17, 2000
We need a system of enforceable world law � a democratic

federal world government � to deal with world problems.2
� Walter Cronkite, 1999

We must do everything we can to abolish the United States.3
� Professor Mortimer J. Adler of the University of

Chicago and the Aspen Institute, editor of Great Books of
the Western World, 1945
As the year 2000 approached, prophecies of doom proliferated

everywhere � in the major media, the Internet, talk radio,
financial newsletters � offering dire predictions of massive computer
failures, electrical grid blackouts, global technological
meltdowns and "the end of the world as we know it." The dread
Y2K forecasts were, of course, as everyone now knows, wildly
exaggerated; the specter of global industrial collapse turned out to
be a colossal bogeyman.*
The New American magazine, of which this author is a senior editor, can claim the
stellar,
if not singular, distinction of having called the shots correctly on Y2K. In two
major articles
by Dennis Behreandt � "Millennium Mayhem" (September 14, 1998), and "Y2K Is Here!"
(April 26, 1999) � and in smaller articles, TNA repeatedly challenged, with calm
reason
and careful research, the widespread doomsday scenarios and "head for the hills"
alarms that
were leading many otherwise responsible citizens to give up the battle against
collectivism
and immorality. See www.thenewamerican.com/Y2K.
13
UNITED NATIONS EXPOSED
However, while fears of the Y2K phantom menace seized the

minds of billions of people worldwide, a very real global peril
went largely unnoticed. That global danger is with us still. And it
truly threatens to bring about "the end of the world as we know it."
The world as we know it is being radically "transformed." We are
not referring here to the usual apocalyptic alarms about "global
warming" and other eco-doom scenarios, economic "globalization,"
the mind-numbing pace of technological innovation, or
the specters of biological and nuclear warfare.
We are talking about a revolutionary transformation that has

been gathering steam since World War II and is now entering its
final stages. It is a revolution that, if completed, will mean the end
of the United States of America � as well as the abolition of every
other sovereign, independent nation. This radical revolution is
simultaneously overturning the nation-state system that has been
the foundation for governance on this planet for the past several
hundred years, and forging a world government with
unprecedented powers.
This is the most profound and far-reaching revolution ever to hit

our planet. If allowed to proceed to completion, it will usher in an
Orwellian global tyranny under the United Nations. We know that
to many people this is an astounding statement. You, dear reader,
may be among those who find such a claim to be "ridiculous,"
"absurd," "nutty." After all, you reason, the United States is the
most powerful nation on earth, "the last superpower" � and the
UN is a paper tiger, a joke, a bunch of global bureaucrats belching
platitudes about peace and brotherhood and proposing grandiose
schemes. Sure, it may waste some of our money, but it is no threat
to the U.S. The UN has no military of its own to impose global
laws or regulations upon unwilling Americans. In fact, the UN
must come hat in hand to the U.S. every time it determines to send
peacekeepers into some new area torn by conflict. And hasn't the
UN been complaining for years about U.S. refusals to pay dues?
The UN looks like a pretty helpless, toothless "threat," you say.
And you would be right � except for one very important thing:
THE THREAT
You would have completely misunderstood the nature of the danger

and direction from which the threat is coming. Observers who
have carefully followed and analyzed international developments
and the policies and institutions of the UN have never worried that
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan � or one of his predecessors
or successors � would impose a UN dictatorship upon a strong
and resistant United States. That is not going to happen. We are
not worried that an imminent UN tyranny is about to be militarily
imposed upon Americans against the wishes of our own
government. Or that, like the Y2K computer bug, some midnight
soon the UN will strike, overwhelm the U.S. military, and we will
wake up in the morning with blue-helmeted policemen on every
street corner.
The danger is very real, nonetheless, but it emanates not so much

from Kofi Annan, the UN itself, or any foreign, external source as
it does from those within our own government who seek to impose
a "new world order" upon us. As one of our more famous former
U.S. presidents accurately noted:

Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the ocean, and
crush us at a blow? Never!
All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined ... could not by force,
take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a
thousand years.
At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it

ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If
destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation
of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.4 [Abraham
Lincoln, 1838]
The Danger Springs From Within

The danger has indeed sprung up amongst us. There are many who
go by the name "American" who prefer to think of themselves as
"global citizens" or "citizens of the world" and who consciously
are leading us to national suicide. An alarming number of
American citizens who hold high elective and appointive office,
UNITED NATIONS EXPOSED
and who have taken oaths to defend our nation, our Constitution,
and our laws, are now committed to a "new world order" which
does not allow for a free, independent, sovereign United States of
America. They are joined by prominent individuals holding
influential positions of trust in many of our private institutions. In
the new "interdependent" world order they envision, a U.S.A. with
continuing superpower status is viewed as a "threat" to global
peace and security.
Let us be completely blunt: These globalists are after power �

raw, absolute, global power, unimpeded by constitutional
restraints, the rule of law, and the natural checks and balances
against worldwide power provided by sovereign nation-states. We
all ought to be familiar with this dangerous lust for power. The
20th century, which we so recently left, was washed in the blood of
millions of victims sacrificed on the altars of powerlust. The
leaders of totalitarian socialism � of both the Communist and
Fascist varieties � trod the same paths to power that are now
taken by our globalist would-be rulers. Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Fidel,
Pol Pot, and innumerable lesser thugs all came to power invoking
virtue and noble ideals. They appealed to fears about supposed
emergencies and crises. They incited and mobilized resentment and
hatred of one group or class for another, and made scapegoats of
their opponents. They gradually centralized and consolidated
power and eliminated all legal and structural restraints on their
exercise of it.
In every case, a small circle of power-lusting conspirators used

large movements of idealists and dupes to accomplish their
schemes. In every instance, the danger signs were there for those
who were willing to see. The opportunities were there for those
with courage to stop the madness by exposing and opposing the
criminals before they could seize total political power. Alas, in
each case, too few citizens were willing to see and to act courageously.
For this they paid a horrendous price. The signs are here
for us to see today; we will have no excuse if we fail to act with
responsibility and courage. Our price for failing to do so will be far
more terrible than anything this planet has yet seen.
THE THREAT
Millennium Meetings
In September 2000, some 150 presidents, premiers, dictators, and
potentates converged on New York City for the UN Millennium
Summit, the most spectacular UN gathering ever. Serving as cochairman
of the week-long political gala was Sam Nujoma, the
Communist terrorist who was installed as "President" of Namibia
in 1990 by the United Nations, the Soviet Union, and the U.S.
State Department. The Summit attendees all received a copy of We
the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, a
report "authored" by Kofi Annan to guide the UN's "reform
agenda" at the event.
Annan's We the Peoples proposed nothing less than a global,

socialist superstate dressed in New Deal verbiage. The Annan plan
even adopted Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Brain Trust rhetoric of
"Freedom from Fear" and "Freedom from Want" as titles for the
report's sub-themes. It called for, among other things:
� a global war on poverty (imagine a planetary version of our

costly federal Department of Health and Human Services!);
� ending "gender discrimination" (i.e. mandated gender quotas) "in
wages, property rights, and access to education";
� government-provided education, school lunches, and health care
for all;
� a global youth employment initiative, under the direction of the
International Labor Organization and the World Bank;
� creation of an International Criminal Court; and
� adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, which mandates drastic reductions
in so-called "greenhouse gases." 5
We the Peoples also proposed "new forms of global governance,"
"global norms," "global rules" � all of which infer a role
for the UN as global legislator. None of this surprises us, of course;
UN poohbahs like Annan are well known for their self-
aggrandizing pontifications and appeals for new global powers.
However, this was not a typical, run-of-the-mill summit; something
new and more sinister was at work here. The Millennium
Summit showcased a frightening new level of capability for

sophisticated orchestration of an intensive, worldwide, multi-
pronged, multi-level propaganda campaign. This astonishing
process is capable of mobilizing and coordinating the activities of
an impressive number of politicians, UN officials, corporate
leaders, major organs of the media, academic institutions, think
tanks and innumerable private, special-interest groups. Thus a
relatively small but noisy, lavishly funded, and incredibly well
organized minority has shown that it can generate tremendous,
synchronized pressure completely out of proportion to its real size.
This pressure is generated by deception, by falsely presenting the
appearance of irresistible, universal support for UN proposals.
The concentrated pressure is aimed at intimidating, silencing,

and neutralizing all active and potential opposition, among both
elected officials and private citizens. And it works with frightening
effect. The element of surprise, together with concerted force,
overwhelms the opposition.
Virtually all of the Heads of State attending the Summit took

their turns at the UN General Assembly rostrum and echoed Kofi
Annan's appeals for global governance, some adding even stronger
appeals for global taxation, a permanent UN military, a global
environmental police force, etc. Meanwhile, outside the UN,
crowds composed of members of various non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) clamored for the creation of a Global
Peoples Assembly, a sort of UN Congress to enact global legislation.
A few blocks away another global confab was underway promoting
the same one-world agenda. The State of the World Forum
2000, sponsored by the Gorbachev Foundation, featured a week-
long series of symposia with prominent participants from the
worlds of international business and finance, labor, academe,
philanthropy, religion, environmental activism, government,
intergovernmental organizations, and non-governmental organizations
� all beating the drums for world government under an
empowered and greatly expanded UN.
However, all of these meetings, symposia, demonstrations and

THE THREAT
speeches might be dismissed as bluster, globaloney, rant and cant
� except for several important facts:

� They
were preceded and accompanied by similar one-world
endorsements from some of America's top officials and political
and intellectual leaders;
� They were preceded and accompanied by concrete actions and
proposals by leading U.S. political and intellectual leaders to
implement these proposals;
� Very
wealthy and powerful U.S. individuals, companies, and
institutions have committed massive financial support to
establishing "global governance";
� The UN system has been expanding dramatically in size and
scope and now constitutes a huge planetary bureaucracy;
� Equally
important (and dangerous) as the expanding superstructure
of the UN itself is the proliferation of the UN's subordinate
international organizations and institutions, such as
NATO, the Organization of American States (OAS), the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World
Trade Organization (WTO), etc.;
� A huge network of radical NGOs, financed by governments and
tax-exempt foundations, and masquerading as authentic representatives
of "global civil society," can now assemble mobs at
will to "lobby" for the cause du jour;
� This drive for an empowered UN is the culmination of plans set
in motion decades earlier by a power-seeking cabal (see Chapter
3).
Top Leaders Advocate World Government
On February 18, 2000, the World Federalist Association (WFA),
one of the largest and most ardent organizations promoting world
government, took out a full-page advertisement in the New York
Times to proclaim triumphantly that "Cronkite and Clinton make a
strong case for recasting the United Nations as a world
federation."6
The Clinton referred to was, of course, then-President Bill

Clinton, while the other name referred to famed television newsman
Walter Cronkite. The World Federalist Association ad noted:
"Last October, President Clinton applauded federalism � the basis
for the U.S. Constitution � as 'the arrangement of government
most likely to give us the best of all worlds � the integrity we
need, the self government we need, the self-advancement we need
� without pretending that we can cut all cords that bind us to the
rest of humanity....' The President claimed that'... we become more
of a federalist world when the United Nations takes a more active
role in stopping genocide ... and we recognize mutual
responsibilities to contribute and pay for those things.'"
President Clinton's speech was delivered at the Forum of Global
Federation Conference in Mont-Tremblant, Canada. Both the
group he addressed and the WFA, which placed his words in their
newspaper ad, recognized the importance and true meaning of his
speech when he predicted that there will be "more federalism
rather than less in the years ahead."
What kind of "federalism" was Mr. Clinton predicting and

endorsing? He cited "as Exhibit A the European Union," or EU,
which is rapidly subsuming its member countries in a colossal,
socialist, and increasingly tyrannical superstate.
The WFA's New York Times ad noted that in the same month
that Clinton was making his above-mentioned federalism speech,
former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite received the WFA's
"Norman Cousins Global Governance Award for his promotion of
world government in his autobiography A Reporter's Life." In
accepting the award, Cronkite said: "Those of us who are living
today can influence the future of civilization. We can influence
whether our planet will drift into chaos and violence, or whether
through monumental educational and political effort we will
achieve a world of peace under a system of law where individual
violators of that law are brought to justice.... We need a system of
enforceable world law � a democratic federal world government
� to deal with world problems."7

THE THREAT
At the World Federalist tribute to Cronkite, First Lady Hillary

Rodham Clinton � now a U.S. senator � offered her congratulations
via closed-circuit TV. She said, "For more than a generation
in America, it wasn't the news, until Walter Cronkite told us it
was the news." Hillary continued, "For decades you told us, 'the
way it is.' But tonight we honor you for fighting for 'the way it
could be.'... [T]hank you, Walter, thank you for inspiring all of us
to build a more peaceful and just world."
Please keep in mind the significance of such a statement. The

cause for which Cronkite was being honored was the cause of
world government, and world government would mean the end of
U.S. sovereignty, the end of our country, the end of our

Constitution � the document to which her husband had sworn
allegiance (and to which she also has sworn allegiance in her
Senate oath).
However, Bill Clinton himself had already praised an earlier
recipient of the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award: his
old Oxford University roommate, Strobe Talbott, whom he had
appointed U.S. Ambassador at Large. That praise came in the form
of a letter dated June 22, 1993, which was read at the WFA awards
ceremony two days later. Mr. Clinton's letter praised WFA founder
Norman Cousins' lifetime effort "for world peace and world
government" and noted that Talbott's "lifetime achievements as a
voice for global harmony have earned him this recognition." 8
Specifically, the World Federalists were honoring Talbott for a

pro-world government essay he had written for Time magazine
entitled "The Birth of the Global Nation" (July 20, 1992 issue).
Therein Talbott approvingly forecast that in the future "nationhood
as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single,
global authority." "[I]t has taken the events in our own wondrous
and terrible century to clinch the case for world government," he
said.9
Talbott's advocacy of world government did not prevent

President Clinton from appointing him Deputy Secretary of State.
That should not surprise anyone. Clinton, like Talbott, is
a member of the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign

Relations (CFR), as were over 400 other members of his
administration. In addition, both are also "members in public
service" of the Trilateral Commission (TC), an even more exclusive
establishmentarian club greasing the skids for global governance.
Greasing the Skids

These groups have orchestrated an outpouring of symphonic
appeals for world government and have been preparing the
American psyche for a major globalist push to provide the United
Nations, the WTO, and other international institutions with legislative,
executive, and judicial powers. This is a small sampling of
that orchestrated outpouring:
� Richard Falk (CFR), Professor of International Law at Princeton

University, an influential legal scholar, wrote "On the Creation
of a Global Peoples Assembly" for the Summer 2000 Stanford
Journal of International Law, with Professor Andrew Strauss.
Said Falk and Strauss: "At this historical juncture we believe that
the time for the establishment of a global assembly is ripening.
We believe that our circumstances and values are raising a
crucial new question: If democracy is so appropriate in the
nation-state setting, why should not democratic procedures and
institutions be extended to the global setting?... The existence
and empowerment of a Global Peoples Assembly (GPA) would,
at the most general level, challenge the traditional claim of states
that each has a sovereign right to act autonomously...."10 Falk
and Strauss subsequently penned a similar appeal, "Toward
Global Parliament," for the January/February 2001 issue of the
CFR journal, Foreign Affairs.11
� The headline on the cover of The New Republic for the liberal-
left journal's January 17, 2000 issue proclaimed, "America is
surrendering its sovereignty to a world government. Hooray."
THE THREAT
Inside, teaser copy above a less descriptive title ("Continental

Drift") declared: "World government is coming. Deal with it."
The author of the piece, senior editor Robert Wright, noted:
"Much power now vested in the nation-state is indeed starting to
migrate to international institutions," and "world government ...
is probably in the cards.... And, what's more, it's a good idea."12
� Writing in Foreign Affairs, the highly influential quarterly of the

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Representative Jim Leach
(R-Iowa) declared: "Since one of the most effective antidotes to
the irrationality of ancient enmity is the swift justice of the law, a
turn (or in the case of the United States, return) to the
compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court would appear to be
one of the most appropriate and achievable objectives of the
decades ahead."13
� Henry Grunwald (CFR), a former editor in chief of Time Inc. and
former U.S. ambassador to Austria, authored a January 1, 1999
Wall Street Journal op-ed article entitled "A World Without a
Country?" and subtitled "Not right away. But the idea of the
nation-state is in for some profound changes." In his Journal
article, Grunwald predicts that the "nation-state will undergo
sharp limitations of its sovereignty" and that, "just as the old,
petty principalities had to dissolve into the wider nation-state, the
nation-state will have to dissolve into wider structures."
Moreover, "it will be increasingly difficult for the future nation-
state to argue that its treatments of its own citizens is a purely
internal matter."14
� On October 14, 1999, the Wall Street Journal's lead editorial
praised the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for awarding
Robert Mundell the Nobel Prize for Economics. The Journal
noted that Mundell "was the chief intellectual proponent of the
euro" and acclaimed him for championing the "common currency"
for Europe.15 The Journal then devoted nearly one
third of a page to reprinting a 1990 essay by Mundell advocating

a world central bank, including this large blow-up quote: "We
have a better opportunity to create a world central bank with a
stable international currency than at any previous time in
history."16 A world central bank would globalize the centralization
already being wrought by the European Central Bank,
which is bringing the countries of the EU under the control of
one-world Eurocrats in Brussels and Frankfurt. The end result of
the Mundeli-Journal vision is a world economic cartel leading to
world political control under the United Nations.
� Dr. Rashmi Mayur is Director of the International Institute for a

Sustainable Future, editor of The War & Peace Digest, and a
regular speaker at UN and other globalist programs. In an essay
entitled "World Government," in the March/April 2000 issue of
the Digest, he states: "The world is not working, and each day
we are getting closer to an unprecedented catastrophe, possibly
bringing an end to human civilization and earth's ecological
system on which life's survival depends.... If the human
civilization is to survive in the next millennium, there must be
world rule of law, in which laws apply equally to all human
beings and all societies.... Such a rule of law can only be
implemented by an institution which has legitimacy and power
on a global scale, that is, World Government.... [I]ts
responsibility would be total and global." Dr. Mayur continues,
"Our children have dreams.... Humanity has no future until we
realize their dreams: World Government Now."17 (Emphasis in
the original.)
� On May 15, 2000 Representative James McGovern (D-Mass.)
introduced a resolution (H. R. 4453) calling for the creation of a
standing 6,000-man UN Rapid Deployment Police and Security
Force that could quickly be deployed to conflict situations
worldwide. According to McGovern, "a lot of lives could have
been saved" in East Timor if the UN had been equipped with
such a force. "This force will allow the Security Council...
THE THREAT
to deploy well-trained peacekeepers within 15 days of a reso
lution," McGovern said.18
� In
1998, while the United Nations was holding a summit in
Rome to establish an International Criminal Court, three U.S.
Supreme Court Justices traveled to Europe to visit the European
Court of Justice (ECJ), which is now running roughshod over the
national governments of the EU. In several frightening
admissions, these justices (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day
O'Connor, and Stephen Breyer � all CFR members) expressed
their admiration for the ECJ and stated that they anticipate using
and citing judgments from the ECJ and other jurisdictions in the
future.19
� In 1999 the International Academy of Humanism published the
Humanist Manifesto 2000, signed by an impressive lineup of
educators, authors, scientists, diplomats, philosophers, and
political figures, including 10 Nobel Laureates. It includes this
appeal: "We believe that there is a need to develop new global
institutions.... These include the call for a bicameral legislature
in the United Nations, with a World Parliament elected by the
people, an income tax to help the underdeveloped countries, the
end of the veto in the Security Council, an environmental
agency, and a World Court with powers of enforcement."20
These are but a few of the numerous examples in an accelerating
campaign of elite opinion molders and government officials who
favor this new world order. The mere fact that so many prominent
citizens are promoting such an obviously subversive and harmful
agenda should be alarming in and of itself, even if they were taking
no concrete actions to implement it.
But they have gone far beyond mere advocacy to actually

ensnare us in international treaties, conventions, and programs that
are bit by bit destroying U.S. sovereignty and independence and
subjecting us to rule by unaccountable international
bureaucrats and institutions. The vast majority of Americans have

no idea that a huge array of UN schemes � some of which we
have already become officially a party to, and others which are
awaiting action by the U.S. government � pose very real threats to
their freedom. These include:
The World Trade Organization

The massive environmental manifesto, Agenda 21
The Biodiversity Treaty
The Global Warming Convention
Programs for national and personal disarmament
The Tobin Tax and global income tax
The vast expansion of UN military operations
Proposals for a standing UN military force
The UN's new International Criminal Court
The Convention on the Rights of the Child
The UN's global Education for All program
In the chapters that follow, we will be closely examining these

schemes, as well as the forces promoting them and the pretexts
under which they are being promoted.
Chapter 2
Disarmament and Submission
A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which

"world government" would come about through the establishment of
supranational institutions.... [T]he present UN Charter could
theoretically be revised in order to erect such an organization equal to
the task envisaged, thereby codifying a radical rearrangement of power
in the world.1
* * * National disarmament is a condition

sine qua non for effective UN control.... The overwhelming central fact
would still be the loss of control of their military power by individual
nations.2
� Lincoln P. Bloomfield (CFR), 1962 U.S. Department of

State Study Memorandum No. 7, A World Effectively
Controlled By the United Nations.
In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament ... would proceed to

a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the
progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force.3
� U.S. Department of State document, Freedom From

War: The United States Program for General and Complete
Disarmament in a Peaceful World, 1961
The fact is, I see no compelling reason why we should not

unilaterally get rid of our nuclear weapons.4
� Paul H. Nitze (CFR), former U.S. arms control negotiator

in 1999 New York Times op-ed
Following World War I, a powerful cabal of one-world internationalists
offered humanity a "solution" to the horrible ravages of
27
war: world government. The League of Nations was their instrument

of salvation and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was their
prophet. (These individuals and groups will be examined further in
the next chapter.)
"The dream of a world united against the awful wastes of war is

... deeply imbedded in the hearts of men everywhere," Wilson
proclaimed. Wilson believed that "all nations must be absorbed
into some great association of nations...."5 The new League he
proposed would provide "collective security," i.e., it would use collective
force against designated "aggressors," through some
undefined instrumentality.
The U.S. Senate, however, refused to ratify the League of

Nations Covenant. Americans were suspicious of entanglements
with the constantly warring European powers and wanted no part
of submersion in a world super-state. They saw through the
sophistry and the seductive "peace" appeals. Any League strong
enough to "enforce peace" globally would also possess the power
to impose tyranny worldwide. There would be no way to limit its
power.
Without U.S. membership, the League of Nations was doomed.

However, in the wake of the even more massive death and
destruction wrought by World War II, the organized one-world
forces succeeded in pulling the United States into the League's
successor, the United Nations. In the decades since, these advocates
of a "new world order" have been working assiduously to
invest the United Nations gradually with legislative, executive, and
judicial powers that will transform it into a global government.
From the viewpoint of these "Insiders," who plan to be the rulers

of this new world government, providing the UN with
unchallengeable military power is a paramount objective.
Tragically, very few Americans realize that the post-World War II
"arms control" process and the various "arms control" treaties to
which we are party have been designed to achieve precisely that
objective. And this incredible scheme is far closer to final fruition
than most Americans would ever imagine.
DISARMAMENT AND SUBMISSION
A Damning Piece of Evidence

professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology is very important to our consideration here for his
revelations about this conspiracy for world conquest. Unintended
revelations, we hasten to add. Dr. Bloomfield is the author of one
of the most critical and damning pieces of evidence to fall into our
hands concerning the conspiracy by Insiders in our own government
to destroy the United States and subject the American
people, along with the people of all the world, to an all-powerful
United Nations.
What is so astounding is that even four decades after this scheme

was discovered and exposed, Dr. Bloomfield and his coconspirators
are not only still free (in fact they have never even
been officially investigated) but are actively pursuing the same
criminal scheme. Even more extraordinary still, as the reader will
soon see, the treasonous scheme Bloomfield devised is quite
obviously still serving as a guiding light to official U.S. policies.
We are referring to the secret 1962 study Dr. Bloomfield

authored for the Kennedy State Department entitled Study
Memorandum No. 7, A World Effectively Controlled By the
United Nations. The title itself is startling, but the contents are
absolutely shocking for their audacity and treachery.
In the study's opening summary, Professor Bloomfield writes:
A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which "world

government" would come about through the establishment of supranational
institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some
ability to employ physical force. Effective control would thus entail a
preponderance of political power in the hands of a supranational
organization.... [T]he present UN Charter could theoretically be revised in
order to erect such an organization equal to the task envisaged, thereby codifying
a radical rearrangement of power in the world.6 [Emphasis added.]
Dr. Bloomfield continued:
The principal features of a model system would include the following:

(1) powers sufficient to monitor and enforce disarmament,
settle disputes, and keep the peace � including taxing powers ... ; (2)
an international force, balanced appropriately among ground, sea, air,
and space elements, consisting of 500,000 men, recruited individually,
wearing a UN uniform, and controlling a nuclear force composed of
50-100 mixed land-based mobile and undersea-based missiles,
averaging one megaton per weapon; (3) governmental powers
distributed among three branches...; (4) compulsory jurisdiction of the
International Court....7 [Emphasis added.]
In this blueprint for global tyranny financed by the U.S. government,

Bloomfield repeatedly stated a key point, that "it is world government we
are discussing here � inescapable."8 And he leaves no doubt that the
scheme would mean subjecting the U.S. to this omnipotent "contemplated
regime" (his words).9 He emphasizes, for instance, that:
National disarmament is a condition sine qua non for effective UN

control....
The essential point is the transfer of the most vital element of
sovereign power from the states to a supranational government....
The overwhelming central fact would still be the loss of control of
their military power by individual nations.10
Dr. Bloomfield lamented that it would be extremely difficult to sell this

program for world government to the American people. However, it
would be possible, he wrote, if our national leaders utilized "a grave crisis
or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes
sufficient for the purpose." The MIT professor went on to suggest that
"the order we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a
series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks."11
The Bloomfield scheme is as old as tyranny itself: Create a crisis and

then offer a solution. That solution always entails, of
course, "temporary" seizure of total power.
Official "Disarmament" Plans

Dr. Bloomfield's study was not just a professorial pipe dream destined
to be unread and forgotten in some musty, dusty archive.* It
describes what has become the operational policy of the U.S.
government. Bloomfield, we should point out, was, and is, a
member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and it was his fellow
CFR members in President Kennedy's CFR-dominated State
Department who initiated the official implementation of this
scheme.
In 1961, the Kennedy administration promulgated the now-

infamous disarmament plan entitled Freedom From War: The
United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in
a Peaceful World. Also known as Department of State Publication
7277, this plan, which is very similar to the Bloomfield study,
presented a three-stage program for the transfer of U.S. arms to the
United Nations.
During Stage II (the stage we are currently in), the document

mandates: "The U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively
strengthened."12 This will be accomplished "to the end
that the United Nations can effectively in Stage III deter or suppress
any threat or use of force in violation of the purposes and
principles of the United Nations."13 This incredible, treasonous
policy � which has been actively but quietly brought along toward
completion during successive administrations � concludes as
follows:
In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament ... would proceed to a point

where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively
strengthened U.N. Peace Force.14 [Emphasis added.]
*The full text of the Bloomfield study is available electronically from our Get US
out! of the United Nations website: www.getusout.org.
Pause and reflect for a moment on the enormity of the audacity

and treason involved in such an incredible plot. It says that under
the system it envisions, "no state" (meaning no country, including
the United States) would be able to challenge the UN's power. This
means that the U.S., like every other nation, would become a
vassal of an omnipotent UN.
Who would actually be in control of this power? Thomas

Jefferson wisely admonished: "In questions of power let no more
be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief
by the chains of the constitution."15 No human being or group of
human beings should be entrusted with the kind of power contemplated
here. Are we to believe that perhaps the UN is populated
with angelic beings? Anything but! The tower on New York's East
River is better known as Terrorists, Tyrants, and Thugs "R" Us.
This "House of Peace," remember, regularly erupts in obscene
exaltation for Fidel Castro, "Butcher of Tiananmen Square" Li
Peng, and other leaders of the most brutal regimes in history.
The disarmament scheme's leading proponents in the U.S. government

have publicly sworn oaths to uphold our constitutional
form of government and to defend it against all enemies foreign
and domestic. These same individuals straight-facedly pretend to
be doing exactly that, and the vast majority of Americans innocently
take them at their word. After all, these are "respected
statesmen" whose names and faces have become familiar and who
have been anointed by the Establishment media and political
powers. Surely they would not betray us. Yet, that is precisely
what they have done and are doing.
We do not use the terms treason lightly or loosely; we mean it in

the precise and literal sense intended by the Founding Fathers.
According to our Constitution: "Treason against the United States
shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to
their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."16 The Freedom From
War plan manifestly fits this definition. It would render all
Americans subject to a foreign power (the UN) controlled by one-
world internationalists who have made no
secret of their hostility toward our system of government, and by

totalitarian regimes that clearly mean us harm.
Freedom From War was amplified in April 1962 by another disarmament

document entitled Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline
of Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete
Disarmament in a Peaceful World. As before, its third stage calls
for the strengthening of the UN Peace Force "until it had sufficient
armed forces and armaments so that no state could challenge it."17
That is where the current CFR leadership in the Bush administration,

working together with the heirs of Gorbachev and Yeltsin
in Moscow, are planning to take us with the current round of
disarmament talks and the ongoing push to arm the United Nations
with a standing army. Their true intent is not the elimination of
weapons, but the transfer of weapons and military forces from
nation-states to the UN, creating a monopoly of power that will
enable them to enforce their envisioned new world order.
A Strange Alliance
On October 19, 1994, former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev
released the Final Report of the Global Security Project at the
CFR's Pratt House headquarters in New York City.18 The Global
Security Project (GSP) is a joint effort of the Gorbachev
Foundation and the CFR. Besides our same Dr. Bloomfield, other
CFR "security experts" on the project include Richard Falk, Saul
Mendlovitz, Jonathan Dean, Jeremy J. Stone, and the arch-subversive
Daniel Ellsberg (of the Pentagon Papers infamy). They
were joined by the late Senator Alan Cranston, a longtime proCommunist,
19 a past president of the World Federalists, and a
member of the Trilateral Commission.
The Gorbachev/CFR GSP Final Report calls for the creation of a

UN "readiness force" provided by UN member states. It proposes
"drastic cuts by nuclear weapons states to the level of 100 nuclear
warheads, to be achieved within ten years, by 2005 A.D."20 These
reductions would be made "irreversible" by the
transfer of all weapons-grade "fissile material" to the UN's International

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It also recommends that the UN Security
Council press all other nations likewise to place their nuclear facilities
under UN control � or face "joint punitive action."21 In line with the
Bloomfield study and Freedom From War, the GSP calls for the
worldwide abolition of conventional armed forces by nation-states.22
For those who still can't recognize the obvious, James Garrison, cofounder
and president of the Gorbachev Foundation/USA, candidly
admitted the game plan in a 1995 newspaper interview. "Over the next 20
to 30 years, we are going to end up with world government," he said. "It's
inevitable," Garrison continued, "... through this turbulence is the recognition
that we have to empower the United Nations and that we have to
govern and regulate human interaction...."23
An "Independent" Commission?
In the spring of 1995, shortly after the release of the GSP Final Report,
another one-world volley pushing the same global disarmament program
came in the form of Our Global Neighborhood, the report of the
"independent" Commission on Global Governance (CGG). The CGG
includes among its august membership former presidents and prime
ministers, many of whom are also leaders of the Socialist International,
the principal global organization of Marxist parties promoting world
government and East-West convergence.24 Our Global Neighborhood was
released on the eve of the United Nations Social Summit in Copenhagen,
Denmark. The influential CGG report insists that the UN and other
international institutions must be vested with ever greater legislative,
executive, and judicial powers � including new regulatory, taxing,
police, and military capabilities including a standing UN "peace force."
Interestingly, one of the CGG's key consultants/advisors for this report

was again our same Dr. Bloomfield. In the years between his 1961 study
and his efforts for the GSP and CGG reports, Bloomfield continued to
serve the world government
cause: teaching at MIT, serving as director of global issues for the

National Security Council, sitting on international panels, and
authoring additional pleas to empower the UN. He is like hundreds
of other CFR members who rotate in and out of "government
service" to prestigious (and profitable) positions in finance and
consulting (for instance, Goldman Sachs, Chase Manhattan, the
Blackstone Group, or Kissinger Associates), academe (Harvard,
Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Stanford, MIT, Johns Hopkins, etc.),
think tanks (CFR, the Brookings Institution, the Institute for
International Economics, Rand Corporation, the Woodrow Wilson
Institute, etc.) or the corporate world, which includes many top
Fortune 500 companies whose boards of directors and top officer
slots have become heavy with CFR members.
Harlan Cleveland
Also serving with Bloomfield as consultants to the CGG were CFR
members Michael Clough, Peter Haas, and Harlan Cleveland,25 a
notorious pro-Communist security risk in the Kennedy
administration who helped draft the Freedom From War program
for U.S. disarmament.26 Mr. Cleveland was one of the early UN
"founders" at the 1945 San Francisco Conference. In the student
yearbook at Princeton University, he listed himself as a
"Socialist."27 Later, he wrote articles for Pacific Affairs, the journal
of the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), an infamous Soviet
espionage operation that played a critical role in delivering China
to the Communist forces of Mao Tse-tung. The IPR was described
by the Senate Judiciary Committee as "an instrument of
Communist policy, propaganda and military intelligence."28
While Cleveland was deputy chief of the United Nations Relief

and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) mission in Italy, that
organization helped implement "Operation Keelhaul," the
treasonous and brutal betrayal that delivered nearly five million
Europeans to Stalin's death squads and concentration camps.
Cleveland's boss at UNRRA was Soviet agent Harold Glasser.29
Cleveland was later appointed U.S. ambassador to NATO. As we
will see in ensuing chapters, he is typical of the one-world sub
versives who have penetrated and infested the top levels of the
federal government for several decades.
Mr. Cleveland has kept active writing and speaking on behalf of

the UN, international socialism, and world government over the
past half century. In 1976, he authored The Third Try at World
Order: U.S. Policy for an Interdependent World, published by the
World Affairs Council of Philadelphia and the Aspen Institute,
both of which are longtime advocacy centers for world
government, intimately linked with the CFR.
In that book, Cleveland laments that the first try at "world order"
collapsed with the failure to secure U.S. entry into the League of
Nations and that the second failure resulted from a United Nations
that was not invested with sufficient authority and power to enact
and enforce world law.30 According to Cleveland, the third try,
now underway, is an attempt to arrive at world governance
piecemeal, by strengthening the UN to deal with various global
crises involving, for instance, the global environment, food
reserve[s], energy supplies, fertility rates, military stalemate, and
conflict in a world of proliferating weapons.31
Power of the Purse Supports the Sword

Planners such as Cleveland recognize that transferring arms alone
is not enough to establish a standing UN army. That and other UN
schemes require a steady revenue stream that is not beholden to the
nation states that the UN seeks to dominate.
Since 1991, Cleveland has served as president of the World

Academy of Art and Science. In 1995, besides contributing to the
CGG's Global Neighborhood report for the UN Social Summit in
Copenhagen, Cleveland also headed up an international cast of
scholars to produce a special UN anniversary issue of Futures, the
prestigious journal of forecasting. Entitled "The United Nations at
Fifty: Policy and Financing Alternatives," the report proposed a
number of schemes for global taxation.
In his lead-off essay, Cleveland asserted that "we will be relying

more and more [on the UN] for peacekeeping and peaceful
settlement, for the promotion of fairness in the human family, and

for fostering human development.... Financing the UN is no longer
an issue to be ignored, bypassed, or swept aside.... It is high time
we looked hard at how best to finance a widening range of
international functions that grows more obviously necessary with
every passing year."32
Rather than relying on "the worn-out policy of year-to-year

decisions by individual governments" on how much of their citizens'
money to give to the UN, said Cleveland, "what's needed is a
flow of funds for development which are generated automatically
under international control."33 He suggests, for instance, UN taxes
on passports, on international travel, on ships (for the use of
international waters), on international financial transactions, and
on emissions of CFCs, CO2, methane and other gases.34 When it
comes to the potential sources of global taxation, said Cleveland,
"the list is limited only by the human imagination."35
That naked admission should strike terror into the heart of every
taxpayer familiar with the imaginative capabilities of one-world
socialists like Cleveland. In typical socialist fashion, these
globalists see every productive human effort as a taxable activity, a
potential "revenue stream" for the UN.
The global tax proposal that has won the most support is the so-
called Tobin Tax (after Nobel Laureate economist and CFR
member James Tobin), which would raise hundreds of billions of
dollars annually by taxing international financial transactions. The
Tobin Tax and other proposed global taxes would radically
rearrange the entire international system, transferring one of the
most important elements of national sovereignty to global
institutions and providing the UN with independent and unaccountable
revenue sources that would enable its constant
expansion.
In the past decade, these proposals have gone from the purely
theoretical to near practical reality. Yet most Americans have no
idea that such schemes are even in the offing. How can it be that
something so imminent and monumentally important could be so
completely unknown? Harlan Cleveland explains it this way:

"Over the years, a good deal of thinking has been done, mostly
below the surface of public attention, on this whole subject."36
(Emphasis added.)
You see, in the elite circles of power in which Cleveland and his
CFR associates operate, the internationalists have been discussing
and refining these one-world schemes for many years. They do not
spring it on the general public, though, until they have lined up
winning support for it. It's called getting your ducks in a row.
New World Army

Besides conspiring to deliver our nuclear arsenal to the UN, one-
world architects like Cleveland, Bloomfield, et al., also have been
pushing full tilt to build a globe-straddling UN conventional army.
Everyone who wasn't hibernating for the past 10 years or stranded
on a desert isle has heard of Operation Desert Storm, the massive,
U.S.-led, UN-sanctioned 1991 invasion of Iraq, which President
George Bush (CFR) declared was necessary to liberate Kuwait,
stop the "naked aggression" of Saddam Hussein, and promote "a
new world order."37
But how many people have heard of, or remember, Operations

Desert Spring, Laser Strike, Northern Watch, Southern Watch,
Eagle Eye, Joint Falcon, Joint Forge, Deliberate Forge, or
Determined Forge? Probably not very many. And yet these are all
ongoing multinational military operations � in Iraq, Kosovo,
Bosnia-Herzegovina � involving large numbers of U.S. military
personnel and assets.
And how many people have heard of, or remember, Operations

Shining Hope, Noble Anvil, Desert Fox, Desert Thunder, Bevel
Edge, Noble Obelisk, Joint Endeavor, Deliberate Guard,
Determined Guard, Decisive Enhancement, Decisive Edge, Desert
Strike, Desert Focus, or any of the dozens of other UN, NATO, and
other multilateral deployments of U.S. armed forces throughout the
world over the past decade?
A May 2000 report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff notes:
"Since 1990, the United States military has participated in more than 90
'named' operations around the world." "Of these," it states, "more than 55
involved the deployment of a substantial number of forces to combat
operations, peacekeeping missions or humanitarian endeavors."38 Such
missions have been costly. According to the General Accounting Office,
these missions, which it calls "Operations Other Than War" (OOTW),
will cost taxpayers $4.7 billion for Fiscal Year 2000. These wars that are
no longer called wars have cost $21.3 billion since 1991.39
These costly "operations" rob dollars from our defense budget, which
should be reserved for protecting America's national interests. In fact,
there is no constitutional authority for our military to be used for any
other purpose than national defense. Besides consuming scarce defense
dollars, the UN OOTW capers have greatly strained our weapons and
personnel resources. In July 1999, Congressman Floyd Spence, chairman
of the House Armed Services Committee, warned:
Over the last nine months, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded
that the ability of the U.S. armed forces to meet the requirements of the
National Military Strategy entails "moderate to high risk." This
disturbing assessment was made even before Operation Allied Force
commenced in the Balkans. As a "major theater war," Operation Allied
Force overextended the U.S. Air Force, placing heavy demands on aerial
refueling, reconnaissance and electronic warfare units.... This "high-risk"
strategy is unacceptable.... Unless our nation fields the forces and provides the
resources necessary to execute the National Military Strategy, we will surely
inherit a more dangerous world in which America's credibility and resolve are
put to the test with alarming frequency.40
"An Air Force that is today forty percent smaller than it was in 1990,"
noted Chairman Spence, "committed over 40% of its assets to Operation
Allied Force, a higher percentage than was committed during Operation
Desert Storm."41 Rep. Spence quoted General Michael Hawley, who was
Commander of the Air
Combat Command during Operation Allied Force. "We cannot

continue to accumulate contingencies," warned General Hawley.
"At some point, you've got to figure out how to get out of some-
thing."42
But more "hot-spots" keep cropping up. Coups, revolutions,

wars, and conflicts � in Fiji, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Congo, Sierra
Leone, Sudan, Nigeria, Rwanda, Kosovo, Bosnia, Cyprus, Lebanon
� guarantee opportunities galore for the global interventionists

running U.S. foreign and military policy. Not surprisingly, these
"opportunities" are being cited by one-world advocates as proof of
the need for a standing UN Army.
On May 15, 2000 Representative James McGovern (D-Mass.)
introduced a resolution calling for the establishment of a 6,000strong
UN force that could quickly be deployed to conflict situations
worldwide. According to McGovern, "a lot of lives could
have been saved" in East Timor if the UN had been equipped with
such a force.43 "This force will allow the Security Council, subject
to a US veto, to deploy well-trained peacekeepers within 15 days
of a resolution," McGovern said.44 His proposed UN Rapid
Deployment Police and Security Force would only be for short-
term deployment ("a few months," he says) while more permanent
coalition forces are assembled.45
As we will see in future chapters, this effort to create a permanent

UN army is gathering steam, with all the usual CFR
puppeteers orchestrating a global "consensus." Tragedy and tumult
provide pretexts galore for intervention. Often these conflicts have
been fomented in the first place by Communist-trained guerrillas
who have strong UN support. And, as we shall see in Chapter 9,
United Nations intervention frequently adds to these tragedies by
helping the worst tyrants crush their opposition and solidify their
power.
Chapter 3
The Secret Network of Power
We are at present working discreetly with all our might to

wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches
of the local nation states of the world.1
� Arnold Toynbee,
Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1931
We shall have world government, whether or not we like it.
The question is only whether world government will be achieved
by consent or by conquest.2
�
James P. Warburg (CFR), testimony before the Senate
Foreign Relations Subcommittee, 1950
I know of the operations of this network [the international
Round Table groups, including the Council on Foreign
Relations] because I have studied it for twenty years and was
permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers
and secret records.3
� Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University,

"mentor" to Bill Clinton, 1966
Over the next 20 to 30 years, we are going to end up with
world government. It's inevitable.... [W]e have to empower the
United Nations and ... we have to govern and regulate human
interaction.4
� Jim Garrison,
President of the Gorbachev Foundation/USA, 1995
In Jonathan Swift's adventure parable, the giant Gulliver is bound
by the tiny Lilliputians in a single night. Their ropes were mere
threads to him, and he could have easily snapped them
41
individually or in small numbers. Yet, once those threads had

multiplied to thousands, he would be rendered completely helpless.
It was thus absolutely essential, from the standpoint of his little
captors, that they complete their project before he awakened. So
too, with our situation today. The American giant is fast asleep,
completely unaware of the growing danger. In this case, however,
the Lilliputians have inside help. They have traitors inside our
camp who are slipping the American Gulliver sedatives and
tranquilizers.
The strands that are multiplying about the American people and
gradually being forged into steel manacles are the work not of a
single night but of decades. The network of individuals and
organizations leading this effort for global conquest has worked
patiently and assiduously to build a worldwide "movement" which,
on the surface, appears to be a completely absurd mixture of
incongruous and opposing parts. It is a fusion of radical socialists,
feminists, pacifists, environmentalists, and communists together
with international bankers, industrialists, and corporate CEOs,
including some of the world's wealthiest capitalists. Yet the
disparate members of this odd alliance chant the one-world mantra
in unison: "Global problems require global solutions." And global
solutions, they assure us, can only be provided by a world
government � one with ever-increasing powers.
In this chapter, we are going to briefly examine some of the

main groups and individuals in the 20th century who forged the
conspiratorial drive for world government. This includes the venerated
founders of the United Nations and many well-known and
respected leaders in the fields of politics, business, finance, and
academia.
UN: Creature of the CFR

The United Nations, we learn as schoolchildren, represents
mankind's highest aspirations and ideals. According to textbook
lore and steady propaganda in the major media, the UN is the
world's "last best hope for peace." Following World War II, we are
told, the heroic and visionary UN founders came together to save
THE SECRET NETWORK OF POWER
humanity from the certain annihilation that would result if a

nuclear war were allowed to occur.
That is a myth, a lie. The UN, as we will show, is completely a

creature of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and was created
for purposes entirely different from the noble ones usually
cited. It was created to accumulate and usurp power so that
eventually it could become a vehicle for imposing totalitarian
control over our entire planet.
The plans for the United Nations were drafted in 1943 by the
Informal Agenda Group (IAG), a secret steering committee set up
by FDR's Secretary of State Cordell Hull. Besides Hull himself, the
IAG was composed of Leo Pasvolsky, Isaiah Bowman, Sumner
Welles, Norman Davis, and Morton Taylor. As Professors
Lawrence Shoup and William Mintner point out in their critical
study of the CFR, with the exception of Hull, all of the secret IAG
participants were CFR members. "They saw Hull regularly to plan,
select, and guide the labors of the [State] Department's Advisory
Committee. It [the CFR] was, in effect, the coordinating agency for
all the State Department postwar planning."5
At the UN's founding San Francisco Conference, 43 of the U.S.

delegates � virtually our entire contingent � were, or would later
become, members of the CFR, including: Hamilton Fish
Armstrong, Ralph Bunche, John J. McCloy, Leo Pasvolsky, Nelson
Rockefeller, Harold Stassen, Adlai Stevenson, Isaiah Bowman, and
John Foster Dulles (the last two being founding members of the
CFR).6 Of course, the top man at that conference, serving as acting
Secretary-General, was Soviet agent Alger Hiss, also a CFR
member. Hiss not only ran the UN show at San Francisco and
appointed many of the delegates and UN officers, but he also
played a key role in drafting the UN Charter.7
Secret Shadow Government

From FDR's administration to the present, the CFR's pernicious
influence in American society and government has grown dra
matically. The CFR has become in effect the secret shadow government
of the United States; its members have dominated every
administration since World War II. Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon,
Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton were members, as were hundreds
of their appointments. (President George W. Bush is not a
member, but his vice president, Dick Cheney, is, as are many of
the top Bush cabinet picks. See Chapter 9.) No other organization
even comes close to exercising this kind of political power in the
United States.
Author/journalist Richard Rovere (CFR) has described the

Council as "a sort of Presidium for that part of the Establishment
that guides our destiny as a nation."8 Historian Arthur M.
Schlesinger Jr. (CFR) has termed it a "front organization [for] the
heart of the American Establishment."9 Newsweek has referred to
the Pratt House* one-world coterie as "the foreign policy
establishment of the U.S."10 Professors Lawrence Shoup and
William Mintner have dubbed the organization "the Imperial Brain
Trust."11 Author and hard-core radical activist Richard Barnet
(CFR) wrote, as far back as 1972, that "failure to be asked to be a
member of the Council has been regarded for a generation as a
presumption of unsuitability for high office in the national security
bureaucracy."12
In his 1979 memoir With No Apologies, Senator Barry

Goldwater noted that despite the heated rhetoric and change in
party label from one administration to the next, the same internationalist
policies continue unabated:
When a new President comes on board, there is a great turnover in personnel

but no change in policy. Example: During the Nixon years Henry Kissinger,
CFR member and Nelson Rockefeller's protege, was in charge of foreign
policy. When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced by Zbigniew
Brzezinski, CFR member and David Rockefeller's protege.13
*The Harold Pratt House in New York City is the headquarters for the Council on
Foreign Relations.
On October 30, 1993, the Washington Post printed one of the

most candid (and rare) admissions against interest by the
Establishment: a column by Post writer Richard Harwood, entitled
"Ruling Class Journalists." Mr. Harwood openly conceded that the
CFR's "members are the nearest thing we have to a ruling
establishment in the United States." 14
To illustrate his claim, Harwood pointed to the Clinton administration.

"The president is a member," Harwood noted. "So is his
secretary of state, the deputy secretary of state, all five of the
undersecretaries...."15 And on and on he went, through a litany of
the CFR membership roster in the Clinton regime.
How can it be that an organization that has gained such

incredible influence and power, that has virtually hijacked the
American government, is so little known to the American public?
The Post's Mr. Harwood provides the answer:
The editorial page editor, deputy editorial page editor, executive

editor, managing editor, foreign editor, national affairs editor, business and
financial editor and various writers as well as Katharine Graham, the paper's
principal owner, represent The Washington Post in the council's membership.16
Ditto for the other media giants: the New York Times, Wall
Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Time, US News &
World Report, NBC, CBS, ABC, et al. CFR members Tom
Brokaw, Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, Diane Sawyer, James Lehrer,
Bernard Kalb, Irving R. Levine, David Brinkley, Barbara Walters,
and Morton Kondracke, along with hundreds of other influential
"journalists" and media executives, serve as propagandists for the
Pratt House thought cartel.* In the words of Harlan Cleveland,
they make sure the CFR's subversive operations stay "mostly
below the surface of public attention."
Bilderberg Group: Power-mad Elitists

David Rockefeller gratefully acknowledged this indispensable
"cloaking" service provided by the CFR/TC-dominated media at a
meeting of the secretive Bilderberg Group (BG). Gathering at Sand,

Germany in June 1991, this coterie of elite one-worlders had important
global intrigues to plan and coordinate for the final decade of the
millennium. Many top media Insiders were in attendance, but as in years
past, they would reveal not a word of what they had heard at the confab to
their readers or viewers.
Despite the Bilderbergers' elaborate security precautions, however, the

word did leak out in two French publications, Minute and Lectures
Francaises.17 Hilaire du Berrier, publisher of the authoritative, Monte
Carlo-based HduB Reports, was the first to inform Americans of goings-
on at the BG conference at Sand. Du Berrier, who has been closely
following and chronicling the activities of the New World Order
operatives for more than four decades, reported on the conference in his
HduB Reports for September 1991.18 His Bilderberg revelations then
reached a much larger audience in The New American magazine, where
he is a contributor.19
What did David Rockefeller, then the chairman emeritus of the

American Establishment, have to say to the assembled aristocracy of the
U.S. media? An amazing, stunning mouthful, that's what. We'll let you
judge for yourself. This is part of Rockefeller's greeting to his Bilderberg
boon companions:
We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time
magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended
our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty
years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the
world if we had been subject to the bright
*The CFR's 2000 Annual Report states that 386 of its members are "Journalists,
Correspondents, and Communications Executives." As in past Annual Reports, it also
notes,
under the heading, "Rules, Guidelines, and Practices": "Full freedom of expression
is
encouraged at Council meetings. Participants are assured that they may speak
openly, as it is
the tradition of the Council that others will not attribute or characterize their
statements in
public media or forums or knowingly transmit them to persons who will. All
participants are
expected to honor that commitment." This is the Pratt House equivalent of Omerta,
the
Mafia "oath of silence."
lights of publicity during these years. But the world is now more sophisticated
and prepared to march towards a world government which will never again
know war but only peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity. The
supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely
preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in the past centuries. It is
also our duty to inform the press of our convictions as to the historic future of
the century.20
Incredible, no? Well, what else would you expect from a cabal of
power-mad elitists who consider the whole world to be their own
private oyster? These "enlightened ones," these illuminati, have
been busily redesigning, reshaping, and "transforming" the world
according to their own desires throughout the past century. They
intend to be the planetary overlords in the new world order. As Mr.
Rockefeller said, it would have been "impossible" for them to have
come so far with their super-subversive plot except that their coconspirators
in the media kept "the bright lights of publicity" off
their dark schemes.
The Post's Richard Harwood noted concerning the CFR media

oligarchy: "They do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy
for the United States; they help make it."21 (Emphasis added.)
He might also have said that they smother, suppress, censor, quash,
and kill much of the real news (and grossly distort the rest) in order
to help make "policy." While endlessly, piously prattling about
their sacred role as "watchdogs," and "the public's right to know,"
these criminal hypocrites have been engaged in the biggest cover-
up in history.
How did the CFR claque come to acquire so much power? In this
compressed study, we can only briefly attempt to answer that
question.*
CFR Historian Speaks Out

One of the most informative and penetrating revelations concerning
the CFR power network came in 1966 with publication of
Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time by Professor

Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University. A celebrated historian who
was sympathetic to the CFR's globalist agenda, Quigley wrote:
I know of the operations of this network [the international Round

Table groups, including the Council on Foreign Relations] because I
have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the
early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no
aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been
close to it and to many of its instruments.... In general, my chief
difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown.22
And what are the "aims" of this network? According to Dr. Quigley:
"[N]othing less than to create a world system of financial control in
private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and
the economy of the world as a whole." 23
The network to which Quigley referred had provided the "brain trust"
and the financial impetus behind the drive for the League of Nations, the
effort Mr. Cleveland referred to as the "First Try" at world order. Leading
that drive for the network was Col. Edward Mandell House, the key
advisor and "alter ego" of President Woodrow Wilson. When the League
of Nations was thwarted by the U.S. Senate, Col. House and his
colleagues determined to continue their struggle by other means. House
was part of a cabal called "The Inquiry," a group of 100 "forwardlooking"
social engineers who created the Versailles Peace Treaty at the
close of World War I.24 This group formed the American nucleus
*The development of this conspiratorial power network has been extensively examined
in
such studies as: The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and The
American Decline by James Perloff (Western Islands, 1988); Global Tyranny ... Step
By
Step by William F. Jasper (Western Islands, 1992); None Dare Call It Conspiracy by
Gary
Allen (Concord Press, 1971); The Insiders, 4th Edition, by John F. McManus (The
John
Birch Society, 1995); The Wise Men by Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas (Simon &
Schuster, 1986); among others.
of what was to become the Council on Foreign Relations. The

Inquiry's British counterparts created a companion organization
_ the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA).25
These groups were the product of an earlier secret society formed in

February 1891 by Cecil Rhodes, the legendary "diamond king" and
"colossus" of Africa, with British journalist William Stead. Rhodes,
although famous as "the richest man in the world," was an ardent disciple
of socialist Professor John Ruskin, under whom he had studied at Oxford.
Dr. Quigley explains: "In this secret society Rhodes was to be leader;
Stead, Brett (Lord Esher), and Milner were to form an executive committee;
Arthur (Lord) Balfour, (Sir) Harry Johnston, Lord Rothschild,
Albert (Lord) Grey, and others were listed as potential members of a
'Circle of Initiates'; while there was to be an outer circle known as the
'Association of Helpers'(later organized by Milner as the Round Table
organization).... Thus the central part of the secret society was established
by March 1891."26
The plan developed by Rhodes and his small circle of co-conspirators

was one in which "a world system of financial control in private hands"
would be used to bring about world government.
"This system," notes Quigley, "was to be controlled in a feudalist

fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret
agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."27
Professor Quigley explained further:
The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in
Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds'
central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central
bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England,
Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the
Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its
government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign
exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to
influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the
business world.28
In January 1924, Reginald McKenna, who was then chairman of the

board of the Midland Bank (and had been Britain's Chancellor of the
Exchequer in 1915-16), confirmed that the British system was completely
dominated by the conspiratorial monied aristocracy. "I am afraid the
ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create
money," said McKenna. "And they who control the credit of the nation
direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the
destiny of the people."29
On November 11, 1927, the Wall Street Journal called Montagu

Norman, governor of the Bank of England, "the currency dictator of
Europe." Norman, a strange, furtive intriguer given to wearing disguises,
using assumed names, and incessantly flitting about the world on
mysterious missions, confirmed the Journal's assertion before the
Macmillan Committee on March 26, 1930.30
A Higher Power
But as Professor Quigley points out, Norman answered to powers who
stood in the shadows. "It must not be felt that these heads of the world's
chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world
finance," writes Quigley. "They were not. Rather, they were the
technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own
countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing
them down."31 Those bankers to whom Quigley refers were members of
the Rhodes-Milner network. Their immense power and influence were
exercised through the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the CFR,
and their many other levers of control in the government, the major
political parties, academe, business, and the media.
As Rhodes biographer Sarah Millin put it: "The government of the

world was Rhodes' simple desire."32 The Rhodes Scholarships, like the
Round Table groups, were integral to this global scheme. Part of Rhodes'
plan was to bring bright, ambitious young men to Oxford University for
indoctrination and recruitment into his
grand conspiracy. Co-conspirator William Stead said that

Rhodes' own words were that after 30 years there would be
"between two and three thousand men [mathematically selected] in
the prime of life scattered all over the world, each one of whom
will have had impressed upon his mind in the most susceptible
period of his life the dream of the Founder [Rhodes]."33
What were the qualities looked for in these specially selected

"scholars"? According to Rhodes himself: "smugness, brutality,
unctuous rectitude, and tact."34 Which pluperfectly described the
ruthless Cecil Rhodes. And just as aptly fit his most famous
Rhodes Scholar and one-world acolyte: Bill Clinton.35*
Over the years, Round Table-style groups parallel to the CFR

have been established in France, Germany, Italy, Belgium,
Norway, Sweden, India, Canada, Japan and dozens of other
countries. Rhodes' disciples have thus built a global network of
unprecedented power, capable of influencing, manipulating, sabotaging,
and controlling political and economic events on a scale
previously unimaginable.
"When the influence which the [Royal] Institute wields is combined

with that controlled by the Milner Group in other fields � in
education, in administration, in newspapers and periodicals � a
really terrifying picture begins to emerge," wrote Quigley in The
Anglo-American Establishment,36 which was published
posthumously in 1981. He explained:
The picture is terrifying because such power, whatever the goals at which it may be
directed, is too much to be entrusted safely to any group.... No country that

values its
safety should allow what
*Other American "Rhodies" who have been boosted to pinnacles of power in the fields
of
politics, business, media, and academia include Harlan Cleveland, George
Stephanopolous,
Strobe Talbott, Ira Magaziner, Robert Reich, Nicholas Katzenbach, Lloyd Cutler,
Erwin
Canham, Dean Rusk, Richard N. Gardner, James Hester, Representative Carl Albert,
Senator J. William Fulbright, Senator Richard Lugar, Senator Bill Bradley, Senator
David L.
Boren, Justice Byron White, Justice David Souter, Hedley Donovan, Howard K. Smith,
Walt Rostow, Stringfellow Barr, General Bernard Rogers, Admiral Stansfield Turner,
James
Woolsey, and Joseph Nye.
the Milner Group accomplished in Britain � that is, that a small number of
men should be able to wield such power in administration and politics, should
be given almost complete control over the publication of the documents
relating to their actions, should be able to exercise such influence over the
avenues of information that create public opinion, and should be able to
monopolize so completely the writing and the teaching of the history of their
own period.37
Admiral Chester Ward, who was himself a member of the CFR

for 16 years, saw that "terrifying picture" up close. Admiral Ward,
who resigned in disgust, was not exaggerating when he charged
that the CFR agenda is to promote "disarmament and submergence
of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful
one-world government." 38 The leadership of the group, he wrote,
"is composed of the one-world-global-government ideologists �
more respectfully referred to as the organized internationalists."
Moreover, he charged, the "lust to surrender the sovereignty and
independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of
the membership.... The majority visualize the Utopian
submergence of the United States as a subsidiary administrative
unit of a global government...."39
Admiral Ward's shocking charge is more than substantiated by

innumerable writings, speeches and actions of CFR members both
in and out of government. Even more astounding than this
incredible treachery by American leaders to subvert and destroy
our liberty is the extensive record of treason showing that these
same one-world advocates have been pursuing their evil purpose in
concert with the most brutal and murderous totalitarian dictators in
the history of our planet. That is the subject of our next chapter.
Chapter 4
"Capitalists" and the Communist

Dimension
[T]he American Communists worked energetically and tirelessly

to lay the foundations for the United Nations which we were sure
would come into existence.1
� Earl Browder, General Secretary of the Communist

Party USA
This task is the task of the world proletarian revolution, the task
of the creation of the world Soviet republic.2
� V.I. Lenin,
1920 Congress of the Communist International
[A] World Union of Soviet Socialist Republics uniting the whole
of mankind under the hegemony of the international proletariat
organized as a state.3
� "Program of the Communist International," 1928
The ultimate object of the parties of the Socialist International is
nothing less than world government. As a first step towards it, they
seek to strengthen the United Nations....4
� Declaration of the Socialist International 1962

Conference, Oslo, Norway
[T]he conflict between the two great superpowers ... will be
replaced by the USDR (a union of socialist democratic republics).
This will be a penultimate stage of progress toward a truly global
world federal union...."5
� Professor Mortimer Adler, socialist, author, 1991

53
We saw in the last chapter that, like the Communists (see above
quotes) the American one-world Insiders, operating primarily through
their CFR front, "worked energetically and tirelessly to lay the
foundations for the United Nations."6 We saw also that from start to finish
the UN has been wholly a CFR-conceived and driven operation. This is a
fact that the historical record overwhelmingly and indisputably proves.*
The historical record also proves with super-abundant documentation that
these globalist architects intended that the United Nations and its related
international institutions would be gradually enlarged and strengthened
until, ultimately, it would subsume all nations under an all-powerful, one-
world government.7
It is also beyond dispute that the leaders of the world Communist
conspiracy were solidly behind the formation of the UN and have
supported every effort to enlarge, strengthen, and empower it over the
past half century. This is plainly evident from the official speeches,
writings, and actions of top Soviet leaders and Communist leaders
worldwide, as well as from official documents of the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union (CPSU). We have also very extensive testimony to this
effect from numerous top Soviet defectors and former American
Communist officials.
That the Communists would support an institution for world
government is no mystery; the essence and substance of the whole
Communist program has been the pursuit of that very object. As long ago
as 1915, before the Bolshevik Revolution, Vladimir Lenin himself
proposed a "United States of the World."9 Soviet dictator and mass
murderer Joseph Stalin, as far back as 1922, stated: "Let us hope that by
forming our confederate republic we shall be creating a reliable bulwark
against international capitalism and that the new confederate state will
*Robert W. Lee writes in his 1981 expose, The United Nations Conspiracy, "When the
San
Francisco Conference convened on April 25 of that year [1945] to finalize and
approve the
UN Charter, more than forty members of the United States delegation had been, were,
or
would later become members of the CFR."8 Mr. Lee lists the CFR founding fathers of
the UN
in Appendix C to his book. (Or see: www.getusout.org.)
"CAPITALISTS" AND THE COMMUNIST DIMENSION
another step towards the amalgamation of the toilers of the hole

world into a single World Socialist Soviet Republic."10* Earl
Browder, general secretary of the CPUSA, stated in his book
Victory and After that "the American Communists worked
energetically and tirelessly to lay the foundations for the United
Nations which we were sure would come into existence."11
Moreover, this leader of the American Reds declared:
It can be said, without exaggeration, that ever closer relations
between our nation and the Soviet Union are an unconditional requirement for
the United Nations as a world coalition....
The United Nations is the instrument for victory. Victory is required for the
survival of our nation. The Soviet Union is an essential part of the United
Nations. Mutual confidence between our country and the Soviet Union and
joint work in the leadership of the United Nations are absolutely necessary.12
Clearly, Communist leaders have always advocated, supported,

and promoted the goal of world government generally, and the
United Nations particularly, in word and deed. Dr. Bella Dodd, a
former top CPUSA official, told of her role in the Communist
campaign for the UN: "When the Yalta conference had ended, the
Communists prepared to support the United Nations Charter which
was to be adopted at the San Francisco conference to be held in
May and June, 1945. For this I organ-
In his 1932 book Toward Soviet America, William Z. Foster, national chairman of the
Communist Party USA (CPUSA), wrote: "The American Soviet government will join with
the other Soviet governments in a world Soviet Union.... A Communist world will be
a unified,
organized world. The economic system will be one great organization, based upon the
principle of planning now dawning in the U.S.S.R. The American Soviet government
will be
an important section in this world organization."13
In 1936, the official program of the Communist International proclaimed:

"Dictatorship
can be established only by a victory of socialism in different countries or groups
of countries,
after which the proletariat republics would unite on federal lines with those
already in existence,
and this system of federal unions would expand ... at length forming the World
Union
of Socialist Soviet Republics." 14
ized a corps of speakers and we took to the street corners and held open-
air meetings in the millinery and clothing sections of New York where
thousands of people congregate at the lunch hour. We spoke of the need
for world unity and in support of the Yalta decisions."15
Shortly after the founding of the UN, in March of 1946, Stalin

declared: "I attribute great importance to U.N.O. [United Nations
Organization, as it was then commonly called] since it is a serious
instrument for preservation of peace and international security."16 On one
level, Stalin's expressed desire for "peace" and "security" is an obviously
disingenuous propaganda ploy devoid of any meaning, in the sense that
most people ascribe to those words. However, in the Communist sense,
where "peace" and "security" are defined as an absence of resistance to
Communism, Stalin's endorsement of the UN is perfectly understandable.
He knew that the UN's very nature and structure would contribute to
Communist advantage, since his agents had helped design it. And he
knew that the UN was permeated with Communist agents who would
assure that it remained a Communist instrument.
For these same reasons, The Constitution of the Communist Party of

the United States of America (1957 version) states that "the true national
interest of our country and the cause of peace and progress require the
solidarity of all freedom-loving peoples, peaceful coexistence of all
nations, and the strengthening of the United Nations as a universal
instrument of peace."17
Reds Among the Founders

Of course, the Communists were not only working outside the UN to stir
up support for the new global organization, they were also running things
on the inside � in concert with their like-minded, one-world CFR
cohorts. Keep in mind that it was Soviet agent Alger Hiss (CFR), acting
director of the State Department's Office of Special Political Affairs, who
served as executive secretary of the critically important 1944 Dumbarton
Oaks Conference, where the UN Charter was drafted.18In that
"noble" endeavor, Stalin's secret agent Hiss and Stalin's open agent
V. M. Molotov were the two prime players. The Communists

couldn't lose: "our guy" and "their guy" were both "Stalin's guys,"
two hands on the same hairy body.
But it was much worse than that; Hiss was far from the only
Communist agent in (not under) the UN bed. The July 1944
Bretton Woods Conference was as important for the about-to-beborn
UN as was the Dumbarton Oaks Conference. Bretton Woods
established the post-World War II global economic policies and
architecture, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and
World Bank group of institutions. Bretton Woods was planned and
initiated by the Economic and Finance Group of the Council on
Foreign Relations. The leader of the conference and the head of the
U.S. delegation was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry

Dexter White, a secret member of a Soviet espionage ring.19
Assisting White as technical secretary of the conference was
another Soviet agent at the Treasury Department, Virginius Frank
Coe.
In his important book on the UN, The Fearful Master, author G.
Edward Griffin wrote:
In 1950 the State Department issued a document entitled Postwar
Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939-45.... This and similar official records reveal
that the following men were key government figures in UN planning within the
U.S. State Department and Treasury Department: Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter
White, Virginius Frank Coe, Dean Acheson, Noel Field, Lawrence Duggan,
Henry Julian Wadleigh, John Carter Vincent, David Weintraub, Nathan
Gregory Silvermaster, Harold Glasser, Victor Perlo, Irving Kaplan, Solomon
Adler, Abraham George Silverman, William L. Ullman and William H. Taylor.
With the single exception of Dean Acheson, all of these men have since been
identified in sworn testimony as secret Communist agents!20 [Emphasis in
original.]
UN Charter: A Marxist-Leninist Blueprint
With the pedigrees of these designers in mind, it should come as
no surprise that the great UN Charter, so reverentially extolled by all

internationalists, is a purely Marxist-Leninist blueprint. But you needn't
take our word for it; that's the assessment of former top Communist Party
member Joseph Z. Kornfeder. In his sworn testimony before Congress in
1955, 10 years after the founding of the UN, Mr. Kornfeder stated:
I need not be a member of the United Nations Secretariat to know

that the UN "blueprint" is a Communist one. I was at the Moscow
headquarters of the world Communist party for nearly three years and
was acquainted with most of the top leaders.... I went to their colleges; I
learned their pattern of operations, and if I see that pattern in effect
anywhere, I can recognize it....
From the point of view of its master designers meeting at Dumbarton

Oaks and Bretton Woods, and which included such masterful agents as
Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Lauchlin Currie, and others, the UN
was, and is, not a failure. They and the Kremlin masterminds behind
them never intended the UN as a peace-keeping organization. What
they had in mind was a fancy and colossal Trojan horse.... Its [the UN's]
internal setup, Communist designed, is a pattern for sociological
conquest; a pattern aimed to serve the purpose of Communist
penetration of the West. It is ingenious and deceptive.21
Kornfeder's evaluation of the UN is backed up by no less an authority

than former UN Secretary-General U Thant. Mr. Thant was a Marxist,
winner of the Soviet Union's Lenin Peace Prize. "Lenin was a man with a
mind of great clarity and inci-siveness," Thant said, "and his ideas have
had a profound influence on the course of contemporary history." The
Burmese Marxist continued: "[Lenin's] ideals of peace and peaceful
coexistence among states have won widespread international acceptance
and they are in line with the aims of the U.N. Charter."22
There you have it, and from an unimpeachable source: The aims of the
UN Charter are "in line" with the "ideals of peace" of Lenin, the
Communist dictator and butcher. On this one point, at
least, we can find no cause for disagreement with Mr. Thant. Of

course, it is of utmost importance that one keep in mind that
"peace," in Marxist-Leninist terms, does not mean an absence of
war, but an absence of resistance to Communism.
Serving Red Imperialism

The Kremlin's agents wasted no time in using the newly created
UN machinery to advance global Communist imperialism.
Innumerable examples have been documented of UN agencies
providing concrete, material aid to Communist regimes and revolutionary
efforts, and, conversely, opposing, thwarting, and
destroying non-Communist and anti-Communist governments and
movements.23
A condensed survey of the United Nations Relief and

Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), which was established
by the CFR Insiders in our government even before the founding of
the UN, provides a tragic look at what was to follow. Under the
direction of Herbert H. Lehman (CFR), the UNRRA staff was
turned into an international cabal of Communists from various
countries who applied the billions of dollars of UNRRA's "humanitarian
aid" (taken from U.S. taxpayers) to Communist revolutionary
purposes.
The U.S. Ambassador to Poland, Arthur Bliss Lane, told what he

had witnessed of UNRRA's pro-Communist actions at the end of
World War II. "Over my personal protest," said Ambassador Lane,
"Lehman had appointed as director of the first UNRRA mission to
Poland the Soviet member of the UNRRA council, Mr. Menshikov,
whose first duty would be ... distribution of UNRRA supplies." As
a result, supplies could be obtained "only by those persons holding
a specified type of ration card issued solely to government
employees or to members of the Workers and Socialist parties."24
Which greatly assisted the Red takeover of Poland.
Likewise, Colonel Jan Bukar, in his testimony before Congress,

described a similar experience in Czechoslovakia: "In the
distribution of the goods through UNRRA, the people who
got any portion of the goods had to be enrolled as members of the

Communist Party ... [and] I want again to state that through UNRRA the
Communist Party gained many members."25
"With a total disregard of our national interests," wrote author and

investigative reporter Eugene W. Castle, "UNRRA money was
unreservedly given to the Communist-ruled nations behind the Iron
Curtain. It fed discontented peoples and strengthened the Red grip on
their governments."26
In China, millions of dollars in UNRRA funds and supplies were going

to Communist Madame Sun Yat-sen and Mao Tse-tung for their ultimate
triumph over General Chiang Kai-shek.27 This same pattern would appear
again and again over the following decades through such UN institutions
as UNICEF, UNESCO, WHO, UNHCR, FAO, UNFPA, IMF, the World
Bank, etc.
Red Trojan Horse

Millions of lives could have been saved and untold misery, murder, terror,
and destruction averted, if U.S. officials had been forced by an informed
American public to heed the warnings of credible witnesses and an
incredible trail of evidence. The tragic history that has unfolded since the
testimonies of Dr. Bella Dodd, Col. Bukar, Mr. Kornfeder, and others has
more than vindicated their most frightening alarms. The UN has indeed
proven to be a gigantic and deadly Trojan horse. The following are but a
few of the many advantages that the Communists expected to realize from
the creation of the UN:
� Economic assistance through the vast array of UN agencies.

� Enormous
potential for expansion of espionage, subversion, and
terrorism through the diplomatic immunity offered UN officials.
� Use of the UN podium for Communist propaganda purposes.
� Use
of UN diplomatic and propaganda machinery to attack and
undermine anti-Communist countries and to support pro-Communist
regimes and organizations.
� Transfer of tremendous sums of money from the American

producers to corrupt, collectivist projects and potentates
throughout the world.
� Steady
erosion of U.S. sovereignty through a myriad of UN
treaties and agreements.
� Depletion
and weakening of U.S. military resources in UN
operations worldwide.
� Gradual subordination of U.S. military command to international
authority (UN, NATO, SEATO, CENTO, OAS, etc.).
Unfortunately, the UN has delivered for the Reds beyond their
wildest dreams. In the field of espionage and subversion alone, it
has been a huge bonanza. During U.S. Senate hearings in 1952,
Senator James O. Eastland stated:
I am appalled at the extensive evidence indicating that there is today in the

United Nations among the American employees there the greatest concentration
of Communists that this committee has ever encountered.... [A]lmost all of
these people have in the past been employees of the United States Government
in high and sensitive positions.28*
By the mid 1960s, frustrated Americans were angrily (and

accurately) charging that the United Nations "was conceived by
Communists, founded by Communists, has always been controlled
by Communists, and has been used increasingly � and ever more
brazenly � to carry out Communist purposes."
Over the ensuing years, numerous investigations and reports have exposed the
subversion,
terrorism, and espionage activities of many foreign nationals operating through the
UN as
well, especially those from Russia, China, Cuba, and the Soviet bloc states. "Oh,
but that is
ancient history and no longer a concern, now that the Cold War is over," warble the
UN's
defenders. Not true; the UN continued to be a nest of spies. On October 24, 1991,
the Wall
Street Journal's deputy features editor Amity Shlaes (CFR) commented on evidence
indicating
that the UN Secretariat headquartered in New York City was still under the
domination of
old-line Communists, noting that following the supposed collapse of the Soviet
Union,
Westerners who worked at the U.N. ... found themselves surrounded by what many have
called a communist mafia."29

Who Is Really in Charge?

However, this characterization of the UN was not completely accurate. As
we have demonstrated in bare outline, Communists played key, central
roles at all levels in planning, promoting, establishing, and manning the
UN, and they have used it to great effect for their evil objectives ever
since. Nevertheless, it is far too simplistic to view the UN and its
operations purely as a "Communist plot."
As our preceding chapters demonstrate, there was another force at

work on this grandiose and malevolent project as well � represented by
the "one-world-global-government ideologists" described by Admiral
Ward. Many of these individuals obviously were not Communists; in fact
they were arch-capitalists, titans of Wall Street, with names like
Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie, Lamont, Warburg, and Schiff. And yet,
they did indeed work hand in hand with the masters of the Kremlin to
establish a system that they intended would supplant our own
constitutional system of government and grow into a global leviathan
state. And their successors have continued this subversive cooperation
with both overt Communist leaders (as in China) and "ex-Communist"
leaders (as in Russia), who now claim to be "democratic reformers."
Professor Carroll Quigley, the Insider historian we met in the previous

chapter, conceded that anti-Communists who had pointed to this strange
and diabolic Communist-capitalist symbiosis were not hallucinating:
There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international

Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the
radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may
identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the
Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so.30
"It was this group of people," said Quigley, "whose wealth and
influence ... provided much of the framework of influence which
the Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers took over in the

United States in the 1930s. It must be recognized that the power
that these energetic Left-wingers exercised was never their own
power or Communist power but was ultimately the power of the
international financial coterie...."31 (Emphasis added.) Regarding
that secretive coterie, he described the "relationship between the
financial circles of London and those of the eastern United States
which reflects one of the most powerful influences in twentieth-
century American and world history. The two ends of this English-
speaking axis have sometimes been called, perhaps facetiously, the
English and American Establishments. There is, however, a
considerable degree of truth behind the joke, a truth which reflects
a very real power structure. It is this power structure which the
Radical Right in the United States has been attacking for years in
the belief that they are attacking the Communists."32
Congressional Investigations
The treasonous workings of this elite were partially revealed, the
professor noted, by congressional investigators in the 1950s who,
"following backward to their source the threads which led from
admitted Communists like Whittaker Chambers, through Alger
Hiss and the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the
Morgan Bank, fell into the whole complicated network of the
interlocking tax-exempt foundations." 33
"It soon became clear," Quigley observed, "that people of immense
wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far and that
the 'most respected' newspapers in the country, closely allied with
these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any
revelations to make the publicity worth while...."34 Here the
professor sins by gross understatement and distortion. These
"people of immense wealth" and their "closely allied" media did
indeed get "excited," so much so that they went to incredible
lengths to sabotage and stop the inves-tigation, smear its principal
players, and smother the facts it had uncovered.
Thus, it is not surprising that the Reece Committee, established

by Congress in 1953 to investigate the tax-exempt foundations, fell
far short of fully exposing the mounting peril. Nevertheless, the
committee's report did sound a serious alarm, warning that the
major foundations (Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller) and interlocking
organizations like the CFR "have exercised a strong effect upon
our foreign policy and upon public education in things
international."35
The committee stated: "The net result of these combined efforts

has been to promote 'internationalism' in a particular sense � a
form directed toward 'world government' and derogation of
American 'nationalism.'"36
The Reece Committee also charged that these foundations

(which were invariably directed by CFR members) "have actively
supported attacks upon our social and government system and
financed the promotion of socialism and collectivist ideas."37 It
declared, moreover, that the CFR had become "in essence an
agency of the United States Government" and that its "productions
[books, periodicals, study guides, reports, etc.] are not objective
but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the glob-alist
concept."38
A far more important revelation disclosed by the committee's

chief investigator never made it into congressional testimony or the
committee's published report. Investigator Norman Dodd
recounted that during his visit to the Ford Foundation, the institution's
president, Rowan Gaither (CFR), unexpectedly admitted
that he and his colleagues were operating under directives "to the
effect that we should make every effort to so alter life in the United
States as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet
Union."39 This of course fit perfectly with the pattern that Dodd
and the committee members had observed in the subversive
projects and organizations funded by the foundation, but the
admission flabbergasted them nonetheless.
Common Ground: Power

At this point a great many readers undoubtedly are scratching
their heads in bewilderment. "I don't get it," they say. "Why
would wealthy capitalists conspire with Communists and promote

Communism? Don't they stand to lose the most if
Communism were to triumph?"
If you are among the bewildered head scratchers, don't feel bad.
The confusion is understandable; the idea of wealthy capitalists
scheming with bloody Bolsheviks does challenge some long-
accepted and basic assumptions and definitions most of us hold
concerning socio-economic-political relationships and the way the
world works. We agree that all capitalists should oppose
collectivism in all its forms (i.e., communism, socialism, fascism),
but it is a fact that many do not. Many "capitalists," while paying
lip service to "free enterprise" and "market economics," actually
abhor the competition of the marketplace. They would much rather
use government force (laws and regulations) to beat their
competition than try to produce better widgets more efficiently and
constantly have to come up with improvements, innovations, and
better management, marketing, and production.
They realize that communism, socialism, and fascism are never

the "share the wealth" schemes they pretend to be; they are
inevitably and invariably "control the wealth" schemes, in which
an elite oligarchy employs political power (backed up by military
and police force) to control all the wealth. They realize that step
one in any "share the wealth" program is to "collect the wealth" (or
"collectivization," as the Communists call it). And they realize that
once "step one" is completed no collectivist regime ever proceeds
to "step two": share the wealth. The collectivized wealth remains in
the hands of the ruling elite and their managerial class underlings
(the privileged nomenklatura in the Soviet Union) while the toiling
masses remain mired in grinding poverty, unable to escape by any
amount of honest effort.
It is a well documented fact that some of the best-known

"malefactors of great wealth" in this past century (and currently)
have indeed conspired and collaborated with the most murderous
dictators in history (Lenin, Stalin, Tito, Mao, Ceausescu, et al.) in
the quest to establish their criminal scheme of totali
tarian world government.40
The vast majority of these wealthy Insiders were not (and are
not) themselves Communists � although some definitely were
(and are). Armand Hammer (CFR), Frederick Vanderbilt Field
(CFR), and Corliss Lamont, for instance, were all immensely rich
Communists. The non-Communist Insiders see the Communists
(and their various Marxist brethren) as indispensable "partners" in
the pursuit of "world order." The Communists are brutally blunt
instruments, but adequately efficient, for destroying the old order
and constructing the new. The Insiders, of course, periodically
condemn their Communist partners and have frequently initiated
massive military and intelligence operations ostensibly to oppose
Communism. In fact, they repeatedly sold the United Nations and
many of its programs to the American public as a means of
opposing and/or taming the Communist threat.
However, the one-world Insiders were faced with a dilemma:

how to modify the image of the brutal Communist menace to
enable an eventual merger of the West with the U.S.S.R. without
simultaneously undermining the impetus for collective global
security and world government that the Communist threat provides.
"If the communist dynamic were greatly abated," wrote

Professor Bloomfield in the previously mentioned study (see
Chapter 2), "the West might well lose whatever incentive it has for
world government.... [I]f there were no communist menace, would
anyone be worrying about the need for such a revolution in
international political arrangements?"41 According to Bloomfield,
"if the communists would agree, the West would favor a world
effectively controlled by the United Nations."42 Thus the concealed
objective of U.S. policy, as Bloomfield acknowledged, was not to
defeat Communism, but rather "to transform and tame the forces of
communism ... to the point where the present international system
might be radically reshaped."43
Perhaps the reader has already perceived that since the rise of
Mikhail Gorbachev and "perestroika," and the subsequent "col
lapse" of Communism, we have been traveling the CFR-laid course

"to transform and tame communism." And the world is indeed
being "radically reshaped." A very important part of that reshaping
process involves finding, or rather, manufacturing, credible
menaces to substitute for Communism as "incentives for world
government." In the following chapters, we will witness � again
and again � the Insider-Communist conspiracy at work
synthesizing these substitute menaces, and, in Bloomfield's
words, "a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks"44 to bring
about "the order" they desire. We will also see the incredible global
activist networks they have established and the elaborate processes
they have set up to propagandize and organize on behalf of their
criminal "new world order."
Part II
Stealth Strategies for
Building the Superstate
Chapter 5
Orchestrating the Globalist Concert
More and more, NGOs [Non-Governmental Organizations] are

helping to set public policy agendas.... It is this movement ... that
has such significance for governance.... What is generally
proposed is the initial setting up of an assembly of parliamentarians
... and the subsequent establishment of a world
assembly through direct election by the people.1
� Commission on Global Governance, Our Global

Neighborhood, 1995
National governments are not simply losing autonomy in a
globalizing economy. They are sharing powers � including
political, social, and security roles at the core of sovereignty �
with businesses, with international organizations, and with a
multitude of citizen groups, known as nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs).... Increasingly, NGOs are able to push
around even the largest governments.2
� Jessica T. Mathews (CFR, TC), Foreign Affairs,

January/February, 1997
Establishing the dialogue with NGOs that have issues relevant to
your company is a bottom line issue for Wall Street.3
� Robert Hormats (CFR Director), vice-chairman,

Goldman Sachs
You will become the new superpower.
� Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, addressing the NGO

Millennium Forum, May 20004
71
Especially significant, of course, is the development of an NGO

network worldwide and its increasing role in the development of a
culture of democracy throughout the world.... Civil society, in order to
be an effective partner with government and business in providing
global governance in the 21st century, must develop a clear vision of
basic values and a better future.5
� Steven C. Rockefeller, Chairman of the Earth Charter

Drafting Committee and Chairman of the Rockefeller
Brothers Fund, addressing the UN Millennium Forum,
May 2000
During World War II, a Soviet spy network in Nazi-occupied Europe kept
Stalin supplied with first-rate intelligence on German military plans and
political developments. It came to be known as the Red Orchestra (Rote
Kapelle). The network sent its information to its Moscow superiors via
secret radio transmitters that operated only for short bursts and moved
constantly to avoid detection by the Gestapo. Nazi intelligence referred to
the transmitters as "music boxes" and assigned the names of musical
instruments to the distinctive, but elusive, operators.
The elaborate Red Orchestra espionage operation was set up several

years before the start of the war and involved agents who were military
personnel, Nazi officials, clerks, janitors, and housewives, as well as
"businessmen" in a network of corporations (both real and dummy
companies) throughout Europe. A similar Red Orchestra was established
in the United States, and, as noted in previous chapters, its agents
succeeded in penetrating to the highest levels of the federal government.
A few top agents were exposed in high-profile cases � Alger Hiss, Harry
Dexter White, Victor Perlo, the Rosenbergs � but, according to both
Communist defectors and U.S. intelligence officials, dozens of Red cells
involving hundreds of high-level Soviet agents were never exposed.*
Many of these agents were not engaged merely in the lower level aspects
of espionage such as stealing state secrets and reporting on military plans
and weapons develop
ORCHESTRATING THE GLOBALIST CONCERT
ment. They were performing a more critical role for the Kremlin as
"agents of influence": misinforming and misdirecting America's
leaders and actually influencing and formulating U.S. policies
concerning the most sensitive areas of our national security.
The Art of War by Sun Tzu has long served as a primary textbook
for Soviet military and intelligence strategists. Written over
2,000 years ago, it is one of the most famous studies of strategy
ever written. The Communists have especially focused on Sun
Tzu's lessons on strategic deception and the supreme importance of
espionage and intelligence. They are completely familiar with what
Sun Tzu described as the "five sorts of spies": Native spies;
internal spies; double spies; doomed spies; and surviving spies.
"Native spies are those from the enemy country's people whom we
employ," explained Sun Tzu. "Internal spies are enemy officials
whom we employ. Double spies are enemy spies whom we
employ. Doomed spies are those of our own spies who are deliberately
given false information and told to report it to the enemy.
Surviving spies are those who return from the enemy camp to
report information."6
"When all these five types of spies are at work and their operations
are clandestine, it is called the 'divine manipulation of
threads' and is the treasure of a sovereign,"7 continued China's
master strategist. The Communists adapted and greatly expanded
on the ancient sage's doctrines, creating a global apparatus
*On February 14 and 15, 1957, former Soviet NKVD agent Alexander Orlov testified
before
the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee ("Scope of Soviet Activity In The United
States,"
Part 51). Orlov claimed knowledge of 38 espionage rings in the U.S., with only two
exposed
as a result of the revelations of Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley. Decades
later, in
the 1990s, evidence was still seeping out to confirm those charges of penetration
of the U.S.,
including some of our most sensitive institutions and high-level positions. The
recently
released "Venona intercepts" � decoded secret Soviet transmissions collected in the
1940s
� verified that Harry Hopkins, top adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt, was a
Soviet
agent. Ditto for atomic bomb scientists Robert Oppenheimer and Theodore Hall. But
the
identities of many of the Venona agents are still unknown.
with capabilities and long-term plans for world conquest that

would have astounded Sun Tzu.
The Net That Covers the World

In 1955, British intelligence expert and author E. H. Cookridge
aptly described the global Soviet apparatus as "the net that covers
the world," in his book by that title. As he pointed out, the
Communists had at that time established a worldwide militant
organization of tens of millions of members, operating aggressively
in virtually every country toward a centrally directed common
objective � an accomplishment without parallel at any time
in history. Besides controlling these millions of disciplined members,
who could be ordered into coordinated global action on short
notice, the Communist leaders had developed an intelligence
apparatus of unparalleled, massive proportions. Cookridge noted:
The number of men and women employed by the Soviet government

on intelligence work has been estimated at about 250,000 �
this quite apart from the internal political police. The number is at least ten
times larger than that of agents used by all Western nations combined. But even
this is only part of the Communist secret army.... A suggestion that there are
750,000 men and women in the world � semiprofessional agents, informants,
fifth-columnists, fellow-travelers, and sympathizers � whom the Soviet secret
service succeeded in ensnaring in some way into the spy net � is probably an
underestimate. It is a formidable army, combined with a quarter of a million of
full-time agents and officials, and led by an elite of 10,000 to 12,000 trained
master spies.8
"No other nation," Cookridge noted, "devotes anything

approaching the proportion of its manpower and resources to secret
service work as do the Soviet Union and the satellite countries."9
Likewise, no other nation comes close to matching the size of the
internal secret police forces required by the Communists to
maintain their Total State. Through innumerable movies, documentaries,
novels, articles, and history books, Hitler's dreaded
Gestapo has been cast as the epitome of evil incarnate in the

long drama of human existence. It has become synonymous with
total
itarian brutality and malevolence, and rightly so. Yet most

Americans have never even heard of Stalin's even more murderous
and evil NKVD. Historian Martin Malia points out that German
National Socialism, for all of its cruelty and viciousness, was
"distinctly less murderous than Communism."10 A major reason for
this can be seen in the relative strength of the Nazi and Soviet
secret police organs at the time of the Hitler/Stalin Pact: In 1939,
Hitler's Gestapo employed a total of 7,500 people; Stalin's NKVD
employed 366,000!
During the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, the U.S. Congress and many
state legislatures held extensive investigative hearings into
Communist penetration and subversion in the United States. These
official inquiries produced a large number of important reports that
included testimony from top military and intelligence authorities,
as well as Communist defectors. Reports by the Committee on Un-
American Activities of the House of Representatives, such as "The
Communist Infiltration of the Motion Picture Industry" (1947),
"Communist Political Subversion" (1956), "Soviet Total War"
(1956), and "Communist Target � Youth" (1960) provided
explosive, detailed information about the Soviet attack on
America. As did reports of the Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee (SISS), such as "The Institute of Pacific Relations"
(1951), "Expose of Soviet Espionage" (1960), and "The Soviet
Empire" (1965). The voluminous 1953 SISS report entitled
"Interlocking Subversion in Government Departments" labeled the
Communist operations in our government "a conspiracy" and
concluded:
Policies and programs laid down by members of this Soviet conspiracy are
still in effect within our government and constitute a continuing hazard to our
national security.11
The massive scope and insidious nature of the Communist

offensive was so far beyond what most Americans imagined that
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover stated in 1956 that "the individual is

handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous
he cannot believe it exists."12 That handicap, however was
largely the work of the CFR-dominated media, which made sure
that the American public remained largely unaware of the shocking
information uncovered by the congressional investigations. The
same media subversives attacked the congressional investigators
and characterized proper concern over Communist and socialist
advances as "right-wing paranoia."
Many Tentacles, One Brain

In 1960, the Kremlin hosted the Congress of 81 Communist Parties
from around the world. Those parties boasted a collective strength
of more than 40 million members. But their real strength then, as
now, lay in their ability to get non-Communists to do their work
for them. In the U.S., as elsewhere, the Communists created
hundreds of front organizations and penetrated virtually all existing
organizations and institutions, with the intent of gradually gaining
significant influence, if not total control. Labor unions were
especially targeted because they offered: 1) huge sources of funds,
in the form of members' dues; 2) major political clout to elect
sympathetic politicians and influence legislation and policy; 3) an
important conduit of propaganda for class warfare; 4) the ability to
paralyze governments and economies through strikes; and 5) the
ability to mobilize large numbers of non-Communists (in marches
and demonstrations) to give the appearance of popular support for
Communist causes.
Similarly, the Communists and their various Marxist-socialist

brethren have, during the past century particularly, targeted the
colleges and universities � with amazing success. They have
gained such influence in academia that from the 1960s onward they
have been able to generate mass demonstrations of students, and
even violent riots, by exploiting emotional issues such as war,
nuclear weapons, the environment, homosexual rights, feminism,
civil rights, race, etc.
One of the most knowledgeable analysts of Communism is

Jimmy Clabough of Brooklyn, New York. Mr. Clabough, a careful

scholar of Communist literature and strategy, who has been
attending and monitoring Communist meetings in the New York
City area for years, says the Red network in this country is as
strong as ever. "Look at the records of all of the so-called experts
who keep assuring us that 'the Cold War is over/" he says. "These
are the same voices � the Kissingers, the Kennans, the
McNamaras, the New York Times and Washington Post � who
have always been disastrously wrong on every major call concerning
Communism. The Clinton 'Chinagate' scandals were the tip
of the iceberg. Communist activities in New York City alone are
increasing at a furious rate. They are practicing the old 'united
front' strategy of finding 'hot button' issues that they can exploit
with every group imaginable: the homeless, gays, environmentalists,
feminists, ethnic minorities, clergymen, New Agers,
labor unions, etc. By appealing to these issues, they have
developed large cadres of what I call Enviro-Leninists, Homo-
Leninists, Femi-Leninists, Afro-Leninists, Peacenik-Leninists,
Guru-Leninists, and Labor-Leninists. And they so expertly
manipulate and orchestrate these various elements that the average
television viewer or newspaper reader doesn't recognize the
Communist coordination behind the scenes. As Lenin said: 'We
must build Communism with non-Communist hands.'"13
This was precisely the message of Soviet Premier Konstantin

Chernenko, when, in his June 1983 address to the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU),
he made this noteworthy remark:
The battle of ideas in the international arena is going on without respite. We

will continue to wage it vigorously ... our entire system of ideological work
should operate as a well-arranged orchestra in which every instrument has a
distinctive voice and leads its theme, while harmony is achieved by skillful
conducting.14 [Emphasis added.]
As we will show in this and following chapters, despite the

supposed "collapse" of Communism, that global orchestra has

continued playing, with the same "skillful conducting" continu-ing
from the background. There are still official Communist Parties
operating in most countries and dozens more socialist parties run
by "former" Communists. Meanwhile, in the 1990s Russia and
China reestablished friendly relations and began openly
cooperating on many economic and military fronts.*
What many readers will find most extraordinary is that it is often

difficult to discern whether it is the Communist leaders who are in
charge of conducting this orchestra, or the CFR one-worlders,
since they both are so frequently standing arm-in-arm at the same
podium, moving their conductor's batons in perfect
synchronization. And always, the "harmony" they seek is that
which leads ineluctably to their mutual goal of world government.
To the massive, worldwide, militant network of the Communists,

the CFR Insiders have added their own formida
*Some of the most clear-sighted analysts of global affairs predicted this decades
ago. Soviet
defector Anatoliy Golitsyn and John Birch Society founder Robert Welch were
ridiculed by
both liberals and conservatives for contending that the so-called "Sino-Soviet
Split" was
entirely a strategic deception from the start, aimed at playing the West for
suckers. Their
careful research, reasoned analysis, and alarming predictions have proven true.
Golitsyn's
books, New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception, are immensely important for
an
understanding of this deception. Robert Welch's printed expose of the phony Sino-
Soviet
split began in the August 1971 Bulletin of The John Birch Society and was developed
in
subsequent Bulletins. For example, in the December 1971 Bulletin, he observed: "If
you
have any doubt that these wars or threats of wars are all arranged by the
Communists, with
the actual fighting subject to being turned off or on by the Communists at will,
then you are
a long way from recognizing the kind of world you are living in. You might even
swallow
the now increasing rumor of some kind of border military conflict being produced by
the
bitterness between Red China and Soviet Russia. Of course they could no more be
real
enemies than could the two hands of one human body directed by one brain. But
neither
Moscow nor Peking would have the slightest hesitation about getting a few hundred
thousand of their respective subjects killed in such a 'war,' in order to make
their 'feud' look
real, if the Insiders who write the script for this worldwide show decided that
such an act
would be worth the trouble."
ble global resources, including: presidents, prime ministers,

and other government officials; billions of dollars from tax-
exempt foundations and corporate globalists; prestige and
brain power from numerous think tanks and universities; the
tremendous impact of their one-world media cartel; and the
growing power of their global rent-a-mob, otherwise known as
the NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) lobby. Together
they apply simultaneous "pressure from above and below" in a
strategy that is known in Communist circles as "revolutionary
parliamentarianism."
Pressure From Above and Below

The one-world architects know that they must create the
appearance of popular support for their global designs in order to
pave the way for national governments to surrender political power
to the UN. To accomplish this surrender, they have devised a giant
pincer strategy in the form of a huge NGO network (pressure from
below) on the one hand, and sympathetic political and corporate
leaders (pressure from above) on the other. The NGOs clamor for
"world governance," and their orchestrated clamor is portrayed as
the collective voice of the peoples of the world expressing a global
consensus. The political and corporate leaders � according to plan
� then "respond" to the "will of civil society."

The use of this pincer strategy to seize power was explained by
Communist Party "theoretician" Jan Kozak. In his instructions for
"revolutionary parliamentarianism," written in the early 1950s,
Kozak detailed how he and his fellow Communist conspirators
overthrew a democratically elected, mainly non-Communist
government in Czechoslovakia and turned it into a Communist
dictatorship � legally.17
Kozak explained how his Communist minority in parliament

(in coalition with socialists and "liberals") worked in concert with
the street-level activists and grassroots revolutionaries.
Utilizing demonstrations, strikes, rallies, petitions, threats, and
- sometimes � sabotage, the radicals (like the NGOs today)

provided "pressure from below." Meanwhile Kozak and his coconspirators

provided coordinated "pressure from above" to get
parliament to institute Communism piecemeal, by centralizing power and
taking over more and more functions that had previously been left to local
governments and the private sector. It is important to understand that this
takeover was accomplished by a small minority. But this minority was
highly organized and disciplined. And it was also highly skilled in the art
of deception, in creating the false appearance of having overwhelming
numbers on their side. The opposition was psychologically
outmaneuvered and made to believe that "resistance is futile." They
surrendered without firing a shot. The Communists won that war because
they were the only side fighting; their opponents didn't even realize they
were under attack!
A similar operation is underway today on a global scale. The war is on,

but for the most part only one side is fighting. The UN-CFR axis is
organizing NGOs, churches, educational institutions, labor unions,
business groups, and other organizations into a force that it calls "global
civil society." At the UN's World Civil Society Conference in Montreal in
1999, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan explained to the professional
NGO activists their new "partnership" with the UN. Annan explained that
the NGOs must serve as "strategic partners in policy � in areas where
you can persuade your Governments to work through the United Nations.
You can tell them that our goals are your goals, and that you want them to
give us the means to achieve those goals."18
Kofi Annan is not the mastermind of this UN pincer strategy, of course;

he is merely a factotum carrying out the program for the Insiders who
have posted him as their front man. The magnitude of this global pincer
strategy and the incredibly deceptive processes employed in the pursuit of
their monstrous goals is mind-boggling. To paraphrase (and modify) Sun
Tzu, when all of these elements are at work and their operations and/or
connections are clandestine, it is justly called the "diabolic manipulation
of threads."
Orchestrating the "Disarmament" Concert

This diabolic manipulation and conspiracy are very apparent when
one looks beneath the surface of the global "peace" and "disarmament''
campaigns during the last half of the 20th century.
These campaigns support a primary objective of the UN's founders
� providing the UN with a monopoly of force. Recall that the

primary impetus, ostensibly, for creating the UN was to "put an
end to war" through an organization which would provide
"collective security." As we have already seen, it was the CFR one-
world brain trust, together with the Communists, that designed,
organized, and launched the UN. And it was the same cabal that
authored the State Department policy documents, Freedom From
War and A World Effectively Controlled By the United Nations.19
The global "disarmament" campaign � which is, in truth, a
program to transfer arms from private individuals and individual
nation-states to the UN � continues unabated. In fact, it is
accelerating. In May 2000, thousands of activists from across the
planet gathered at the United Nations in New York for the
"Millennium Forum." Disarmament was very much on the agenda.
The Forum was the formal rent-a-mob warm-up to prepare the
NGO militants for coordinated action at the Millennium Summit of
world leaders, which would follow in September. Addressing the
NGO activists, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan welcomed them
as "the new superpower," leaders of the new international "civil
society," and "implementing partners" in the work of the UN.20 But
contrary to the manufactured image, these NGOs certainly do not
represent civil society, and most are not independent.
A key disarmament document advanced at the UN's Millennium
Forum, and later at the Millennium Summit, was The Hague
Agenda for Peace and Justice for the 21st Century,21 which was
praised by Secretary-General Annan. The person in charge of
presenting the Hague Agenda document at the Forum was Cora
Weiss, president of the private Hague Appeal for Peace and
Justice, Inc. "There are only three documents that you need ... to be
an informed, effective member of organized civil society,"
Weiss told the Forum attendees. "The Charter of the United

Nations, the [Universal] Declaration of Human Rights, and The
Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice for the 21st Century."22 My
colleague and fellow senior editor at The New American, William
Norman Grigg, who attended that UN session, noted: "Neither the
Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution was among
Weiss' indispensable texts, and once her background is understood
it will become clear why neither of our founding documents made
the cut." 23
Cora Weiss is both a member of the CFR and a veteran, hardcore

Leninist. She is the daughter of Samuel Rubin, a longtime member
of the Communist Party, U.S.A., and heads a tax-exempt
foundation that bears her father's name. The Samuel Rubin
Foundation is the chief financial angel behind the Institute for
Policy Studies (IPS), a very influential Washington, D.C. "thinktank"
which has long served as a major front for Soviet KGB
activities. The chairman of IPS is Cora Weiss' husband, Peter
Weiss, a radical attorney who is a member of the Communist-front
National Lawyers Guild. Like Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda, and other
pro-Communist traitors, Cora Weiss made the pilgrimage to Hanoi
during the Vietnam War and organized pro-Vietcong
demonstrations. In 1969, she returned from North Vietnam two
days before Christmas and held a major press conference where
she reported that American POWs were treated well and housed in
"immaculate" facilities. Weeks later, at a press conference she held
in the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, D.C, Weiss
scoffed at the claims of two former POWs � Lieutenant Robert
Frishman and Seaman Douglas Hegdahl. Frishman and Hegdahl
had testified before Congress concerning the inhumane treatment
they had experienced at the hands of the Reds. Weiss made light of
their injuries, and referred to our POWs as "war criminals." 24
As self-appointed high priestess of disarmament at the

Millennium Forum, Weiss declared to the UN assemblage: "I propose
the activation of Chapter VII, article 47 of the UN Charter,
which provides for a Military Staff Committee to assist the
Security Council for the maintenance of international peace." 25

The activation of Chapter VII would require a standing UN military
with the power to "take such action by air, sea or land forces
as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and
security."26
In keeping with the schemes of the global strategists, both at

Pratt House and in the Kremlin, the Hague Agenda proclaims that
"it is time to redefine security in terms of human and ecological
needs instead of national sovereignty and national borders." 27
Which, naturally, will require the "creation of standing UN peace
forces for use in humanitarian interventions" and the
implementation of "demobilization programs" around the world to
"reclaim and destroy weaponry" not under UN control.28 This
refers not only to nuclear arms and other weapons of mass
destruction, but also to "light weapons, small arms and guns"29 �
meaning those held by private citizens, as well as those under
control of national military forces. (More on the UN drive for personal
disarmament in Chapter 9).
Joining Cora Weiss (CFR, IPS) on the board of directors of the

Hague Appeal for Peace and Justice, Inc. are: Adele Simmons
(CFR and president of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation); World Federalist Movement officials Tim Barner and
William Pace (CFR); and Peter Weiss (IPS). Funding for the
Hague Appeal is provided by the usual CFR-dominated sources:
Ford Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Samuel
Rubin Foundation, Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust, billionaire
George Soros (a CFR director), The Nation magazine, Institute for
Policy Studies, Greenpeace International, UNESCO, UNIFEM,
and the World Federalist Association.30
The Hague Appeal is an international coalition of 180 organizations,

most of which have been involved in the radical "peace
and disarmament" movement for decades.* The Hague Appeal
received favorable support from the CFR media cartel during the
Forum, which was bracketed for months before and after with a
coordinated release of disarmament appeals in all the usual CFR
transmission belts: the New York Times, Washington Post, Los
83
Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Christian Science

Monitor, etc.
Why This Orchestration Works!

Why do the CFR elites go through such elaborate charades, creating
these multitudes of radical front groups (or co-opting existing
ones) and funding them with piles of money? And why all of the
orchestrated media support? The CFR elites know, of course, that
they wouldn't get very far if they were honest and straightforward
about their intent: "People of the world: Our global political,
economic, and social arrangements are all wrong. However, our
elite group of superior thinkers have a plan. All you have to do is
relinquish all political and financial power to us so we can fix
everything. Trust us." Wouldn't work, obviously.
However, what if they employ a different strategy? What if they

fund a gaggle of radical groups, with various elements calling for
the transfer of power in one area or another to international
authorities? What if they also fund another gaggle of even more
radical groups to make the first gaggle appear "moderate" and
"reasonable"? And suppose they saturate the print and broadcast
media with the antics and propaganda of these groups for a
sufficient length of time. And suppose that this propaganda
clamors for government to address outrageous problems while
ignoring any possible danger to freedom in the new "arrangements."
Then the pressure from below will reach the point that the
Insiders above can have their political agents in Congress and the
White House respond to the "will of the people" with
"compromise" legislation. These "compromise" solutions always
move the whole political arena further leftward, toward ever bigger,
more oppressive government.
In his 1968 book The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College
*These include Amnesty International, the American Friends Service Committee,

Friends of
the Earth, Pax Christi, the International Fellowship of Reconciliation,
Parliamentarians for
Global Action, UNICEF, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, the
World Order Models Project, and the WorldWatch Institute.
Revolutionary, radical activist/author James Kunen made an

interesting admission about this process. Concerning the campus
riots then rocking the nation, he wrote:
In the evening, I went up to the U. to check out a strategy meeting. A kid

was giving a report on an SDS [Students for a Democratic Society] convention.
He said that... at the convention, men from Business International Round
Tables ... tried to buy up a few radicals. These men are the world's leading
industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go.... They
offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered ESSO
(Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they
can look more in the center as they move to the left.31
Another similar revelation was provided by Jerry Kirk, who, as a

student, was active in the SDS, the DuBois Club, the Black
Panthers, and the Communist Party. In a 1970 interview, Kirk said:
Young people have no conception of the conspiracy's strategy of "pressure

from above and pressure from below".... They have no idea that they are
playing into the hands of the Establishment they claim to hate.... The radicals
think they are fighting the forces of the super-rich, like Rockefeller and Ford,
and they don't realize that it is precisely such forces which are behind their own
revolution, financing it, and using it for their own purposes.32
Understanding the objectives, it was not surprising that the

Hague Agenda and the UN Millennium events were accompanied
by a deluge of disarmament propaganda � courtesy of the Pratt
House mediacracy. Simon and Schuster, one of America's largest
book publishers, brought out William Shawcross' new paean to the
UN, Deliver Us from Evil: Peacekeepers, Warlords, and a World
of Endless Conflict.33 Written largely from the perspective of Kofi
Annan, whom the left-wing Shawcross obviously
adores (and with whom he traveled the world), the book repeatedly
indicts the U.S. for its miserly refusals to surrender more of our
sovereignty, money, and military to the noble UN. Glowing reviews
followed in the CFR media choir.
The CFR's Foreign Affairs (which Time has dubbed "the most
influential journal in print" and Newsweek has called the "preeminent"
journal of its kind) and the Carnegie Endowment's Foreign Policy both
provided several issues running of globalist disarmament forensics. In the
September/October 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs, timed for the
Millennium Summit, Jonathan Schell led off with "The Folly of Arms
Control," in which he argued for complete nuclear disarmament as
envisioned in the 1946 Baruch Plan.34 And he reminded "the great and
good" that the U.S. is obligated under Article VT of the Nonproliferation
Treaty (NPT) to "pursue negotiations ... [for] nuclear disarmament, and
on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and
effective international control."35 The same issue of Foreign Affairs
featured an article by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Igor Ivanov
warning that any U.S. move toward deploying a missile defense system
would jeopardize NPT, ABM, CTBT � the whole edifice of arms control
treaties.36 Also in the same issue, General Andrew J. Goodpaster (CFR)
offered boilerplate Pratt House "Advice for the Next President," echoing
the Schell and Ivanov appeals for disarmament, and urging the use of
NGOs to "mobilize understanding."37
Writing in 1975, retired Admiral Chester Ward, a veteran CFR member

who had grown sharply critical of the organization wrote:
Once the ruling members of CFR have decided that the U.S.
Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial
research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments,
intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound
and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition. The most
articulate theoreticians and ideologists prepare related articles, aided by
the research, to sell the new policy and to make
it appear inevitable and irresistible. By following the evolution of propaganda

in the most prestigious scholarly journal in the world, Foreign Affairs, anyone
can determine years in advance what the future defense and foreign policies of
the United States will be.38
Millennium Summit Pressure

As the UN Millennium Summit got underway, the pressure from
above and below increased. Following the pattern from past
Summits, it was a well-honed, multi-level, multi-pronged, multidimensional
attack aimed at multiple targets. Prime targets, of
course, were the heads of state in attendance; if they could be
induced to sign the disarmament treaties, declarations, and resolutions,
it would add to the international momentum and legitimacy
of the UN disarmament agenda. Other intended targets,
however, were the U.S. public and the U.S. Congress, as well as
the U.S. governmental, academic, and intellectual cadres who
follow, influence, and make foreign policy � and then help sell it
to the public.
The UN's glossy UN 2000 report, which was provided to all

Summit participants, included an essay by President Clinton's
Ambassador to the UN, Richard C. Holbrooke (CFR, TC). Mr.
Holbrooke parroted the globalist hymn to enlarge and empower the
UN, calling for a major boost in the world body's military and
police capacities. It also featured similar bilge by billionaire ecosocialist
and CNN founder Ted Turner, whose UN Foundation has
contributed more than $250 million in support of UN programs and
activities. Joining them in this orgy of praise for the UN were such
one-world luminaries as: former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro
Harlem Brundtland, now Director-General of the UN's World
Health Organization; Chris Patten (TC), who played a key role in
the betrayal of Hong Kong to Red China and who now serves as a
member of the European Commission; former Socialist President
of Ireland Mary Robinson, now UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights; left-wing author William Shawcross; and Bjorn
Stigson, president of the environmental extremist World
Business Council for
Sustainable Development.39
Among the profusion of programs circulating at the Summit, the

Middle Powers Initiative (MPI) is particularly noteworthy.
Claiming to represent the non-nuclear "middle-power" countries of
the world, it describes itself as "a carefully focused campaign
established by a network of international citizens organizations to
encourage ... leaders of the nuclear weapons states to break free
from their Cold War mindset" and embrace disarmament � as
defined by the MPI and the UN.40 But, as we shall see, MPI's
"independence" is all illusion; while posing as a "citizens network,"
MPI is, in reality, nothing less than a front group for the
one-world internationalists.
Independence Sham
MPI's primary spokesperson is New Zealand Prime Minister Helen
Clark, whose Labour Party is affiliated with the Socialist
International. The eloquent Mrs. Clark championed the MPI disarmament
campaign both at the UN Summit and at the Gorbachev
Foundation-sponsored "State of the World Forum," which ran
concomitantly with the UN affair, a few blocks away at the Hilton
Towers. Many UN leaders and heads of state jockeyed back and
forth between the UN and the Gorbachev confab, where they
shmoozed and "brainstormed" with corporate titans, academics,
NGO rabble-rousers, and New Age gurus. As it turns out,
Gorbachev's State of the World Forum is also one of the original
eight co-sponsors of the MPI, as well as a funder of the group.
And we see the same repetitious pattern emerge in the MPI case:
funding for the Initiative comes from the Rockefeller Foundation,
Samuel Rubin Foundation, and the W Alton Jones Foundation.
MPI's International Steering Committee includes Comrade Peter
Weiss, and it included the late Senator Alan Cranston (TC, WFA),
a veteran one-worlder. Other "Establishment" activists at the
Initiative include General Lee Butler, General Andrew J.
Goodpaster, and former Secretary of Defense Robert Strange
McNamara (all CFR). The "anti-Establishment"
activists at MPI include a host of revolutionary radicals. Among

the MPI co-sponsors are the Parliamentarians for Global Action,
the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, the
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and the International Peace
Bureau.41 All of these groups have been long connected to the
KGB-created-and-controlled World Peace Council (WPC), which,
since its founding in 1949 by Communist mass-murderer Joseph
Stalin, has served the dual purpose of leading the drive for U.S.
disarmament and providing support for terrorist groups and
regimes worldwide.*
Both the Establishment and anti-Establishment activists were

eager to cite the fact that the World Court at the Hague had issued
an opinion on July 8, 1996 that: "There exists an obligation to ...
bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament
in all its aspects under strict and effective inter
*One of the most informative studies on the WPC, The War Called Peace: The Soviet
Peace
Offensive, was published in 1982 by the Western Goals Foundation. The study
accurately
notes: "Since 1950, when it launched the Stockholm Peace Appeal, the World Peace
Council
(WPC) has been the Soviet Union's single most important international front
organization."
During the 1960s and '70s, the WPC played a crucial role in organizing the anti-
Vietnam
War protests throughout the U.S. and stirring up anti-American demonstrations
throughout
the world. It has led, albeit often from the background, most of the "popular"
disarmament
campaigns, such as those supporting the ABM, SALT, INF, and CWC treaties, and the
crusades against building a U.S. missile defense system. The WPC has supported,
with
financial aid and propaganda, terrorist organizations such as the PLO, ANC, UDT,
and
SWAPO. In fact, the WPC has included leaders of terrorist groups among its top
officers.
Which is hardly surprising considering that the WPC's longtime president, Romesh
Chandra,
was a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of India. The Soviet
"control agent" over Chandra for many years was KGB officer Aleksandr Berkov, who
was
later replaced by fellow KGB officer Igor Belyayev. Although Chandra was the WPC's
front
man, Berkov and Belyayev actually called the shots � as directed by Moscow. WPC
national affiliates, such as the U.S. Peace Council (USPC), were and are controlled
by
national Communist parties. The WPC and USPC closely coordinate their activities
with
other KGB-connected groups, such as the Institute for Policy Studies, Women's
International
League for Peace and Freedom, the Women's Strike for Peace, the Center for
International
Policy, the Center for Defense Information, Citizens Committee for a Sane World,
and
others.
national control."42 They prattled that the nuclear weapon states are
"flouting the World Court" and the rule of law by not disarming.
They cited "eminent" scholars who argued that the U.S. and the
other nuclear states risk running afoul of "the Nuremberg
Principles" and "international humanitarian law."43 They posed as
the moral voice of the majority of the world's non-nuclear powers
while rebuking the major powers for endangering the planet
because of chauvinistic adherence to narrow national and
ideological interests.
Of course, the MPI does not represent the "middle power" states
at all; its whole purpose (and the reason that it has been so
bountifully funded and promoted) is to provide orchestrated
pressure from below so that the Insiders of the "weapons states"
will have the excuse to do what they have wanted to do all along.
Our home-grown internationalists realize that by having the
disarmament pressure appear to come from an independent citizens
network, the motives and agendas of those who must implement
the changes will not be seriously challenged.
As a journalist covering the UN Millennium Summit, the

Gorbachev State of the World Forum, and a number of additional
programs that took place in New York City in September 2000,
this reporter had a front-row seat to this amazing spectacle. The
diabolic "manipulation of the threads" was both fascinating and
frightening to behold. It was not the first time that I had observed
this phenomena; I had seen it in operation at previous summits.
Still, it was evident that, with practice, the Kremlin-Pratt House

one-worlders are perfecting their pincer strategy. They have
become very adept at managing their rangy NGO rent-a-mob,
which, on cue, either chants and demonstrates in the streets, or
comes inside the halls of power and negotiates like a genuine
"superpower." At the same time, they have assembled an amazing
array of politicians-and-professors-for-hire, who can be counted on
to spout the proper globalist slogans, and reporters who reliably
retail every line of internationalist propaganda handed to them.
With the orchestra so lavishly funded and skillfully conducted,

they are able to give the appearance that their position truly does
"represent the will of global civil society." Politicians who might
normally do battle are completely outgunned and overwhelmed;
there is no way they can match, by themselves, the intellectual
firepower of the assembled think tanks and universities that have
been preparing their positions for months � or even years. And
when their congressional offices are besieged with an orchestrated
campaign of telephone calls, e-mails, faxes, and letters; while
CNN, C-Span, and the other networks are all spewing forth the
same story � even the stalwart begin to crumble before such an
onslaught. That is what has been happening, and what we can
expect to see a great deal more of, as the advocates of "global
democracy" continue to press their fraudulent and totalitarian
agenda.
We hasten to add, however, that this totalitarian agenda can be

stopped, and it must. In fact, the plans of this cabal have been
disrupted many times through well-organized exposure of the
hidden agendas and the phony orchestration. The good news is that
these deceptions cannot stand the light of day. The bad news is that
credible evidence to support this story will never reach sufficient
numbers of Americans through disorganized action. However, the
existence of strong organizational leadership opens up real
opportunities. For more on the antidote, the reader may wish to
jump to Chapter 14. However, there is still much more to the story.
The following chapters will examine some of the other prominent
strategies of this cabal.
Chapter 6
Enviromania
World Federalists believe that the environmental crisis facing planet earth
is a global problem and therefore calls for a "global" solution � a
worldwide United Nations Environmental Agency with the power to
make its decisions stick.1 � World Association of World Federalists,
1972
[T]he great enemy is not the Soviet Union but the rapid deterioration of
our planet as a supporting structure for civilized life.2
� George F. Kennan (CFR), Washington Post column,

November 12, 1989
Global warming, ozone depletion, deforestation and overpopulation are
the four horsemen of a looming 21st century apocalypse. As the cold war
recedes, the environment is becoming the No. 1 international security
concern.
� Michael Oppenheimer (CFR), New

York Times, March 27, 1990
We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory is
wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and
environmental policy.4
� Timothy Wirth (CFR),

former U.S. Senator and Under Secretary of State,
now head of Ted Turner's UN Foundation
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that
pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the
like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human
intervention.... The real
93
enemy, then, is humanity itself.5
� The Council of the Club of Rome, 1991

The [UN] Security Council recently expanded the concept of
threats to peace to include economic, social and ecological
instability.6
� "The New World Army," New York Times editorial,

March 6, 1992
Global warming, ozone depletion, deforestation, species extinction,
wildlife habitat destruction, resource exhaustion, overpopulation.
Since the 1960s, these and a host of other supposed environmental
"crises" have exploded onto the world scene, mobilizing millions
of people in a global crusade to "save the planet." This writer was
involved as a true believer in the early period of this global
movement, and, as a high school senior and student body secretary,
helped plan and organize a 1970 school ceremony for the first
Earth Day: a demonstration in which students donned gas masks,
as a "consciousness-raising" protest against air pollution, and
symbolically buried an automobile carburetor.
In the three decades since that time, the environmental movement

has grown into a global green juggernaut involving millions
of activists and wielding enormous political, social, and economic
power. Contrary to popular misconceptions, this has not been a
healthy development for "Mother Earth" or her human inhabitants.
As my colleague William Norman Grigg has rightly noted, "the
environmental movement is animated by a desire to regiment
human society rather than 'save the planet.' The movement's
economic outlook is socialist, its political ambitions are
totalitarian, and its religious affinities are unmistakably pagan."7
The Big Green agenda is about power and control, not clean air
and saving whales. While the vast majority of pedestrian-level
environmentalists may genuinely care about local ecology issues
and really believe in the apocalyptic scenarios regarding the so-
called "ozone hole" and the alleged dangers from greenhouse
ENVIROMANIA
gases, clearly the elites guiding these concerned cadres know such
threats are bogus or vastly exaggerated. Certainly, the sci-entific
evidence does not support the charges that these alleged "crises"
are so imminent and of such planet-threatening magnitude as to
justify totalitarian solutions.
In fact, the overwhelming weight of real science and the bulk of

honest scientists argue that genuine environmental problems are
best solved not by draconian governmental fiat but by market
forces and the enforcement of private property rights. Conversely,
it is also true that the worst environmental degradation on the
planet has taken place under those Communist and socialist
regimes where free markets and property rights have been most
ruthlessly suppressed.
It is not the purpose of this study to address or refute the myriad

absurd claims of the enviro-extremists; that has already been done
by many eminent scientists and scholars.* It is, instead, our
purpose here to show why the Establishment opinion cartel insists
on ignoring the clear verdicts of science and enshrines as oracles
the charlatans whose eco-science has been repeatedly exposed as
error-ridden or completely fraudulent.
Earth Summit Eyewitness

This blatant deception and censorship by the "ruling class journalists"
was especially crucial to the "success" of the 1992 UN
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the so-
called Earth Summit, in Rio de Janeiro. This writer can claim the
dubious distinction of being, perhaps, the only "non-greenie"
journalist amongst the thousands of reporters and media personalities
who converged on this global orgy of environmental
extremism.
Providentially, I met up with one of the few other "contrarian"

souls attending the Summit almost immediately upon exiting my
plane onto the sweltering tarmac of the Rio airport. As the long
passenger lines from the various airliners converged under the
airport's shade cover for the two-hour Customs process, I had the
good fortune to "converge" with Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, who had just
deplaned from another aircraft. Dr. Ray, who died in 1993, was
one of my heroes: a genuine, eminent scientist who boldly challenged
the absurd claims and dangerous proposals of the environmental
fanatics and calmly disregarded the vicious, personal
attacks that she received in return.
As a distinguished professor of zoology, author and commentator,

former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, former
governor of the state of Washington, and recipient of many awards
(including the United Nations Peace Prize), one might be forgiven
for naively assuming that this woman would be mobbed by
reporters seeking her learned opinion on the weighty matters under
discussion at the Summit. Hardly! Dr. Ray was virtually
*See, for instance, Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns, edited by Jay H.

Lehr
(Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992); The State of Humanity, edited by Julian L. Simon
(Blackwell, 1995); Earth Report 2000: Revisiting the True State of the Planet,
edited by
Ronald Bailey (McGraw-Hill, 2000); Environmental Gore: A Constructive Response to
Earth in the Balance, edited by John A. Baden (Pacific Research Institute, 1994);
Ecology,
Liberty and Property: A Free Market Environmental Reader, edited by Jonathan H.
Adler
(Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2000); Trashing the Planet, by Dixy Lee Ray
(Regnery,
1990); Environmental Overkill, by Dixy Lee Ray (Regnery, 1993); Science Under
Siege:
How the Environmental Misinformation Campaign Is Affecting Our Laws, Taxes, and Our
Daily Lives, by Michael Fumento (New York: W. Morrow, 1996); Polluted Science: The
EPA's Campaign to Expand Clean Air Regulations, by Michael Fumento (Washington,
D.C.: AEI Press, 1998); Sound And Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming,
by
Patrick J. Michaels (Cato Institute, 1992); The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air
About Global
Warming, by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling (Washington, D.C.: Cato
Institute,
2000); The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality, by Robert
Balling (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1992); Hot
Talk, Cold
Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, by S. Fred Singer (The Independent
Institute, 1997); The Ultimate Resource 2, by Julian L. Simon (Princeton University
Press,
1998); Hoodwinking the Nation, by Julian L. Simon (Transaction Publishers, 1999);
Free
Market Environmentalism, by Terry L. Anderson and Donald R. Leal (St. Martin's
Press,
2001); Ecocide In the USSR: Health and Nature Under Siege, by Murray Feshbach and
Alfred Friendly, Jr. (Basic Books, 1992); "East Europe's Dark Dawn," National
Geographic,
June 1991; Environmental Politics: Public Costs, Private Rewards, by Michael S.
Greve and
Fred L. Smith, Jr. (Praeger, 1992); and Undue Influence, by Ron Arnold (The Free
Enterprise Press, 1999)
ENVIROMANIA
ignored, as were other noted scientists and scholars, while the
CFR Establishment press drooled over every sacred syllable
uttered by the likes of Fidel Castro, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jerry

"Governor Moonbeam" Brown, then-Senator Al "I invented the
Internet" Gore, Jacques Cousteau, and Maurice Strong.
During the course of the Summit, I had the opportunity to meet

with, interview, and compare notes with Dr. Ray several times. I
noted that with her background in zoology she should be better
prepared than most for the profusion of weird specimens
populating the conference. "I've never seen a bigger zoo," the
feisty scientist responded, in a comment intended to convey both
the absurdity and seriousness of what was transpiring at the UN
confab.
Although ignored by most of the media (and even pointedly

censored and rebuked by some) at Rio, Dr. Ray did successfully
expose some of the dangerous UNCED policies and proposals.
Through her columns and live talk-radio interviews from the Earth
Summit, and by her speeches and explosive book expose following
the event, she alerted many Americans to the perils of the global
green agenda. In Environmental Overkill, she wrote: "First, we
must recognize that the environmental movement is not about facts
or logic. More and more it is becoming clear that those who
support the so-called 'New World Order' or World Government
under the United Nations have adopted global envi-ronmentalism
as a basis for the dissolution of independent nations and the
international realignment of power." 8
The opinions of other prominent scientists were also censored or

suppressed by the Insider-run media. Shortly before the convening
of the Earth Summit, a group of more than 250 distinguished
scientists, including 27 Nobel Laureates, released a statement
called the Heidelberg Appeal to Heads of States and Governments.
The statement, which was subsequently signed by hundreds of
additional scientists worldwide, said, in part: "We are, however,
worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of
an irrational ideology which is opposed to sci-entific and industrial
progress and impedes economic and social
development."9 This private ad hoc group appealed to govern-

merit officials to base ecological proscriptions "on scientific criteria
and not on irrational preconceptions," and carried a warning "to
the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions
which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and
non-relevant data."10
Forgive the political naivete of these well-meaning scientists.

But appealing to venal politicians and the prostitute press on the
basis of facts is almost like trying to sell compassion to Mafia
thugs or morality to the studio execs of Hollywood Babylon. What
was the reaction of the CFR media cartel to the Heidelberg
Appeal? Predictable: They ignored it.
The same blackout occurred later when an even larger group of

scientists signed a petition opposing the half-baked "science"
undergirding the incredibly dangerous UN Kyoto Protocol on
global warming. Headed by Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president
of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of
Rockefeller University, the petition was signed by more than
18,000 scientists, including thousands of meteorologists, climatologists
and atmospheric scientists. The scientists' statement said,
in part:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming

agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other
similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the
environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the
health and welfare of mankind....
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon

dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific
evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial
effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.11
ENVIROMANIA
Nonstop Propaganda and Censorship
But the "ruling class journalists" are more than willing to play
the scientist numbers game when it suits the one-world agenda.
Before, during, and after Rio, the media mavens trumpeted the
supposed findings of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC).12 Then-Senator Al Gore, who led the U.S. Senate
delegation to Rio, repeatedly cited the "authoritative" IPCC report
in his fervent pleas of support for the global warming treaty. At his
major press conference at the Rio Hilton, this writer challenged his
citation of the IPCC report and his repeated ludicrous claim that 98
percent of the scientific community endorsed the global warming
idea as fact. The IPCC report had been fraudulently altered, I
pointed out, and many of the scientists who had worked on the
project had publicly disavowed its political agenda disguised as
science. This easily verified fact had been reported (albeit in "small
print") in the "mainstream" press. Gore evaded the tough question
like a true politician, stating: "I don't want to open a debate on this,
but let me say that I will stay after [the press conference] if you
like...."
Thanks to Senator Steve Symms (R-Idaho), who took the

microphone following Al Gore, I was able to ask Gore a follow-up
question, zeroing in on the well-documented IPCC fraud and
pointing out that the Gallup poll of climatologists and meteorologists
taken a few months earlier found that only 19 percent, not 98
percent, believed in global warming.13 Again Gore evaded, snidely
remarking that there are a lot of people who "still argue that NASA
staged the moon landing in a movie lot." I replied that the poll I
had just cited was not a survey of wild-eyed cranks, but, on the
contrary, represented the vast majority of climatic scientists,
including internationally recognized authorities like Hugh
Ellsaesser at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, William Reifsnyder
at Yale, Nathaniel Guttman at the National Climatic Data Center,
Robert Balling, director of the Arizona Climatology Laboratory,
and many others. Senator Gore, who otherwise never missed an
opportunity to pontificate on his favorite subject, was suddenly
under great pressure to leave.
"Well, we've really got to go," he said.
Although Gore's evasiveness and slippery exit were frustrating,

they were not surprising; it was precisely what one would have
expected of him. What was harder to take (though not totally
unexpected) was the reaction of the press corps. It was obvious to
this correspondent � and should have been, as well, to all others
present � that my questions had caught him off balance. I had
refuted his claims with fact, backed up with citations and sources. I
had even challenged one of his prized documents as fraudulent. He
was caught in a lie and was clearly uncomfortable. This is the kind
of "blood in the water" situation that normally sets off the shark
sensors of journalists and sends them into a "feeding frenzy." If
Senator Symms, a conservative, had been similarly caught, you can
be sure the shark pack would have been all over him in a split
second. That didn't happen with Gore, of course, because the horde
of "journalists" in attendance had come not as news reporters but
as advocates and propagandists. They were there to regurgitate and
retail as gospel whatever globaloney the UN and its proponents
dished out.
Allow us to provide a few more examples. One of the major

scare stories that had received a major buildup prior to Rio, and
was a key focal point of the Summit, concerned the alleged massive
destruction of the Amazon rain forest. According to the militant
enviro-lobby and its media allies, we could expect cataclysmic
global environmental consequences unless UN authority
over the world's forests was established. So, again, one might
naively think that the man of the hour would be Professor Evaristo
Eduardo de Miranda, the world's leading expert on Amazon
deforestation. Dr. Miranda, an ecologist at the University of Sao
Paulo, is a former consultant to the UN who heads Brazil's center
for monitoring the Amazon region by satellite. His laboratory was
the only source for complete satellite data on the status of Amazon
deforestation.
But to the U.S. media, Dr. Miranda and his fellow scientists
didn't exist. Small wonder: His data did not support the apocalyptic
paradigm the Insider-managed media were selling. In fact,
ENVIROMANIA
Dr. Miranda's data showed that the studies sponsored by the

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the World
Bank, World Wildlife Fund, and the Conservation Foundation
were exaggerating the rate of deforestation by 300 to 400 percent
and grossly misrepresenting other data.14
Moreover, much of the destructive deforestation decried by the

green extremists was the result of the socialist policies of Brazil's
socialist government. The solution, Dr. Miranda pointed out, would
not be found in international socialist policies implemented by the
UN's bureaucracy. Moreover, he noted, not all deforestation is bad;
converting some of the massive jungle for farming, livestock,
timber harvest, and other productive uses is a good thing and
necessary for food, jobs, and economic progress.15
Another expert "pariah" at Rio was Dr. Alexander Bonilla of

Costa Rica. A world-famous ecologist and former recipient of the
United Nations' top environmental honor, the GLOBAL 500
Award, Dr. Bonilla was a natural to respond to questions about
"biodiversity" and "sustainable development," which were major
watchwords at the Summit. However, as with Drs. Ray and
Miranda, Dr. Bonilla's science did not fit the reigning paradigm.
The outspoken scientist urgently warned of the danger posed by
the "greening of the Reds." Even more than in the U.S. and Europe,
he noted, the Communists and "former" Communists in Latin
America had poured into the environmental movement, where they
exploited environmental issues to promote Marxist ideology and
"class struggle."16
Dr. Bonilla was angry and disturbed over the usurpation of science
by those who would use it for purely political purposes. "We
have many poor people with very substandard living conditions,"
he explained. "They need jobs, decent housing, clothes, food,
drinkable water, things that can be provided in a manner compatible
with sound economic and ecological practices."17 But the
environmental leftists, he said, want to stop all economic development,
in the name of environmental protection. This will consign
many people to lives of grinding poverty, sickness, illiteracy,
and early death. "The knowledge and technology is available to
101
enable a stewardship of natural resources that allows both pros-perity and

environmental integrity," Bonilla asserted.18
As expected, Dr. Bonilla's message was deemed unimportant by the

"ruling class journalists"; instead, the American people needed to hear
and see and read the blatherings of "experts" like Castro, Gorbachev, and
Gore.
The New York-Moscow Green Axis

As in the other areas we have examined, the one-world Insiders, both in
New York and in Moscow, have been working hand in hand to excite and
exploit environmental fears in the service of building world government.
Over and over again, we see these supposedly opposing forces supporting
the same subversive, totalitarian programs and agenda.
Environmentalism offers the would-be global dictators unparalleled

opportunities to exercise their statist ambitions. Three of the broad
primary objectives they expect to realize through their environmental
agenda are:
� Abolition of private property, the keystone of every socialist political-

economic system (see next chapter).
� Global regimentation, with draconian regulation, in minute detail, of
(in the words of one of their favorite eco-programs) "every person on
earth."
� World government,
with legislative, executive, and judicial powers,
including military and police to enforce "world law."
The internationalist elite of the New York-Moscow Axis have been
working in tandem to convince the peoples of the world that, in the words
of the World Federalist Association, "Global Problems Require Global
Governance." Through the influence of their symbiotic power networks,
this one-world slogan has become universally adopted by Communists,
socialists, feminists, environmentalists, human rights activists,
disarmament advocates, and others worldwide. As usual, the coordinating
brain center is Pratt House, the CFR.
ENVIROMANIA
Previously we noted that CFR braintruster Lincoln P.

Bloomfield, in his 1962 study for the CFR-dominated Kennedy
State Department, A World Effectively Controlled by the United
Nations, had conceded that it would be difficult to bring about a
merger between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Obviously,
Americans would not go for union with a murderous, totalitari-an
system. That is why the threat of nuclear annihilation, "mutually
assured destruction," had to be built into a credible threat more to
be feared than Communism itself. Then, at the critical point, the
Soviets would come to their senses and realize that only "collective
security," under which national armaments were transferred to UN
authority, offered a viable future. The Kremlin would mellow and
democratize. However, Bloomfield saw that this scheme posed a
major problem. He wrote: "if the communist dynamic were greatly
abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world
government."19
Indeed, if the nasty, blood-soaked Reds convincingly demonstrate

that they are "mellowing," then much of the pressure for
surrendering our arms evaporates. Obviously another sufficiently
grave threat (or threats) must be found to substitute for, or augment
the nuclear holocaust fear. As Bloomfield saw it, the drive for
world government would require "a crisis, a war, or a brink-of-war
situation so grave or commonly menacing that deeply rooted
attitudes and practices are sufficiently shaken to open the
possibility of a revolution in world political arrangements."20
Dr. Bloomfield is not alone in recognizing the utility of war and

crisis in the service of totalitarianism. Another Insider strategist
who has expounded on this subject is the late Herman Kahn (CFR),
physicist/futurist founder of the Hudson Institute. In his essay,
"World Federal Government," co-authored with Anthony J.
Wiener, Kahn acknowledges that building world government
requires "intense external dangers."21 Echoing Bloomfield, Kahn
stated that "a world government could only be created out of war
or crisis � an emergency that provided an appropriate combination
of the motivations of fear and opportunity."22 The
Kahn/Wiener essay so impressed the leaders of the World

Federalist Association that they have reprinted and promoted it.23
Still another voice in the crisis choir is Brian Urquhart, a former

UN under secretary-general and now a full-time UN propagandist
at the Ford Foundation. Urquhart has lamented, "There are
moments when I feel that only an invasion from outer space will
reintroduce into the Security Council that unanimity and spirit
which the founders of the Charter were talking about."24 Mr.
Urquhart's one-world colleagues have actually considered the
feasibility of creating such a unifying extra-terrestrial "threat."
That was one of the considerations pondered by the "Special Study
Group" (SSG) convened in 1963 by the same Pratt House gang in
the Kennedy administration who commissioned Bloomfield's
study.25 The SSG produced a secret report that created a storm of
controversy when it was anonymously released in 1967 as the
Report From Iron Mountain.26*
According to the Iron Mountain report, the SSG considered

whether "such a menace would offer the 'last, best hope of peace,'
etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by
'creatures' from other planets or from outer space."27 But the group
decided such far-out scenarios lacked "credibility." Ditto for most
other contrived "menaces." However, they decided, "the
environmental-pollution model" offered hopeful potential.28 "It
may be," said the Report, "... that gross pollution of the environment
can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction
by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival
of the species." 29
The line adopted by the CFR Establishment press was that the
Report From Iron Mountain was a hoax, a "brilliant satire." But
was it? At the very time that they were dismissing the report as
*The available evidence indicates that Herman Kahn and his CFR-laden Hudson
Institute
may have formed the core of the SSG, or that the SSG may have been entirely a
Kahn/Hudson operation. See Gary Allen's articles "Think Tanks: Where the Revolution
Is
Being Planned" and "Making Plans: For a Dictatorship in America" in American
Opinion
magazine, March and April 1971, respectively.
ENVIROMANIA
a delightful joke, the Pratt House illuminati were implementing the

game plan it proposed. Through their power and influence in
government, academe, the media, tax-exempt foundations, and
Wall Street, they were furiously building the threat of environmental
destruction into "a credible substitute for war capable of
directing human behavior patterns in behalf of social organization."
30 Three years after the publication of Iron Mountain the first
Earth Day was held, launching a global crusade that has had a
dramatic impact on our world � politically, economically,
socially, philosophically, morally, and religiously.
Recall that according to Dr. Bloomfield (see Chapter 2), "the

order we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a
series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks."31 The Iron
Mountain gang concurred, noting that the new "war substitute"
must provide an "immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of
destruction."32 Thus, a nonstop series of nasty and traumatic shocks
has been provided by the Insider-financed and -directed
environmental movement. Those shocks have been aimed at convincing
a significant share of the population of the Western countries
that our planet faces imminent, cataclysmic consequences
unless immediate, global action is taken � action that includes
global regulation of environmental "menaces."
For three decades we have been assaulted with an incessant

bombardment of environmental doomsday propaganda. At every
turn, eco-destruction awaits us: The oceans are dying; the rain
forests are disappearing; the deserts are growing; species are being
driven to extinction; critical resources are being depleted; CO2 is
increasing; the earth is warming; the polar ice caps are melting;
carcinogens are everywhere; pesticides are killing us. Crises!
Crises! Crises!
We Are All One

But mere crises are not enough; they must be GLOBAL CRISES!
Traditionally, war has been the ultimate crisis for mankind. During
war the people yield vast powers to the government for the welfare
and survival of the tribe, city, or nation. The envi
ronmental "crises" we face, say the one-world eco-saviors, are

global crises, presenting a global threat as deadly as war.
Obviously, handling this threat is beyond the capabilities of individual
nation states. Ergo, we must have global government with
global powers.
This was the theme of Mikhail Gorbachev's celebrated "End of

the Cold War" speech in Fulton, Missouri, in 1992. "The prospect
of catastrophic climatic changes, more frequent droughts, floods,
hunger, epidemics, national-ethnic conflicts, and other similar
catastrophes compels governments to adopt a world perspective
and seek generally applicable solutions," he declared. This could
only be accomplished, said Gorbachev, through "some kind of
global government." "I believe," said the CFR-approved "former"
Communist, "that the new world order will not be fully realized
unless the United Nations and its Security Council create structures
... which are authorized to impose sanctions and make use of other
measures of compulsion."33
Gorbachev's Fulton speech (which perfectly reflected the CFR

line � and was probably written by Pratt House wordsmiths)
signaled a new stepped-up phase in the drive for global "interdependence"
and "convergence." That drive includes an enormous
propaganda campaign saturating the American public with the idea
that our environmental problems are too immense to be dealt with
by our present system of independent, sovereign nation states.
Thus we increasingly find ourselves confronting such prefabricated
slogans as "Global Problems Require Global Solutions,"
"Global Problems Require Global Governance," and "Think
Globally, Act Locally."
Amongst environmentalists and many other one-world "grievance"

agitators, these slogans have become incessant mantras. "The
first law of ecology tells us that 'everything is connected to
everything else,'" proclaims environmental radical Jeremy Rifkin
in his book Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World.34 This thesis of
global "interconnectedness," "unity," and "oneness" � a new
"paradigm shift" � now permeates all discussion of things
economic, political, social, environmental, moral, and spiritual �
ENVIROMANIA
thanks to the promotion it has received from the Insider elite.

School children are inculcated with this message from their textbooks.
Children and adults receive daily doses of interdepend-ence
from television "news" and "nature" programs. This is a conscious,
subversive effort to reorient the public to a "one-world" view.
Professor of international law and one-world architect Benjamin

Ferencz asserts that "antiquated notions of absolute sovereignty are
absolutely obsolete in the interconnected and interdependent global
world of the 21st century."35 This is also the message of New Age
political activists Corinne McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson. In
Spiritual Politics: Changing the World From the Inside Out, they
write: "A systems approach is needed, as all our problems are
interconnected and interdependent, facets of one single crisis �
essentially a crisis of perception. This crisis is part of a cultural
shift from a mechanistic world-view to a holistic and ecological
view, from a value system based on domination to partnership,
from quantity to quality, from expansion to conservation, from
efficiency to sustainability."36
In the same vein, New Age futurist and best-selling author Alvin
Toffler approvingly notes that the "Third Wave" era, in which we
are now living, "gives rise to groups with larger than nationalist
interests. These form the base of the emerging glob-alist ideology
sometimes called 'planetary consciousness.'"37 Fellow globalists
Jessica Lipnack and Jeffrey Stamps develop this thesis in their
book Networking. In this emerging world view, they say, "nature's
ecological orchestra is revered as one unified instrument, inner
development is valued as a correlate to social involvement, and the
planet is understood to be an interconnected whole."38 But this is
not "nature's" orchestra we are hearing; it's the same Pratt House-
orchestrated choir singing the same anti-national sovereignty, pro-
world government refrain � with a decidedly neo-pagan spiritual
twist added. (This "spiritual" dimension of the globalist agenda
will be more closely examined in Chapter 12).
If we "follow the money," we quickly see that the funding for

the groups and individuals singing this tune comes from the usual
sources: the big CFR-dominated tax-exempt foundations and
corporations.39 The tune is amplified in the political realm by CFR
politicians like Senators John Kerry, Charles Schumer, John D.
Rockefeller, John Chafee, and Joseph Lieberman, and
Representatives Richard Gephardt, Lee Hamilton, Barney Frank,
Jim Leach, Sam Gejdenson, and Charles Rangel. Newt Gingrich,
the CFR's prize "conservative," invites Alvin Toffler (repeatedly)
to address the House of Representatives and even pens a glowing
introduction to one of the futurist's works of Marxoid flummery.40
And the CFR media cartel dutifully publicizes the apocalyptic

scenarios of the doomsayers and praises them as courageous
"prophets." Fright peddlers and one-world apostles such as
Gorbachev, Rifkin, Toffler, Ferencz, et al., are favorably reviewed,
sympathetically quoted, and provided with national media
platforms to trumpet their nonsense and disinformation. Their
twaddle is assigned as required reading to millions of students as
though it is gospel. As at Rio, genuine scientists and scholars
representing the authentic voice of scientific consensus are ignored
or even vilified when they refute the hysterical nonsense and
claptrap of the environmental gurus. Because of this blatant bias of
the controlled media, these lunatic ravings and New Age mystic
musings are no longer relegated to the wacky fringes of society,
where they belong; they are expounded by supposedly "serious"
think tanks, "respected" journals, and "mainstream" politicians, and
form the basis for international treaties and federal policies and
law.
The Work of Decades

This "cultural shift," as McLaughlin and Davidson put it in
Spiritual Politics,41 has not happened overnight; it has been the
patient work of more than a generation. Earth Day 1970 marked
the launch of an ongoing offensive by an "ecology movement" that
the Insiders had been building for years. 1972 marked another
major watershed. In that year, the Club of Rome, an
ENVIROMANIA
international coterie of one-world elitists (including many of the

usual CFR regulars) came out with a much-heralded study, The
Limits to Growth. This eco-socialist jeremiad proclaimed:
"Entirely new approaches are required to redirect society toward
goals of equilibrium rather than growth."42 In order to save the
earth, said the Club report, "joint long-term planning will be necessary
on a scale and scope without precedent."43 A "supreme
effort" by all would be required "to organize more equitable distribution
of wealth and income worldwide."44
The authority of The Limits to Growth was presented as beyond

question. After all, it was produced by researchers using
"sophisticated" computer models at the "prestigious"
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Added to this was the
stature of the scientific, intellectual, political, and corporate
celebrities associated with the esteemed Club of Rome. These
"impressive" cachets notwithstanding, the Limits study was about
as "scientific" as Chicken Little's claims that "the sky is falling."
The main difference is that Chicken Little was a poor fool who
actually believed her own hysterical alarms. The Club of Rome
Insiders are peddling Chicken Little hysteria in order to panic and
stampede all the barnyard animals into their New World Order
corral.
Interestingly, that same year, 1972, Gus Hall, National Chairman

of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), released a
book entitled Ecology with a similar message. "Human society
cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under
capitalism," said Comrade Hall.45 "Socialism is the only structure
that makes it possible."46 He continued: "Socialism corrects the
basic flaw of capitalism. It sets human society on a new path. The
means of production, factories, mines and mills become the
property of the people. They operate and produce only to fulfill
human needs.... This is the foundation for a new set of priorities,
for new values.... What is involved is a 'conflict of values.'"47
1972 was also the year of the first "Earth Summit," the United
Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in
Stockholm, Sweden. Serving as secretary-general of that event was

Canadian billionaire-socialist Maurice Strong (whom we will see,
later on, become a high-level Insider). The conference was hosted
by Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, one of the many leaders of
the Socialist International in attendance. An immediate outcome of
that summit was the creation of the United Nations Environment
Program (UNEP), with Mr. Strong as its first executive director.
Other summit results included a socialist-environmentalist
manifesto called the Stockholm Declaration,48 consisting of 26
principles, and the Stockholm Plan of Action,49 a set of 109
(mostly Marxist) recommendations. One of the key intellectuals
advising the conference and helping write its reports was
Rockefeller University microbiologist Rene Dubos.*
That same year, Dubos came out with the celebrated book Only
One Earth, which was co-authored with the British Fabian Socialist
Barbara Ward (Lady Jackson).50
Thus, in 1972, the same eco-socialist "marching orders" were

given to the hard-core Communist cadres, the worldwide socialist
parties, and the great global mainstream of environmentalists and
concerned citizens. In the years since those reports by the Club of
Rome, the Communist Party, the UN, and Dubos/Ward, a deluge of
similar and increasingly militant reports and books appeared from
the Communist-socialist left paralleling, and at times converging
with, the themes espoused in reports, articles, and books by the
CFR "capitalist" elites. Although these "opposing sides" may
attack each other rhetorically, what's important is the bottom line:
Both sides are advocating central planning (socialism) and
internationalism (world government). The Red-Green orchestra
was playing furiously.
By the mid-1980s, we see U.S.-Soviet "convergence" in full

swing, with Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. leaders
engaged in large-scale cooperative propaganda efforts to push the
same global environmental agenda. Gorbachev's subsequent
replacement by Boris Yeltsin, and then Vladimir Putin, did not
derail the CFR-Kremlin cooperation in this ongoing venture; in
*Dubos coined the slogan "Think Globally, Act Locally."

ENVIROMANIA
fact, it accelerated the agenda. Comrade Gorbachev, acting

ostensibly as a private citizen, launched his "global brain trust" (his
words), the Gorbachev Foundation, staffed in Moscow with 150
"former" Communist apparatchiks, and with affiliated institutes in
the U.S. and other nations. During the 1990s, which leading world-
order theorist Professor Richard Falk (CFR) said would be the
"decade of transformation,"51 Gorbachev was in constant motion,
along with the leading lights of Pratt House, pushing the CFR-
Kremlin one-world line.
In his 1992 book Voting Green, Rifkin wrote: "[T]he new Green
vision places the environment at the center of public life, making it
the context for both the formulation of economic policies and
political decisions."52 That was penned to coincide with the UN's
Earth Summit. And the CFR media orchestra made sure that that
message was delivered repeatedly to the American public, to
opinion molders, and to policy makers and legislators by a gaggle
of different messengers. This kind of orchestrated saturation is
essential if you are going to effect a real "cultural shift" or
"paradigm shift."
A cascade of enviro-Marxist offerings mushroomed out of

nowhere with the same theme. On the plane to Rio de Janeiro and
at the Earth Summit itself, everywhere I looked, delegates,
activists, and reporters were ravenously devouring (and later
parroting) the contents of a host of new books and reports. The
State of the World, an annual environmental fright report put out
by the Worldwatch Institute (WI), was everywhere cited as holy
writ.53 Worldwatch is headed by Lester Brown (CFR), whom the
Washington Post has admiringly described as "one of the world's
most influential thinkers."54 His website notes that he founded WI
in 1974 "with support of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund."55 And the
WI annual reports acknowledge that "the Rockefeller Brothers
Fund and the Winthrop Rockefeller Trust provide core funding for
the State of the World series."56
Another tome that excited the Earth Summit greenies, while

garnering rave reviews from the Establishment media, was
Changing Course, by Stephen Schmidheiny and the Business
Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD).57 The BCSD is

loaded with corporate-socialist one-worlders, such as Maurice R.
Greenberg, chairman of American International Group, Inc. Mr.
Greenberg is vice-chairman of the CFR and his AIG is a CFR corporate
member.
One of the most celebrated books to come out at the time of the
Summit was produced by then-Senator Al Gore. In Earth In The
Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Gore insisted that "the
effort to save the global environment" must become the "single
shared goal [and] the central organizing principle for every institution
in society." 58 The book is a perfervid piece of socialist ecopropaganda
larded with an incredible number of errors, ludicrous
claims, and blatant misrepresentations. But it was exactly what the
Pratt House globalists wanted, and it was a relatively easy matter
for them to provide the hype necessary to turn it into a bestseller.
Gore, a protege of Communist billionaire Armand Hammer,59 led
the U.S. Senate delegation to Rio and was launched on his way to
becoming Vice President of the United States.
Trilateral Road to Rio

More important than the Gore book, though read by a far smaller,
elite audience, was the revealing Trilateral Commission book
Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World's Economy
and the Earth's Ecology, by Canada's Jim MacNeill, Holland's
Pieter Winsemius, and Japan's Taizo Yakushiji.60 David
Rockefeller (then head of the CFR and Trilateral Commission) and
Maurice Strong teamed up to write, respectively, the foreword and
introduction to the Trilateral book. "...I have been privileged to
work closely with the principal author, Jim MacNeill, for over two
decades," wrote Strong. "He was one of my advisors when I was
secretary general of the Stockholm Conference on the Human
Environment in 1972. We were both members of the World
Commission on Environment and Development and, as secretary
general, he played a fundamental role in shaping and writing its
landmark report, Our
ENVIROMANIA
Common Future [a socialist/environmentalist manifesto also

known as The Brundtland Report]."61 What's more, revealed
Strong, MacNeill "is now advising me on the road to Rio,"62 where
Strong served a dual role, as the UN impresario and the Insiders'
on-site manager.
Beyond Interdependence served as the Trilateral game plan for

Rio, and it had Strong's full endorsement. "This book couldn't
appear at a better time, with the preparations for the Earth Summit
moving into high gear," said Strong.63 To stress its importance, he
said it would help guide "decisions that will literally determine the
fate of the earth."64 According to this head summiteer, the Rio
gathering would "have the political capacity to produce the basic
changes needed in our national and international economic agendas
and in our institutions of governance...."65 In his estimation,
"Beyond Interdependence provides the most compelling economic
as well as environmental case for such reform that I have read."66
MacNeill and his co-authors advocated "a new global partnership

expressed in a revitalized international system in which an
Earth Council, perhaps the Security Council with a broader
mandate, maintains the interlocked environmental and economic
security of the planet."67 "The Earth Summit," wrote MacNeill and
his cohorts, "will likely be the last chance for the world, in this
century at least, to seriously address and arrest the accelerating
environmental threats to economic development, national security,
and human survival."68
Of course, all of the official preparatory meetings and negotiations

leading up to the Earth Summit were really just so much
spectacle for public consumption. And the Rio gathering itself was
additional "consensus" sideshow to provide an aura of planetary
"democracy" for a program that was already worked out in detail
by the one-worlders, with their CFR brain trusts at the World
Resources Institute, Worldwatch Institute, World Order Models
Project, the Business Council for Sustainable Development, etc.,
long before. The objective? The obvious one was to give impetus
to the global environmentalist agenda. But
an important additional objective was to prepare the world to

accept a broad new UN mandate (without rewriting its charter):
The UN was not just about peacekeeping anymore.
Ronald I. Spiers (CFR) was one of many globalist agents who

prepped public opinion and policy makers for what was to come,
when he wrote, in the March 13, 1992 New York Times: "The
[United Nations] Trusteeship Council should be changed from a
body dealing with the vestiges of colonialism to one dealing with
the environment, becoming in effect the trustee of the health of the
planet."69 Surprise! That's precisely what happened at Rio.
An earlier purveyor of this line, the venerable CFR "wise man"

George F. Kennan, explained in a Washington Post column
appearing on November 12, 1989 that we now live "in an age
where the great enemy is not the Soviet Union but the rapid
deterioration of our planet as a supporting structure for civilized
life."70 Kennan, a Princeton University professor and former U.S.
Ambassador to the Soviet Union, was the author of our nation's
phony Cold War policy of "containment" of Communism.
Jessica Tuchman Mathews (CFR, TC), then vice president of the

World Resources Institute, followed with an article in the
July/August 1990 EPA Journal asserting that "environmental
imperatives are changing the concept of national sovereignty," and
"multipolarity [is] replacing the bipolar U.S.-U.S.S.R. axis around
which nations used to array themselves."71 Moreover, she wrote, "it
is likely that international problem-solving in the decades ahead
will for the first time depend on collective management, not
hegemony. And it is to precisely this form of governance that
global environmental problems will yield."72
Gorbachev's Toxic Globaloney

Mikhail Gorbachev, who is the darling of new world order promoters,
and was one of the superstars of the Earth Summit, had
also been thumping this theme for a couple of years. Addressing
the 1990 Global Forum in Moscow, he called for "ecologizing"
society and said: "The ecological crisis we are experiencing today
� from ozone depletion to deforestation and disastrous air pol

ENVIROMANIA
lution - is tragic but convincing proof that the world we all live
in is interrelated and interdependent."73
"This means," Gorbachev continued, "that we need an appropriate

international policy in the field of ecology. Only if we formulate
such a policy shall we be able to avert catastrophe. True,
the elaboration of such a policy poses unconventional and difficult
problems that will affect the sovereignty of states." 74 In a 1994
interview with the significant title, "From Red to Green," in the
Insider-funded Audubon magazine, Gorbachev stated: "We must
change all our values.... What we are talking about is creating new
forms of life on the basis of new values."75
In a 1995 interview with the environmental magazine

Grassroots, Gorbachev insisted that the only hope for saving our
planet lay in "the development and implementation of an Earth
Charter, a body of international ecological laws that would guide
the actions of individuals, corporations and governments ... the
time has come for a code of ethical and moral principles that will
govern the conduct of nations and people with respect to the
environment." 76
But what are these "new values" and "moral principles" that Mr.
Gorbachev insists that all humanity must embrace? That is an
important question to answer, since he is playing such a key
leadership role in this process. Besides heading up his Gorbachev
Foundation and State of the World Forum, Mr. Gorbachev (Nobel
Laureate, Time magazine's "Man of the Decade" 77) is also head of
Green Cross International, of which Global Green USA is the
American affiliate. And he was chosen at Rio by his good buddy
Maurice Strong to lead the drafting of the Earth Charter.
Let's take a look at the values and principles of the "Prophet of

Perestroika." This is the same Gorbachev who, in November 1987,
proclaimed: "In October 1917, we parted with the Old World,
rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a new world,
the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road."78
(Emphasis added.) "Perestroika," he said then, "is a continuation of
the October Revolution." 79 By which he means V. I.
Lenin's bloody, murderous Bolshevik Revolution. As we will see

below, Gorbachev is an unrepentant, unregenerate, militant, atheist
Communist. (And, as we will see in Chapter 12, that has not
hindered in the least his ascent into the ranks of the UN's premier
spiritual leaders who are confecting the diabolical new Global
Ethic, or world religion.)
In 1989, Gorbachev declared: "I am a Communist, a convinced

Communist, For some that may be a fantasy. But for me it is my
main goal." 80 The following year, even as he was being hailed as
the "man who ended Communism," he reiterated this conviction,
stating, "I am now, just as I've always been, a convinced
Communist."81 He has never repudiated these or his many other
similar statements. And a close examination of his speeches and
statements that appear to show a "new" Gorbachev actually show
him to be still a hardcore Leninist. Just as Hitler revealed his real
self in Mein Kampf, for all who were willing to see, Gorbachev has
made quite clear where he stands, and for what he stands.
Are the CFR cognoscenti promoting Gorby illiterates? Are they

unaware that his "ex-Communist" act is a ruse? Of course not; they
are fully aware of the deception involved here. It is the Pratt House
plutocracy that has been his main sponsor and the primary force
assisting his deception.*
Given his unrepentant convictions, it is a simple matter to see

why Gorbachev so enthusiastically supports the global enviro-
Leninist regimens emanating from the UN. Such as Agenda 21.
*In his famous book Perestroika, he plainly admitted: "We are not going to change
Soviet
power, of course, or abandon its fundamental principles, but we acknowledge the
need for
changes that will strengthen socialism." 82 (Emphasis added.) In the same revered
text he
explained that "according to Lenin, socialism and democracy are indivisible," and
the
"essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy
and revives
the Leninist concept of socialist construction both in theory and in practice." 83
(Emphasis in
original.) Thus, when he declares for "democracy," he means "democracy" within the
Leninist conception and definition of the term, something quite the opposite of
that which
most Americans assume he is talking about.
ENVIROMANIA
Agenda 21's Terrifying Agenda

This mammoth program for global social engineering and ecotyranny
is a massive blueprint for regimenting all life on Planet
Earth in the 21st century � in the name of protecting the environment.
Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save the
Planet (EarthPress, 1993), one of the UN-approved editions of the
program, makes this brazen assertion:
Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all

human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced � a major shift
in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a
concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be
integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.84
With breathtaking audacity, the document continues:
There are specific actions which are intended to be undertaken by

multinational corporations and entrepreneurs, by financial institutions and
individual investors, by high-tech companies and indigenous people, by
workers and labor unions, by farmers and consumers, by students and schools,
by governments and legislators, by scientists, by women, by children � in
short, by every person on Earth.85
If Gorbachev is a "socialist," a "Communist," a "Leninist" �

which he says he is, and vindicates that claim with many actions �
it is perfectly understandable that he would be very pleased with
the direction that the United States is going with the UN
environmental agenda. As a Leninist, he is comfortable with long-
term strategy, and, as his idolizing biographer, Gail Sheehy, noted,
he has long been known for "his emulation of Lenin's policy of two
steps forward, one step backward." 86
But Comrade Mikhail, as we've noted, is getting plenty of help

from "our" side. He and his Russian colleagues are provided with
continuous tutoring and infusions of cash from world order
heavyweights such as George Soros (CFR), Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR,

TC), George Shultz (CFR, TC), Henry Kissinger (CFR, TC), David
Rockefeller (CFR, TC), and Richard N. Gardner* (CFR, TC).87
It was Professor Gardner who penned the now-famous article, "The

Hard Road to World Order," in the April 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs.
One of the boldest calls for world government ever to appear in the CFR's
journal, it proposed building the "house of world order" through "an end
run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece." 88 What's
more, it set out the CFR Insider plans for exploiting fears about
environmental calamity as a vehicle for expanding the UN's power. In this
1974 article, Gardner wrote:
The next few years should see a continued strengthening of the new
global and regional agencies charged with protecting the world's
environment. In addition to comprehensive monitoring of the earth's
air, water and soil and of the effects of pollutants on human health, we
can look forward to new procedures to implement the principle of state
responsibility for national actions that have transnational environmental
consequences, probably including some kind of "international
environmental impact statement"....89 [Emphasis in original.]
Together with Gorbachev and his "former" Communist cronies in the

Kremlin, the Pratt House one-worlders intend to fasten a global enviro-
Leninist world government upon the planet Earth. And they are far along
the way to accomplishing this.
*Gardner also tutored then-Governor Jimmy Carter in foreign policy "issues" for two
years
to prepare him for the presidency.90
Chapter 7
The UN's War on Private Property
Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of

accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes
to social injustice.... Public control of land use is
therefore indispensable....1
� United Nations "Habitat I" Conference Report, 1976

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away
with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.2
� Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848

Property is theft! 3
�P. J. Proudhon, the "Father of Anarchy," 1840
Property struck the first blow at Equality; ... the supporters of

Governments and property are the religious and civil laws;
therefore, to reinstate man in his primitive rights of Equality and
Liberty, we must begin by destroying all Religion, all civil
society, and finish by the destruction of all property.4 (Emphasis
in original.)
�Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Order of the

Illuminati, 1776
According to Karl Marx, "the theory of the Communists may be

summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property." 5
That's pretty plain, and it's directly out of the Communist
Manifesto. It has been the rallying cry of collectivists of all stripes
� communists, socialists, anarchists, fascists � and has guided

the most ruthless and bloody regimes of the past century. Lenin,
Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Ceausescu, Tito, Gomulka,
119
Castro, Pol Pot, Mengistu, Ortega, and dozens of other Communist

dictators and satraps all fervently espoused that Marxian precept
and applied it with a vengeance. And in so doing, they produced
mountains of corpses and rivers of blood unequalled in all history.
Conversely, the champions of freedom have ever recognized that

private property is essential both to human liberty and to the
material well-being and economic advancement of all classes of
people. "Let the people have property," observed Noah Webster,
"and they will have power � a power that will for ever be exerted
to prevent a restriction of the press, and abolition of trial by jury, or
the abridgement of any other privilege.''6 (Emphasis in original.)
Justice Joseph Story, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by
President James Madison and became one of America's most
revered jurists, put it this way: "That government can scarcely be
deemed to be free when the rights of property are left solely
dependent upon the will of a legislative body, without any
restraint. The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to
require that the rights of personal liberty and private property
should be held sacred." 7
"It is the glory of the British constitution," said Samuel Adams,

"that it hath its foundation in the law of God and nature. It is an
essential, natural right, that a man shall quietly enjoy, and have the
sole disposal of his own property."8 Moreover, said Adams,
"Property is admitted to have an existence even in the savage state
of nature.... And if property is necessary for the support of savage
life, it is by no mean less so in civil society. The Utopian schemes
of levelling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and
impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown are
arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional."9
In his famous encyclical Rerum Novarum, written in 1891, Pope

Leo XIII stated: "We have seen that this great labor question
cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private
ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore,
should favor ownership, and its policy should be to
THE UN'S WAR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
induce as many as possible of the humbler class to become owners."

"Men always work harder and more readily," he continued,
"when they work on that which belongs to them; nay, they learn to
love the very soil that yields, in response to the labor of their
hands, not only food to eat but an abundance of good things for
themselves and those that are dear to them."10
In our own day, this same powerful truth was expounded clearly
by the great economist Friedrich A. Hayek. "What our generation
has forgotten," he said in his 1944 Nobel Prize-winning classic,
The Road to Serfdom, "is that the system of private property is the
most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own
property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because
the control of the means of production is divided among many
people acting independently that nobody has complete power over
us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves." 11
It is easy, then, to see why those who have totalitarian ambitions

always attempt to destroy private property. Because, like Hayek,
they understand that as long as "the control of the means of
production is divided among many people acting independently,"
their plans for total power will remain frustrated. The millions of
farmers, homeowners, businessmen, shopkeepers, artisans,
laborers, and professionals who own their own property form a
natural obstacle to tyrannical aspirations. If people are allowed to
own their land, grow their food, manufacture whatever products
they choose, live in homes of their own, and freely exchange their
goods, services, and labor � why, they just might not meekly
yield to the dictates of central planners, whether of the fascist,
communist, or socialist variety!
So whom do you think the folks at the United Nations and their
Insider sponsors choose to follow: Adams, Webster, Leo XIII, and
Hayek? Or Marx, Mao, Lenin, and Stalin? You guessed it: Time
after time after time, they've chosen the path of power, slaughter,
tyranny, and destruction, rather than liberty, morality, and justice.
As we will see next, with an examination of a few of the UN's eco-
Marxist programs.
The UN Gets Into the Act

We begin with "Habitat I," the Conference Report of the United Nations
Conference on Human Settlements, held in Vancouver, Canada, during
June 1976. The Preamble of this important document, endorsed by the
United States and the other participating nations, declares:
Land ... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by

individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the
market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of
accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to
social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore
indispensable....12
The main body of the text then proposes the following Marxist policies,
among others:
Recommendation D.1 Land resource management
(a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public

interest is the single most important means of... achieving a more
equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring
that environmental impacts are considered.
(b) Land is a scarce resource whose management should be subject
to public surveillance or control in the interest of the nation....
(d) ... Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise
complete sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning
development of human settlements....13
Then there is Agenda 21, the massive environmental manifesto that
came out of the 1992 UN Earth Summit. As we saw in Chapter 6, this is a
monstrous socialist scheme for micromanag-ing every square centimeter
of the planet's surface � not to mention the air and space above it and the
ground and seas below it. This green communist manifesto holds that
"land must be regarded primarily as a set of essential terrestrial
ecosystems and only secondly as a source of resources."14 We must
develop
new social systems, it says, because "traditional systems have not

been able to cope with the sheer scale of modern activities." These
new systems will "have as their goal both the effective
management of land resources and their socially-equitable
use."15
Agenda 21 states further: "All countries should undertake a

comprehensive national inventory of their land resources in order
to establish a system in which land will be classified according to
its most appropriate uses...."16 Moreover: "All countries should
also develop national land-management plans to guide
development."17
Another frightful creature to emerge from the Rio Earth Summit

(UNCED) was the Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA). The
GBA is a huge, 1,140-page instrument that claims to provide a
"scientific" basis for implementing the Convention on Biological
Diversity. "Property rights are not absolute and unchanging," it
informs us, "but rather a complex, dynamic and shifting
relationship between two or more parties, over space and time."18
And the UN ecocrats are determined to make any property rights
they don't abolish outright as "complex, dynamic and shifting" as
possible. "We should accept biodiversity [i.e., plants and animals]
as a legal subject, and supply it with adequate rights. This could
clarify the principle that biodiversity is not available for
uncontrolled human use."19 Translation: We must assign legal
"rights" to animals, trees, bugs, bushes, weeds, birds, fishes, even
mountains, and then appoint "custodians," "guardians," or
"trustees" (all of whom must be watermelon Marxists, of course) to
look out for and speak for these rights.
"Contrary to current custom," says the GBA, "it would therefore

become necessary to justify any interference with biodiversity, and
to provide proof that human interests justify the damage caused to
biodiversity."20 In other words, under this socialist scheme, a
"guardian" or "stakeholder" (someone claiming to represent a plant
or animal species on the property) can assert a priority right over
that of the actual property owner, and force the owner to "prove"
that any activity he contemplates for "his" prop
erty will not adversely impact the flora and fauna which constitute the
"biodiversity" in that "ecosystem."
Two other alien entities spawned at the Earth Summit were the UN
Commission on Sustainable Development and an international NGO with
quasi-official functions known as the Earth Council. These organizations
coordinate the activities of national councils on biodiversity, which have
been established to implement Agenda 21. The Earth Council is presided
over by Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the Rio Earth Summit, a
director of the World Economic Forum, a member of the Commission on
Global Governance, and a director of the Gorbachev Foundation.
U.S. Pressure From Above

In 1993, President Clinton (CFR) created the President's Council on
Sustainable Development (PCSD) by executive order. The PCSD joined
five Cabinet members with the leaders of the Sierra Club, the Natural
Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the
Nature Conservancy and charged them to "develop policy
recommendations for a national strategy for sustainable development that
can be implemented by the public and private sectors."21 They were to use
as their guide the UN Convention on Biodiversity, which Clinton signed
in June 1993 (but which the Senate has yet to ratify).
In 1995 the PCSD issued its report, Sustainable America, A New
Consensus, which stated:
Privately owned lands are most often delineated by boundaries that

differ from the geographic boundaries of the natural system of which
they are a part. Therefore, individual or private decisions can have
negative ramifications ... that result in severe ecological or aesthetic
consequences to both the natural system and to communities outside
landowner boundaries.22
That same year, President Clinton demonstrated how such

internationalist socialist policies can play out when he brought in a team
of UN bureaucrats (at U.S. taxpayer expense) from the
UNESCO World Heritage Committee (WHC). Their mission was

to close down a proposed gold mine on private property in the
vicinity of Yellowstone National Park, which the UN lists as a
World Heritage Site. Militant eco-fanatics together with the
Clinton-Gore administration had been trying for years to stop the
Crown Butte Mining Company from starting operations there. The
company had jumped through all of the costly and convoluted state
and federal environmental impact analyses and presented no risk to
the park or surrounding area.
But before Crown Butte could begin operation, the UNESCOWHC

"scientists" came up with a finding that allowing the project
to go forward would be ecologically disastrous. That was the only
pretext President Clinton needed to issue an executive order
stopping all new mining permits within a 19,000-acre area of
federal land near Yellowstone. The UNESCO delegation went
even further, seeking to review all policies involving mining, timber,
wildlife, and tourism within an area of nearly 18 million acres
surrounding the park, including millions of acres of private land.
They and their U.S. enviro-Leninist allies want to create the
"Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem," an enormous "biodiversity
reserve." This is part of the UN's global Wildlands Project, aimed
at "re-wilding" literally half of the U.S. land area.
Wildlands are constructed of habitat zones called "core areas," in

which human activity is increasingly restricted and ultimately
(virtually) eliminated. The core areas are then linked to restrictive
"buffer zones." These areas are then connected by networks of
"wildlife corridors."
It's important to recognize that this U.S.-UN eco-entangle-ment

didn't begin with Bill Clinton and it won't end now that he has left
office. George Bush the Elder (CFR) occupied the White House in
1992, and his main representative at the Earth Summit that year
was EPA Administrator William Reilly (CFR), a militant greenie.
Before coming on board the Bush team, Reilly had served as
president of both the Conservation Foundation and the World
Wildlife Fund-U.S. And he had served as executive director of a
land-use task force chaired by Laurance S.
Rockefeller, which promoted Marxist land-use controls and

expropriation.
Reilly's contempt for private property was evident not only from
the EPA policies he promulgated, but also from his own words. In
his introduction to the 1985 book National Parks for a New
Generation, for example, he advocated "greenline parks." Under
this concept, closely akin to the UN schemes, privately owned land
adjacent to federal or state parks could be declared part of the park
system by executive fiat and its use restricted to conform to park
purposes � in blatant disregard and violation of constitutional
protections against such abuse.
In addition, Reilly argued that the "mainstream'' American

attitude toward property rights in land has been "the right of citizens
to exercise dominion over land they own," but if "parks are to
be protected ... the tradition of park stewardship must gradually be
extended beyond park boundaries, to domains where mainstream
attitudes about private property and freedom of action still prevail
today."23
This "watermelon Marxism" � green on the outside, red on the

inside � has been promoted and supported continuously in the
highest levels of our federal government, through both Republican
and Democratic administrations, by the CFR Establishment. And
the same one-world coterie also has continuously provided the
"pressure from below" as well.
More Establishment Radicals

Take, for instance, watermelon Marxist Jeremy Rifkin, whose
book, Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World, we mentioned in the
previous chapter. It was published by Bantam New Age Books, a
division of Bantam Books, one of the largest Establishment publishing
houses, and was highly praised in the CFR press. And who
is Mr. Rifkin? A radical activist in the Vietnam anti-war
movement, he was a founder of the Johnny Appleseed Brigades. In
1976 he headed up the Peoples Bicentennial Commission (PBC), a
thoroughly Marxist operation funded by the usual tax
exempt foundations and the federal government. He has lectured

for the KGB-front Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and written for
the radical socialist Mother Jones magazine. All of which, of
course, has qualified him to join the august company of savants
who participate in the Gorbachev State of the World Forum
palavers. It also guarantees him Insider foundation funding for his
Washington, D.C.-based Foundation on Economic Trends.
And what type of economics does Comrade Rifkin espouse?

Because of the worsening greenhouse crisis, he says in Entropy,
"For the first time in our country's history we will have to deal with
the ultimate political and economic question � redistribution of
wealth."24 (Though rest assured it is not his or Mr. Rockefeller's
wealth he wants to redistribute.) Under the system he favors, "The
long-accepted practice of private exploitation of 'natural' property
is replaced with the notion of public guardianship."25
This is also the message of Peter Bahouth, the former head

greenie at Greenpeace. Now he is director of the Turner
Foundation, where he ladles out millions of dollars to his comrades
at Greenpest, Fiends of the Earth, the Environmental Defense
Fraud, and other eco-fascist extortionists. The Turner Foundation
insists that property rights are responsible for a host of problems
associated with urban and suburban sprawl and further insists that
state governments must impose more restrictions on property
rights. "States must insist localities determine ...defined urban
growth boundaries,"26 says a recent Foundation statement. Indeed,
says the Foundation, "politically potent bubbles about free markets
and property rights must be popped."27
The Turner Foundation, of course, is the eco-hobbyhorse of

Citizen Ted Turner, whose multi-million dollar palatial estates on
several continents are not to be counted among the private property
bubbles to be popped by Turner's Greenpest lackies. Turner,
Rockefeller, and other members of the ruling elite smugly believe
that their money and political clout will protect them from the
Marxist programs they are foisting on us lesser folk of
the middle class. As Marx pointed out in his Manifesto, his immediate
target was "not the abolition of property generally, but the
abolition of bourgeois property." 28
Yes, it is the property of the bourgeois � the middle class �

that is the principal target of Marx and his present-day disciples.
We have already seen the "future" envisioned by these one-world
corporate socialists. It is an Orwellian nightmare world in which
Soviet Commissars luxuriate in their Black Sea villas and the
upper-level Communist nomenklatura enjoy pampered, privileged
lives � while the vast majority of the Russian people exist in
misery and grinding poverty.
But the Pratt House billionaires already possess greater wealth

and enjoy more luxury than their Soviet counterparts could ever
dream of, you say. True, but the Communist elite enjoy something
that the top Insiders crave more than wealth and luxury: power �
raw, unchallenged power. The power of the master over the slave.
The power of the tyrant over the masses. Blocking their path to
totalitarian power is the middle class. Thus the ongoing attack on
middle class property by the would-be global overlords and their
watermelon Marxist minions.
Chapter 8
The UN's International Court of

Criminals
[The proposed International Criminal Court] repudiates the

Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of
Independence and cancels the 4th of July.... What are the limits
on the ICC? There are none. It's insane!1
� Professor Charles Rice,

Notre Dame University School of Law
With the stroke of a pen, President Bill Clinton has a last
chance to safeguard humankind.... He must simply sign a treaty,
finalized in Rome in 1998, to create a permanent International
Criminal Court. 2
� Robert S. McNamara (CFR, TC) and Benjamin B.

Ferencz, New York Times op-ed, December 12, 2000
The United States is today signing the 1998 Rome Treaty on
the International Criminal Court.3
� President Bill Clinton (CFR, TC), December 31, 2000

On December 31, 2000, David Scheffer (CFR), President Clinton's
Ambassador for the International Criminal Court, signed the ICC
Rome Treaty for the United States. This was an incredibly radical,
revolutionary act, which will bring devastating consequences for
the American people, if they allow the U.S. Senate to ratify it. If
ratified and implemented, this brazenly treasonous scheme by the
CFR Insiders would rend asunder our constitutional protections
and cause American citizens to be vulnerable to prosecution before
international UN tribunals for alleged violations of lawless UN
"laws." If convicted by this UN kangaroo court system, American
citizens could be subjected to whatever penalties the
129
ICC judges decree, including imprisonment wherever the black-

robed globalists may decide to send them.
Regardless of whether one views the prospect of the ICC sympathetically

or with horror and revulsion, it must be admitted by all
who are fair-minded that U.S. accession to this treaty would
represent a momentous, colossal change to our judicial and constitutional
system. Who but a totalitarian would argue that a
change of this magnitude should be even contemplated, let alone
attempted, without an informed debate and a genuine public
consensus? Yet there has been no public debate of this issue.
Would Americans embrace this attack on their most precious
rights if there had been? Obviously not, which is why the entire
crusade for the ICC has been carried out by the Insiders as a
massive stealth campaign, aimed at imposing UN judicial rule on
an unsuspecting America.
Ask yourself: Did you see the development of the ICC covered
on the evening news on NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN? Did you see
the supposed merits and real dangers debated on Face the Nation,
Nightline, The Capital Gang, Hardball, 60 Minutes, Larry King
Live, or 20/20? Of course you didn't, because those debates never
happened. At the time that President Clinton announced the U.S.
signing of the Rome Treaty, probably not one U.S. citizen in 100
had heard of the document, and not one in a thousand had any
inkling of what it entailed.
The organized forces for world government, however, had been

intensely active for several years preparing to spring the ICC trap.
Pro-ICC articles were appearing in the internationalist journals,
pro-ICC studies were issued by globalist think tanks, a fortune in
foundation grants was provided to pro-ICC academics and NGOs
to attend international conferences and symposia � all of this was
taking place on an enormous scale, while most Americans were
completely in the dark.
The op-ed quoted above by Robert McNamara and Benjamin

Ferencz appeared in the New York Times during the closing days
of the Clinton administration. It is a typical example of the means
by which the one-world Insiders signal their political
THE UN's INTERNATIONAL COURT OF CRIMINALS
agents and intelligentsia to act on an issue of serious import to their

global agenda.* Similar editorials, op-eds, articles and commentaries
appeared in the Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, and many
other Establishment print and broadcast propaganda organs, while, at the
same time, the mammoth, pro-ICC, NGO network intensified its lobbying
for the UN. All of the usual chorus voices began hymning in unison,
creating the false impression that a new "consensus" had formed, that
"enlightened" political leaders now accepted the virtuous and unanswerable
arguments of the selfless representatives of "global civil society."
Hereafter, only hopeless, heartless, Neanderthal, "sovereigntists" would
oppose the creation of this desperately needed institution that is designed
(we are told) to establish "the rule of law" globally, "stop the culture of
impunity," and bring to justice the world's most terrible criminals.
American Criminal Justice System

But should we Americans toss out our own justice system or allow it to
be subsumed in some global ICC system on the basis of promises by the
UN and its champions? Do any of the UN's member
*As Defense Secretary under both JFK and LBJ, Mr. McNamara (CFR, TC) was a
principal
architect of the insane doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and the
disastrous
U.S. debacle in Vietnam. Following those efforts, which were fiascoes for America,
but
bonanzas for the Insiders, McNamara went on to serve the CFR cabal as head of the
World
Bank, where he lavished billions of dollars taken from U.S. taxpayers on Communist
and
socialist regimes throughout the world.
Professor Ferencz of Pace University, an inveterate one-worlder and author of many
books promoting disarmament and world government, is one of the early architects
and
proponents of the ICC. His books Defining International Aggression (1975), An
International Criminal Court � A Step Toward World Peace (two volumes, 1980),
Enforcing International Law (two volumes, 1983), and PlanetHood: The Key to Your
Future
(1991) greatly influenced the development of the ICC Statute, as did he personally.
Professor Ferencz was the recognized eminence griese at the UN's ICC Summit in
Rome,
and it was due to his personal, vigorous lobbying that the undefined crime of
"aggression"
was included in the ICC Statute.
regimes now have in place better justice systems than we enjoy

under the U.S. Constitution? Ha! The thought is ludicrous!
One doesn't have to do an extensive study of foreign jurisprudence

to know that it would be a very bad idea to run afoul of the
ruling authorities in Red China, Russia, Cuba, Syria, Iraq, Iran,
Rwanda, Nigeria, and dozens of other tyrannical regimes
throughout the world, where concepts of due process, the rule of
law, and constitutional rights do not even exist.
Even in many Western European countries such as France,

Germany, and Italy, rights that Americans take for granted � jury
trial, habeas corpus, speedy trial, the right to counsel � are weak
to nonexistent. During the Rome conference, ICC proponents
frequently pointed to the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal as a model.
That is a chilling thought to anyone familiar with the Tribunal
prosecutor's position that five years is a reasonable time for a
defendant to wait in prison for a trial. Other ICC advocates
frequently cite the European Court of Human Rights as a model for
the ICC. But this supranational judicial body has ruled in various
cases that pretrial detention of three, four, or even seven years is
acceptable!
The American criminal justice system is far from perfect, but in

comparison to what exists in most of the rest of the world, it stands
out as a shining beacon. And this is so in spite of the fact that over
the past half century it has been mangled and transmuted into a
system that would be completely unrecognizable to the framers of
our Constitution. As originally conceived, virtually all criminal law
was left to the purview of state and local governments. There were
no federal laws regarding murder, rape, robbery, theft, vandalism,
fraud, and other ordinary criminal matters. The central government
was restricted to prosecuting treason, espionage, malfeasance of
office, and other matters directly related to the federal government.
Over the past few decades, however, the federal government's

reach has been drastically lengthened through a massive onslaught
of federal legislation, presidential executive orders, and judicial
decrees. The damage to our freedoms and constitu
THEUN'SINTERNATIONALCOURTOFCRIMINALS
tional order springing from the federal judiciary has been catastrophic.
The federal courts, especially since the New Deal, have
been running amok, acting as a super-legislature in matters as
diverse as abortion, education, the environment, pornography, race
relations, sexual conduct, sedition, employer-employee relations,
religious practice, local police, state prisons, housing, etc.
Some of our early founders recognized the potential for these

tragic developments long, long ago. Writing in 1821, toward the
end of his life, Thomas Jefferson predicted the dire consequences
America might suffer as a result of judicial usurpation: "It has long
... been my opinion ... that the germ of dissolution of our federal
government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary ...
working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and
a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over
the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States,
and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am
opposed, because when all government ... shall be drawn to
Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the
checks provided ... and will become as venal and oppressive as the
government from which we separated."4
Jefferson's pessimistic view was based upon his sober assessment

of the corruptibility of human nature. He was warning, in the
citation above, of the dangers inherent in the natural tendency in
human beings and institutions toward greater and greater
corruption, not against any particular combination of individuals
then scheming to overturn our system of government. However, as
gloomy as his projections were, it is doubtful that even he could
have imagined the outrageous and seditious usurpations of our
federal judiciary. And it is certain that he and every other Founding
Father, along with generations of earlier Americans, would stand in
dumfounded disbelief to learn that America's leaders today are
seriously proposing that the people of the United States be
subjected to the jurisdiction of an international judiciary.
The Campaign for an ICC

The vast majority of Americans today are blissfully ignorant of the
fact that such a radical proposal is even under consideration. But
the truth is that it is perilously close to becoming a reality. And
unless the American public becomes sufficiently alerted, alarmed,
and activated to oppose this incredibly subversive scheme, it will
become reality.
The formal campaign for an ICC was launched in the summer of

1998 at a United Nations summit convened in Rome. The monthlong
conference concluded on July 17th with the announcement
that 120 nations had voted in favor of approving the new "Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court" and that it would enter
into effect and become binding upon the entire planet as soon as it
was formally ratified by 60 nations. The ostensible targets of the
new ICC are dictators, tyrants, and other nasty practitioners of
"genocide, war crimes, aggression and crimes against humanity."
But the UN membership is replete with murderous dictators,
tyrants, and the worst practitioners of these and other heinous
crimes. The likes of Fidel Castro, Yasir Arafat, Sam Nujoma,
Mikhail Gorbachev, Li Peng, Vladimir Putin, and other bloody-
handed thugs have always been welcomed and honored at the
United Nations.
The Real Targets of the ICC

Who, then, are the real targets of the ICC proponents? Those who
stand in the way of their proposed "new world order," naturally.
That includes, of course, so-called "right-wing dictators," like
General Augusto Pinochet, who has never been forgiven by the
international Socialist-Communist-Insider cabal for overthrowing
the brutal Communist regime of their favored left-wing dictator:
Salvador Allende in Chile. In 1998, while the 82-year-old Pinochet
was visiting England for medical treatment, he was arrested and
held on a warrant issued by Baltazar Garzon, an investigative
magistrate from Spain. Judge Garzon, a Marxist activist, was
pursuing a revolutionary political agenda, not seeking justice for
real crimes. Many legal authorities
condemned Garzon's action for violating established canons of

international law. Eduardo Fungarino, Spain's chief government
prosecutor, filed a court motion charging that the judge had broken
many legal procedures in issuing the arrest order, and that Garzon
had "an absolute lack of jurisdiction" over alleged crimes
committed outside of Spain against citizens of other countries.5
However, the Insider-controlled prostitute press would not allow

these inconvenient facts, and others of equal importance in the
case, to come to the attention of the American people.* Instead, we
were treated to a nonstop diet of shrill editorials and shrieking
demonstrators demanding not only that Pinochet be drawn and
quartered, but that a permanent international tribunal, the ICC, be
established to bring "dictators" of his ilk to justice.
But the phony "human rights" activists demanding Pinochet's

scalp could not care less about genuine violations of human rights
and real justice for bloody dictators. At the time of Pinochet's arrest
in England on the Spanish warrant, Communist dictator Fidel
Castro was welcomed to Spain and PLO terrorist leader Yasir
Arafat was a guest of the Clinton White House. Likewise, Jiang
Zemin, the butcher of Tiananmen Square, as well as the bloody-
handed Soviet tyrants Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin, and
Vladimir Putin � and virtually every other mass-murdering despot
of the left � have been conspicuously ignored by the self-
righteous frauds leading the ICC choir.
However, anti-Communist military leaders and heads of state

like Pinochet are not the only � or even the chief � targets of the
ICC. The primary target of the ICC architects is the United States
and the American people. This was conspicuously obvious
For an in-depth look at the orchestrated global campaign to "get" Pinochet,

together with a
thorough analysis of the charges leveled against him, please see: "Patriot
Enchained," The
New American, September 13, 1999; and "Persistent Persecution of Pinochet," The New
American, April 10, 2000 at www.thenewameri-can.com/focus/pinochet/.

at the ICC Summit in Rome, where America-bashing was the order

of the day.
As one who was in Rome "at the creation," this reporter can
attest firsthand to the fact that the long-standing hatred toward the
United States by the vast majority of the pathetic regimes that
comprise the UN menagerie is still alive and well. Day after day,
throughout the ICC conference, the U.S. was subjected to tirades
and condemnations � by official delegates as well as by NGOs �
for supposed past and present sins. In fact, from the nonstop anti-
U.S. invective one might imagine that America is the principal, if

not the sole, source of evil in the world. The billions of dollars that
we have ladled out over the past half-century to these countries and
the UN itself have purchased us not an iota of good will.
There were calls at the Rome conference for prosecuting
Presidents Bush (George W.'s father) and Clinton for war crimes.
A handbill distributed at the summit by the Society for Threatened
Peoples, one of the Marxoid groups among the NGO horde,
charged the U.S. with these past "war crimes": "Dropped 15
million tonnes of bombs in the Vietnam War, conducted air raids
on Cambodia, supported Indonesia's annexation of East Timor,
backed right-wing death squads in Guatemala in the early
eighties."6
Months before the Rome conference had even begun, the UN

Commission on Human Rights had targeted the U.S. with a purely
political attack alleging that this country unfairly applies the death
penalty. The Insiders' White House agent Bill Clinton aided the
scheme by inviting UN human rights monitor Bacre Waly Ndiaye
to America to meet with U.S. officials and inspect our prisons. In
September and October 1997, Mr. Ndiaye came to the U.S. and
visited prisons in Florida, Texas, and California. The New York
Times reported:
For Mr. Ndiaye, the visit to the United States is important

because of the precedent it sets [emphasis added].
"I am really hoping that with this visit, the United States
THE UN'S INTERNATIONAL COURT OF CRIMINALS
Government will show the way to other countries which have been
resistant to United Nations mechanisms," he said.7
Mr. Ndiaye's U.S. precedent-setting tour provided the Insider-

funded NGO radicals at Amnesty International, Human Rights
Watch, the ACLU, and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights
with a propaganda bonanza. The Insider media cartel retailed all
their lurid charges of the horrors of the American justice system. In
April 1998, shortly before the ICC Summit, the UN Commission
on Human Rights released a report based on the Ndiaye
investigation. The report charged that application of the death
penalty in the United States is tainted by racism, economic
discrimination, politics, and an excessive deference to victims'
rights.8
The Commission also accused the U.S. of being in violation of

the 1966 UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and called on
the U.S. to suspend all further executions until U.S. state and
federal laws were brought into compliance with "international
standards."9 This provided the NGO cabal with another golden
opportunity for a round of media-enhanced attacks on the U.S.
legal system. One of the aims of this report and its companion
NGO campaign was to sow seeds of doubt and guilt in American
public opinion concerning the fairness of American justice; this
would make the upcoming ICC proposals for an international system
seem much more reasonable. It also gave the Clinton administration
an opportunity to strike a moderate pose while advancing
this radical agenda. The Clintonites said, in effect, "Well, we think
these UN charges are exaggerated but we recognize that the U.S.
justice system isn't perfect. We want to be a good example to the
rest of the world and cooperate with the UN."
This was all a colossal, insidious charade, of course. Not to

mention the epitome of hypocrisy. At the very time that Kofi
Annan's Commission was denouncing the U.S. justice system, the
sainted Mr. Annan was suppressing information that he had been a
key silent accomplice in the Rwandan genocide. Lt.-Gen. Romeo
Dallaire, the former commander of Canada's UN "peace
keeping" mission to Rwanda in 1994, revealed that he had sent a

fax to Annan's office warning that Rwandan security officials had
been ordered to "register" the (predominantly Christian) Tutsis as
an obvious prelude to mass liquidation. Annan's office ordered
Dallaire to "assist in the recovery of all weapons distributed to or
illegally acquired by civilians," which, in effect, meant disarming
the intended victims!10 So Mr. Annan, whose Commission was
chastising the U.S. for gross abuses, was himself involved in one
of the most atrocious genocides in world history. Likewise, many
of the UN representatives at Rome who cited the Commission
report in their denunciations of the U.S. were representing some of
the most repressive and brutal regimes in the world.
We don't mean to imply that all of the U.S. bashing at Rome was
emanating from Third World countries, Communist satrapies, or
UN agencies. Canada, Norway, Britain, Germany, Italy, and other
U.S. "allies" vied for top anti-U.S. honors, too. On the final day of
the conference, when the very minimal objections of the U.S. to
the ICC were soundly defeated, the assembled delegations erupted
in a tumultuous and defiant display of anti-American jubilation �
which was joined by much of the press corps, including
"American" reporters.
Naturally, the U.S. NGOs topped all others in attacking their
homeland. As Reuters reported, "the American NGOs were the
scourge of the United States,"11 at the conference. On July 8th,
Terra Viva, one of the major NGO newspapers that has become
"must reading" at UN summits, carried this headline in large print:
"Police Brutality Deeply Rooted in US" The story announced the
release of a Human Rights Watch report charging a national
epidemic of police brutality.12 The 440-page report, entitled
Shielded From Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the
United States,13 was time-released for maximum effect on the
conference. Human Rights Watch spokesman Richard Dicker, who
was one of the top NGO strategists at Rome, seemed never to be
satisfied if not hurling vitriol at the U.S. But that has not hindered
him or his group from receiving hundreds
THEUN's INTERNATIONALCOURTOFCRIMINALS
of thousands of dollars from the Ford Foundation, which has

enabled the group to push the ICC agenda.14
NGO Evolution-Revolution
The revolutionary role of the NGOs at the Rome summit is one of
the biggest untold stories of that event. As CFR staffer Jessica T.
Mathews approvingly noted in Foreign Affairs, ever since the 1992
Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, NGOs have been exercising more
and more influence at UN conferences.15 But the Rome experience
marked a watershed in the incredible evolution of NGO power. At
the ICC Conference, the NGOs were given unprecedented access
and privileges and accorded a status almost on a par with official
state delegations. NGO experts and officials, inflamed with their
own self-importance, regularly addressed the ICC Plenary Session
as though they were official heads of state. They remonstrated,
cajoled, and chastised the assembled plenipotentiaries to adopt
NGO positions, which always argued for larger jurisdiction and
more power for the Court. NGO briefing papers, reports,
resolutions, press releases, and legal opinions flooded the
conference. The NGO Coalition for an International Criminal
Court (CICC) was given a large suite of offices within the FAO
(the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization) conference building
itself, just down the hall from the main meeting room, so that the
NGO activists � who outnumbered the official delegates � could
overwhelm the conferees with "good cop-bad cop" lobbying
tactics.
World Federalist Association leader William Pace (CFR),

Richard Dicker, and other CICC spokesmen incessantly reminded
the world press and the assembled dignitaries that they were vested
with the moral authority of "over 800 NGOs worldwide
representing all sectors of global society." It was, of course, a
gigantic confidence game; the NGO "diversity" amounted to a
choice of your favorite flavor of socialism. Take your pick:
Castroite, Trotskyite, Marxist, Stalinist, Leninist, Maoist,
Gramsciite.
Certainly among the most influential of the NGOs was the

Rome-based Transnational Radical Party (TRP), an openly

Communist organization that boasts Mayor of Rome Francesco
Rutelli and European Commissioner Emma Bonino among its
members,16 both of whom played prominent roles at the ICC confab.
Together with its sister organization, No Peace Without
Justice, the TRP and other NGOs organized daily demonstrations
and panel discussions, in addition to ICC-related broadcasts on its
radio program, Radio Radicale. As the host country and the nation
with the largest delegation � 58 delegates, as compared to the
next largest, the U.S., with 40 � Italy was in the driver's seat. The
Prodi government and Mayor Rutelli gave every advantage to the
NGO radicals, granting permission for streets to be blocked for
marches and demonstrations and even allowing NGO militants to
set up a continuous propaganda stage partially blocking the
entrance to the FAO/ICC conference site. On July 14th (Bastille
Day, of course) Mayor Rutelli granted the TRP and its CICC allies
an especially rare privilege: a torchlight march through the Via
Sacra (Sacred Way), a path through the temple ruins that
reportedly has only been opened twice this century.
The Transnational Radical Party headquarters in Rome was the

center for many NGO activities that spilled out of the FAO
complex. At that venue, Judge Richard Goldstone, former prosecutor
for the UN war crimes tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia,
presented a report promoting the ICC.17 Not surprisingly, the report
was produced by a task force headed by Goldstone and sponsored
by the Twentieth Century Fund. This American Insider foundation
has been funding radical, left-wing causes for much of this century.
Accompanying Judge Goldstone was Morton Halperin (CFR), the
notorious Marxist activist and longtime associate of the Institute
for Policy Studies. President Clinton attempted to place Halperin in
a sensitive, top Defense Department post, but the Senate, prodded
by exposure of his subversive background, refused to confirm him.
Halperin stayed on for awhile in other capacities in the Clinton
regime, before moving on to a position in the CFR's Studies
Department, and
then an appointment as vice president of the Twentieth Century
Fund.*
Of course, leading the clamorous "global civil society" cabal**

was the World Federalist Movement, whose representative,
William R. Pace (CFR), ran the NGO show. The World Federalists
(headed by CFR veteran John B. Anderson), who have long
advocated world government, clearly have mastered the fine art of
demagoguery and mob control. However, they do not exercise their
leadership by virtue of strategic vision, tactical genius, or moral
suasion. They have been accorded the piper status by those who
pay for the tunes. It costs a great deal of money to assemble a
horde of activists, fly them around the globe, set them up with
accommodations and entertainment in one of the most expensive
cities in the world, and equip them with all the resources they need
to effectively push a coordinated, prearranged agenda. Even more
than at previous summits, the NGO "citizen lobbyist" campaign at
Rome was completely the creation of the same old Pratt House
coterie: the CFR and its foundation, corporate, think-tank network.
*In Rome, Halperin and Goldstone joined one-worlders Ben Ferencz, John Roper (Royal
Institute for International Affairs), and Marino Busdachin (Secretary-General of No

Peace
Without Justice) at the Transnational Radical Party offices to help make the pitch
for global
governance. In January 2001, the CFR announced that Halperin would be rejoining the
group's staff to "direct a project on democracy."

**Among the many other groups comprising the storied "diversity" of the NGO claque
were: Parliamentarians for Global Action; European Law Students Association;
Women's
Caucus for Gender Justice; Caribbean Association for Feminist Research and Action;
American Bar Association; International Federation of Lawyers; International
Women's
Rights Action Watch; Beyond Borders; the Carter Center; Maryknoll Society Justice
and
Peace Office; Center for Reproductive Law and Policy; National Association of
Democratic
Lawyers; OXFAM UK; Earth Action International; Pax Christi International;
Sisterhood Is
Global Institute; Global Policy Forum; Gray Panthers; Vietnam Veterans of America
Foundation; Washington Office on Latin America; International Association of
Democratic
Lawyers; International Association of Judges; International Commission of Jurists;
Women's
Action Group; International Council of Jewish Women; World Council of Churches; and
the
World Order Models Project.
If you wish to take the time to do so, you can research the individual
NGOs and the grants they received. But there is no need to
do so, since these "anti-Establishment" rabble-rousers admit their
dependence on the globalist Establishment "sugar daddies."
According to the Coalition for an ICC website home page,
"Substantial funding for the CICC communications project has
been received from private foundations, progressive governments,
participating organizations of the Coalition, and private
individuals, including major grants from the European Union, the
Ford Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation."19
The principle NGO press conferences in Rome were presided

over by CFR handler William Pace, and his lieutenants Richard
Dicker and Professor Rhonda Copelon, a lesbian legal scholar from
City University of New York, affiliated with the Women's Action
Group. Likewise, they and a select cadre of hardcore radicals led
the daily strategy sessions at the NGO office suite. These events,
which this writer attended, usually featured 50 to 100 or more
NGO activists of the Femi-Leninist, Enviro-Leninist, Afro-
Leninist, Homo-Leninist, Lesbo-Leninist stripe. This motley
menagerie of uncivil specimens, always spouting hateful diatribes
and Marxist cant, by no means can legitimately claim to represent
"global civil society." But their CFR paymasters are hellbent on
legitimizing this false claim, because these misfits and miscreants
are essential components in their "pressure from below" strategy.
Shaping a Consensus
The enormity of the deception and the immense resources and
coordination of this global network are amazing to behold. But
even the astounding NGO-Insider spectacle at Rome fails to provide
a full appreciation of the fact that it was but a part of a much
larger scheme. The Rome gathering was the culmination of a
multi-year program of PrepComs (Preparatory Committee
meetings) that had been carefully orchestrated to arrive at the
contrived global "consensus" that is now being celebrated by the
votaries of "world order." The final PrepCom meeting, held from
March 16th through April 3rd, 1998 in New York, was a mini-
preview of the Rome summit, with all the major actors, from UN
officials and pro-ICC national delegates, to NGO activists, honing
their skills, practicing their parts, and coordinating their activities
with their Insider media allies.
In order to get all of the cadres marching in sync, and to create

the appearance of popular support, the Insiders had to set up a host
of ongoing programs throughout the country before, during, and
after the Rome summit. One of the major events attended by this
writer was an ICC symposium at the luxurious Biltmore Hotel in
Los Angeles on February 26, 1998. The CFR leadership was
obvious. The moderator of the program was Dr. Edwin M. Smith
(CFR), professor of international law at the University of Southern
California and formerly an appointee to the U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency by President Clinton (CFR). The main
speaker for the program was Ambassador Scheffer (CFR),
formerly an adjunct professor of international law at Georgetown
University Law Center, President Clinton's alma mater. The
program was sponsored by the United Nations Association; the
World Federalist Association; Amnesty International; the
American Civil Liberties Union; the American Bar Association;
Friends of the United Nations; B'nai Brith; and the law firms of
Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher, and Milbank, Tweed, Hadley, and
McCloy. CFR members play prominent, if not dominant,
leadership roles in all of these organizations.
These individuals and organizations are engaged in what

Professor George C. Lodge (CFR) calls "quietly assembling global
arrangements" and "shaping a consensus." Lodge, who is a
professor at the Harvard Business School and a trustee of the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes in his 1995
book, Managing Globalization in the Age of Interdependence, that
there are "energetic and creative individuals in government,
interest groups, and corporations [who] are quietly assembling
global arrangements to deal with crises and tensions. For the most
part, they work outside of legislatures and parliaments and
are screened from the glare of the media in order to find common
interests, shape a consensus, and persuade those with power to change."20
Professor Thomas R. Dye of Florida State University described this

same "consensus shaping" process many years earlier in his 1976 book
Who's Running America? Dye noted that the CFR and its related "policyplanning
groups are central coordinating points in the entire elite policy-
making process." He went on to describe how they function:
They bring together people at the top of the corporate and financial
institutions, the universities, the foundations, the mass media, the
powerful law firms, the top intellectuals, and influential figures in the
government. They review the relevant university-and foundation-
supported research on topics of interest, and more importantly they try
to reach a consensus about what action should be taken on national
problems under study. Their goal is to develop action recommendations
� explicit policies or programs designed to resolve or ameliorate

national problems. At the same time, they endeavor to build consensus
among corporate, financial, university, civic, intellectual, and
government leaders around major policy directions.21 [Emphasis in
original.]
The Proposed ICC
The proposed ICC has proceeded through this process, and has gone from
"action recommendation" to "consensus" to (almost) full realization. The
ICC is breathtakingly audacious on many counts but the most amazingly
brazen claim, and one unprecedented even for so outrageous an outfit as
the United Nations, is the assertion by the UN that once the Rome Statute
is ratified by 60 countries (a completely arbitrarily selected number, by
the way: totals ranging from 30 to 90 were considered), the newly
established court will then have compulsory jurisdiction over all
countries, even those that refuse to ratify it. This is, of course, a
revolutionary and flagrant violation of the most fundamental principle of
treaty law, namely, that a treaty is an agreement that
is binding only upon those who are party to the treaty. Yet the ICC
zealots had no qualms of conscience in repeatedly and piously invoking
"the rule of law" to advance their totally lawless proposal.
By December 31, 2000, when President Clinton signed the ICC treaty,
27 nations had ratified the document, and the court's advocates were
predicting that the requisite 60 ratifications would be obtained by 2002.
The new court is to be headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, which
is already host to the World Court, the UN tribunal that was set up in
1945 to try cases between nations. The new ICC would try individuals
who are accused of violating international laws.
Dr. Charles Rice, professor of law at Notre Dame University, has

termed the ICC "a monster," both in concept and reality, noting that it
effectively "repudiates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the
Declaration of Independence and cancels the 4th of July." "In our
system," Professor Rice explains, "law is supposed to be a rule of reason
which, in a sense, controls the state and compels the state to operate under
the law." 22 But the super-jurisdictional ICC, he points out, has no
legitimate basis for its claimed authority, no protections against abuses,
no accountability, and virtually no limits to its jurisdiction. "What are the
limits on the ICC?" he asks, and then answers, "There are none. It's
insane!" 23
What do esteemed legal scholars like Professor Rice find so monstrous

about the ICC? Let's take a look at the kinds of crimes the new ICC
would claim jurisdiction over, and then briefly examine the structure and
procedures of the court as laid out in the Rome Statute.
The 166-page Rome Statute claims universal jurisdiction for the ICC to
try individuals charged with genocide, war crimes, crimes against
humanity, and aggression, anywhere on earth. In the first place, these four
"core" crimes are so vaguely defined and were so contentiously debated at
the Rome summit that no reasonable claim to consensus can be made
concerning even the definition of these crimes, which is the most basic
requirement
for just laws. Which means the definition of the crimes will be left
completely to the arbitrary interpretation of the ICC judges. (In the
case of the crime of "aggression," no definition was even included
in the statute.)24
But the severe definitional problems associated with these four

"core crimes" don't even begin to hint at the nightmarish
possibilities that would be unleashed under a global ICC system.
First of all, there is no question that, once formally established,
many other additional "crimes" will be added to the ICC's jurisdiction.
We already have promises on that score from the drafters
of the Rome Statute.
In 1993, Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd (CFR) introduced

a resolution calling for the establishment of the ICC to
combat "unlawful acts such as war crimes, genocide, aggression,
terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering, and other crimes of
an international character."25 Mikhail Gorbachev and other one-
world luminaries have called for adding "ecological crimes" to the
jurisdiction of the ICC.26 At the Rome ICC Summit, many
delegates insisted that these and a vast array of other crimes �
piracy, child pornography, kidnapping, political assassination,
religious persecution, discrimination based on sexual orientation,
etc. � be included. The delegates were repeatedly assured by the
Summit leaders that these could be added later, but were told they
should not jeopardize the establishing of the ICC by insisting on
inclusion of all these other crimes at the beginning.
So, as if an ICC with global jurisdiction over the four "core

crimes" were not bad enough, the dials have been preset for a vast
expansion of court jurisdiction. But what about the ICC system
itself? Some of the most egregious threats that are built into the
system include:
� No right to trial by jury.

� No right to a speedy trial.
� Judges, prosecutors, and counsel drawn from murderous totalitarian
and authoritarian regimes with juridical views completely
at odds with Western concepts of law and justice and
specifically hateful of America and Americans.
� No appeal of an ICC decision, except to the same ICC court.

� A person convicted under the ICC may be sentenced to prison
anywhere in the world the ICC chooses.
� An
ICC prosecutor may decide to bring charges against an
individual based upon accusations provided by NGOs, such as
the ACLU, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Gay
and Lesbian Task Force, etc.
In other words, under an ICC regime, an American citizen,
whether in the United States or abroad, could be accused of a
crime by a member of some militant group, then indicted, extradited,
tried, and convicted by prosecutors and judges from North
Korea, Zambia, Mongolia, China, Iraq, Cuba, Turkey, or Russia.
And then sentenced to serve time at some undisclosed prison in
Zimbabwe, Kosovo, Albania, Cambodia, or Algeria.
U.S. Leaders Support ICC

Any reasonable American quickly realizes that Professor Rice was
indeed accurate in describing the proposed ICC regime as "a
monster." And therein lies much of our problem: Average
Americans cannot conceive that anything so patently absurd and
obviously injurious to American interests could ever be adopted by
our elected leaders. Besides, they reason, even if the U.S. Senate
ratifies the ICC statute, the U.S. government would never allow
wild abuses of the ICC against American citizens. And, as the U.S.
is indisputably the most powerful nation on earth, we have no
reason to fear that the ICC could force its jurisdiction on us in any
case harmful to our interests.
But, as we pointed out in Chapter 1, depending on U.S. courts
and elected officials to guard against abuses under a UN regime is
a dangerously misplaced hope. Many of them are already on record
as favoring global institutions with legislative, executive, and
judicial powers that could override U.S. sovereignty and supersede
our constitutional checks and balances.
Every American should take note of the fact that the primary
objection posed by U.S. Ambassador David Scheffer (CFR) and

the U.S. State Department at the ICC Summit was the concern that
U.S. Armed Forces personnel serving abroad might stand in danger

of being accused of war crimes under the ICC statute.27 This is a
very real concern, of course, but far from the only or most
important concern. The official U.S. position appears to be that if
this one major area of concern can be addressed with some
exemption or written assurance, then the U.S. could live with the
ICC � all in the interest of showing U.S. respect for the "rule of
law" worldwide.
This is like leaders of a church girls camp agreeing to allow the
League of Reformed Rapists to run their camp � as long as the
League provides written certificates attesting to the reform of its
members and guarantees that the "ex-rapists" will not force
themselves on girls under, say, 13 years of age. Or police officials
agreeing to merge with the Mafia in a "joint crime-fighting effort,"
as long as Mafia dons agree to have their extortion squads stop
breaking the legs of shopkeepers (for a few weeks, at least) and to
nix the use of dum-dum bullets by their hit men.
It ought to be obvious to all that you don't establish justice and

fight crime by inviting the worst criminals and terrorists to join the
prosecution, sit on the judiciary, and staff the police. Yet that is
precisely what the ICC would do.
And America's opinion cartel is more than ready to accept this

monstrosity. The main organs of the CFR-dominated media {New
York Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.) have
supported the ICC. The massive NGO rent-a-mob, from radical
enviros to so-called human rights activists, are eagerly pushing this
agenda. That is to be expected.
However, what should be most alarming to Americans is that

many of our top officials � together with their co-conspirators in
the Insider media, foundations, and think tanks � are leading the
whole movement to subject the United States to international
jurisdiction under the ICC. As mentioned in Chapter 1, members of
the U.S. Supreme Court have already stated that in the 21st century
they will be relying on other international sources
for their decisions.28 Many of America's leading law journals and

"legal authorities" have adopted an "internationalist" view of the
law which holds that U.S. law must yield to wider "global legal
mandates."
The federal executive branch has intervened several times in

state criminal matters at the behest of the UN. In November 1998,
U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (CFR) urged the state

of Texas to yield to a World Court decision and the appeals of
"global civil society" and overturn the death penalty in the case of
Joseph Stanley Faulder.29 This U.S. concession was an important
part of the Insiders' calculated plan gradually to concede U.S.
sovereign jurisdiction in criminal matters. This is not merely a grab
for power by UN globocrats, third-world dictators, Communist
commissars, and fuzzy-headed Marxist academics; it is a colossal
grab for global judicial power by one-world votaries within our
own government and other centers of power in our society.
A Global Constabulary
And, naturally, it doesn't stop with an ICC. A global judiciary
presupposes a global constabulary, both to arrest accused "criminals"
and to enforce the Court's rulings. Thus the same Pratt
House thought cartel that has brought us the ICC monster is
pushing hard for an international police corps. Writing in Foreign
Affairs in 1997, New York University professor of law Theodor
Meron (CFR) told his one-world comrades that, "from now on,
international criminal tribunals must be more effectively supported
by police power." Professor Meron continued:
Just as there can be no national justice without a police force, there can be no
effective international justice without arrests, subpoenas, investigations, and a
reliable enforcement mechanism. The international community's inability to
create such a mechanism, whether for ad hoc criminal tribunals or for the
proposed international criminal court, threatens all efforts to create a system of
international criminal justice. But we must not give up in despair.30
In December 2000, senior government officials from more than

150 countries converged on Palermo, the capital of Sicily, for a
UN conference ostensibly aimed at stepping up the global fight
against "transnational organized crime." The event, led by UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan and UN Under Secretary-General
Pino Arlacchi, featured 20 heads of government and unveiled a
new UN convention against the scourge of organized crime.
Mr. Arlacchi, the UN's top globocop and the driving force
behind the gathering, has been lionized by the Establishment media
as "the world's mafia buster." Reputedly a top expert on the
Sicilian Mafia, Arlacchi has been criticized by others who dispute
his exaggerated and premature claims of victory over the mob. "To
talk of the death of the Mafia is unwise � it is just sleeping,"31
said Maria Falcone, in a report by The Daily Telegraph of London.
Miss Falcone, sister of famed anti-Mafia investigator Giovanni
Falcone, who was assassinated by a Mafia bomb in 1992, says,
"How can you say that the Mafia is over when some of the biggest
bosses, including the biggest, Bernardo Provenzano, are still at
large?" 32
Good question. Even more important questions concern the UN's

direct and indirect roles in helping establish and expand the global
crime syndicates. Over the past decade, for instance, tens of
billions of dollars that the IMF has pumped into Russia have been
tunneled into the Russian Mafia, fueling the massive growth of this
ruthless criminal behemoth, which the UN now points to as a
prime target of its current crusade.*
At best, this would be evidence of gross incompetence. But any

reasonably intelligent analysis of the available evidence points
directly to conspiracy by the world government advocates to create
the problem in order to justify the "solution," which, as usual,
involves the transfer of more power to the UN.
*See the following articles from The New American: "Crime Fighters Converge,"
August 22, 1994; "G-Men Going Global?" January 23, 1995; "Enemy Within the
Gates" and "Russian Mafia: Organized Crime is Big Business for the KGB,"
February 19, 1996; "Russia's Global Crime Cartel," May 27, 1996; "Drug War on
the West," April 10, 2000 at www.thenewamerican.com/focus/russia/.
Of course, by any reasonable standard, we would have to
acknowledge that many, if not most, of the regimes that comprise

the UN General Assembly are themselves criminal enterprises,
thugocracies in which the cleverest and most ruthless thugs have
clawed their ways to the top. Certainly that is the case as regards
such "respectable" UN member states as Russia, China, Belarus,
Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Montenegro, Albania, Georgia, Cuba, Iran,
Iraq, Syria, Libya, Zimbabwe, and dozens of other regimes where
the organized crime cartels are mere extensions of the
governments' police-state apparatuses. The UN has served well to
cover the official criminal dealings of these governments,
especially the central roles played by the Communist regimes of
Russia, China, and Cuba over the past three decades in directing
and overseeing the largest narcotics operations in the world.*
Mr. Arlacchi, as the UN's head of drug control and crime prevention,
has been a key player in providing this cover to the
criminal regimes involved. Now, according to Arlacchi, the UN
must be empowered to deal with the global crime "crisis." One of
the UN's Palermo proposals calls for the creation of a UN fund to
help poorer states fight the crime syndicates. "This is the new UN,"
said Arlacchi, "We are trying to create the UN of the future."33
The would-be globocops also insist that since organized crime is

now a "transnational phenomenon," the nations of the world must
"harmonize" their criminal codes and crime-fighting methods and
efforts. "What we are trying to do here is set some strong universal
standards for the fight against crime," said Arlacchi at the Palermo
conference. "If we don't do that then criminals simply move their
headquarters from those countries that are fighting the problem to
those that aren't." 34
In this, Arlacchi is parroting the Establishment party line that the

CFR brain trust began promoting in earnest during the
See: Joseph Douglass, Red Cocaine: The Drugging of America and the West (1999).
Also
the following articles from The New American: "Danger! KLA in the USA," May 24,
1999;
"Narco-Terrorism: Drug War on the West," and "Narco-Dollarization," April 10, 2000,
at
www.thenewamerican.com/focus/drugs/.
1990s. Foreign Affairs has been the lead conduit, as usual. Typical
is this offering from CFR factotum Jessica T. Mathews in the
journal's January/February 1997 issue: "Globalized crime is a
security threat that neither police nor the military � the state's
traditional responses � can meet. Controlling it will require states
to pool their efforts and to establish unprecedented cooperation ...
thereby compromising two cherished sovereign roles. If states fail,
if criminal groups can continue to take advantage of porous
borders and transnational financial spaces while governments are
limited to acting within their own territory, crime will have the
winning edge."35
Organized crime isn't the only excuse the one-worlders have for
grabbing global police powers; terrorism is another. Writing in the
Summer 2000 issue of Foreign Policy (the Carnegie Endowment's
sister journal to the CFR's Foreign Affairs), Robert Wright opined:
"The most compelling incentive for broader and deeper
supranational governance may come from terrorism and crime....
Policing will increasingly need to be a cooperative international
venture, and increments of national sovereignty will have to be
surrendered." 36
Similar paeans to global policing in law journals, law enforcement

periodicals, and academic publications have been preparing
the legal community, the law enforcement community, politicians,
and opinion molders for this planned transformation of the UN into
a planetary "Globocop."
Thus we have counterparts to the Palermo conference and the

UN crime convention purporting to offer solutions to the problem
of terrorism. Which, again, would be laughable, except that the
matter is so deadly serious. For, as in the case of organized crime,
the member regimes of the UN who piously intone of the need to
combat terrorism are some of the major promoters and sponsors of
terrorist groups worldwide. Those prime sponsors include: Russia,
China, Cuba, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Algeria, North Korea � to
name a few.
The Insider-Communist cabal is accelerating the drive to install

their planned system of global injustice. They intend to
control not only the judges and the courts but also the prosecutors
and the police. If we allow them to succeed, we will soon be
shackled in a state of affairs too horrible to imagine: a global gulag
in which the most vicious criminals are the jailers.
But now that Bill Clinton is out of the White House, we don't
have to worry on this score, right? We wish that were so; unfortunately
it isn't. The Bush administration has been less than
comforting on this issue. In an October 12, 2000 meeting hosted by
the Council on Foreign Relations, CFR member Condoleezza Rice
� who was then George W. Bush's foreign policy advisor � was

asked whether a Bush administration would support the ICC. Dr.
Rice replied, in part: "Governor Bush has not yet taken a position
on the [ICC]. I will tell you that I think there are concerns for a
country like the United States.... I was deeply disturbed that
someone would think it necessary to investigate whether NATO
had committed war crimes in the bombing of Kosovo."37 In other
words, she was repeating for CFR Team B the same "red herring"
issue that Mr. Scheffer offered as an objection for CFR Team A.
The plan, obviously, is for this false issue to be resolved as a way
to soften U.S. opposition to the ICC. Perhaps NATO troops will be
given immunity from ICC prosecution in exchange for accepting
prominent roles as ICC "enforcers."
It should be plain that the ICC cannot be made acceptable by any
amending or reforming. It is not just flawed around the edges but at
the very core. It is not wrong just in particulars, but in principle.
It must be opposed and rejected en toto. We must heed James

Madison who warned:
... it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold
this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of [the] noblest
characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till
usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in
precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided
the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much,
soon to forget it.
The ICC would be a disaster even if it were proposed by honorable

men. But as the proposed agency of a criminal conspiracy
against freedom and justice, it should be rejected out of hand.
Chapter 9
Civilian Disarmament
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They

promised perpetual peace. They swore, if we gave them our
weapons, that the wars of
the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed They sold us and
delivered us
bound to our foe, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:
"Stick to the
Devil you know."1
� Rudyard Kipling, "The Gods of the

Copybook Headings"
I am a United Nations fighting person.... I would fire upon U.S.
citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the
U.S. government.2
� from a "Combat Arms Survey" given to members of the
United States Marine Corps, 1994
It's high time to gun down the 2nd Amendment... America will
continue to have its own versions of the killing fields as long as
there are millions of handguns floating around waiting for another
psychopath with a grudge.3
� Walter Shapiro, USA Today columnist, antigun

diatribe for September 17, 1999
I think the country has long been ready to restrict the use of guns
... and now I think we're prepared to get rid of the damned things
entirely � the handguns, the semis and the automatics.4
� Roger Rosenblatt essay in Time, August 9, 1999

155
The incredibly audacious schemes for national disarmament set

forth in Freedom From War, Blueprint for the Peace Race, the
Gorbachev-CFR Global Security Project, and other programs discussed
in Chapter 2 are transparent plots to subject all the nations
of the world, including the United States of America, to a global
military-police state under an empowered United Nations. This is
perfectly clear from any reasonable reading of the documents
themselves.
Please understand this critically important point: These proposals

do not advocate "world disarmament," as is generally supposed,
based on the "peace" rhetoric used to promote them. Instead they
propose to transfer world armaments from the nation states to the
global superstate envisioned by the one-world Insiders and their
Communist-socialist cohorts.
This represents the most gigantic, naked grab for power this
world has ever seen. No previous world power or dictator has ever
enjoyed such vast, unchecked power. Not Napoleon or Queen
Elizabeth; not Stalin, Mao, or Hitler.
These proposals amount to giant "trust me" schemes that are so

facially fraudulent as to be ludicrous. They could be compared to
the situation in which city officials get together with Mafia
kingpins and announce that they are going to join forces to fight
the crime and violence that are ripping the community apart. Under
any circumstances, such a proposal would rightly be viewed as
absurdly dangerous and a betrayal of office by those elected to
uphold justice. The sanity and integrity of the officials involved
would be immediately suspect.
However, there would be no lingering doubts about integrity if it

became known to citizens that the mayor is involved in a multimillion
dollar business deal with a mafia-owned dummy
corporation, the police chief's election campaign is being financed
by mob-controlled unions, the district attorney's former law firm
(in which his wife and brother are still partners) is the main counsel
for the chief mafia don, and all the top judges are driving Rolls
Royces and springing gangsters from jail, on the flimsiest of
excuses, faster than they can be apprehended. This
CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT
would especially be the case if the officials involved are so flagrantly

arrogant that they are regularly seen socializing in public
with leading mafiosi and are regular "guests" at gang-owned
restaurants, brothels, and casinos.
Under such circumstances, only the most dimwitted or willfully

blind would fail to see that the city is facing a campaign of systemic
corruption conceived and orchestrated by a criminal conspiracy.
And if the police chief appoints a notorious mob hit-man,
with an arrest record as long as his arm, to head a "task force" of
convicted felons to go about the city disarming all the citizens �
in the interest of peace and security, of course � it should then be
crystal clear that the good citizens had better organize immediately
and sweep the criminals from office, if they hope to have any
chance of saving themselves and their community. In the face of
such overwhelming evidence, only total fools, complete cowards,
or corrupt souls who had already joined the conspiracy would fail
to heed the call to battle.
We are, almost literally, at that very point today. Not only are the
one-world Insiders pushing relentlessly for national disarmament,
but for individual disarmament as well. For many decades the same
globalists who have lobbied ceaselessly for empowering the UN �
the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations, the CFR, etc. �
have carried on a continuous campaign against personal ownership
of firearms.
Who is really calling the tunes and setting the agenda for the gun
control "citizens network"? As usual, if you really want to know,
follow the money. Handgun Control Incorporated, the National
Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy, the Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence, the ACLU, the National Council of Churches,
and other groups that have led this campaign have been dependent
upon these Insider feed troughs for funding. And they have
depended on the CFR-dominated media cartel to disseminate their
disinformation, while demonizing guns, gun owners, and all
organized resistance to personal disarmament.
However, what even most of the organized gun-rights forces

have failed to realize until very recently � and what some are
still oblivious to � is the fact that the program for disarming the
individual private citizen, depriving him of his means of self-
defense, is directly tied to the United Nations and the program for
national disarmament. The Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, which guarantees "the right of the people to keep and
bear arms, shall not be infringed," has to go. Free people with the
means to defend themselves are viewed by the United Nations as a
threat to "peace."
They Want Your Gun

The same militant anti-gun organizations that are pressing for ever
more restrictive limitations on private gun ownership have
obtained NGO status at the UN and have been busy during most of
the 1990s developing the UN's gun control plans. And though their
opening wedge cleverly suggests that they are targeting "illicit"
civilian possession of "military" weapons, it is clear that their real
agenda is outright confiscation of all civilian-owned firearms,
including handguns, rifles, and shotguns.*
In May 2000, hordes of NGO activists converged on New York

City to attend the UN "Millennium Forum," a giant rehearsal
session to prepare the global rent-a-mob for its role as the voice of
"civil society" at the upcoming "main event," the Millennium
Summit of world leaders, which would be gathering at the UN in
September. At their May confab, the NGO leaders produced their
Millennium Forum Action Plan which, among other things, calls
on the UN "to expand the United Nations Arms Register, including
specific names of arms producers and traders, in order to show
production and sale of small arms and light weapons."5 (Emphasis
added.)
For those familiar with the UN's record over the past several
years in promoting an increasingly hostile attitude toward individual
private ownership of firearms, this is a clear call for accelerated
pressure on national governments to ratchet up their gun
control efforts at all levels. Well aware of Mao Zedong's dictum
that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," the one-
world revolutionaries are accelerating their pressure from above
and below to restrict (and eventually outlaw) private ownership of

firearms and concentrate all power in the hands of government.
In his report to the heads of state attending the Millennium

Summit, entitled We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations
in the 21st Century, Secretary-General Kofi Annan asserts that
*Some of the most rabid anti-gun propagandists have occasionally vindicated the
fears of
freedom-loving Americans by admitting that their attacks on handguns or "assault
weapons"
are merely incremental steps in a piecemeal onslaught on all private firearm
ownership. The
Washington Post, for example, in an August 19, 1965 editorial, stated: "We are
inclined to
think that every firearm in the hands of anyone who is not a law enforcement
officer
constitutes an incitement to violence."6 The Post has given no evidence of having
changed
this totalitarian bent in the years since. Likewise, Joyner Sims, deputy
commissioner for the
Florida State Health Department, offered this gem, as quoted by the Chicago
Tribune, on
October 31, 1993: "The goal is an ultimate ban on all guns, but we also have to
take a step at
a time and go for limited access first. Lawmakers are scared to death of this
issue. If we
create anger and outrage on a national level, it would really help the local
folks."
Nelson T. Shields, who preceded Sarah Brady as chairman of Handgun Control, Inc.,
was
quoted in The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, as saying: "We're going to have to take
one step
at a time, and the first step is necessarily ... going to be very modest.... And
the final
problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition �
except
for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and
licensed
gun collectors � totally illegal." (Emphasis in original.) The Los Angeles Times
opined, in
an editorial for November 8, 1993, that "we must severely constrict if not
virtually end the
private possession of guns.... This country does not need one more gun in
circulation; in
fact, it needs about 200 million less."9 Michael K. Beard, president of the
Coalition to Stop
Gun Violence, made this admission in an interview: "Our goal is to not allow
anybody to
buy a handgun.... The stated goal of the most active supporters of restrictions,
aside from the
'moderate' goals they often espouse in the heat of legislative battle, is to
abolish gun
ownership totally."10 The campaign to disarm American citizens has intensified in
recent
years, rising to near hysteria following the Columbine school shootings. The
ultimate
objective of this media-driven campaign was given full voice by "comedienne" Rosie
O'Donnell, who declared on her nationally televised talk show of April 21, 1999: "I
don't
care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say,
"Sorry.' It is 1999. We
have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a
gun I
think you should go to prison."11
"small arms proliferation is not merely a security issue; it is also an issue

of human rights and development."12 He went on:
Even if all arms transfers could be eliminated, however, the problem

posed by the many millions of illicitly held small arms already in
circulation in the world's war zones would remain.... Controlling the
proliferation of illicit weapons is a necessary first step towards the
nonproliferation
of small arms. These weapons must be brought under the
control of states....13
Further, he announced, "The United Nations is convening a conference

on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in 2001."14 NGO
activists and government delegates alike have made it very clear in
disarmament forums already held by the UN that virtually all private
ownership is considered illicit.
The first notice most Americans received concerning the UN plan for
targeting firearms came on May 24, 1994, when they opened their
newspapers to a story by Associated Press reporter Charles J. Hanley on a
new UN stealth gun control initiative for the whole world. The AP article
reported:
So quietly that even the gun lobby hasn't noticed, the United Nations
is beginning to set its sights on global gun control.
The U.N. Disarmament Commission has adopted a working paper, a

basis for future debate, that proposes tighter controls on the gun trade in
the United States and other member nations as a way of combating
international arms trafficking.15
That same day, the Washington Times, in an article entitled "U.S. OKs
study of U.N. gun control," reported:
The Clinton administration has agreed to participate in a discussion

of ways for the United Nations to control the manufacture of guns and
their sales to civilians.
This represents the first U.N. effort to foster regulation of the multibillion-
dollar trade in small arms....
The U.N. working paper declares that governments individually
are "impotent" to deal with global arms trafficking and proposes

"harmonization" of gun control standards around the world to make
trafficking easier to spot and prevent.
"The arms permitted for civilian use ... should be subject to controls
at all points in the chain, from production and/or acquisition up to the
time they are sold to an individual. From then on they should remain
subject to monitoring and control," the paper says.
Any "harmonization" would inevitably mean tightening controls on

the loosely regulated U.S. gun business....16
Concerning the above story, we should note, first of all, the ploy
commonly used in selling UN schemes, which invariably involves
portraying the current U.S. Insider administration (whether Republican or
Democrat) as the coy and reluctant lover. Thus it is reported that "the
Clinton administration has agreed to participate" in the UN gun grab
conference, implying that Clinton and his one-world CFR crew running
the executive branch of the most powerful country in the world are
yielding to reason and the entreaties of the "world community."
Behind-the-Scenes Leadership
In truth, the Clinton administration was working furiously behind the
scenes leading the UN effort. This has been standard procedure, in both
Republican and Democrat administrations, since World War II. The
Insider-chosen occupant of the White House feigns opposition to the UN
treaty, or at least expresses "grave concern" about some clause or
provision (as, for instance, in the case of the Genocide Convention, the
Law of the Sea Treaty, or the treaty for an International Criminal Court),
so that when the administration embraces the treaty during the final push
for ratification, we are supposed to be satisfied that all of our concerns
have been addressed by a president who is looking out for American
interests.
U.S. involvement in the UN gun control plot came long before the
Clinton administration, but, in the words of Harlan Cleveland, that
involvement has been carried out "mostly below
the surface of public attention."* Recall that the 1961 Freedom From War
plan is a three-stage program for the complete disarming of nation states
and the simultaneous arming of the United Nations. In its own words,
Freedom From War states:
In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament ... would pro
*It quickly became apparent that the Insiders intended that the UN gun-grab
conference not
rise above "the surface of public attention." Considering this campaign's brazen
assault on
the U.S. Constitution, American national sovereignty, and the fundamental human
right to
self-defense, it is understandable that both the UN and the Clinton administration
would
want to keep this subversive initiative as quiet as possible and would be reluctant
to discuss
it. Officials at the U.S. State Department and the UN rebuffed repeated attempts by
this
writer to obtain a copy of the working paper or to discuss it in detail. First we
were told that
the AP and Washington Times reports were erroneous and exaggerated, and that
concern
was overblown. Unconvinced, we insisted we would like to judge for ourselves by
examining the document.
At the State Department, after several office transfers, we were informed that
Ambassador
Stephen Ledogar, the U.S. representative on the Disarmament Commission, was out of
the
country and no one else knew how to obtain a copy of the document. At the UN, after
six
departmental transfers, we reached the director of the UN Disarmament Commission, a
Mr.
Sohrab Kheradi, who informed us that the report would not be released until mid-
July
(1994). However, under our persistent entreaties, Mr. Kheradi agreed that he would
arrange
for The New American to receive a pre-release copy forthwith. Days passed, but
still no
working paper. More calls to the UN and more promises to send the report. Weeks
passed.
Finally, we reached the Secretary of the Disarmament Commission himself, Mr. Kuo-
chung
Lin, who had been away on vacation. Mr. Lin assured us that the concerns stirred by
initial
news coverage of the working paper were "based on a misunderstanding" of the nature
and
significance of the report. "This is only the report of the chairman of the Working
Group for
discussion over the next two years," he explained. "It doesn't establish any policy
or have
any binding effect." But is it not true, we asked, that its purpose is to bring
about the
establishment of policy that will have "binding effect"?
No, no, he laughed. Its purpose is simply to encourage "debate and discussion."17
Of course, as a UN official from Communist China, where debate and discussion can
land
you in prison, and where unarmed dissenters are unceremoniously squashed beneath
the
tracks of army tanks, Mr. Lin's cavalier attitude toward attacks on the Second
Amendment is
understandable, even expected. It is the attitudes and actions of American
officials, who
collude with the likes of Comrade Lin, that are far more troubling.
ceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the
progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force....
The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those agreed
types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to
maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted
to peaceful purposes.18[Emphasis added.]
"All other armaments would be destroyed." Notice that no provision

is made to exempt arms owned by private citizens. An
innocent oversight? Hardly. The UN itself, as we've already seen,
is hardly sympathetic to private gun ownership. That's to be
expected, since the Insiders who designed it and support it, along
with all of the Communist regimes and most of the non-
Communist countries who make up the UN membership, share a
statist hostility toward civilian possession of arms. Anyone
familiar with the UN's history in this matter, as well as the history
of its legal interpretation of treaties, will recognize that private
arms are targeted for destruction under the term "all other
armaments." We can expect that this terminology in Freedom
From War and other agreements, conventions, and treaties will be
cited as legally requiring the U.S. to disarm its civilian population.
All under the guise of following "the rule of law."
To initiate the Freedom From War program, President Kennedy

signed Public Law 87-297 (H.R. 9118), creating the United States
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA). According to
that legislation, "as used in this Act, the terms 'arms control' and
'disarmament' mean 'the identification, verification, inspection,
limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and
armaments of all kinds under international agreement ... to
establish an effective system of international control...*19
(Emphasis added.)
In its "Second Annual Report to Congress" (February 1963), the

ACDA presented a simple graphic depiction (see top of next page)
demonstrating its proposed three-stage disarmament process.20
Observe that in Stage III, as explained in Freedom
163
U.S.THREE-STAGE
DISARMAMENT PLAN
This diagram appeared in the 1963 "Second Annual Report to Congress" of the
U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

From War and Blueprint for the Peace Race, the U.S. armed forces
cease to exist and only "internal security forces" � i.e. those to be
used against American citizens � are permitted. Of course, under
this scheme, the UN "peacekeeping machinery" will be superior to
the "internal security forces" and will be able to dictate the "laws"
that will be enforced.
Authors of Freedom From War

Official responsibility for developing and initiating the disarmament
program outlined in Freedom From War goes to President
Kennedy and his Secretaries of State (Dean Rusk) and Defense
(Robert S. McNamara), both of whom were members of the CFR.
The real authors of Freedom From War and Public Law 87-297,
however, were John J. McCloy, the chairman of the CFR, and
Arthur H. Dean, a CFR director � together with Valerian Zorin,
their Soviet counterpart.21
McCloy, Kennedy's chief disarmament adviser and negotiator

with the Soviets, entered the Establishment through the Wall
Street law firm of Cravath, Swaine and Moore, and later became
a senior partner at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley, and McCloy, a firm

closely tied to the Rockefeller family. He served as an Assistant
Secretary of War under FDR and as U.S. High Commissioner to
occupied Germany. He headed the World Bank, Chase Manhattan
Bank, the Ford Foundation, and, most importantly, from 19531970
was chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. He was
an adviser to nine presidents and sat on the boards of directors of
many corporations. He and a small group of CFR confederates
"selected" the presidential candidates for both the Republican and
Democrat parties, and then selected the cabinets, ambassadors, and
other top appointments of the winning contestant.22 Few would
dispute journalist Richard Rovere's characterization of McCloy in
the May 1962 Esquire magazine as "chairman of the American
Establishment."23
McCloy's blue-chip resume, however, included a few red flags.

While serving in the War Department, McCloy approved an order
permitting Communist Party members to become officers in the
U.S. Army.24 He defended identified Communist John Carter

Vincent and supported pro-Communist atomic scientist J. Robert
Oppenheimer.25 In 1946, FBI head J. Edgar Hoover warned
President Truman of an "enormous Soviet espionage ring in
Washington," and expressed concern over the "pro-Soviet leanings"
of McCloy, Dean Acheson, and Alger Hiss.26 Hiss, of course,
was later exposed as a Soviet agent. He was also a member of the
CFR and one of the main architects of the United Nations.
Assisting McCloy in drafting Freedom From War and the statute
for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was Arthur H.
Dean.27 Dean was chairman of the U.S. delegation for two years to
the UN disarmament conferences in Geneva.
A junior partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, Dean became the

senior partner when the prestigious law firm's headman, John
Foster Dulles (a CFR founder), was appointed to fill a vacant
Senate seat.28 Dean was also vice-chairman of the Institute of
Pacific Relations (IPR), the Communist-run outfit most responsible
� together with our State Department � for turning China

over to the Communists in 1949.29 When IPR member Alfred Kohlberg

tried heroically to expose the treason within IPR, it was Dean who
scuttled the investigation.30 In 1952, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
issued a scathing report on the IPR, citing it as "an instrument of
Communist policy, propaganda and military intelligence."31 The Senate
report also concluded:
Members of the small core of officials and staff members who

controlled IPR were either Communist or pro-Communist....
The effective leadership of the IPR used IPR prestige to promote the
interests of the Soviet Union in the United States....
The IPR was a vehicle used by the Communists to orientate
American far eastern policy toward Communist objectives.32
With the above information in mind, we direct the reader's attention to

The Wise Men, the glowing 1986 hagiography of McCloy and five of his
globalist CFR cohorts, authored by Walter Isaacson (CFR) and Evan
Thomas (CFR).33 This one-world apologia provides many admissions
against interest, including a very significant photograph on page 605
showing McCloy and Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev chest deep in the
waters of Khrushchev's swimming pool, in a warm, comradely embrace,
with Khrushchev's arm around McCloy's neck.
So, let us summarize some of the ground we've just covered: The
Freedom From War scheme for disarming the U.S. (nationally and
individually) can be traced back directly to a Russian Communist
(Valerian Zorin) and two top Pratt House one-worlders with extensive ties
to Communist intelligence operations, one of whom cavorted in a
swimming pool with the "Butcher of Budapest," the Communist dictator
who bellowed at the U.S., "We will bury you."
Yet Dean and McCloy, with the help of their CFR associates in the
media, passed themselves off as Republicans, and conservative, anti-
Communist Republicans at that!
Destructive Duo: Clark and Sohn

Still another important key to understanding the true nature
and history of the Kennedy-CFR disarmament plan, and its successor

incarnations, is the team of Establishment Wall Street
lawyer Grenville Clark and Harvard law professor Louis B. Sohn
(CFR). John J. McCloy had been strongly influenced by Grenville
Clark at a military training camp during the summer of 1915.34
Clark was a vice president and founder of the United World
Federalists (UWF, which later changed its name to the World
Federalist Association).35 The UWF/WFA, which has been one of
the most hardcore groups advocating world government, was
actually conceived at a private Conference on World Government
in 1946 at Clark's home in Dublin, New Hampshire.36
"It has been well said," according to Mr. Clark, "that in our
modern age the obdurate adherence to national sovereignty and
national armed forces represents a form of insanity which may,
however, be cured by a species of shock treatment."37 He spelled
out that "shock treatment" in World Peace Through World Law, a
detailed plan for socialist world government through a revised UN
Charter.38
This text, co-authored with Professor Sohn and published in 1958

by Harvard University Press, is venerated by all "world order"
advocates. It proposes a global superstate in which a "world police
force" known as the United Nations Peace Force would be invested
with "a coercive force of overwhelming power."39 "This world
police force," wrote Clark and Sohn, "would be the only military
force permitted anywhere in the world after the process of national
disarmament has been completed."40 (Emphasis in original.)
However, these architects of "world order" would not be satisfied

with a monopoly of military power. They believed that "even
with the complete elimination of all [national] military forces there
would necessarily remain substantial, although strictly limited and
lightly armed, internal police forces and that these police forces,
supplemented by civilians armed with sporting rifles and fowling
pieces, might conceivably constitute a serious threat to a
neighboring country in the absence of a well-disci-plined and
heavily armed world police."41 (Emphasis in original.)
Thus, Chapter 3, Article 13 of the Clark/Sohn UN scheme mandates

that "the strength of the internal police forces of any nation shall not
exceed two for each 1000 of its population,"42 and Article 14 orders strict
controls on the possession of arms and ammunition by police and private
citizens:
No nation shall allow the possession by its internal police forces of

any arms or equipment except of the types permitted by the regulations
adopted by the General Assembly ... and in no case shall the number of
revolvers and rifles combined exceed one for each member of the
internal police forces, the number of automatic rifles one for each
hundred members of such forces, and the ammunition supplies 100
rounds per rifle or revolver and 1,000 rounds per automatic rifle. No
nation shall allow the possession by any public or private organization
or individual of any military equipment whatever or of any arms except
such small arms as are reasonably needed by duly licensed hunters or
by duly licensed individuals for personal protection.43
Care to speculate as to how difficult it would be under the envisioned

UN regime to become "duly licensed" for hunting or personal protection?
Try next to impossible, based upon the known animus of the one-world
elite toward popular ownership of firearms, and the established record on
this matter of the Communist, socialist, and authoritarian regimes that
constitute the overwhelming majority in the UN.
The Clark/Sohn plan also would eliminate the "problem" of private

citizens' access to ammunition by providing that "no nation shall produce
or allow the production of any explosives except insofar as the General
Assembly may authorize...."44 Moreover, "every nation shall obtain a
special license from the [UN] Inspector-General for ... [t]he operation by
it or by any public or private organization or individual ... engaged in the
production of any light arms, ammunition ... or of tools for any such pro-
duction."45
It also provides that "no nation shall produce or allow the pro
duction of any arms, weapons or military equipment whatever, or

of tools for such production, except" (emphasis added), and then
goes on to list those few exceptions: internal police and the tiny
minority of "duly licensed individuals."46
In "Annex I" of the Clark/Sohn program, we are told: "Finally,

this Annex makes provision for enforcement measures against
individuals, organizations and nations who may commit violations
of the Annex or of any law or regulation enacted thereunder."47
(Emphasis added.) And, presaging the International Criminal
Court, which would not be formally launched until 40 years later
(1998), it states: "All penal proceedings against individuals and
private organizations would be brought by a new legal official �
the United Nations Attorney-General � to be appointed pursuant
to Part D of Annex III."48 So, you see, the global prosecutor post
established by the ICC Statute of Rome in 1998 was actually the
implementation of the Insider-directed Clark/Sohn plan issued 40
years earlier.
And supposing some "individuals, organizations and nations"

decide they don't like the emerging tyranny of the globalists and
determine to defy the "authority" of the new behemoth? For precisely
these contingencies the World Peace Through World Law
plan provides that "the United Nations Peace Force shall be regularly
provided with the most modern weapons and equipment,"
with special provision being made "for the use of nuclear weapons
in extreme circumstances."49
We needn't worry about abuse of such awesome power because

the UN "shall in no event employ nuclear weapons except when
the General Assembly ... has declared that nothing less ... will
suffice to prevent or suppress a serious breach of the peace or a
violent and serious defiance of the authority of the United
Nations."50 (Emphasis added.) Who could ask for better assurance
than that? No need for concrete checks and balances when we have
the promises of the one-worlders and the sound judgment and
moral rectitude of the UN General Assembly to Protect us!
The Plot Continues

Grenville Clark passed on to his eternal destination in 1967 but
Professor Sohn has remained actively involved in the "new world
order" business, writing legal treatises and training new generations
of one-world lawyers, legislators, judges, and propagandists.
The current UN drive for civilian disarmament is unmistakably a
continuation of the scheme so methodically scripted by Clark and
Sohn, adopted as official policy under Freedom From War, and
developed in subsequent treaties under successive administrations.
In language very similar to that used by Clark and Sohn, the

August 19, 1999 UN "Report of the Group of Governmental
Experts on Small Arms" lists, as weapons to be banned, and
ultimately confiscated, "revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles
and carbines, submachine guns, assault rifles and light machineguns."
51
Furthermore, the 1999 "Experts" document is listed as part of the

UN's provisional agenda for "general and complete disarmament"52
� a phrase that figures prominently in the texts of World Peace

Through World Law, Freedom From War, and subsequent policies.
Suffice it to say the UN has a very literal understanding of the
phrase "general and complete disarmament."
And what if you fail to turn in or register, say, your .22 rifle,
your .38 pistol, or your gunpowder and reloading equipment, and
you are charged with unlawful possession of "military equipment"
under the UN General Assembly's ever-changing regulations? The
UN Attorney-General (or his subordinates) will bring charges and
a UN tribunal will be your judge and jury, Clark and Sohn say.
And since they anticipate far more "business" than can be handled
by a single court, a whole new global judiciary system must be put
in place:
In order to provide means for the trial of individuals accused of violating the
disarmament provisions of the revised Charter or of other offenses against the
Charter or laws enacted by the General Assembly ... provision is also made for
regional United Nations
courts, inferior to the International Court of Justice, and for the review by the
International Court of decisions of these regional courts.
Our Global Neighborhood

The UN is proceeding according to the Clark and Sohn prescription
� with help from the usual suspects. In 1995, the UN's
50th anniversary year, the UN-funded Commission on Global
Governance (CGG) released Our Global Neighborhood, its much-
heralded report for UN reform.54 But the CGG's recipe for "reform"
is in reality a regurgitation of Clark and Sohn's deadly brew.
Targeting America's heritage of gun ownership, the CGG warned,
"Widespread criminalization can threaten the very functioning of a
state. In the United States, the easy availability of weapons goes
with a startling level of daily killings." "What is needed,"
according to the CGG's globo-savants, "is demilitarization of
international society."55 The report explained:
Militarization today not only involves governments spending more than

necessary to build up their military arsenals. It has increasingly become a
global societal phenomenon, as witnessed by the rampant acquisition and use of
increasingly lethal weapons by civilians � whether individuals seeking a
means of self-defence, street gangs, criminals, political opposition groups, or
terrorist organizations.56
Yes, in the view of these globalists, the man defending his family
and his home against robbers and gangsters, or the woman
defending her person and her virtue against a rapist, have no more
right to a firearm than do the rapists, robbers, gang bangers, and
other vicious predators causing the "widespread criminalization"
the CGG is decrying. Accordingly, the CGG statists "strongly
endorse community initiatives ... to encourage the disarming of
civilians." 57
The CGG report, remember, was a collaborative effort of top

members of the CFR, the UN plutocracy, the European Union, the

Socialist International and various Communist Parties (see Chapter
2). It prefigured the 1999 UN "Report of the Group of
Governmental Experts on Small Arms," which complained bitterly
that "there are wide differences among States [nations] as regards
which types of arms are permitted for civilian possession, and as
regards the circumstances under which they can legitimately be
owned, carried and used. Such wide variation in national laws
raises difficulties for effective regional or international
coordination." 58
Among the proposals adopted by the panel and enthusiastically

endorsed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his foreword to
the report are measures aimed at increasing "control over the legal
possession of small arms and light weapons and over their
transfer," expanding prohibitions on "trade and private ownership
of small arms and light weapons," and tightening efforts to "control
ammunition." 59
The UN Charter bars UN intervention in "matters which are

essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state," 60 but the
UN, in typical fashion, has been defining "domestic jurisdiction"
out of existence. Kofi Annan explained in a September 20, 1999
address before the UN General Assembly that "state sovereignty,
in its most basic sense, is being redefined." What is needed, Annan
continued, is "a new, more broadly defined, more widely
conceived definition of national interest in the new century [where]
the collective interest is the national interest."61 Four days later,
Annan emphasized that "controlling the easy availability of small
arms was a prerequisite for a successful peace-building process,"
which is why the United Nations "had played a leading role in
putting the issue of small arms firmly on the international agenda."
62
All of this could, of course, be dismissed as meaningless UN

blather � except for the fact that it is fully supported by the U.S.
Insiders, including elected officials whom American citizens are
naively counting on to protect us against any encroachments from
the UN. Kofi Annan emphasizes in his foreword to the
172
"Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms"

that it was "prepared, and adopted by consensus" and was the
nroduct of "unanimity" among the "expert" members of the
63
group.
If we accept Annan's assertion at face value, we can presume

that none of the "experts" objected to this full-tilt assault on the
right to keep and bear arms. Yet among the "experts" who drafted
the report was U.S. State Department Senior Foreign Affairs
Specialist Herbert L. Calhoun. And none other than Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright (CFR) told the first-ever UN Security
Council Small Arms Ministerial, on September 24, 1999, that "the
United States strongly supports these steps," that we "welcome the
important precedent which the UN has set," and that the U.S.
would work to "commit to finishing negotiations on a firearms
protocol to the UN Transnational Organized Crime Convention by
the end of 2000." 64
The Orchestrated Disarmament Choir The orchestrated "pressure

from below" was already building steam by that time. In November
1998, the UNESCO Courier noted that "the political tides may be
changing. An international campaign is now underway with nongovernmental
organizations of all stripes and colours �
disarmament and gun control groups along with development and
human rights associations in the North and South � building
common ground with the active support of governments like Mali,
Canada, Norway and Japan." 65 As in every other case we have
seen, this "international campaign" of NGOs is entirely a front for
the one-world internationalists, who pay the bills via foundations
and government (i.e., taxpayer-funded) grants.
On September 24, 1999 Kofi Annan reported to a ministerial-

level meeting of the Security Council on small arms: "The
momentum for combating small arms proliferation has also come
from civil society, which has been increasingly active on this issue.
The establishment early this year of the International Action
Network on Small Arms [IANSA] has helped to sharpen
public focus on small arms, which has helped us gain the public
support necessary for success."66 IANSA is intended to "provide a
transnational framework" for the mobilization of a broad citizen
movement in favor of gun control, according to the organizational
goals posted on its website.67 The services IANSA intends to
provide the UN-led global gun control movement include
"campaigning and advocacy strategies," "developing culturally
appropriate 'message' strategies," "information sharing" among
NGOs, and "constituency building." 68
And where will the funding for this propaganda campaign come
from? IANSA notes on its website that its eight most significant
financial donors include five government agencies: the Belgian
Ministry for Development Cooperation; the Swedish Ministry of
Foreign Affairs; the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the
United Kingdom Department for International Development; and
the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In other words, this "nongovernmental"
organization is purely a front for the disarmament-
obsessed totalitarians in the increasingly militant socialist regimes
of the European Union.
The UN is putting our tax dollars to effective use in this campaign

as well. Among other things, it is aggressively pushing its
recent video, Armed to the Teeth.69 This UN "shockumentary" is a
brutal, hour-long diatribe aimed at convincing the viewer that
"small arms" are the cause of all violence, crime, and bloodshed in
the world. Replete with gruesome film footage of victims of crime
and genocide, it relentlessly demonizes firearms and pounds home
the message that this carnage will not stop until civilian
populations are disarmed.
Armed to the Teeth invests firearms with human-like qualities,

so as to more easily and effectively vilify these targeted instruments.
"A killer is on the loose," we are told in the video's opening
scenes. The "killer," of course, is "small arms," i.e., guns, which
are shown over and over in the most menacing ways that the
video's creators could come up with. We are told that "small arms
are not fussy about the company they keep.... They can
murder indiscriminately. Men and women, young and old, rich and poor."
Amidst Hollywood-style edits of sound effects and images of gore and
violence, comes the message: "Humankind is beginning a new
millennium under the sign of the gun, and small arms are like uninvited
guests who won't leave. Once they take over a country they are virtually
impossible to get rid of."
Yes, according to this UN propaganda, a horde of "small arms" are

"taking over" countries. Utilizing dramatic footage from Mozambique,
Rwanda, South Africa, Brazil, Kosovo, Albania, Afghanistan, and
elsewhere, the video repetitiously hammers this theme. At the same time,
it conspicuously refrains from pointing any fingers at the real criminals
responsible for the carnage it depicts: the human agents who are using the
firearms for criminal purposes. This would be like fomenting a worldwide
campaign against matches and gasoline because of the death and
destruction caused by arson � and completely ignoring the need to
apprehend the arsonists! The UN filmmakers know this, of course. They
have focused on the matches and gasoline and ignored the arsonists for
some very important reasons.
One reason is that they intend to so vilify "small arms" and associate
them with everything evil that people will have an automatic emotional
aversion to firearms and agree to civilian disarmament. Another reason
for the conscious failure of the UN videographers to mention the
responsibility of human agency is to divert attention from the UN's role in
the very crimes it is denouncing. In virtually all of the examples shown in
Armed to the Teeth, the UN and its institutions (particularly the IMF and
World Bank) played major roles in creating chaos and revolution that
produced the bloody scenes.
Rwandan Genocide
The UN's video treatment of Rwanda is especially noteworthy. Rwanda's
1994 genocide is one of the strongest examples imaginable proving the
case against civilian disarmament. The slaughter of some 800,000
Rwandans in just 103 days makes it the most concentrated genocide in the
bloody 20th century. This
horrible mass-murder was possible because the killers � in this

case, the government forces and government-organized mobs �
were armed and the victims were not. Rwanda's draconian 1979
gun control legislation made it almost impossible for civilians to
possess firearms. The government was thus given a monopoly on
lethal force. Ultimately it used that force, and its victims were
helpless before it.
Most of the Rwandan victims were not shot; they were brutally
hacked to death with machetes or speared and clubbed to death.
According to survivors and eyewitnesses, many of the victims did
not meekly submit to slaughter; they tried to defend themselves
with stones, sticks, and their bare hands. In the few instances
where the victims were able to obtain firearms they succeeded in
delaying or limiting the carnage and saving lives. The most
detailed and enlightening analysis of the Rwandan genocide we
have seen is published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearm
Ownership (JPFO). Their heavily documented 1997 study,
Rwanda's Genocide, 1994, authoritatively states: "The careful
planning of this genocide � and the near-total disarmed state of its
victims � explains the speed and intensity of the murder process."
70
The JPFO study cites abundant evidence to support the claim

"that 'gun control' was a critical element in this genocide."71 "Had
the citizens ... not been disarmed," it notes, "they might have
deterred the genocide entirely, or at very least reduced its extent.
Those who place their faith in any other form of prevention �
especially in the UN or other supranational organizations � seem
blind to some hard realities." 72 After surveying the facts compiled
by JPFO researchers, it is difficult to dispute that assertion.
Rwanda's Genocide, 1994 concludes with this sobering
assessment:
The hard lesson of Rwanda is that the only potential saviors for
the intended targets of a genocidal government are the intended
victims themselves. No one else is likely to care enough to do anything
beyond protest, or to be able to provide direct help fast
176
enough. The intended victims of a genocidal government can save themselves

only if they have ready access to firearms, particularly military-type. For them
to have access to firearms, 'gun control' must be destroyed. How many more
mountains of corpses need to be piled-up before this lesson is learned? 73
This bitter truth learned from the horrors of Rwanda comports

completely with what we know of the other major genocides of the
20th century. Again, we can thank the JPFO for documenting the
critical role of civilian disarmament, i.e., "gun control," for the
slaughters in all of these cases. In their important 1994 study,
Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" is the Key to Genocide, the JPFO
provides a valuable examination of the massive genocides in
Ottoman Turkey, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Red China,
Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia.74 The report also photographically
reproduces the gun control laws (along with English
translations) that disarmed the victims and made the genocides
possible in each of those countries. It is a devastating indictment of
the program for civilian disarmament that the UN is pushing for
the entire world!
UN "Peacemaking": Drenched in Blood

The one-worlders' totalitarian scheme for personal disarmament
and subjugation of all to an omnipotent UN is no longer idle
theory; it has already received several recent trial runs, albeit on a
limited scale. In Somalia, Haiti, and Kosovo the UN's
"peacekeepers" have disarmed the civilian populations and left
them at the mercy of UN-supported totalitarian thugs. (In Rwanda
too, it should be noted, it was the UN-supported totalitarian regime
of General Habyarimana that carried out the horrendous slaughter.)
To get a picture of what the UN program for "peace" through

disarmament is really all about, we need to take a brief look at one
of the UN's most vicious crimes: its brutal 1961 invasion of
peaceful Katanga, in the Congo. In that murderous assault on the
people of the Congo, the UN's sainted "Blue Helmets" were
tasked with supporting Soviet-trained Communist terrorist Patrice

Lumumba against the democratically elected, Christian, pro-
Western president of Katanga, Moise Tshombe.
Since the incredible story of the UN's atrocities in Katanga has

been consigned to the Orwellian "memory hole" by the CFR's
"ruling class journalists" and "court historians," it is important that
we make at least a modest attempt to recount what happened there.
In The Blue Helmets: A Review of United Nations Peace-keeping,
a self-serving encomium published by the UN, we read: "The
United Nations Operation in the Congo ... July 1960 until June
1964, is by far the largest peacekeeping operation ever established
by the United Nations in terms of the responsibilities it had to
assume, the size of its area of operation and the manpower
involved. It included ... a peace-keeping force which comprised at
its peak strength nearly 20,000 officers and men...."75
What were all of these "peacekeepers" doing in the Congo?

Supporting Congolese "self-determination" and "independence"
says the UN. In reality, they were propping up a succession of
Soviet stooges who were conducting a grisly reign of terror. For
many years the Soviets had been supporting and establishing
"independence" and "anti-colonialist" movements throughout the
world � always with the aim of converting European colonies into
new colonies in the global Communist empire. The United Nations
proved over and over again that it supported this new Soviet
colonialism by materially supporting the Kremlin-backed terrorists
through its various agencies and by bestowing political legitimacy
on them from the rostrum of the General Assembly.
In the Congo, Moscow had hedged its bets, as usual, by backing

several thugs. As soon as Belgium's King Baudouin announced
that the Congo was to be given its independence, however, the
Soviets made clear that their top choice for viceroy in the area was
Patrice Lumumba.
Lumumba, a thoroughly corrupt dope addict, ex-convict, and

murderer, was lionized by the CFR media machine as the George
Washington of Africa. Emboldened by his international acclaim
and the financial and military backing of the U.S.S.R. and Red
China, Lumumba dropped all pretenses of "democratic rule" and
began an orgy of rape, pillage, torture, and terror.
On September 15, 1960, he issued a lengthy and detailed directive

to the heads of the various provinces of the Congo which left
no doubt as to his brutal intentions. Dictators frequently disguise
their brutal decrees in genteel-sounding prose or bureaucratic
legalese, but Lumumba, intoxicated with his new power, and
brimming with the Marxist drivel he had learned from his Soviet
masters, did not bother with such camouflage. In his directive,
entitled, "Measures To Be Applied During the First Stages of the
Dictatorship," he let it be known that he had assumed "full powers"
and then listed the following points as the "most effective and
direct means of succeeding rapidly in our task":
Establish an absolute dictatorship and apply it in all its forms.
Terrorism, essential to subdue the population.
Proceed systematically, using the army, to arrest all members of the
opposition.... I sent the National Army to arrest Tshombe and Kalonji and even
to kill them if possible....
Imprison the ministers, deputies and senators.... Arrest them all without pity
and treat them with ten times more severity than ordinary individuals.
Revive the system of flogging....
Inflict profound humiliations on the people thus arrested.... [S]trip them in
public, if possible in the presence of their wives and children.
...If some of them succumb as a result of certain atrocities, which is possible
and desirable, the truth should not be divulged but it should be announced, for
instance, that Mr. X has escaped and cannot be found....76
That was just the first stage of Lumumba's Communist revolution.

He ended his directive with the promise that "the second
stage will be to destroy anyone who criticizes us."77 He ended a
subsequent memorandum with this finale: "Long live the Soviet

Union! Long live Khrushchev!" 78
Long before this, however, Lumumba had left no doubt as to his

brutal nature and totalitarian orientation. He had actually put his
dictatorship of terrorism into practice before announcing it to his
provincial officials in the directive cited above. Nevertheless,
President Eisenhower (CFR) joined Soviet dictator Nikita
Khrushchev in supporting a resolution authorizing the UN to send
troops to assist Lumumba! He then dispatched U.S. Air Force
planes to transport UN troops and supplies for that "peacekeeping"
mission. He welcomed Lumumba to the U.S. with a royal reception
and showered Lumumba's new regime with millions of dollars.
However, there was widespread opposition to Lumumba's Soviet

brand of "independence" throughout the Congo. The stoutest
opposition arose in Katanga Province, a multi-racial area about the
size of France, under the able leadership of the educated and pro-
Western Moise Tshombe. Declaring, "I am seceding from chaos,"
President Tshombe announced Katanga's independence from
Lumumba's murderous central Congo government. Amidst the sea
of carnage and terror that was then the Congo, the province of
Katanga remained, by comparison, an island of peace, order, and
stability.
Did the UN peacekeepers try to put an end to Lumumba's reign

of terror � which included the systematic slaughter of civilian
men, women, and children? No, they instead used UN power to
squash the fledgling republic of Katanga and force it back under
Lumumba's control.
"From the outset of the hostilities," say the UN disinformation

specialists in The Blue Helmets, "United Nations military and
civilian officers did their best, in cooperation with the International
Committee of the Red Cross, to relieve the distress caused to
innocent civilians." 79 That lie, as well as hundreds of others in the
book's treatment of the Congo operation, could have been written
by propagandists from the Kremlin (or Pratt House) � and, in fact,
probably was. In truth, the UN's blue hel
mets engaged in the very war crimes that the UN now demands
global jurisdiction to protect the world from. UN planes knowingly

and intentionally bombed hospitals, churches, and schools.
Its troops attacked the same targets, as well as ambulances, and
slaughtered noncombatant men, women, and children.*
After Lumumba's mysterious death, UN support swung to the

militantly pro-Communist Cyrille Adoula, and then to Communist
Antoine Gizenga. In September 1961, U.S. newspapers carried this
account of the UN invasion of Elisabethville, the capital of
Katanga:
The UN declared martial law and ... Michel Tombelaine of
France, deputy UN civilian commander, announced over the UN
controlled radio that any civilians found in illegal possession of arms will be
summarily
executed. [Emphasis added.]
Yes, here was the UN imposing Communist-style disarmament
� which is always a prelude to Communist-style terror. What the

CFR-run U.S. media didn't tell the American people was that Mr.
Tombelaine had been identified as a member of the French
*More details of this important and incredibly vicious chapter of UN history can be
found in
the following: The Fearful Master by G. Edward Griffin;81 Who Killed the Congo? by
Philippa Schuyler;82 Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends by Smith Hempstone;83 and
46
Angry Men by the 46 doctors of Elisabethville.84 In 1962, a private group of
Americans,
outraged at our government's actions against the freedom-seeking Katangese,
attempted to
capture on film the truth about what was happening in the Congo. They produced
Katanga:
The Untold Story, an hour-long documentary narrated by Congressman Donald L.
Jackson.85
With news-reel footage and testimony from eyewitnesses, including a compelling
interview
with Tshombe himself, the program exposed the criminal activities and brutal
betrayal
perpetrated on a peaceful people by the Eisenhower and then Kennedy
administrations, other
Western leaders, and top UN officials. It documents the fact that UN (including
U.S.) planes
deliberately bombed Katanga's schools, hospitals, and churches, while UN troops
machine-
gunned and bayoneted civilians, school children, and Red Cross workers who tried to
help
the wounded. This film is now available on videotape, and is "must-viewing" for
Americans
who are determined that this land or any other land shall never experience similar
UN
atrocities. (For ordering information, please see above-referenced endnote.)
Communist Party by a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Judiciary

Committee.86 What they also failed to report (with a few brave
exceptions) was that the UN forces were carrying out vicious
atrocities against unarmed Katangese men, women, and children.
Nevertheless, the CFR-dominated Kennedy administration, like the
Eisenhower CFR gang before it, backed the Lumumba-Adoula-
Gizenga lineup and opposed the pro-U.S. Tshombe.
More CFR-UN Treachery and Butchery

This sickening, treacherous pattern has been repeatedly reen-acted
in more recent times. In Somalia, for instance, the U.S.-led UN
misadventure, Operation Restore Hope, was launched under
"humanitarian" pretenses to suppress the forces that had ousted the
brutal, Soviet-installed Communist dictatorship of Mohammed
Siad Barre. During his reign of over two decades, Siad Barre had
been the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars from the U.S.
and the UN.
After U.S. troops were sent to provide humanitarian assistance,

their orders mutated into disarming the "civilian militias." The
CFR team in the Bush administration and the CFR team in the
succeeding Clinton administration � together with their CFR
media allies � aimed all of their vitriol at the forces of General
Mohammed Aidid, the leader most responsible for the overthrow
of Communist dictator Barre, and the leader with the broadest
national support.
General Aidid became the villain du jour. He and his civilian

"militias" had to be disarmed, we were told. The disarmament
program escalated into an illegal UN order for the arrest of General
Aidid, with U.S. Army Rangers and Delta Force commandos
assigned the job of effecting the arrest warrant. The result: a
bloody U.S. defeat, with 19 American soldiers dead, 75 wounded,
and ugly video footage � agonizingly reminiscent of Vietnam �
of an American pilot being dragged through the streets of
Mogadishu by an angry Somali mob.
What very few Americans ever learned was that the basis for
the illegal warrant issued by the UN Security Council was a

deceptive report written by a CFR operative. The document cited
by the UN as justification for the warrant was The Report of an
Inquiry, Conducted Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 837,
Into the 5 June 1993 Attack on UN Forces in Somalia written by
Tom Farer (CFR), a professor of international law at American
University in Washington, D.C.87 This "Farer Report" was claimed
to "prove" General Aidid's guilt in various crimes, most
particularly the June 5, 1993 attack of Somalis upon UN Pakistani
troops that resulted in the deaths of a number of the "Blue
Helmets."
The Farer Report, however, proved to be a tissue of lies and

deception. It also proved to be an unintended indictment of the UN,
rather than Aidid. For the report showed that the deadly attack of
June 5th had been precipitated not by General Aidid, but by a UN
provocation. Specifically, it was the UN's blatantly illegal seizure
of Radio Mogadishu, an organ of the free press of Somalia, that
caused a spontaneous attack by the Somali people on the UN
criminals.88 Moreover, the Farer Report inadvertently shows that
the UN-CFR cabal knowingly used this provocation as a pretext for
grabbing more power � and for using American troops to do its
dirty work!89
Obviously, the UN had to suppress its own self-indicting report.

Which is precisely what it did. It refused to release the report to the
U.S. Congress and the American people � even though we were

paying for almost the entire operation and our soldiers were dying
because of the UN's illegal and deceitful orders.
The New American magazine obtained a copy of the forbidden
Farer Report and published a major expose revealing the conspiracy
and deception involved.90 To date, this remains the only
significant press exposure given to this incredibly explosive report.
The CFR media cartel did not touch it, naturally; they were busy,
instead, diverting the public's attention with the O.J. Simpson and
Menendez brothers murder trials and other simi-larly bizarre
scandals. And the CFR's Republican managers in
Congress, such as Newt Gingrich (CFR) and Bob Dole (who might
as well be CFR), made sure that GOP members wouldn't raise a
fuss over this UN outrage � even after the Republicans took
control of Congress in 1994.
As a result, soon after the Somalia debacle, American troops

were sent into Haiti on another UN assignment. Their job: restore
to power the murderous, Communist, psychopath Jean-Bertrand
Aristide,91 so beloved by the CFR clerisy. Our troops had another
job, as well: Disarm Aristide's opposition. Thanks to the
mandatory gun registration program in effect for many years in
Haiti, the soldiers knew exactly where to go to confiscate the
weapons. U.S. soldiers interviewed by this writer said they did not
like this job because they could see that it was leaving many
obviously law-abiding citizens and their families open to slaughter
by Aristide's Communist mobs and common thugs. Some soldiers
admitted that they frequently disobeyed the orders to confiscate
weapons and left them in the hands of those they believed needed
protection. Several of these soldiers couldn't help commenting that
they feared the Haiti exercise might prove to be a rehearsal for
similar house-to-house searches for arms at some not-too-distant
point in America's future.
More recently, U.S. forces were sent into Kosovo � again, initially,
with the task of restoring order and providing support for
"humanitarian assistance." Soon, however, they were ordered to
disarm the Serbs, while concomitantly helping to arm the narcoterrorist
Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The KLA is a vicious
Albanian Communist mafia that is flooding heroin and other drugs
into Europe and the U.S.92 It is also closely allied with the terror
regime in Iran and Osama bin Laden, the notorious financier of
anti-American terrorism.93 The KLA's well-documented, sordid
record, however, did not sour the CFR coterie in the State
Department or in the Establishment media on the terrorist group's
"potential."
Subversive Marine Survey

On May 10, 1994, several hundred Marines stationed at the
Twenty-nine Palms, California Marine base were given a survey

with potentially frightening ramifications. The "Combat Arms
Survey" asked the Marines to respond along a scale running from
"strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" to a series of questions and
statements, including the following:
� "Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used within the
United States for any of the following missions? Drug enforcement;
Disaster relief...; Federal and state prison guards; National
emergency police force; Advisors to S.W.A.T. units, the FBI, or
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (B.A.T.F.)...."
� "U.S. combat troops should be commanded by U.N. officers and
non-commissioned officers (NCOs) at battalion and company
levels while performing U.N. missions."
� "I feel there is no conflict between my oath of office and serving
as a U.N. soldier."
� "I feel a designated unit of U.S. combat soldiers should be permanently
assigned to the command and control of the United
Nations."
� "I would like U.N. member countries, including the U.S., to give
the U.N. all the soldiers necessary to maintain world peace."
� "I would swear to the following code: T am a United Nations
fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace
and every nation's way of life. I am prepared to give my life in
their defense.'"94
The final statement of the "Combat Arms Survey" posed this
shocking scenario:
The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale,

transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day
amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local
authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to
turn over their firearms.
Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse
or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.95
The "Combat Arms Survey" was first brought to public attention

when a Marine sent a copy to The New American magazine.96
Disclosure of the survey by The New American touched off a
firestorm of public and congressional outrage. According to a press
release from the Marine Corps public affairs office at Twenty-nine
Palms, the survey originated from Presidential Review [Decision]
Directives 13 and 25, under which President Clinton (CFR)
"directed DOD [Department of Defense] to create a U.S. military
force structure whose command and control would include the
United Nations." 97
But most of those things happened during the nasty old Clinton
regime; now that we have George W. Bush in the Oval Office, we
can breathe a lot easier. Right?
Don't believe that for a moment. Yes, George W. received the

endorsement of the NRA. But so did his father before him. As a
Texas congressman in 1968, the senior Bush (CFR) voted for that
year's draconian Gun Control Act. Twenty years later, he wrote to
the NRA during his victorious presidential campaign, pledging to
oppose "federal licensing, gun registration, background checks or a
ban on firearms."98
Once in office, however, George the senior promptly issued an

executive order banning the importation of 43 "military-style"
semi-automatic rifles and endorsed a crime bill that called for the
registration of rifle and pistol magazines capable of holding more
than 15 rounds.99 He also endorsed a five-day version of the Brady
(waiting-period) bill, which caused Sarah Brady, chairman of
Handgun Control, Inc., to exclaim that she was "very pleased." 100
Perhaps even more important than those actions was George

Bush's ambush of the NRA � and all gun owners, for that matter
� in May 1995, shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing. It was a

very crucial time, when all the country was reeling from
shock over that deadly terrorist act, and the CFR media mavens
were fastening blame for that vile deed on the NRA, "gun fanatics,"
"right-wing extremists," and "anti-government" Repub-icans.
George Bush, as the immediate past president of the United States
and the most prominent and well-known Republican, greatly aided
that vicious smear campaign of the whole Political Right by very
dramatically resigning from the NRA and denouncing the
organization with the false claim that an NRA fund-raising letter
harshly critical of ATF excesses was a slander against law
enforcement.101
Is it fair to judge junior by daddy's record? No, unless he indicates

that he is following in daddy's footsteps. George W. has done
that. His top campaign and policy advisers were taken wholesale
from his dad's CFR-Trilateralist cabinet: Dick Cheney, Brent
Scowcroft, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Zoellick,
Stephen Hadley, Robert Blackwill. To these he added Pratt House
venerables Henry Kissinger and George Shultz and fast-rising CFR
star Condoleezza Rice.102
Cheney, of course, then came on board as vice president, Powell

as Secretary of State, Wolfowitz as Deputy Secretary of Defense,
Zoellick as U.S. Trade Representative, and Rice as National
Security Adviser. They were soon joined by other Pratt House
regulars who were tapped for high Cabinet posts: Donald
Rumsfeld, Elaine Chao, Christine Todd Whitman, Kenneth Juster,
Faryar Shirzad, John Negroponte, and George Tenet � to name a
few.
One of the first persons Colin Powell officially received as

Secretary of State was Frank Carlucci, who recently chaired the
CFR's panel on restructuring the State Department.103 Powell then
traipsed off to the UN for a meeting with Kofi Annan, where he
announced that the new Bush administration would be putting an
end to the Republican Party's traditional antagonism to the world
body.104
Writing in the CFR's Foreign Affairs for September/October

2000, James M. Lindsay of the Brookings Institution noted that
"Both Al Gore and George W. Bush are internationalists by incli
nation...."105 In the CFR's globalese, that can be taken as mean-ing

that, rhetoric notwithstanding, George W. will reliably continue to
advance the one-world agenda of empowering the United Nations,
including its attack on the right of private American citizens to
own firearms. And because of the widespread misper-ception that
Bush is a genuine "conservative" (thanks to the CFR's "ruling class
journalists"), he is well-positioned to make strategic cave-ins on
the gun issue that a Clinton or Gore could not pull off.
Chapter 10
Regionalism
We cannot leap into world government in one quick step.... [T]he

precondition for eventual globalization �genuine globalization � is
progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger,
more stable, more cooperative units.1
� Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR, TC), former National

Security Advisor, 1995
Within and outside the United Nations, world federalists should
strongly support the growth of regional organizations such as the
European Community and the Organization of African Unity and
development of them into regional federations with governmental power
in some policy areas.2
� John Logue, Vice President, World

Federalist Association
One of the most striking governance features of globalization is that it
has a strong regional flavor. Deep integration has proceeded fastest on a
regional basis, notably within the EU [European Union].3
� The Commission on Global Governance

A day would come when governments would be forced to admit that an
integrated Europe was an accomplished fact, without their having had a
say in the establishment of its underlying principles. All they would have
to do was to merge all these autonomous institutions into a single federal
administration and then proclaim a United States of Europe....4
� Merry and Serge Bromberger in their sympathetic biography,

Jean Monnet and the United States of Europe
189
"How do you eat an elephant?" asks an old riddle. The answer;

"One bite at a time." It is the same with any large task; successful
accomplishment requires dividing the project into logical constituent
parts and then systematically, incrementally, proceeding
step by step, bite by bite. In the case of our elephant metaphor, that
would mean skinning, dressing, and quartering or sectioning the
animal, cutting it into smaller and smaller parts, until the desired
consumable size is reached.
The globalist Insiders and their Communist partners have done

precisely this throughout the course of the 20th century. From one
corner of the globe to the other, the Communists have sponsored
revolutions and "wars of national liberation," pitting tribe against
tribe, or exploiting some other division based upon race, creed,
class, nationality, or past grievances. The Insiders, operating from
their positions of power in the business, financial, political, and
media worlds, have repeatedly supported these ruinous tumults.
They have provided financial and propaganda assistance as well as
undermined the targeted governments through direct political
pressure or diplomatic intrigue from Washington, D.C. and
London.*
Through this convulsive process of controlled chaos, nations,

kingdoms, and empires have been toppled, borders erased and
redrawn, stable social and political systems uprooted, and whole
peoples annihilated or driven as refugees into foreign lands. The
maps of Europe, Africa, and Asia, especially, have been repeatedly
redrawn in this fashion, with the result that the number of nation
states in the world has increased from 72 at the end of World War
II to 195 today. Some of these nations were artificially created by,
and had their borders drawn by, the United Nations. Others, though
not officially spawned by the UN, are the illegitimate offspring of
the Insiders and the Communists who created the UN. In virtually
every case where these new nations have been created or
reformulated, the one-worlders have assured that corrupt, socialist
regimes would be placed in power � either the totalitarian,
revolutionary, socialist (Communist) variety, or the
REGIONALISM
eolutionary, big-business, socialist (Fascist) variety. These newly

created entities have been manipulated, with rel-ative ease, into
joining various regional organizations established, ostensibly, for
the mutual benefit of the countries involved. Thus, the
Organization of American States (OAS), the Organization of
African Unity (OAU), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the
European Union (EU), the European Monetary Union (EMU), the
North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), the Middle
East-North Africa economic area (MENA), and other regional
organizations have sprouted and grown into sizable establishments
wielding increasing power.** Originally concerned primarily with
a very narrow range of military and economic matters, these
regional entities have, like the UN, gradually assumed more and
more authority to deal with matters concerning the environment,
labor policy, human rights,
*The prototype for these operations was first put into operation by the secret
Rhodes
network in South Africa in the late 19th Century. Carroll Quigley, in The Anglo-
American
Establishment (pp. 44-47 and 107-112) and Tragedy and Hope (pp. 136-144), provides
an
important inside look at the high-level conspiracy involved in the Jameson Raid
(1895) and
the instigation of the Boer War (1899-1902). James Perloff, in The Shadows of
Power,
shows the CFR-RIIA machinations in bringing about U.S. entry into World War I and
II.
That story is also powerfully told, in far greater detail, in America's Second
Crusade, by
William Henry Chamberlain (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1950). The Insider-Communist
collaboration in turning Poland into a Soviet satellite is told in: 7 Saw Poland
Betrayed, by
Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane, The Rape of Poland, by Stanislaw Mikolajczyk, and
Allied
Wartime Diplomacy, by Edward J. Rozek. David Martin tells the brutal story of the
oneworlders'
betrayal of Yugoslavia into Communist hands in Ally Betrayed. Hilaire du
Berrier's Background to Betrayal: The Tragedy of Vietnam is essential reading for
an
understanding of Insider treachery in undermining America's allies and supporting
our
Communist enemies in Southeast Asia. Nicaraguan President Anastasio Somoza tells
the
story of Insider perfidy and support for Communist revolution in Latin American in
Nicaragua Betrayed. The Betrayal of Southern Africa: The Tragic Story of Rhodesia
and
South Africa by Warren McFerran details the Insider treachery in the repeated
betrayal of
America's allies in southern Africa and the handing over of that region to
Communist
terrorists and corrupt thugs.
immigration, commerce, education, transportation, etc.
It is no accident that these regional Intergovernmental

Organizations (or IGOs, in globospeak) have been grasping for
more power � at the expense of their nation-state members. Most
of them were planned from the beginning to do that very thing.
They were designed eventually to become � through gradual
accretions of legislative, executive, and judicial powers -regional
supra-state governments which could, ultimately, be merged with
other regional entities to form a world government under the
United Nations. What is now known as the European Union is a
case in point. It was a colossal "bait and switch," presented as a
trade pact, but intended from the start to become a nation-
destroying super government.
In this, as in so many other areas we have already examined, we

see an amazing parallelism between the plans of the Pratt House
one-worlders and those of the Communist strategists. Joseph
Stalin, for instance, recognized that populations will more readily
merge their national loyalties with a vague regional loyalty � with
which they may be able to find some sense of connection or
identity � than they will for a world authority. In his 1912 essay,
"Marxism and the National Question," the aspiring dictator insisted
that "regional autonomy is an essential element in the solution of
the national problem."5 (Emphasis in original.) Again and again
over the decades, the Communists emphasized the necessity of
creating "regional organs" to facilitate the "eradication" of
nationalism. In 1936, the official program of the Communist
International declared:
**We cannot examine all of these groups here, but we especially direct the readers
to the
following articles from The New American for important exposes on the more recently
launched APEC and MENA regional organizations. "The Free Trade Charade" (December
27, 1993) reveals the CFR-TC hands and machinations in the formation and control of
APEC. "Play It Again, Uncle Sam" (December 12, 1994) tells the amazing story of the
overt
controlling role of the CFR in sponsoring (together with the World Economic Forum
and the
Socialist International!) the 1994 Casablanca conference that launched MENA. Both
articles
are available at www.thenewamerican.com.
REGIONALISM
This world dictatorship can be established only when the victory of socialism
has been achieved in certain countries or groups of countries, when the newly
established proletarian republics enter into a federative union with the already
existing proletarian republics ... [and] when these federations of republics have
finally grown into a World Union of Soviet Socialist Republics uniting the
whole of mankind under the hegemony of the international proletariat
organized as a state.6
The Communists and the Insiders were (and still are) working
from the same page: They are building regional blocs with structures
that override national sovereignty and can later be merged
into a global superstructure.
Two of the main regional IGOs that currently present a real and
increasing danger to the United States are NAFTA and NATO, the
former being a fairly recent creation formed for economic pretexts
(trade, principally), and the latter of considerably older vintage
established as a military alliance under a pretext of "collective
security." Each of these IGOs is serving, in the words of a top
globalist operative, as an "end run around national sovereignty,
eroding it bit by bit." 7
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the

campaign to secure its passage in Congress were closely modeled
after the Insiders' game plan four decades earlier to establish the
Common Market, later known as the European Community (EC)
and (most recently) the European Union. And it is very clear that
the Pratt House one-worlders intend to "evolve" NAFTA into a
full-fledged, supra-national, regional government like the EU, but
on an accelerated timeline, accomplishing in one decade what it
has taken them four to do in Europe. We are not speculating on
this; the CFR world planners have told us this repeatedly, as we
will show.
NAFTA, which was originally promoted as a tripartite "free

trade" agreement that would open markets and expand trade
between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, is now being transformed
into a Western Hemisphere Free Trade Association (WHFTA),
with a single currency (the U.S. dollar is being proposed, for now),
a hemispheric central bank, and an entire hemispheric regime of
regulations to "harmonize" business, industry, labor, agriculture,
transportation, immigration, environment, health, trade, and other
policies "from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego." NAFTA is not, and
never was, about "free trade." Free trade � real free trade � is a
voluntary exchange between two parties, unhampered by
government intervention.
But NAFTA, like the European Union, seeks to regulate and

control virtually every industrial, agricultural, environmental, and
labor matter. Rather than creating or permitting economic freedom
by eliminating government intervention, NAFTA seeks to
homogenize the plethora of socialist interventions that now
hamstring the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian economies.
Insider Jacques Delors, the socialist president of the European

Community Commission in 1992, when the NAFTA debate was
raging, clearly saw the parallels between the two regional organizations.
Delors gloated that "NAFTA is a form of flattery for us
Europeans. In many ways, we have shown what positive, liberating
effect these regional arrangements can have."8 Naturally, what a
thorough socialist and internationalist like Delors considers
"positive" and "liberating" tends to jarringly conflict with
"negative" and "retrograde" concepts such as independence, sovereignty,
free enterprise, property rights, and constitutional limitations
on power.
The CFR journal Foreign Affairs led the way, with a continuous
fusillade of pro-NAFTA articles. Some even conceded, in essence,
a key point made by this author and other NAFTA opponents at the
time, to wit, that NAFTA was, in reality, a stealth plan to foist an
EU-type regional government scheme upon Americans. "The
creation of trinational dispute-resolution mechanisms and rule-
making bodies on border and environmental issues may also be
embryonic forms of more comprehensive structures"9 (emphasis
added), M. Delal Baer approvingly wrote in the Fall 1991 Foreign
Affairs. "After all, international organizations and agreements like
GATT and NAFTA by definition mini
REGIONALISM
mize assertions of sovereignty in favor of a joint rule-making

authority"10 Dr. Baer went on to draw a direct analogy to the EC,
suggesting:
It may be useful to revisit the spirit of the Monnet Commission, which

provided a blueprint for Europe at a moment of extraordinary opportunity. The
three nations of North America, in more modest fashion, have also arrived at a
defining moment. They may want to create a Wiseman's North American
commission to operate in the post-ratification period.... The commission might
also adopt a forward-looking agenda on themes such as North American
competitiveness,
links between scientific institutions, borderland integration, the
continental ecological system and educational and cultural exchanges.11
Dr. Baer was not telling anything new to the CFR's top political
operatives; they were already lined up behind the internationalist
program. Republican President George Bush (the elder) (CFR),
Democrat House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt (CFR), and
Republican House Minority Leader Newt Gingrich (CFR)* played
the pivotal political roles in pushing "fast track" authority for
NAFTA through Congress � with massive help from their CFR
confreres in the worlds of business, banking, media, and academia.
And the same players campaigned furiously and continuously for
final approval of the deceitful agreement.
The CFR internationalists intend to use NAFTA (and their

proposed WHFTA) to foster, first, economic interdependence
between the United States and other nations and then economic
integration as a means, ultimately, to achieving political interdependence
and integration. Which is precisely the path the
Insiders trod in foisting the EU upon the unsuspecting peoples of
Western Europe.
European Union
Because it is the internationalists' template for NAFTA/WHFTA,
a rudimentary understanding of the EU � how it was launched

and by whom, what it has become, and what it is becoming � is
absolutely essential for American patriots, in order to be successful
in stopping this insidious attack on our sovereignty and
independence. Our treatment here must necessarily be brief.** The
following points are key to an understanding of the Common
Market/United Europe movement and its counterpart, NAFTA, in
this hemisphere:
� While posing as a "bottom-up" popular movement, it was completely

a "top-down" enterprise, conceived and run entirely by
an elite coterie of one-worlders.
� While posing as a native European movement, it was largely
*As House Speaker, the CFR's Newt Gingrich � posing as the nation's premier
Conservative � also played a decisive role in pushing the Insiders' World Trade
Organization. During the 1994 hearings on the WTO, Gingrich disarmed WTO opponents
by feigning concern over the WTO threat to our sovereignty. Gingrich noted that
"yes, we
could in theory take the power back. Yes, we, de jure, as f Judge Bork] points out,
can take
the power back. But the fact is we are not likely to disrupt the entire world
trading system
[by pulling out]. And, therefore, we ought to be very careful, because we are not
likely to
take it back."
Gingrich expressed concern about the transfer of U.S. authority to GATT, declaring
that
"we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United
States, at a
practical level, significant authority to a new organization. This is a
transformational
moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about
the scale
of change." He declared that GATT was very similar to the 1991 Maastricht Treaty,
by
which the European Union's member nations had ceded a good deal of their economic
and
political sovereignty, "and twenty years from now we will look back on this as a
very
important defining moment. This is not just another trade agreement. This is
adopting
something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress
rejected.
I am not even saying we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think
we have to be
very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power."
Nevertheless, Gingrich subsequently joined then-Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-
Kan.) in not only promoting and voting for the GATT pact, but urging that it be
considered
during a lame-duck session of Congress when its prospects for passage would be
enhanced.
REGIONALISM
directed by U.S. Insiders and almost totally financed by U.S.

taxpayers.
� Presented to Americans as a way to defend Western Europe from

Communism, it has instead been used to drive Europe into
socialism. � Warnings that the Common Market would erode
national sovereignty were shouted down as paranoid ravings, but
they have proven true.
� The
national and local governments of the EU countries are
being swallowed up and increasingly overruled by unaccountable
Eurocrats and Eurojudges.
� The EU currency, the euro, and the Eurobank are destroying the
value of the individual national currencies and the economic
sovereignty of the member states.
� The EU governing institutions, acting in coordination with their
fellow one-worlders in national governments, are becoming
increasingly socialistic and oppressive.
All of this was foreseen by astute observers many years ago,
when the foundations for this diabolical scheme were being laid.
One of the most knowledgeable historians of the Common
Market/EU, and an indefatigable critic of it, is Hilaire du Berrier, a
contributing editor to The New American (and its predecessors
American Opinion and The Review of the News). For more than
four decades he has published his authoritative HduB Reports from
Monte Carlo, Monaco and has repeatedly exposed the
machinations and plans of the European and American Insiders for
Europe and the world.
"The CFR," wrote du Berrier in January 1973, "saw the Common

Market from the first as a regional government to
For a more detailed examination of the history of the Common Market/EC, please see
this
author's book Global Tyranny12 and the following articles from The New American,
available online at www.thenewamerican.com: "United States of Europe," April 10,
1989 ;
"A European Suprastate," May 7, 1991; "From the Atlantic to the Urals (and
Beyond),"
January 27, 1992; "Forcing a United Europe," November 16, 1992; "European
Nightmare,"
March 1, 1999.
which more and more nations would be added until the world
government which the UN had failed to bring about would be
realized. At a favorable point in the Common Market's development,
America would be brought in. But the American public had
to be softened first and leaders groomed for the change-over."13
Mr. du Berrier chronicled in his reports the "secret history" of

the Common Market, utilizing published statements from the
European and American press, official documents of European
governments, the diaries and memoirs of European Insiders, and
his own unparalleled intelligence sources developed over a lifetime
of direct participation in some of the most momentous events of
the 20th century. Step by step, he detailed the Insider-orchestrated
program, from the pre-World War II era, through the war years,
and then the post-WWII era.
As du Berrier notes, the first concrete step toward the abolition

of the European nation-states was taken in 1951 with the signing of
the seemingly innocuous treaty creating the European Coal and
Steel Community (ECSC). The ostensible purpose of this move
was to so integrate the basic industries of coal and steel that a
future war between France and Germany would be "physically
impossible."
The next nail in the coffin of European national sovereignty

came on March 25, 1957 with the signing by the six ECSC nations
(France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, and
Luxembourg) of the two Treaties of Rome. These created the
European Economic Community (EEC or Common Market) and
the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), which greatly
furthered the process of merging the economic and energy sectors
of the member states. (As the ECSC, Euratom, and EEC gradually
assumed more and more economic and political powers, the name
of this regional collective changed to the European Community.)
The next stage involved bringing the rest of Western Europe into
the fold. In 1973 the United Kingdom, after more than two decades
of resisting, came in, as did Ireland and Denmark-Greece joined in
1981, bringing the number of member states to
REGIONALISM
ten. Spain and Portugal became the 11th and 12th members in
1986. The year 1986 also marked passage of the Single European
Act, which mandated the establishment of "an area without nternal
frontiers, in which the free movement of goods, persons, services,
and capital is ensured."
The 1991 Treaty of Maastricht committed the EU signatories to

a single currency and a European central bank.14 The European
Monetary Institute (EMI), the embryonic European central bank
created by the treaty, was officially launched on January 1, 1994.
Frankfurt was chosen as the site for the new entity and Alexander
Lamfalussy, former head of the Bank for International Settlements
(BIS) in Basel, Switzerland, was tapped to be president.*
Work in the Shadows

Now let's drop back for a moment and briefly examine the nutsand-
bolts process and the main actors involved in putting this
amazing scheme together, beginning with the European Coal and
Steel Commission, or ECSC. "This was a truly revolutionary
organization," wrote Georgetown University Professor Carroll
Quigley, the Insiders' own inside historian, "since it had sovereign
powers, including the authority to raise funds outside any existing
state's power."15 The ECSC merged the coal and steel industries of
six countries under a single High Authority. It was, Quigley
pointed out, "a rudimentary government." In his 1966 history of
the world, Tragedy and Hope, Quigley wrote:
This "supranational" body had the right to control prices, channel

investment, raise funds, allocate coal and steel.... Its powers
*Significantly, the establishment of the EMI in Frankfurt coincided with that

city's March
celebration of the founding of the Rothschild banking dynasty. About 80 members of
the
famous first family of international banking Insiders gathered in Frankfurt during
the first
week of March to commemorate the birth of dynasty founder Meyer Amschel Rothschild,
who was born there 250 years ago. The Lamfalussy-BIS connection is also
significant,
inasmuch as the BIS has long
been recognized by all observers of banking as the central bank of international

banking.
to raise funds for its own use by taxing each ton produced made it independent
of governments. Moreover, its decisions were binding, and could be reached by
majority vote without the unanimity required in most international
organizations of sovereign states.16
The proposal for the ECSC was introduced, amidst great fanfare,
in May 1950 as the "Schuman Plan." Although Jean Monnet, a
consummate Insider and at that time head of France's General
Planning Commission, was the real author of the plan, he thought it
expedient to name it for his comrade, Robert Schuman, the
Socialist French Foreign Minister who later became Prime
Minister.
The American Insiders leapt to praise the Schuman Plan. John

Foster Dulles, a CFR founder, called it "brilliantly creative."17
Dulles had become close pals with Monnet decades earlier, when
both labored at Versailles following World War I to establish the
League of Nations. Later, as Secretary of State, he would use U.S.
power to help Monnet quash European opposition to a United
Europe. Secretary of State Dean Acheson (CFR) termed it a "major
contribution toward the resolution of the pressing political and
economic problems of Europe."18 The CFR dominated Carnegie
Foundation awarded Monnet its Wateler Peace Prize of two million
francs "in recognition of the international spirit which he had
shown in conceiving the Coal and Steel Community...."19
Insider Jean Monnet, a life-long, self-avowed, multi-millionaire

socialist, whom columnist Joseph Alsop (CFR) admiringly dubbed
the "good, gray wizard of Western European union,"20 was
appointed the first president of the powerful new ECSC. Monnet
knew full well just how subversive and revolutionary his new
creation was. Merry and Serge Bromberger record in their
biography Jean Monnet and the United States of Europe that when
Monnet and his "brain trust" had outlined the basics of the ECSC
proposal, they called in legal expert Maurice Lagrange to take care
of the detail work. The Brombergers wrote:
REGIONALISM
Lagrange was stunned. An idea of revolutionary daring had been launched

and was being acclaimed by the Six and the United States � a minerals and
metals superstate.... "I hope the structure will stand up," Monnet said
dubiously.21
In other words, Monnet recognized that his scheme was so

audaciously subversive it was doubtful that the governments of
sovereign nations would ever agree to such a radical proposal.
Unless, of course, the proponents just as audaciously employed
deception, duplicity, bribery, extortion, and coercion. Which is
precisely what they did.
The Brombergers, who are ardent admirers of Monnet, admit the

conspiratorial and totalitarian mind-set of their hero:
Gradually, it was thought, the supranational authorities, supervised by the

European Council of Ministers at Brussels and the Assembly in Strasbourg,
would administer all the activities of the Continent. A day would come when
governments would be forced to admit that an integrated Europe was an
accomplished fact, without their having had a say in the establishment of its
underlying principles. All they would have to do was to merge all these
autonomous institutions into a single federal administration and then proclaim a
United States of Europe....
Actually, the founders of the Coal and Steel Community would have to
obtain from the various national governments �justifiably reputed to be
incapable of making sacrifices for the sake of a federation � a whole series of
concessions in regard to their sovereign rights until, having been finally
stripped, they committed hara-kiri by accepting the merger.22
Again, a bald admission that the Insider founders of the

ECSC/EU knew from the start that they were slipping a noose
around the neck of an unsuspecting Europe and that they Planned
to gradually tighten it until it strangled their hapless victim � to
death.
Another very important source on this "hara-kiri" phenome-non

is Insider Ernst H. van der Beugel, honorary secretary-gen
eral of the Bilderberger Group, vice-chairman of the Netherlands

Institute for Foreign Affairs (a CFR affiliate), member of the
Trilateral Commission, Harvard lecturer, etc. In his book From
Marshall Aid to Atlantic Partnership � which contains a foreword
by "my friend Henry Kissinger" � van der Beugel explained
the workings of the Monnet-CFR symbiosis and cited examples of
the diplomatic bludgeoning of those officials who balked at
administering national "hara-kiri." For instance, he reported how
Monnet's Action Committee, which was "supported by funds from
United States foundations," ramrodded the negotiations for the
Rome Treaties:
Monnet and his Action Committee were unofficially supervising the

negotiations and as soon as obstacles appeared, the United States diplomatic
machinery was alerted, mostly through Ambassador Bruce ... who had
immediate access to the top echelon of the State Department....
At that time, it was usual that if Monnet thought that a particular country
made difficulties in the negotiations, the American diplomatic representative in
that country approached the Foreign Ministry in order to communicate the
opinion of the American Government which, in practically all cases, coincided
with Monnet's point of view.23
Monnet's high-level friends, who assisted him in these strong-

arm tactics, included President Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles,
John J. McCloy, David Bruce, Averell Harriman, George Ball, and
C. Douglas Dillon � all CFR one-worlders. All of this was

occurring, remember, in the immediate post-WWII years, when
war-ravaged Europe had become very dependent on U.S. aid and
looked to the U.S. for protection from the growing (Insiderbacked)
Soviet threat.
Hilaire du Berrier relates a story from the diary of Joseph
Retinger that illustrates how the CFR's agents built the movement
for European merger. Retinger, a Polish one-worlder and inveterate
socialist, was a longtime associate of CFR heavy
REGIONALISM
weights John Foster Dulles, Averell Harriman, John J. McCloy,

and Nelson and David Rockefeller. Retinger was seeking more
funds for the European Movement headed at the time by Belgian
Prime Minister Paul Henri Spaak, who was affectionately known
in Europe as "Mr. Socialist." Du Berrier wrote:
Retinger and Duncan Sandys, the British Eurocrat, went to see John J.
McCloy, who in 1947 was American High Commissioner to Germany.
McCloy, we learn from Retinger's diary, embraced the idea at once. Sheppard
Stone, who was on McCloy's staff, and Robert Murphy, the U.S. ambassador to
Belgium, whom Retinger called one of the European Movement's best
supporters, joined McCloy in raiding the huge reserve of European currencies
called 'counterpart funds' which had piled up as a result of Marshall Plan aid....
McCloy, Stone and Murphy "promptly and unhesitatingly put ample funds at
the disposal of Paul Henri Spaak [to lobby for the European merger]," Retinger
recorded.24
Michael J. Hogan, professor of history at Ohio State University

and editor of Diplomatic History, is another authority who
confirms this Insider use of Marshall Plan "counterpart funds." In
fact, Dr. Hogan shows that the whole push for the European
Recovery Plan (ERP, better known as the Marshall Plan) was a
CFR-run affair to establish interventionist (socialist) policies for
post-war Europe.
The Establishment effort was led, Hogan notes, by "the

Committee for the Marshall Plan to Aid European Recovery, a
private, nonpartisan organization composed of labor, farm, and
business leaders who worked closely with government officials to
mobilize support behind the ERP. The result was something like a
coordinated campaign mounted by an interlocking directorate of
public and private figures." 25
"The leadership of this group," says Hogan "came largely from

academic circles, from the major American trade unions, and from
such business organizations as the Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR), the Business Advisory Council (BAC), the
Committee for Economic Development (CED), and the National

Planning Association (NPA)." 26 But the top leadership, he makes
clear, were CFR cognoscenti.
The CFR corporate fascists were ever close at hand to assist

Euro-socialist Insiders like Monnet, Retinger, Schuman, Spaak
Sandys and their ilk, and to sabotage all European opposition.
Europeans representing anti-Communist, anti-socialist, anti-Soviet,
pro-American, free market, Christian, monarchist, nationalist
parties and viewpoints were undermined, co-opted, vilified, bribed,
blackmailed, or otherwise eliminated from effective leadership
positions.
Startling new evidence concerning this cabal was reported in

September 2000 by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the EU reporter in
Brussels for The Telegraph of London. The story bore the headline,
"Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs," and reported on
recently declassified American government documents showing
"that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties
and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and
directed the European federalist movement.''27 The U.S. effort was
headed by "William J Donovan, head of the American wartime
Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA." 28
Mr. Evans-Pritchard reported:
Washington's main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American
Committee for a United Europe [ACUE], created in 1948. The chairman was
Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then.
The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The
board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA's first director, and a roster of ex-
OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents
show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important
federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided
53.5 per cent of the movement's funds.

The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European
REGIONALISM
Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington. The Belgian

director, Baron Boel, received monthly payments into a special account. When
the head of the European Movement, Polish-born Joseph Retinger, bridled at
this degree of American control and tried to raise money in Europe, he was
quickly reprimanded.29
What the Telegraph article didn't mention (and perhaps Evans-

Pritchard didn't know) was that all of the OSS-CIA-ACUE
principals involved in the "European federalist movement" �
Donovan, Smith, and Dulles � were CFR members and key Pratt
House operatives.
With the media stranglehold exercised by the ruling elite of the

Milner Group-Royal Institute of International Affairs-CFR thought
cartel, few Europeans or Americans � even those who were
politically sophisticated � could put all of the pieces together.
Lone voices � even influential ones � could not break through
the media blackout. In 1959, for example, few British citizens
heard (and fewer still understood the importance of) the warning of
Reginald Maulding, Chancellor of the Exchequer, concerning the
real nature of the Common Market. Said Maulding: "We must
recognize that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept
the ultimate goal � political federation in Europe including
ourselves."30
"Twenty years ago, when the process began, there was no question
of losing sovereignty," Sir Peregrine Worsthorne wrote in
London's Sunday Telegraph in 1991. "That was a lie, or at any rate,
a dishonest obfuscation." Further, said Worsthorne, "For the past
twenty years or so anybody wanting to have a career in the public
service, in the higher reaches of the city, or the media has had to be
pro-European. In the privacy of the closet or among close friends,
even many federalists would admit as much. But such is the
momentum behind the European movement that none of these
individual doubts, expressed separately, will be remotely sufficient
to stop the juggernaut."31
Lord Bruce of Donington, a Member of Parliament from the

Labour Party who has been a stalwart opponent of Euro-conver
gence schemes for four decades, was likewise given the media
blackout treatment. In a 1962 speech he cited Maulding's warn-ing
that the Common Market was really aimed at eventual polit-ical
unification. "This, of course, is not how the issue has been
presented by the government to the people of this country," Lord
Bruce cautioned. "The matter has been put forward in terms of the
economic advantages which would accrue to Britain if we joined
'the Six' in a Customs Union ... allowing our industries to thrive in
what appears to be a lush 'home' market of 214 million people."32
No "right-wing isolationist," Lord Bruce served in the European

Parliament as a representative of the European Socialist Group. In
a 1996 interview, Lord Bruce noted that much of the impetus for
European convergence comes from the ruling elite of "the United
States, which disguises its intent for public consumption but has
consistently assisted the merging of Britain and the other European
nations into a regional bloc." "The Americans," he said, "have
subsidized and promoted this aberration almost since its inception,
and they are very active today."33
Western Hemisphere EU
With this knowledge in mind, the first thing an observant onlooker
should have noticed when proposals for NAFTA and WHFTA
began floating about was the Pratt House imprint. It wasn't difficult
to spot; the CFR logo was all over these schemes, as we have
already seen in the case of NAFTA.34
The Insiders have stepped up their political, economic and

propaganda efforts for the next step, an EU for the Western
Hemisphere. Following the pattern of the ECSC-EU, most of the
important early activity for the WHFTA was taking place "below
the surface of public attention." In 1999, after years of preparation,
the business pages of newspapers began buzzing over the startling
proposal by Argentine President Carlos Menem to abandon his
country's peso for the dollar. Similar proposals soon started
flowing in from the leaders of Canada, Brazil, Mexico,
REGIONALISM
and Venezuela. All of a sudden, "dollarization" became the sexy
economic issue of the day, with Republicans and Democrats alike
lining up with euphoric praise for the ultra-radical scheme.
What we were witnessing, in reality, was another CFR ventriloquism

show; like the European leaders a generation earlier, the
Western hemispheric choir hymning the dollarization theme were
merely mouthpieces for the CFR puppet masters. In April 1974,
the CFR telegraphed much of what was to come when Foreign
Affairs published a remarkably frank attack on U.S. sovereignty.
Authored by Columbia University law professor and veteran State
Department official Richard N. Gardner (Clinton's Ambassador to
Spain), the article was entitled "The Hard Road to World Order." It
began with CFR member Gardner's lamentation that like-minded
internationalists had failed to achieve what he termed "instant
world government." He proposed a new and more effective route
to the creation of an all-powerful, global superstate, asserting:
In short, the "house of world order" will have to be built from the
bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great "booming,
buzzing confusion," to use William James' famous description of reality, but an
end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish
much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.35
Gardner's piecemeal scheme for world government proposed,

among other things, luring all nations into a variety of economic
and political entanglements, including trade traps like NAFTA and
WHFTA.
The Dollarization Bandwagon

In 1984, 10 years after Gardner's "Hard Road" manifesto, Foreign
Affairs brought forth another audacious piece entitled "A Monetary
System for the Future," by Richard N. Cooper (CFR, TC). Cooper,
a professor of international economics at Harvard, boldly stated: "I
suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next
century: the creation of a common currency for all of the industrial

democracies, with a common monetary policy and a joint
Bank of Issue to determine that monetary policy."36
The main problem with this scheme, Cooper realized, is that "a
single currency is possible only if there is in effect a single monetary
policy, and a single authority issuing the currency and
directing the monetary policy." "How can independent states
accomplish that?" he asked rhetorically. Naturally, he had the
answer: "They need to turn over the determination of monetary
policy to a supranational body"37
More recently, in its July/August 1999 issue, Foreign Affairs

explicitly took up the campaign for such a supranational power and
dollarization, with an essay by Zanny Minton Beddoes of The
Economist, one of Britain's leading Fabian Socialist periodicals. In
the opening paragraph of his globalist propaganda tract, "From
EMU to AMU?: The Case for Regional Currencies," Beddoes
declared with oracular certainty: "By 2030 the world will have two
major currency zones � one European, the other American. The
euro will be used from Brest to Bucharest, and the dollar from
Alaska to Argentina � perhaps even Asia."38
Mr. Beddoes paid specific tribute to Richard Cooper's 1984

Foreign Affairs article, and threw bouquets to other "farsighted
academics" who share his one-world view and chided skeptics who
"argue that a national currency is a basic symbol of sovereignty
that countries choose to forfeit only under extraordinary
circumstances."39 Mr. Beddoes and his devious allies would surely
like all of us to believe that a national currency is only a "symbol
of sovereignty," but it is much more than that, of course. It is an
essential ingredient of sovereignty, and a nation is at the fearful
mercy of any entity to whom it may be foolish enough to forfeit so
important a power. The Federal Reserve System and the
International Monetary Fund have already vindicated that claim a
thousand times over, and yet here we are about to be enticed into
an even deeper abyss.
An even more extraordinary propaganda and disinformation

salvo, this one aimed at a broader audience, was provided by the
REGIONALISM
Time magazine cover story for February 15, 1999. Along with the
headline, "The Committee to Save the World," the cover featured
the beaming visages of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
(CFR), then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (CFR), and Deputy
Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers (CFR), who followed
Rubin in the top Treasury post. The article bore this riveting
subtitle: "The inside story of how the Three Marketeers have
prevented a global economic meltdown � so far."40
The adulatory piece, written by Time's Joshua Cooper Ramo

(CFR), reverently refers to the CFR triumvirate as "the Trinity"
and suggests that they are uniquely possessed of near-divine
virtues and insights, and, thus, deserve our trust in establishing
new monetary authority over the hemisphere.41
The "conservative," CFR-run Wall Street Journal assured its

readers that "Dollarization has arisen as a spontaneous movement
within our hemisphere,"42 and urged U.S. political leaders to
embrace this opportunity to "score a powerful victory for free trade
and free markets." But the dollarization bandwagon is about as
spontaneous as the Normandy invasion, and it has nothing to do
with free markets.
The current dollarization-NAFTA/WHFTA drive we are now

witnessing is the culmination of a massive, long-range effort that
began many years ago as an intermediate stepping stone to world
government. Myriad documents, publications, statements,
speeches, conferences, meetings, and events from the past several
decades copiously document that effort. One such document is
Western Hemisphere Economic Integration, a study by Gary Clyde
Hufbauer (CFR and former CFR vice president) and Jeffrey J.
Schott, published in 1994 by the Institute for International
Economics (HE). While hardly a household name in America, the
HE, according to Martin Walker of the London Observer, "may be
the most influential think-tank on the planet,"
with "an extraordinary record in turning ideas into effective policy."

43
The dedication at the beginning of this HE book reads: "TO

DAVID ROCKEFELLER, For his lifelong devotion to promoting
economic development in Latin America and to improving relations

among the countries of the Western Hemisphere. His wisdom
has been an enormous source of encouragement to the work
of the Institute and inspired us to explore the important ties that
unite the Americas."44
Mr. Rockefeller, of course, was chairman of the CFR from 197085

and, as we will see, has played an especially key role in the
dollarization and Western hemispheric economic convergence
scheme. Likewise the HE, which is virtually joined at the hip to the
CFR.*
So what did the Hufbauer-Schott study published by the HE

advocate? Very simply, "a Western Hemisphere Free Trade Area
(WHFTA)" following the sovereignty-destroying, mega-state pattern
of the European Union (EU). "After four decades of dedicated
effort," said the report, "Western Europe has just arrived at the
threshold of ... monetary union, and fiscal coordination. It seems
likely that trade and investment integration will proceed at a faster
pace within the Western Hemisphere...."45
"Finally," the study stated, "the more countries that participate in

integration and the wider its scope, the greater the need for some
institutional mechanism to administer the arrangements and to
resolve the inevitable disputes, and the stronger the case for a
common legal framework." (Which means supra
*The executive director of the HE is former U.S. Assistant Secretary of the

Treasury for
International Affairs C. Fred Bergsten (CFR, TO, who appeared on May 21, 1999
before the
House Banking and Financial Services Committee to argue for the dollarization power
scam.
The complete interlock between the CFR and the IIE is further demonstrated by the
list of
HE officers and directors provided in the Hufbauer-Schott study. IIE's chairman is
listed as
Peter G. Peterson, who is also chairman of the board of the CFR, a position he has
held since
1985, when he succeeded David Rockefeller in that position. Chairman of the IIE
Executive
Committee is Anthony M. Solomon (CFR). The study also lists the IIE board of
directors,
which includes such CFR luminaries as W. Michael Blumenthal, Carla A. Hills, Donald
F.
McHenry, Paul A. Volcker, Marina Whitman, and Andrew Young. Chairman of the
Advisory Committee is (surprise!) Richard N. Cooper (CFR). One of the members of
that
same Advisory Committee for the Schott study was Lawrence H. Summers. Listed as an
Honorary Director was Alan Greenspan.
REGIONALISM
national legislative, executive, and judicial institutions, naturally.)

"The European Commission, Council, Parliament, and Court
of Justice have many of the powers of comparable institutions in

federal states," the report noted approvingly before commenting,
"On this subject, we score Europe with a 5 [on a scale of 0 to
5]."46 Not satisfied with the EU model, the authors proposed going
far beyond it. They asserted that "integration between NAFTA and
Latin America should be legally open-ended; potentially the
WHFTA should include countries outside the hemisphere."
Indeed, presaging Beddoes, they asserted: "Economic logic suggests
that the expansion of NAFTA in an Asian direction is just as
desirable as its expansion in a Latin American direction." 47
In countless similar studies, speeches, lectures, and programs

over the years, the CFR elitists have prepped the upper echelon of
the U.S. and Western intelligentsia and business communities so
that they would enthusiastically embrace this deadly nostrum �
long before it appeared "spontaneously" for general public consumption.
But how did they succeed in drawing Latin American
leaders into this snare and overcoming the long-standing fear of
Yankee "dollar imperialism"? One obvious answer is that through
the lending programs of the International Monetary Fund, World
Bank, and Wall Street banks, they have saddled Latin American
countries with hopeless debt burdens that have left them desperate
and willing to try radical measures. But a more complete answer is
to be found in the long-term activities of groups like the IIE and
the Council of the Americas (COA), which have for two
generations been assiduously grooming and tutoring the business,
academic, and political leaders of Latin America.
The COA describes its origins thusly: "In 1965, David

Rockefeller and a group of like-minded business people founded
the Council of the Americas based on the fundamental belief that
free markets and private enterprise offer the most effective means
to achieve regional economic growth and prosperity."48 (Those so
naive as to believe in the COA's professed embrace of
"free markets and private enterprise" probably also believe that the
Social Security Administration has set up a bank account with their
name on it, awaiting their retirement!) Among the CFR
brotherhood joining Mr. Rockefeller in the COA's leadership are
COA chairman Robert A. Mosbacher, Sr., vice-chairman Robert E.
Wilhelm, treasurer Richard de J. Osborne, and general counsel
Sergio J. Galvis.
Some 240 COA corporate members with interests in Latin

America � ranging from AT&T, Bank of America, Coca Cola,
Citibank, and Dow Jones & Company to Exxon, Ford, General
Electric, IBM, Microsoft, Newsweek, Turner Broadcasting System,
Wal-Mart, and Xerox � provide impressive muscle (and financial
support) for the COA's agenda.49 Most of these companies, with a
heavy CFR presence at their executive and directorate levels, have
proven to be reliable supporters of the one-world corporatist line.
Working hand-in-glove with the COA-CFR corporate socialists

are the pampered princelings of the U.S.-tax-dollar-subsidized
multilateral lending institutions like the IMF and the Inter-
American Development Bank (IDB), many of whose officers are
also CFR members. The preface to the aforementioned Hufbauer-
Schott study, for instance, notes that "... the Inter-American
Development Bank provided support for the research underlying
this project and the bank sponsored seminars for the discussion of
its preliminary results." 50
Indeed, a brief survey of the daily faxes sent out by the IDB,
IMF, and their sister institutions makes very plain the completely
corrupt process by which the Insiders form their convergence
"consensus." Each day brings announcements of tens of millions
(sometimes hundreds of millions) of dollars in IDB "loans" for
natural gas pipelines in Mexico, electric power plants in Argentina,
highways in Bolivia, coffee plantations in El Salvador, etc. IDB
cooperation can lift a Latin American politician by financing the
programs that make him look good, or help his opposition by
pulling funds and destroying confidence in his economic program.
REGIONALISM
Thus, when President Carlos Menem of Argentina and Hugo

Chavez, the Castroite, Marxist president of Venezuela, delivered
their CFR-scripted speeches at June 1999 COA luncheons in New
York, they knew they were addressing sympathetic movers and
shakers of the COA-CFR-IIE-IDB axis who would parlay their
proposals into the new "working consensus" that would become
official U.S. policy.
Of course, what the new world order architects have in mind for
the Americas is exactly what they are foisting on Europe in the
form of the European Union and the new euro currency. That
evolving supranational monstrosity was also presented to unwary
Europeans as a "spontaneous" movement aimed at "free trade" and
"free markets." But Europeans are belatedly waking up to the fact
that it is no accident that the centralized, socialist bureaucracy of
the EU is strangling their freedoms and national sovereignty. As
we have seen, it was planned to develop into exactly that from the
start.
Like the slime trail that leads to a slug, virtually every trail of
American policy disasters leads back to the Council on Foreign
Relations. There is no longer reason for any sensible American to
doubt that the CFR coterie intends to take us down the same suicidal
path that Europe is now traveling. The one-world architects
of the European Monetary Union (EMU) are openly advocating an
American Monetary Union (AMU), as we have already seen from
the pages of Foreign Affairs.
Words fail to convey the enormity and audacity of this colossal,

dangerous fraud we are witnessing in the current "spontaneous
movement" to transform the Western Hemisphere into a carbon
copy of the increasingly tyrannical European Union. But even that
grim prospect of an America under an EU-style, centrally
controlled economic bloc does not begin to convey the seriousness
of the peril we face if we allow these plans to succeed. Regional
"integration" is but a stepping stone to the real objective sought by
the Insiders of this one-world conspiracy: Total, unrestrained
power on a planetary scale is the real objective.
Chapter 11
The UN World Money System
What the Trilaterals truly intend is the creation of a worldwide

economic power superior to the political governments of the
nation-states involved.... As managers and creators of the system
they will rule the future.1
� Senator Barry Goldwater

The only viable way, it seems to me, to structure the international
economic order for the future is to install collective
leadership among the Trilateral partners � to view the three
regions not as the dictators or the dominators, but as a steering
committee, which must work out its own differences first in order
to lead a stable and prosperous world economy.2
� C. Fred Bergsten (CFR, TC), former U.S. Assistant

Secretary of the Treasury
In a globalized economy, everyone needs the IMF [International
Monetary Fund]. Without the IMF, the world economy would not
become an idealized fantasy.... [T]he IMF is the sovereign nations'
credit union...3
� David Rockefeller, Trilateral Commission Founder,

longtime former chairman of both the TC and CFR
[The IMF is] in essence a socialist conception.4
� Hilary Marquand of the Socialist International,

circa 1962-63
[A] single currency is possible only if there is in effect a single
monetary policy.... How can independent states accomplish that?
They need to turn over the determination of monetary policy to a
supranational body.... The key point is that
215
monetary control ... would be in the hands of a new Bank of Issue, not
in the hands of any national government....5
� Professor Richard N. Cooper (CFR, TC), Harvard

University, former U.S. Under Secretary of State
The emerging multi-polar world ...presents a better opportunity to
create a world central bank with a stable international currency than at
any previous time in history.6
� Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Mundell in the

Trilateral-CFR-dominated Wall Street Journal,
October 14, 1999
For a generation now these columns have preached economics from

the gospel by Robert Mundell.7
� Lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal,

October 14, 1999
The fifth plank of the Communist Manifesto calls for "Centralization of
credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State
capital and an exclusive monopoly." 8 It stands to reason: You can't
establish the total state, the "dictatorship of the proletariat," if people are
allowed the freedom to produce their own goods and services, buy and
sell what they need and desire, and travel where they please when and
how they please. Communism is about rationed scarcity and total regimentation.
Under Communism, "the State" (i.e., the ruling oligarchy that
rules in the name of "the people") controls and rations food, clothing,
housing, transportation, fuel, health care, education, communications,
publishing, entertainment � everything.
Monopoly control by "the State" of all money, savings, and credit is as

essential to the totalitarian Communist system as its secret police, torture
chambers, firing squads, and gulags. We have seen throughout the 20th
century that everywhere the Communists have taken over they have
religiously followed Marx's dictate in this matter. The reason is simple:
power, con
THE UN WORLD MONEY SYSTEM
trol. Power to exercise total control over all human activity. Any
private, independent initiative is seen as a threat to this monopoly
control and, therefore, cannot be allowed.
Most people find it amazing, then, to learn that the world's

premier "capitalist" bankers and financiers subscribe to the game
Marxist program. For decades, led by the Rhodes-Milner-Morgan-
Rockefeller-RIIA-CFR-TC cabal, in one country after another, the
Insider bankers have successfully pushed for the establishment of
central banks. These central banks are patterned after our own
Federal Reserve System, a completely Marxist operation that was
foisted upon the American people by the banking trust in 1913, in
one of the most gigantic deceptions in world history.* While
having all the appearances of being run by national governments,
these central banks are, in reality, run by the private RIIA-CFR-TC
banking fraternity.
Why do these "capitalists" support Marx's program? Again, the

reason is simple: power, control. Recall that arch-conspirator
*An understanding of the incredible deception involved in the creation of the

Federal
Reserve System will greatly help us in our current battle against the same diabolic
forces
that are now so hellbent on establishing an all-powerful planetary central bank.
The
campaign for the Federal Reserve was completely a creature of the Insider banking
cartel,
but the proposal was presented to the American people by the cartel's front men as
the only
way to protect the country against the power of the "money trust." One of the
central players
in this scheme was Insider Frank Vanderlip of National City Bank of New York, who
later
divulged his role in the conspiracy to create the Fed. Two-and-a-half decades after
the event,
Vanderlip explained his role as a "conspirator" (his word) at a supersecret 1910
meeting at
Jekyll Island, Georgia, where the Federal Reserve plot was conceived. This very
elaborate
scheme, in which the Insiders financed and controlled both sides of the issue, is
brilliantly
revealed in G. Edward Griffin's masterful and detailed expose, The Creature from
Jekyll
Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve (Appleton, Wis.: American Opinion
Publishing, Inc., 1994). For a briefer treatment of the same subject, see also:
None Dare Call
It Conspiracy by Gary Allen (Seal Beach, Cal.: Concord Press, 1971); "The Federal
Reserve
System: The creature of a triumphant international banking establishment" (The New
American, October 27, 1986); and "The Secret Science: How the Federal Reserve
creates
money out of debt" (The New American, December 19, 1988).
Cecil Rhodes' "simple desire" was nothing less than "the government
of the world." The one-world banksters, like their Bolsheviki
brethren, want to control the world. And these sup. posed "mortal
enemies" have worked hand in hand throughout much of the past
century to bring about this totalitarian, global control. As Ford
Foundation President H. Rowan Gaither (CFR) put it (see Chapter
4), he and his one-world associates were making "every effort to so
alter life in the United States as to make possible a comfortable
merger with the Soviet Union."10
Spearheading the Merger

Spearheading this capitalist-Communist "merger" scheme for
much of the past century has been one of America's wealthiest and
most famous dynasties: the Rockefeller family. Microsoft mogul
Bill Gates, investment wizard Warren Buffet, and dot.com upstarts
have grabbed headlines in recent years as the "world's richest"
tycoons, but their economic and political influence doesn't begin to
compare with the global reach and power of the Rockefellers.
David Rockefeller, the current pater familias of the super-rich

clan, was for many years chairman of the CFR (1970-85), chairman
of the Trilateral Commission, and chairman of Chase
Manhattan Bank (formerly the Chase National Bank). Although
now officially retired, he has remained actively engaged as chairman
emeritus of all three institutions.11
During the entire "Cold War" (and for decades before), the
Rockefellers served as the primary banker for the Reds. As
Congressman Louis McFadden, chairman of the House Banking
Committee, noted in 1933:
Open up the books of Amtorg, the trading organization of the Soviet

Government in New York, and of Gostorg, the general office of the Soviet
trade organization, and of the State Bank of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, and you will be staggered to see how much American money has
been taken from the United States Treasury for the benefit of Russia. Find out
what business has been
transacted for the State bank of Soviet Russia by its correspondent, the
Chase Bank of New York....12
"Arch-capitalist" David Rockefeller has always enjoyed immediate,

privileged access to Communist countries and received the
royal "red carpet" welcome from them. His Chase Manhattan
Bank's Moscow branch enjoys the distinctive cache of being located
at "1 Karl Marx Square." In 1974, the bank even saw fit to boast of
this supposed trophy address in full-page newspaper
advertisements that read, in part: "From 1 Chase Manhattan plaza
to 1 Karl Marx Square, we're international money experts with a
knack for making good sense out of confusing East-West trade
talk."13David Rockefeller also expressed pride in the fact that Chase
Manhattan was the first Western bank to open for business in
Communist China.
A world central bank controlling all national monetary policies

and currencies � until such time as a single global currency may
be established � is essential to the one-worlders' East-West
merger scheme. Much of their scheming, naturally, goes on
secretly, behind closed doors, at the continuous and mysterious
meetings of such Insider circles of high-level finance as the G-7,
G-22, IMF, World Bank, Bank for International Settlements, the
Paris Club, the Bilderberg Group, and the World Economic Forum,
as well as many smaller, informal conclaves.
However, in order to advance their conspiratorial agenda, they

must telegraph many of their plans to their lower-level operatives
� in sanitized language, of course. By studying the documents,

reports, speeches, and published utterances of these Insiders over
the past several decades it is possible to determine their game plan
and their ultimate goal. As we have seen in the preceding chapter,
the Insiders' penultimate goal is to create regional blocs in which
the nation-states will become so economically and politically
interdependent and integrated that the nations are subsumed into
regional supergoverments (the EU, WHFTA, APEC, etc.) with
regional central banks and regional
currencies. Once this is done, it is small work to merge the regional

entities into a single global government.
Origins of Global Aid

The institutions of the current "international economic system"
grew out of the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference. In addition to the
original World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund
(IMF), we now have an assortment of subsidiary institutions:
International Development Association, International Finance
Corporation, Asian Development Bank, Asian Development Fund,
Inter-American Development Bank, African Development Bank,
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, and the Witeveen
Facility. Over the past half century, this group of institutions has
devastated our planet by stealing hundreds of billions of dollars
from taxpayers in the West to fund socialism worldwide. No
Communist butcher, socialist potentate, or Third World kleptocrat
has escaped the largesse of these compassionate UN bankers.
The cumulative effect of their efforts has been to subsidize

bankrupt Communist regimes while saddling the poor of the
developing countries with an impossible debt load. Periodically,
this has meant hitting up the taxpayers of Japan and the Western
countries for additional tens of billions of dollars for the IMF and
WB institutions so that they can issue new "loans" to the
Communist and socialist kleptocracies to make payments on their
loans from the global banksters.14
Although we have mentioned U.S. Assistant Secretary of the

Treasury Harry Dexter White (CFR) previously, it is important to
reemphasize his importance in the context of the Insiders' plan for
a global monetary system. It was Soviet agent White who led the
U.S. delegation and presided as the overall leader of the 45-nation

Bretton Woods Conference. It was White � together with his
inseparable "dear friend" John Maynard Keynes, the homosexual,
Fabian Socialist, one-worlder � who designed the IMF.15*
On November 6, 1953, Attorney General Herbert Brownell
announced: "Harry Dexter White was a Russian spy. He smuggled

secret documents to Russian agents for transmission to
Moscow."16 Brownell also reported that "Harry Dexter White was
known to be a spy by the very people who appointed him to the
most sensitive and important position he ever held in Government
service. The FBI became aware of White's espionage activities at
an early point in his government career and from the beginning
made reports on these activities to the appropriate officials in
authority. But these reports did not impede White's advancement
in the Administration...."17
Attorney General Brownell made it clear that, in spite of his Red

record, White had received Insider clearance from the very top:
"White's spying activities for the Soviet Government were reported
in detail by the FBI to the White House by means of a report
delivered to President Truman through his military aide, Brig.
Gen. Harry H. Vaughn."18
Comrade White was no ordinary "espionage" agent. As former

Communist Whittaker Chambers observed, "Harry Dexter White's
role as a Soviet agent was second in importance only to
*Lord Keynes, who was lionized by the Insider opinion cartel as a towering
intellect and the
"greatest economist of our age," was, in fact, a notorious pervert and pederast. He
was a
member of England's infamous "Bloomsbury Group," founded by Eleanor Marx (Karl
Marx's lesbian, drug-addict daughter) to mix sexual depravity, drugs, and socialist
thought.
He also was a member of the infamous homosexual nest of "Apostles" at Cambridge
University that produced the notorious British traitors Guy Burgess, Donald
Maclean, and
Anthony Blunt, all of whom spied for Stalin.21 It is quite likely that Keynes was
himself a
conscious Soviet agent. Besides his "intimate" association with many Reds, he was
married
to Russian ballerina Lydia Lopokova (a common ploy among the Bloomsbury set to
provide
respectable "cover"). The unconventional couple were among the protected few
allowed to
travel freely throughout Soviet Russia even during the Red Terror. Although Keynes'
hagiographers and promoters rigorously censored any Public mention of his sexual
deviancy
or his socialist-communist connections, these were well known to most of his
associates. In
1967, 21 years after Keynes' death, his perverse life was laid bare with the
publication of
Michael Holroyd's detailed, two-volume biography of Lytton Strachey, one of Keynes'
numerous homosexual paramours.22 Keynes' political, moral, and economic subversion

were
thoroughly exposed in Keynes At Harvard by Zygmund Dobbs.23
that of Alger Hiss � if, indeed, it was second."19 It was Chambers

who recruited White and introduced him to Col. Boris Bykov, of
Soviet military intelligence, in 1937.20
In his capacity as U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry

Dexter White deliberately held up congressionally approved gold
shipments to bolster China's currency during World War II. His
purpose in doing so was either to bring down the anti-Communist
Chiang Kai-shek or to force a coalition government between
Chiang's Nationalists and the Communists. As Assistant Secretary
of State for Far Eastern Affairs, Walter S. Robertson candidly
explained at the time: "In China, we withheld our funds at the only
time, in my opinion, we had a chance to save the situation. To do
what? To force the Communists in." 24
Serving as technical secretary at Bretton Woods and White's

right-hand man was fellow Treasury official Virginius Frank Coe,
also a Soviet agent. With White's help, Coe became the first
secretary of the newly created IMF, a powerful post he immediately
put in the service of the world revolution.25 What is most
extraordinary in all of this is not that a few clever Communists
managed to penetrate the top levels of the U.S. government by
"outsmarting" the "wise men" of the American Establishment. That
was not how it happened. Instead, it was top U.S. Insiders in our
government � Dean Acheson, Robert Lovett, Averell Harriman,
Nelson Rockefeller, Edward Stettinius, et al. � who repeatedly
interceded to prevent exposure of the records of these Soviet
agents, and to promote these traitors to even higher offices where
they could increase their damage to our nation!
Fruits of Global Aid

Under the leadership of White's and Coe's successors, the IMF has
been subsidizing the global socialist revolution for decades. Cato
Institute researcher Doug Bandow pointed out in 1994:
[S]ix nations, Chile, Egypt, India, Sudan, Turkey, and Yugoslavia, had been
relying on IMF aid for more than 30 years; 24 countries had been borrowers for
between 20 and 29 years. And 47,
almost one-third of all the states in the world, had been using IMF credit for
between 10 and 19 years.... Since 1947, Egypt has never left the IMF dole.
Yugoslavia took its first loan in 1949 and was a borrower in all but three of the
succeeding 41 years....
Bangladesh, Barbados, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Pakistan, Uganda, Zaire,
and Zambia all started borrowing in the early 1970s and have yet to stop two
decades later.26
Like domestic welfare drones, once these parasites attach

themselves to the taxpayers, they never let loose. With the
admission in 1992 of virtually all of the "ex-Communist" countries
into both the IMF and World Bank, UN officials and their
international welfare lobbyists launched a sustained campaign for
massive new infusions of capital, which have thus far siphoned
billions into Russia and its "former" Warsaw Pact allies,27 all of
which boast socialist regimes run by lifelong Communists, who are
now called "reformers."
None of the above should surprise us, since the IMF was
designed, as we've shown, by Communists, socialists and oneworlders.
The Socialist International has acknowledged that the
IMF is "in essence a Socialist conception." 28 Free market economist
Henry Hazlitt, who stood virtually alone in exposing and
opposing the IMF at its inception in 1944, clearly recognized its
socialist essence. Forty years later, in his book From Bretton
Woods to World Inflation, he warned: "The world cannot get back
to economic sanctity until the IMF is abolished.... We will not stop
the growth of world inflation and world socialism until the
institutions and policies adopted to promote them have been
abolished."29 The warnings of this wise economist were absolutely
correct in 1944. They were just as correct in 1984. And they are
still correct today.
The World Bank, of course, has also played a central role in the
global socialist revolution. India, one of the most pathetic socialist
examples, has been the WB's biggest recipient. From the bank's
creation in 1946 until the late 1960s, the WB funneled billions of
dollars into socialist regimes, but by today's standards,
the amounts divvied out were relatively small. "Then, in 1968,

Robert McNamara became bank president and dedicated himself
to continually raising loan levels," writes James Bovard in The
World Bank and the Impoverishment of Nations. "By 1981, when
McNamara resigned, lending had increased more than 13-fold
from $883 million to $12 billion. Loan levels have continued soaring:
now the bank exists largely to maximize the transfer of
resources to Third World governments."30
Unfortunately, Bovard points out, "the bank has greatly promoted

the nationalization of Third World economies and increased
political and bureaucratic control over the lives of the poorest of
the poor." Whenever the public, the press, or members of Congress
raise a hue and cry over the bank's deplorable activities, he notes,
WB officials go on a "rhetorical crusade in favor of the private
sector." But their bankrolling of revolution continues unabated.
"The bank, more than any other international institution," says
Bovard, "is responsible for the Third World's rush to socialism and
economic collapse." 31
Mr. McNamara is a former Secretary of Defense, a founding

member of the ultra-leftist Center for the Study of Democratic
Institutions, an endorser of the UN's occult Temple of
Understanding, and a big wheel in both the CFR and TC.32 His
campaign to raise the WB loan levels was not something he
dreamed up on his own, but reflected the collective "wisdom" of
the top CFR-TC leadership. The IMF and WB have worked in
close tandem with the top CFR-TC braintrusters and bankers from
the beginning.
An example of this can be seen in the 1996 Annual Report of the

CFR by Council Chairman Peter G. Peterson, who writes that "one
of our most important initiatives in the recent past has been to
expand our outreach to international institutions and to individuals
supportive of the Council's work around the world. I am quite
literally writing this letter on an airplane en route to Asia, where I
will meet with leaders of the Hong Kong forum and then continue
on to Beijing, where our unique and quite unprecedented 'home
and home' dialogue with the Chinese People's
Institute of Foreign Affairs moves into its next phase at a critical time in
the U.S.-China relationship. This trip was immediately
preceded by an all-day discussion with our distinguished International
Advisory Board, chaired by David Rockefeller, and
capped off with an intensive dinner discussion with James D.
Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank." 33
This account suggests a fascinating decision-making hierarchy in

international affairs. The CFR's International Advisory Board, under the
direction of David Rockefeller, set the policy guidelines for U.S.-Chinese
affairs; CFR Chairman Peterson was dispatched to Beijing to confer with
his counterparts in the Chinese equivalent of the CFR; a few months later,
Secretary of State Warren Christopher (CFR) was sent to lay the
groundwork for an eventual summit between heads of state Bill Clinton
(CFR) and Jiang Zemin. And James Wolfensohn (CFR) gets new WB
funds rolling for the joint Beijing-Insider projects.
Revolution Over Profits

In his 1979 book With No Apologies, Senator Barry Goldwater opined
that "the Council on Foreign Relations and its ancillary elitist groups are
indifferent to Communism. They have no ideological anchors. In their
pursuit of a new world order they are prepared to deal without prejudice
with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state, monarchy,
oligarchy � it's all the same to them."34
Although this cynical observation may seem, to the casual observer, an

adequate explanation for the Insider-Communist symbiosis of the past
few decades, it is sorely misleading. The Insiders are not "indifferent to
Communism." It is not "all the same to them." Yes, they have done
business with and arranged loans for democratic states, monarchies, and
"right-wing" dictatorships and oligarchies, as well as socialist and
Communist dictatorships. But the pattern that emerges is striking:
Virtually always, they have used the leverage they have gotten through
loans to undermine the non-socialist, non-Communist governments and
push them into the Communist-socialist camp.
David Rockefeller returned from a visit to Communist China in 1973

(in his capacity as chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank) declaring that
"the social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one
of the most important and successful in human history."35 According to
the most reliable estimates, Mao Tse-tung's "social experiment" had by
that time involved the murder of as many as 64 million Chinese by the
Communists.36
In April 1974, David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank loaned the

USSR $150 million to build the world's largest truck factory near the
Kama River. The first trucks out of that plant carried Soviet soldiers into
Afghanistan in 1979.37 In 1982 the chairman of the CFR, TC, and Chase
Manhattan expanded on his business "philosophy" during a 10-nation
swing through Africa, saying that "we have found we can deal with just
about any kind of government, provided they are orderly and responsible."
38 By that standard, Rockefeller would have had no trouble dealing
with the "orderly and responsible" Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler. He found
the Communist dictator of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, to be a "very
reasonable and charming person" and said that the presence of 20,000
Cuban soldiers had no "direct bearing on American business operations in
Angola. Clearly it has not interfered with our own banking relations."39
As head Illuminatus at Pratt House, Rockefeller has welcomed Fidel

Castro, Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki, and other assorted terrorists and
tyrants to the CFR's prestigious headquarters. This is not just about
"business" and "profit," as Senator Goldwater suggested, and as David
Rockefeller's remarks above were intended to infer. This is about power.
Masterminding Economic Collapse

An interesting window into the mindset of these Insiders was provided in
1990 by Canadian journalist Daniel Wood, who journeyed to the
sprawling southern Colorado estate of one of Canada's most renowned
citizens, Maurice Strong. Mr. Strong is an engaging and controversial
fellow: mega-millionaire industri
alist, radical environmentalist, New Age spiritualist, United

Nations plutocrat, fervent one-world socialist, economic savant,
global gadfly, and close pal of David Rockefeller and Mikhail
Gorbachev. Mr. Wood spent a week at Strong's Baca Grande ranch
interviewing this illustrious "world citizen."
During the course of Wood's visit, Strong told him of a novel he

had been planning to write. It was about a group of world leaders
who decided the only way to save the world was to cause the
economies of the industrialized countries to collapse. Strong
explained how his fictional leaders had formed a secret society and
engineered a worldwide financial panic and, ultimately, the
economic crash they sought. Mr. Wood's account of that conversation
appeared in the May 1990 issue of West magazine:
Each year, he [Strong] explains as background to the telling of the novel's plot,
the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand
CEO's, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in
February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With
this as a setting, he then says: "What if a small group of these world leaders
were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of
the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would
have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they
do it?... The group's conclusion is 'no.' The rich countries won't do it. They
won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only
hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our
responsibility to bring that about?"...
It's February. They're all at Davos. These aren't terrorists. They're world
leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world's commodity and stock
markets. They've engineered, using their access to stock exchanges and
computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world's stock
markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the
rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can't close. The rich
countries....40 [Emphasis in original.]
Wood wrote that at that point the tycoon cum novelist "makes a
slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt
out the window."41 Pffffft! The fates of hundreds of millions, even
billions, of people callously sealed with the flick of a finger
� their livelihoods, life savings, jobs, businesses, homes, dreams

� tossed out like a cigarette butt. All for a good cause ("to save
the planet"), of course.
Wood wrote: "I sit there spellbound. This is not any storyteller
talking. This is Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He
is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic
Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do
it."42
Perhaps more important � and what makes this amateur, would-

be novelist's tale so alarming � is that, from everything we know
about the eminent Mr. Strong, he is very likely inclined to do it!
Maurice Strong is the archetypal global elitist � a super-wealthy
collectivist of unbridled arrogance, who believes that he, and a
select few others, have been chosen to run the world and refashion
it according to their Utopian designs.
As Secretary-General of UNCED, the UN Earth Summit in Rio,

Strong ranted against the lifestyles of "the rich countries" much
like the "hero" of his novel. He declared that "the United States is
clearly the greatest risk" to the world's ecological health. "In
effect," Strong charged, "the United States is committing
environmental aggression against the rest of the world."43
In a 1991 UNCED report, Strong wrote: "It is clear that current

lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class ...
involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of
frozen and 'convenience' foods, ownership of motor-vehicles,
numerous electric household appliances, home and workplace air
conditioning ... suburban housing ... are not sustainable."
Moreover, he insisted, a shift is necessary "towards lifestyles ...
less geared to ... environmentally damaging consumption
patterns."44
Those are just a small sampling of Strong's eco-Stalinist

tirades. And remember, as Daniel Wood said, this man is in a

position to carry out the "fictitious" plan he outlined. Wood was
not exaggerating. Maurice Strong is an Insider's Insider. The oil
and energy magnate is the former head of Dome Petroleum of
Canada, Power Corporation of Canada, Ontario Hydro, and Petro
Canada. In 1972, he made his debut on the world stage as
Secretary-General of the first UN environmental conference, held
in Stockholm, Sweden. He was at the time also a trustee of the
Rockefeller Foundation, one of the premier, longtime promoters of
world government. Following the Stockholm confab, he was
named to head the newly created United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP).*
In 1991, Strong teamed up with David Rockefeller, founder of

the Trilateral Commission, to write the promotional introductions
to the Trilateral Commission plan for radical global "reform"
entitled Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World's
Economy and the Earth's Ecology. This eco-socialist paean to
world government, Strong claimed, "provides the most compelling
economic as well as environmental case for such reform that I have
read." 45
One of the Trilateral "reforms" that Strong, no doubt, fancied was
the proposal for "a new global partnership expressed in a
revitalized international system in which an Earth Council, perhaps
the Security Council with a broader mandate, maintains the
interlocked environmental and economic security of the planet."46
As "luck" would have it, one of the new global entities that came
into being as a result of the Earth Summit was an Earth Council.
One guess as to who was appointed to head it. Yes, Maurice Strong
is the chairman.
*Strong is also a mover and shaker in such Insider circles of power as the Club of
Rome, the
Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, the World Federation of United Nations
Associations, the World Economic Forum, the World Future Society, the Lindisfarne
Association, Planetary Citizens, the World Wilderness Congress, the Business
Council for
Sustainable Development, the Trilateral Commission, the World Resources Institute,
the
Gorbachev Foundation, the World Bank, and the Commission on Global Governance.
Mr. Strong has remained very much in the thick of all things
green and global. In 1995, he addressed the Royal Institute of
International Affairs, Britain's premier one-world organization, on
his progress in organizing National Councils for Sustainable
Development throughout the world to lobby for Agenda 21, the
UN's mammoth blueprint for global eco-socialism. He has joined
the globalist glitterati at the Gorbachev Foundation's annual State
of the World Forum. In 1997, he hosted the global Rio+5
Conference.
Together with Mikhail Gorbachev and other one-world luminaries,

Maurice Strong has been promoting the environmental
manifesto known as the "Earth Charter." This charter envisions a
planetary socialist welfare state, which would, among other things,
"promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and
among nations." 47 And Messrs. Strong, Gorbachev, Rockefeller, et
al., will be in charge of the distribution, of course. But before they
can "distribute" the world's wealth, they must first take full control
of it. Which means it's really about power. That's what all wealth
redistribution schemes are always really about. And, clearly, power
is what Mr. Strong and his one-world confreres are after.
The creation of a global central bank, a global currency, a global

tax system, and a global trading authority have been key objectives
of world government advocates for decades. Centralized monetary
and economic institutions of this kind would make the orchestrated
world financial collapse scenario Maurice Strong envisions mere
child's play. They would also facilitate the grand redistribute-thewealth
schemes of the UN's bureaucrats. As was evident in the
previous chapter with regard to the EU and WHFTA, the one-
world Insiders recognize that economic control is their sure path to
political control.
Pooling Monetary Sovereignty

One of the Insiders' leading technicians helping to design their
envisioned "new world order" is Harvard University Professor
Richard N. Cooper (CFR, TC). Writing in the Fall 1984 edition of
the CFR journal Foreign Affairs, Cooper proposed "a radical

alternative scheme" (his words) that would mean the end of
America as we know it. In his article entitled "A Monetary System
for the Future," the Harvard don wrote:
A new Bretton Woods conference is wholly premature. But it is not

premature to begin thinking about how we would like international monetary
arrangements to evolve in the remainder of this century. With this in mind, I
suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of a
common currency for all of the industrial democracies, with a common
monetary policy and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that monetary policy.48
"The currency of the Bank of Issue could be practically anything,"

the CFR economist continued. "The key point is that monetary
control � the issuance of currency and of reserve credit �
would be in the hands of the new Bank of Issue, not in the hands of
any national government...."49 (Emphasis added.) The problem, he
noted, is that "a single currency is possible only if there is in effect
a single monetary policy, and a single authority issuing the
currency and directing the monetary policy. How can independent
states accomplish that? They need to turn over the determination of
monetary policy to a supranational body...."50 (Emphasis added.)
As the Washington Post put it: "The real point is that a common
currency means one common country, and all else is details to be
filled in later."51 (Emphasis in original.) Precisely! And the CFRTC
ueberlords are more than willing to provide those details. Mr.
Cooper realized that selling this flagrantly totalitar-ian idea to the
public would not be an easy, overnight job. "This one-currency
regime is much too radical to envisage in the near future," he
admitted. "But it is not too radical to envisage 25 years from
now.... [I]t will require many years of consideration before people
become accustomed to the idea." 52
Overcoming objections to "a pooling of monetary sovereignty"
- even with friendly nations � would be difficult under any cir

cumstances. But how could Americans ever be expected to go

along with a "radical scheme" to merge economically with
Communist countries? It would be difficult, Cooper conceded, but-
doable, nonetheless. He wrote: "First, it is highly doubtful whether
the American public, to take just one example, could ever accept
that countries with oppressive autocratic regimes should vote on
the monetary policy that would affect monetary conditions in the
United States.... For such a bold step to work at all, it presupposes
a certain convergence of political values...." 53
Creating Convergence
Cooper and his confreres in the CFR-dominated media, think
tanks, and academia went to work to create that "convergence of
political values" in the public mind. A flood of articles and op-eds
in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post,
Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Christian
Science Monitor, The Economist, etc. soon began hammering
home the theme that the United States and Western Europe must
help Gorbachev's "perestroika" transform the Soviet Union in the
direction of "democracy" and a market economy. After the purported
"collapse of Communism" in 1989, they stepped up the
convergence drum beat, asserting that the taxpayers of the West
must provide Russia and all the nations of her "former" satellite
empire more billions of dollars in credits and aid to help them
make the transition to freedom and stability.
The essential point here should not be missed: The advocates of

world government intend that their planned global superstate,
although "initially limited," will, ultimately, exercise unlimited
planetary power, a power far beyond that realized by Hitler, Stalin,
or Mao. Surely, if we do not stop their megalomaniacal plans, we
will see them use this power in much the same way as outlined by
Maurice Strong � and in ways even more brutal and horrific.
Part III
Bringing It Home
Chapter 12
The UN's One-World Religion
The histories and symbols that served our fathers encumber and
divide us. Sacraments and rituals harbor disputes and waste our
scanty emotions.... The modernization of the religious impulse
leads us straight to the effort for the establishment of the world
state as a duty....1
� H.G. Wells, author, historian, and one-world Fabian

Socialist, The Open Conspiracy, 1928
The United Nations is the chosen instrument of God; to be a
chosen instrument means to be a divine messenger carrying the
banner of God's inner vision and outer manifestation.2
� Master Sri Chinmoy, head of the UN Meditation Room

The responsibility of each human being today is to choose
between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must
therefore transform our attitudes and values, and adopt a renewed
respect for the superior law of Divine Nature.3
� Maurice Strong, UNCED Secretary-General, keynote

address to the UN Earth Summit, 1992
We must now forge a new "Earth Ethic" which will inspire all
peoples and nations to join in a new global partnership of North,
South, East and West. 4
� UN publication In Our Hands: Earth Summit '92

[T]he Antichrist and the Second Coming of women are synonymous.
This Second Coming is not a return of Christ but a new
arrival of female presence.... The Second Coming, then,
235
means that the prophetic dimension in the symbol of the Great Goddess
... is the key to salvation from servitude....5 [Emphasis in original.]
� Mary Daly, radical feminist "theologian,"

Boston College
Witches were freedom fighters for women because they taught
contraception and abortion. The modern contribution is to elevate
reproductive freedom to a universal human right....6 [Emphasis in
original.]
� Gloria Steinem, socialist, radical feminist, founder

of Ms. magazine
Only a person totally deaf and blind could fail to notice the incredible
occult, New Age, and neo-pagan explosion that has been rapidly
transforming the Americas and Western Europe into what the advocates
of global change gleefully refer to as "post-Christian civilizations." A
majority of Americans still consider themselves Christian, but find they
are increasingly in retreat before a steady onslaught of anti-Christian
media assaults, court rulings, attacks from academia, and pop culture
offerings. Meanwhile, hedonism, Satanism, witchcraft, astrology,
vampirism, homosexuality, Eastern mystic cults, and "Indigenous
Peoples" religions are exalted by the same media mandarins and
Hollywood elites who control our "news" and "entertainment."
What very few of these Americans realize is that this hideous "spiritual
transformation" is tied directly to the United Nations, where the one-
world architects intend to enthrone their planned New World Religion.
And as this Satanic enthronement progresses (yes, we mean, literally,
Satanic), Christians � and Orthodox Jews and Muslims as well � will
find themselves increasingly in the crosshairs of the new world order,
singled out as "bigoted," "dogmatic," and "intolerant" for insisting on
clinging to their "archaic" and "divisive" religious beliefs.
Religious leaders and adherents of all sects are being aggres

THE UN'S ONE-WORLD RELIGION
sively evangelized to adopt the UN's new "global ethic," a gooey

melange of religious syncretism, environmentalism, socialism, and
militant secular humanism. People of all religious backgrounds are
being enlisted to embrace this "global ethic" as a "core belief" of
their religious faith.
As more and more people adopt this new "planetary consciousness,"

the one-world Insiders know that support will grow for:
� global disarmament, for both individuals and nations

� world government
� paganism
� environmental extremism
� socialism and Communism
� religious persecution, in the name of "tolerance" and combating
"hate"
If the above statements are shocking and incredible to you, then
you are unaware of easily verifiable facts concerning events and
developments that are dramatically impacting our society. Many of
the steps in this diabolic scheme are taking place before our very
eyes, in the open, as British novelist and Fabian Socialist historian
H.G. Wells proposed in 1928 in his The Open Conspiracy: Blue

Prints For a World Revolution.
Wells, an ardent one-worlder and one of the most widely read
authors and intellectuals of his day, conceded that human history
has proven that religious ideals are essential to the sustaining of
any society. However, having rejected Christianity and all other
religions, he determined that only a new "modern" religion could
sustain the socialist world government he was advocating. "The
conspiracy of modern religion against the established institutions
of the world must be an open conspiracy," he averred, and must
reject "secret methods or tactical insincerities."7
This statement was itself a "tactical insincerity," of course, since

Wells and his one-world, socialist comrades never planned to be
completely open about their schemes. Thus the brazen symbol of
deception on the Fabian Socialist coat-of-arms: a wolf in
sheep's clothing!
"It seems unavoidable," said the Fabian strategist, "that if religion

is to develop unifying and directive power in the present
confusion of human affairs it must adapt itself... ; it must divest
itself of its sacred histories, its gross preoccupations, its posthumous
prolongation of personal ends." "The time has come," said
Wells, "to strip religion right down to" what he saw as the spiritual
essentials: "the desire for service" and "subordination."8
But "service" and "subordination" to the deities created by

Prophet Wells and his fellow high-priests. Never one to allow
humility to dim the glory of his divine brilliance, Wells boldly
proclaimed: "So I bear my witness and argue my design. This is, I
declare, the truth and the way of salvation."9 Moreover, he
announced, "... it will be a world religion. This large loose assimilatory
mass of groups and societies will be definitely and obviously
attempting to swallow up the entire population of the world
and become the new human community."10
Occult Connections
The global religion envisioned by Wells was a secular, socialist
one, but some of his fellow Fabians had migrated from atheism to
the occult. Two of the most important pilgrims of that variety were
radical feminist Annie Besant and British journalist and newspaper
publisher William Stead.
Besant became a fervent disciple of Madame Helena Blavatsky,

the occultist, satanist founder of the modern Theosophical
movement. Besant eventually became the international president of
the Theosophical Society.
Alice and Foster Bailey, who succeeded Annie Besant,

unabashedly revealed their demonic sympathies with the launching
of Lucifer Publishing Company and its theosophical journal,
Lucifer. Later, however, they realized that the Christian West was
still too "unenlightened" to accept open Luciferian doctrine and
changed the name of Lucifer Publishing Company to the more
esoteric (and less likely to offend) Lucis Publishing Company.
They also established the Lucis Trust to serve as the
umbrella organization for a profusion of globalist/New Age/occult

organizations and programs that are key catalysts of the emerging
new world religion. These include the Arcane School, World
Goodwill, Triangles, Lucis Publishing, Lucis Productions, Lucis
Trust Libraries, and the New Group of World Servers.11
According to the Lucis Trust, "World Goodwill is recognised ...

at the United Nations as a Non-governmental Organisation" and is
"represented at regular briefing sessions at the United Nations in
New York and Geneva."12 The "regular weekly broadcasts of talks
given at World Goodwill Forum meetings and programs produced
by Lucis Productions" in London and New York are beamed by
Radio For Peace International in English, Spanish, German, and
French, on shortwave, to a "worldwide audience" from the UN
University for Peace in Costa Rica.13
Lucis Trust also serves as custodian of the Meditation Room at

the UN's New York headquarters.14 This dark and ominous theosophical
shrine contains no symbols of the world's major religions.
A barren, metallic altar and a stark, Picassoesque mural of geometric
shapes provide spiritual symbolism. Literature provided at
the UN describes the symbols as "a rectangular six-ton block of
iron ore lit by a single shaft of light and a muted abstract painting
at the far end of the small room, similarly illuminated."15
And what does all this signify? Theosophist authors Eunice and
Felix Layton connect the room's symbolism to "the story of the
descent of the divine into every human life, its apparent death and
burial in the material world and its inevitable final triumphant
resurrection."16 Keep in mind that it is Lucifer, the "light-bearer,"
who is the "divine" one in Blavatsky's twisted theosophist
theology, and you'll understand why this bizarre temple is entirely
apropos for the Tower of Babel on New York's East River.*
William Stead, publisher of the radical Pall Mall Gazette, was

not only a socialist and theosophist � he was also an intimate
associate of the super-rich, megalomaniacal, homosexual Cecil
Rhodes, whom we discussed in Chapter 3.
Recall that Rhodes, William Stead, and a small group of high

born graduates of Oxford and Cambridge, all fervent apostles of

the socialist Professor John Ruskin, formed a "secret society" (the
words are Rhodes') called the "Society of the Elect." Rhodes
admitted that his plan for dominion was "a scheme to take the
government of the whole world."17 In other words, a conspiracy.
Envisioning a UN-type world government vested with irresistible
military force, Rhodes insisted that the scheme must entail "the
foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars
impossible."18 It was in the furtherance of this conspiracy that
Rhodes' secret society founded the Royal Institute of International
Affairs and CFR. Both of these front groups, as we have seen,
played key roles in establishing the UN, and are likewise involved
in building the new global religion.
Indoctrination: Subordination to the State

Let us drop back for a moment to revisit H.G. Wells. We have
*Another principal conduit of UN spiritualism is the Temple of Understanding,

operated
with the support of the Lucis Trust. It is located near the UN at the historic
Cathedral of St.
John the Divine, a center of political and occult/New Age activism, which also
houses the
radical Interfaith Center of New York and the Luciferians of the Lindisfarne
Center.
Launched in the early 1960s as the "spiritual counterpart of the United Nations,"
The
Temple of Understanding's founding sponsors included an odd assortment of
Establishment
Insiders, socialists, humanists, Communist fronters, religious figures, and
entertainment
celebrities: Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (CFR, TC); then-Secretary of Defense
Robert S.
McNamara (CFR, TC); Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger; IBM president
Thomas J. Watson (CFR); Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas; Eleanor Roosevelt;
Time-
Life president James A. Linen (CFR); homosexual author Christopher Isherwood; and
Fabian Socialist professor and columnist Max Lerner.19
The Temple of Understanding works closely with the UN Secretariat, the World
Council
of Churches, the World Conference on Religion and Peace, the UN's Society for
Enlightenment and Transformation, and other "spiritual leaders" to sponsor
convocations for
"global spirituality." These conferences, which have burgeoned in size and
frequency over
the past decade, invariably turn out to be workshops for religious syncretism,
which aims at
melding and blending the world's disparate faiths into one global, neo-pagan,
occult religion
or "Earth Ethic."
noted the continuing influence of his occult, socialist confreres

Annie Besant and William Stead from early in the last century to
the present day. But Wells himself is also very much alive in
"world order" circles. Quotations from his works are scattered
throughout New Age and new world order books and publications.
The World Federalist Association (WFA), for instance, continues
to publish some of his essays, including "How a Federal World
Government May Come About," taken from his book The Outline
of History (1920).20 According to Wells, in that one-world
polemic:
The essential task of men of goodwill in all states and countries

remains the same, it is an educational task, and its very essence is to bring to
the minds of all men everywhere, as a necessary basis for world co-operation, a
new telling and interpretation, a common interpretation, of history.... The
world perishes unless sovereignty is merged and nationality subordinated.21
[Emphasis in original.]
Wells sets down what he sees as "the broad fundamentals of the

coming world state." "It will be based," he says, "upon a common
world religion, very much simplified and universalized.... This will
not be Christianity nor Islam nor Buddhism nor any such
specialized form of religion, but religion itself pure and undefiled;
the Eightfold Way, the Kingdom of Heaven, brotherhood, creative
service, and self-forgetfulness. Throughout the world men's
thoughts and motives will be turned by education.... And
education, as the new age will conceive it, will go on throughout
life."22 (Emphasis added.)
Sound familiar? This is precisely what we have been experiencing

in our schools and colleges, as well as the government-
directed "lifelong learning" programs that gradually have become
an integral part of so many corporate and governmental jobs.
Which is not to imply that we are, or ought to be, opposed to
"lifelong learning," as the term is commonly understood, in its
most innocent and benign meaning. To the contrary, we accept it as
a fact of life. Ours is not the first generation to realize that
learning does not (or should not) end with the completion of for-mal
schooling; wise people (of all socio-economic and educational
backgrounds) throughout the ages have recognized the need for (as well
as the pleasure to be derived from) continuous lifelong education. In
today's fast-changing, technology-driven world, it is more important than
ever to be constantly updating skills and learning new ones.
However, in using the same terms, we do not all mean the same thing.
We should be very familiar with this phenomenon by now. "Tolerance"
no longer means "live and let live" civility; it means using the power of
government to force majority acceptance of the perverse practices of a
militant minority. "Peacekeeping" means carpet-bombing and/or invading
and militarily subjugating whomever the UN has designated as villain du
jour. "Multiculturalism" means demonizing Christian and European
civilization for genocide, exploitation, and raping Mother Earth.
"Investing" doesn't mean private individuals freely deciding what to do
with their own capital assets; it means politicians and bureaucrats
plundering your savings through taxation, and then spending it on
socialist boondoggles.
So we should not be surprised that the same coercive Utopians have

also co-opted "lifelong learning." In their lexicon it no longer is an
elective; the individual cannot be allowed to determine if and when he
will take any continued formal schooling. Such important decisions must
be made by superior "experts." Or as Wells put it, "we should have the
collective affairs of the world managed by suitably equipped groups of
the most interested, intelligent and devoted people" � such as himself
and his fellow Fabians.23
Subversive World Council of Churches

One of the early major attempts to co-opt religion in the service of world
government came in 1942. Time magazine devoted considerable space in
its March 16, 1942 issue to a report on a gathering at Ohio Wesleyan
University of hundreds of delegates representing the more than 30
denominations called together by the
242
notoriously pro-Communist Federal Council of Churches
(FCC).
The FCC (which later changed its name to the National Council
of Churches, NCC) was the American branch of the Communist-
controlled World Council of Churches, which still exists and has
never ceased its subversive activities.
Chairing the 1942 FCC Wesleyan confab was Insider John

Foster Dulles, a founder of the CFR and, together with his brother
Allen Dulles (CFR), a member of the Woodrow Wilson-Colonel
House team that tried to foist the League of Nations on the United
States. John Dulles would later go on to promote the new world
order as Secretary of State under President Eisenhower. However,
at the 1942 FCC conference he was lining up church support for
the United Nations that would be coming three years later.
As Time reported, the Dulles-led conference produced a political

program of "extreme internationalism." Some of the "high spots"
of that program were, said Time:
�
Ultimately, "a world government of delegated powers."
�
Strong immediate limitations on national sovereignty.
�
International control of all armies and navies.
�
"A universal system of money...."
�
Progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world
trade.24
According to Time, the conference "held that 'a new order of
economic life is both imminent and imperative' � a new order that
is sure to come either 'through voluntary cooperation ... or through
explosive political revolution.'" " 'Collectivism is coming whether
we like it or not,' the delegates were told by no less a churchman
than England's Dr. William Paton, co-secretary of the World
Council of Churches." 25 The problem is that Dr. Paton and his
comrades did want collectivism, and they were doing everything in
their power to fasten it upon the peoples of the world, through both
patient gradualism and "explosive political revolution." The Time
story finished on this note:
The ultimate goal: "a duly constituted world government ... an

international court ... international administrative bodies with necessary
powers, and adequate international police forces and provision for
enforcing its worldwide economic authority."26
The Dulles-FCC propaganda parley no doubt greatly assisted the

Insiders' globalist plans, both in building religious support for U.S. entry
into the forthcoming United Nations, and in neutralizing opposition to the
same organization. In the decades since that confab at Ohio Wesleyan
University, UN religious summitry has played an increasingly important
part in the one-world transformation scheme.
The World "Peace" Summit

The granddaddy of these convocations, the United Nations Millennium
World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders, was held in New
York City in late August 2000 (not to be confused with the gathering of
Heads of State at the UN's Millennium Summit, which followed in
September). The Peace Summit offered terrifying glimpses of the
outrageous and demonic "global spirituality" the Insiders have planned
for us.
The outrages began even before the Peace Summit began, when the UN
organizers announced that the Dalai Lama would not be invited because
his attendance would offend Communist China!27 So, while more than a
thousand religious leaders and gurus representing every conceivable
"faith tradition" gathered in New York under banners of "tolerance,"
"peace," and "brotherhood," one of the world's best-known religious
figures, the revered leader of millions of Buddhists, and a man who
exemplifies those virtues the UN summit extolled, was barred from
attendance � because the totalitarian, genocidal butchers who have been
brutally occupying his tiny kingdom of Tibet for half a century would get
upset!
The hypocrisy and outrage multiplied as the Summit got underway. Not
only was the Dalai Lama excluded, but Red China was given a platform
to denounce him and the many other vic
tims of their brutal religious persecution. Representing the
Butchers of Beijing at this UN spiritual confabulation was

"Bishop" Michael Fu Tieshan of the PRC's "Patriotic Catholic
Church."28 Bishop Fu is not a genuine Roman Catholic bishop
ecognized by the Vatican; he is an agent of the Communist government

who provides protective cover for his masters while they
cruelly oppress real Catholic bishops, priests, and lay faithful. Real
Chinese Catholics like the late Ignatius Cardinal Kung Pin-Mei,
who spent more than 30 years in Red China's prisons. Cardinal
Kung was arrested in 1955, along with more than 200 other
Catholic priests and Church leaders. They were abused, tortured,
and publicly humiliated at show trials. Cardinal Kung was kept in
solitary confinement during much of his heroic three decades of
imprisonment. He died in exile, in the United States, at the age of
98, on March 12, 2000 � just a few months before the UN
"Peace" Summit. He was the Catholic Church's oldest cardinal.29
Other aged servants of God remain in prison. In February 2000, for
example, shortly before Cardinal Rung's death, 80-year old
Archbishop John Yang was arrested during a midnight raid at his
home by the Communist authorities.30
The persecution continued after the Summit as well. On

September 14, 2000, barely a week after the PRC butchers were
welcomed to the Summit, Bishop Thomas Zeng Jingmu was
arrested in his town of Hangpu, in the Southeastern province of
Jiangxi. The frail, 80-year-old bishop was taken by force to the
local prison of Linchuan. Bishop Zeng, who has been arrested
many times for his faith, has suffered more than 30 years in prison
since the 1950s. Also arrested at the same time as Bishop Zeng
were Auxiliary Bishop Deng Hui and Father Liao Haiqing.31
Many other Christians in China share this same fate. A few days
before the start of the Summit, three American evangelists were
arrested in China in the tyrannical regime's crackdown on
Evangelical Protestant "house churches." The Americans were
among 130 Christians netted in the Communist sweep of wor
ship services in private homes.32 This was but the latest in an

ongoing pattern of persecution that includes the execution by firing
squad of Reverend Liu Jiaguo.33 And the persecution of
Christians has been increasing and intensifying � not mellowing
� in recent years, with each new concession from the U.S. and the
West. At the same time, the Beijing regime has also been engaged
in an ongoing brutal suppression of the Falun Gong spiritual
exercise and meditation sect, as well as a continuing persecution of
Chinese Muslims.34
In his address to the UN's "spiritual" Peace Summit, Bishop Fu
Tieshan, the puppet-stooge of these Red Chinese persecutors, said:
Let us pray for the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, respect the purposes
and principles of the U.N. Charter, and from now on, guard against
and put an end to anything that taint and desecrate religious purity...
Today in China, facts and other practice genuinely reflect the harmony
between different religions. And under the protection of the Constitution and
other laws, we enjoy comprehensive and full religious freedom.35
In an obvious attack on the Dalai Lama and the many brave

religious believers suffering under the Communist regime,
"Bishop" Fu said: "At present, there are still many violent and evil
activities going on 'in the name of religion.' Some people have
made use of religious differences to fuel ethnic feuds and provoke
so-called conflicts of civilizations; some want to trample upon the
sovereignty of other countries under the pretext of 'protecting
religious human rights.'"36
Did any of the esteemed spiritual leaders attending the Peace

Summit walk out in protest over this brazen display of hypocrisy?
Did they announce their "solidarity" with their brothers who are
suffering for their religious convictions? Did they demand that Red
China stop its vicious persecution of all religions? Did they even
timidly ask our Beijing "partners" to light
en up with the truncheons and thumbscrews? Hah! Not even
close! Instead, they politely applauded (some enthusiastically
cheered) this puppet of the Communist persecutors.
Most Americans, if they saw or heard any coverage of the

Summit in the major CFR-dominated media, were not apprised
of the cruel charade that was played out there. Few are aware
that Bishop Fu Tieshan is a fraud or that religionists of all types
are routinely persecuted in Red China.
CNN certainly wasn't going to expose this sham; CNN founder

and current vice-chairman of CNN parent company Time Warner,
Ted Turner, not only was a major financial sponsor of the Summit,
but also honorary chairman of the event. Turner, who is infamous
for his profanity, womanizing, and scathing verbal attacks on
Christianity, Christian leaders, the Ten Commandments, and
Biblical morality, couldn't resist using the Summit podium to
criticize the "very intolerant" Christianity of his boyhood and to
propose a more global, all-embracing spirituality for the "one
human race."37
Global Ethic Kung Phooey

The "spirituality" that One-World Ted and his fellow Insiders have
in mind is to be found in the UN's "Declaration of a Global Ethic,"
which UNESCO commissioned renegade "theologian" Hans Kung
to draft.38 Yes, while real Christian heroes like Cardinal Kung, who
suffer torture for their faith, are completely ignored by the CFR
"news" cartel, left-wing ideologues like Hans Kung are celebrated.
For those who like their theology dished up from the likes of Ted
Turner and Bishop Fu Tieshan � which appears to be most of the
globalist folk who populate the UN diplomatic corps and
delegations to UN conferences � Hans Kung was a perfect choice.
In his 1991 book Global Responsibility: In Search of a New World
Ethic, Kung declared:
Any form of... church conservatism is to be rejected.... To put it bluntly: No

regressive or repressive religion � whether Christian,
Islamic, Jewish or of whatever provenance � has a long-term future.39
Moreover, he said: "If ethics is to function for the well-being of

all, it must be indivisible. The undivided world increasingly needs
an undivided ethic. Postmodern men and women need common
values, goals, ideals, visions."40 That's right, UN "diversity" is
broad enough to embrace every imaginable navel-gazing mystic,
diapered swami, saffron-robed guru, befeathered sachem, spell-
chanting shaman, New Age psycho-babbler, tree-worshiping
pantheist, witch, warlock, druid, animist, or Marxian spiritualist �
but not those terrible, monotheistic creeds. Mustn't tolerate any of
those "dogmatic," "absolutist" faiths; of that the "tolerant"
globalists are dogmatically, absolutely certain.
Another prominent "theologian" of the UN's "global ethic" is Dr.

Robert Muller (whom we introduced in our Prologue). A former
UN Assistant Secretary-General, Dr. Muller served 38 years as a
United Nations "civil servant," and � following his retirement in
1985 � has served as chancellor of the UN's University for Peace
in Costa Rica. He is the author of the World Core Curriculum now
in use in schools worldwide. In his influential book New Genesis:
Shaping a Global Spirituality, Muller opines: "If Christ came back
to earth, his first visit would be to the United Nations to see if his
dream of human oneness and brotherhood had come true. He
would be happy to see representatives of all nations."41
We remind you, dear reader, that in the contorted theosophical

sophistry of Muller and company, "Christ" is not Jesus Christ but
Lucifer. According to Muller, the UN's wondrous endeavors are
leading us on a "grand journey of humanity towards oneness,
convergence and unprecedented happiness." What's more, "We
were approaching Teilhard's point of convergence, Wells' last
chapter of The Outline of History ... Sri Chinmoy's world oneness
... the apotheosis [deification] of human life on earth."42
The "Teilhard" Muller refers to is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

-the renegade Jesuit priest, theologian-philosopher, and paleontologist

who perpetrated the great "Piltdown Man" evolutionist hoax. "Wells" is,
of course, H.G. Wells, whom we introduced above. Sri Chinmoy is the
one-world, New Age guru who runs the UN's Meditation Room and
regularly leads the meditations. Chinmoy has offered his prophecy
regarding the UN's divine mission:
The United Nations is the chosen instrument of God; to be a chosen

instrument means to be a divine messenger carrying the banner of
God's inner vision and outer manifestation. One day, the world will ...
treasure and cherish the soul of the United Nations as its very own with pride,
for this soul is all-loving, all-nourishing, and all-fulfilling.43
"Spiritual Leaders" for the New Millennium

It was Master Chinmoy, appropriately, who presented the UN's U Thant
Peace Award to Maurice Strong, the globe-trotting billionaire best known
for his role as Secretary-General of the 1992 UN Earth Summit in
Brazil.44 Strong was receiving the honor, said Chinmoy, for "his lifelong
commitment to the soaring ideals of the United Nations."
The award was named for U Thant, the Burmese Marxist who served as
the UN's third Secretary-General and who, in 1970, brazenly declared:
"Lenin was a man with a mind of great clarity and incisiveness."45
Maurice Strong, who apparently shares Lenin's "great clarity and
incisiveness," has been a driving force in bringing the most extreme
enviro-Leninism and far-out reli-gio-Leninism into the social, political,
economic, religious mainstream.
Other vaunted "spiritual leaders" who are guiding humanity into the
developing "global ethic" of the new millennium include:
� Mohammed Ramadan, president of the UN's Society for Enlightenment

and Transformation, which has offices in the basement of the UN
building where every conceivable variety
of "spiritual sage" � witch doctors, mystics, "channelers" UFO

enthusiasts, reincarnated Masters � contribute their cosmic
energies to the sacred mission of the UN.
� Apostate
theologian Matthew Fox, whose radical New Age
spirituality embraces Wicca, homosexuality, abortion, and one-
world socialism. An apostle of the Gaia (Earth Goddess) Gospel,
Fox says, "I believe the appropriate symbol of the Cosmic
Christ... is that of Jesus as Mother Earth crucified yet rising
daily... [T]he symbol of which I speak holds the capacity to
launch a global spirituality of untold dimensions appropriate for
the third millennium." 46
� Gerald Barney, founder and executive director of the Millennium
Institute and a co-chair of the 1993 Parliament of World
Religions. In his keynote address at that summit, he said that "an
internationally famous, highly influential author on sustainable
development told me bluntly, 'Religion must die. It is the
fundamental cause of virtually all social, economic, and
ecological problems and much of the violence in the world.'"47
The only alternative to the destruction of religion, Barney
asserted, is the "reinterpretation and even rejection of ancient
traditions and assumptions" and the creation of a "'sustainable'
faith tradition on earth...."48 "Every person," Barney said, "must
learn to think like Earth, to act like Earth, to be Earth."49 Barney
was the lead author of the enviro-Leninist Global 2000 report for
the Carter administration and was a national program director for
the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
� William
Irwin Thompson, founder of the (Luciferian)
Lindisfarne Association. "We have now a new spirituality, what
has been called the New Age movement," Thompson says. "This
is now beginning to influence concepts of politics and
community in ecology.... This is the Gaia [Mother Earth]
politique ... planetary culture."50
� Mikhail Gorbachev, former Soviet dictator, butcher of

Afghanistan, and chairman of the Gorbachev Foundation and
Green Cross International. In a Los Angeles Times interview of
May 8, 1997, Gorbachev insisted humanity must embrace "a new
environmental legal code rooted in an Earth Charter ... a kind of
Ten Commandments, a 'Sermon on the Mount,' that provides a
guide for human behavior toward the environment in the next
century and beyond." "The most important thing," he said, "is the
shaping of a new value system" from a "new synthesis" of
"democratic, Christian, and Buddhist values ... which affirm such
moral principles as social responsibility and the sense of oneness
with nature and with each other."51 Gorbachev's week-long State
of the World Forum 2000 extravaganza in New York City was
the bridging event between the Peace Summit and the
Millennium Summit, with many of the heads of state,
ambassadors, UN officials, and spiritual leaders from both events
also participating in the Gorbachev Forum.
Earth Charter Subversion and Perversion
Comrade Gorbachev knows something about the Earth Charter,
since he helped compose it. It was his good friend, Maurice Strong,
as chief of the Earth Summit, who commissioned him to take up
the important task. While much of the Charter sounds like harmless
eco-babble, or even sensible earth stewardship that is compatible
with Christian theology, it is larded with deceptive code words and
traps aimed at destroying Judeo-Christian moral values and the
non-socialist political-economic systems. Article 12 (a) of the
Earth Charter commits signatory governments to:
Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race, color,
sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, and national, ethnic or social
origin.5
[Emphasis added.]
This is very clearly aimed at expanding the socialist state into all
spheres of life and especially to undermine the legal codes of
nations based upon the moral precepts of the monotheistic religions,
all of which proscribe homosexuality. The Charter, like the
many "human rights" conventions it promotes, seeks to give
homosexual activists a pretext to claim legal footing to challenge
in the courts and legislatures national, state, and local laws against
sexual perversion.
This is already happening. The first case we are aware of was

launched in 1992 when Nick Toonen, a homosexual rights activist
in Australia, asked the UN Human Rights Committee to investigate
the state of Tasmania's anti-homosexuality statute. The UN
committee determined that Toonen could be classified as a
"victim."53
Similarly, here in the United States, militant sodomites have

charged that they are "victims" of human rights violations because
of our laws against homosexual practices and have taken their
cause to the United Nations. If we allow current trends to continue,
we most certainly will see a federal court in the near future rule
that U.S. state laws concerning sodomy must be struck down to
comply with UN "human rights" law.
Christian-Marxist "Unity*'
Following the conclusion of the State of the World Forum 2000
(September 4th-10th) in New York, Mr. Gorbachev was off on a
multi-week evangelistic crusade that took him to some surprising
venues. He was received with apparent enthusiasm at churches in
Florida and Tennessee.
Then it was off to Salt Lake City, where Gorby addressed

Franklin Covey's International Symposium at the Salt Palace.* At a
Salt Lake City press conference, the Nobel Prize winner lamented
to the assembled media corps that "we do not have a new world
order, the kind of new world order that we need." 54
Later, in California, he shared a stage with William "Star Trek"

Shatner, before beaming his "global ethic" sermonette to a global
television audience from the Reverend Robert Schuller's famous
Crystal Cathedral. "I know that he calls himself an atheist," Rev.
Schuller said, but Schuller believed, nonetheless, that
God had used Gorbachev "in a mighty way." And he hoped that
one day the former Communist dictator would become "a man of
faith."55
We join Rev. Schuller in that hope, as we hope that all atheists

will become "men of faith" � as that term has been understood
traditionally by believers. But, in the meantime, is there any justification
for Christians to turn over their pulpits to atheists � to
enemies of God � like Gorbachev? Comrade Gorbachev, after all,
is a "man of faith": He believes in the gospels of Marx and Lenin.
As we have already noted, Gorbachev declared in 1989: "I am a
Communist, a convinced Communist. For some that may be a
fantasy. But for me it is the main goal."56 By both word and act,
Gorbachev has confirmed many times since then his continued
adherence to his revolutionary faith.
To anyone familiar with Communist dialectical materialism as it

concerns religion, Gorbachev's fixation with religion over the past
decade makes perfect sense. He is one of the leading global
activists working to transform Christianity, to unite it with
Marxism! As a master dialectician, he is expert in the use of words
as weapons, particularly in using words that will appeal to and
disarm Christians. According to one of Gorbachev's old friends,
Natasha Rimashevskaya, he had one phrase he loved to say: "'As to
this question, one must approach it dialectically.' That meant he
wanted to entertain a thesis and its contradiction at the same time."
57
*Thanks to a celebrity status that has been bestowed on him by the Insiders,
Gorbachev is
received like a rock star by politicians, journalists, business and religious
leaders, educators,
and entertainers worldwide. He is, reportedly, the highest-paid name for hire in
the world,
commanding $100,000 for a half-hour talk. Gunter Kunkel, president of the Phoenix
Club in
Anaheim, California, felt his group had gotten a "bargain" because they only had to
pay
$75,000 for 50 minutes of the Gorbachev wisdom and charm. "Can you think of anybody
bigger?" the awestruck Kunkel asked the Los Angeles Times' Mike Anton. "It will
probably
be the greatest night we have seen here."58 Prior to the Millennium Summit,
Gorbachev
scored one of his biggest coups to date, when, on June 27, 2000, he was given a
place of
honor between Cardinals Sodano and Silvestrini at a Vatican press conference in
Rome.59
253
Gorbachev's admiring biographer, Gail Sheehy, tells us: "Lenin

is in his blood, say Gorbachev's friends. And Lenin's doctrine of
'two steps forward, one step back' � or complete tactical flexibility
� appealed particularly strongly to him." 60 Gorbachev is following
precisely the Leninist dialectical line that was spelled out
by Li Wei Han of the Central Committee of the Chinese
Communist Party in 1959, in instructions sent to Fidel Castro's
new Communist regime. According to Comrade Li:
The line of action to follow against the Church is to instruct, to educate, to

persuade, to convince, and, gradually, to awaken and fully develop the political
conscience of Catholics by getting them to take part in study circles and
political activities. By means of these activities, we must undertake the
dialectical struggle within religion. Gradually, we will replace the religious
element with the Marxist element.61 [Emphasis added.]
Have the Communists forgotten or abandoned this lesson? They

have never been more active or aggressive in promoting it! In fact,
Comrade Li's 1959 instructions have been reprinted in books
currently available in Communist bookstores. More importantly, it
is a simple matter to observe them in action. These same
instructions form the basis of the "Liberation Theology" revolution
that was launched from Cuba into Latin America and North
America in the 1960s and is operating throughout the world today.
These instructions form the basis of the Soviet push (under
Gorbachev) for development of the new "global spirituality."
While Christian leaders naively praise the new "openness" to

religion in Communist countries, Leninists like Gorbachev know
this is only a temporary, tactical "one step back." There is no
question that the Leninists � with the aid of foolish Christians, as
well as agents posing as Christians � are "[replacing] the religious
element with the Marxist element." Thus we have seen a host of
books and articles promoting the diabolic dialectic theme of
"Christian-Marxist Unity." One example of this, Christian
Marxist Unity: A Miraculous, Explosive Prescription, the influential

text by Raimundo Garcia Franco, tells us: "Yes, Christian
faith and Marxism-Leninism do share almost complete overlapping
of common objectives in the building of socialism. We can-
pot look backward, since the path ahead is that of creative transformation
to communism and to the Kingdom of God on this
earth."62
This is the same subversive dialectic that permeates Gorbachev's

annual State of the World Forums63 as well as all of the UN's
"spiritual" confabulations. When the leaders of these events aren't
directly "replacing the religious element with the Marxist
element," they are fast at work replacing the Christian element
with various pagan and New Age elements, which they recognize
as far more flexible and conducive to their Marxist one-world
schemes than what they scornfully denounce as "dogmatic,"
"rigid," and "sectarian."
Christianity's Epitaph?
Where is this leading? It is worthwhile noting what the militant
paganists themselves say about this. In the Fall 1995 issue of the
occult journal Gnosis we find a very sobering report entitled "State
of the Hidden Arts: An Overview of Esotericism Today," which
offers analyses by a variety of pagan activists.64 Christopher
Bamford, head of Lindisfarne Press, exults that the last 10 years
"have seen a fundamental revision in our understanding of
Christianity, not in essence, but in application.... [A] dead monolith
has been demolished, and in its place we can sense the presence of
a living being...."65 The creation of a "living" Christianity,
according to Bamford, reflects the growing influence in
"mainstream" Christianity of such thinkers as theosophist Rudolf
Steiner, occultist/psychologist Carl Jung, and Pierre Teilhard de
Chardin.
Gnosis also trumpeted the exultant reports of Diane Conn

Darling regarding the rise of neo-paganism, which is busy "buildnig
interfaith relations with mainstream religious groups." One
major achievement in this effort, the not-so-darling Ms. Darling
reported, occurred when "several major Neopagan groups were

represented at the 1993 World Parliament of Religions in Chicago.
Our presentations were heavily attended, including a beautiful Full
Moon Circle celebrated in a nearby park.... Pagan priestess
Deborah Light and the Fellowship of Isis (the world's largest
Pagan organization) are signatories on our behalf to the
Declaration of [a] Global Ethic...."66 Darling glowingly remarked
that "polytheism is nearly universal in neopaganism." As is pantheism.
According to Ms. Darling: "Neopagans see the God/dess in
all things: in each other, in persons following different paths, in
animals, plants, planets, rivers, rocks, and in ourselves.... The
Neopagan mythos gives rise to an ethos grounded in the Earth.
Indeed, for a great many Neopagans, the Great Goddess is the
living Earth herself."67 (Emphasis in original.)
These denizens of darkness, when speaking amongst themselves,

are jubilant because they are positive that they are riding a cosmic
neopagan wave that will soon overwhelm what they see as a
crumbling, dying Christianity.
Darkness Clothed in Light

Having closely followed the UN for more than two decades as a
journalist and researcher, and having attended UN Summits from
Rio to San Francisco to Rome to New York, it is clear to this writer
that the neo-pagan one-worlders at the UN Tower of Babel are
accelerating the tempo of their program of spiritual subversion,
even as they become more swollen with arrogance. The Rio Earth
Summit was a watershed event, very powerfully and publicly
wedding the UN to the New Age, one-world, neo-pagan
"worldview."
In his opening address to the UNCED (Earth Summit) plenary

session, Maurice Strong directed the world's attention to the
Declaration of the Sacred Earth Gathering, which was part of the
pre-Summit ceremonies. "[T]he changes in behavior and direction
called for here," said Strong, "must be rooted in our deepest
spiritual, moral and ethical values."68 According to the declaration,
the ecological crisis "transcends all national, reli
gious, cultural, social, political, and economic boundaries.... The

responsibility of each human being today is to choose between the
force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore
transform our attitudes and values, and adopt a renewed respect for
the superior law of Divine Nature." 69
However, in the twisted theosophic theology of Maurice Strong,

Robert Muller, Sri Chinmoy, and other occultists who dominate
the United Nations, "light" is darkness and "darkness" is light.
Their "light" comes not from Jesus Christ ("I am the Light of the
world," John 8:12), but from Lucifer, "the Light bearer." The Earth
Summit was a non-stop orgy of pagan, Gaia-worshiping
ceremonies, rituals, sermons, eulogies, declarations, manifestos,
and celebrations. It not only marked the introduction of the radical
NGO legions as an emerging superpower, but brought the occult
nature of the UN out in the open.
Not entirely into the open, however. The controlled U.S. media
never gave the American public at large an accurate view of this
clamorous chorus. Most frequently, the media presented them as
noble, if sometimes eccentric, idealists. The viewing and reading
public had no way of knowing the extent and depth of the specifically
and rabidly anti-American, anti-Christian animus of the vast
majority of the official delegates and NGO radicals. Nor were they
made aware of the overtly pagan and communistic emphasis of the
entire Earth Summit program and the conventions, declarations,
and treaties that came out of it.
American television viewers did not see the ubiquitous

Communist flags, posters, and graffiti that festooned the NGO's
Global Forum at Rio's Flamengo Park. Nor did they see the even
more plentiful pagan, occult, and Wicca symbols, exhibits, seminars,
and programs that could not be avoided at the Summit. They
did not see the incredibly gross homosexual pornography display
that was allowed to daily assault the eyes of thousands of Brazilian
families who visited Flamengo Park. This Ford Foundationfunded70
exhibit of life-size photographs would have been illegal in
most cities in America, but it was a welcome addition at the UN
celebration.
Quite the opposite of the image of peace, brotherhood, and tolerance

presented by the U.S. media, the Earth Summiteers were
almost universally venomous, foul, blasphemous, and profane in
their constant verbal attacks on the United States, the middle class,
capitalism, technology, Christianity, and Christian leaders
viciously attacking Dr. James Dobson, Rev. Jerry Falwell, and
most especially Pope John Paul II. When Fidel Castro arrived at
the Summit, however, the NGOs and official delegates alike
erupted in ecstasy.
Since Rio, the NGOs have become more emboldened, aggressive,

sophisticated, professionally organized, and lavishly funded.
But it hasn't tempered their fury and ranting; in fact, they have
gotten worse. Having sat amongst the NGO leaders and cadres in
their strategy sessions, and having interviewed, dined with, and
mingled with top UN officials and delegates at UN venues around
the world, I cannot help but arrive at the conclusion that these
"peace people," these "civil servants" and self-appointed
representatives of "global civil society," are the most pathetic and
concentrated collection of pompous, privileged, pampered, hateful,
tyrannical, hypocritical, morally revolting specimens of humanity
one is likely ever to encounter.
Even more outrageous than the behavior of these miscreants,

however, are the arguments of elected American officials that we
must continue participating in and supporting this dangerous
charade. The UN is elevating, legitimizing, and popularizing all of
the demonic influences that are pushing our civilization into the
dark abyss. The Pratt House one-worlders and their Communist
allies have energetically embraced the H. G. Wells prescription for
sustaining their desired society. In their vision, the human
community must be suitably subservient to the UN. Religions
advocating loyalty to a higher authority must give way to a "new"
mandated orthodoxy demanding that all worship the one-world
socialist state. In the emerging new world order, the UN superstate
will tolerate no other god before it.
The average American has become so inured to the neo-pagan

influences that are saturating our culture that he is apt to sim
ply shrug his shoulders at each new offense, and figure there is
nothing that can be done. It's all just part of our inevitable,
downward moral spiral, he sadly reasons. But there is something
that can be done about this. The American taxpayers and voters
have it within their power to change that. We will explain that in
detail in our final chapter.
Chapter 13
The UN Declares Total War on the

Family
Abolition of the family!.... Do you charge us with wanting to stop the

exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.1
� Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848

The kindergarten or infant school has a significant part to play in a
child's education. Not only can it correct many of the errors of home
training, but it can prepare the child for membership ... in the world
society.... As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism,
education in world-mindedness can produce only rather precarious
results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the
child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the
means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism.2
� United Nations Educational, Social, and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO), 1949
The people who have taught us to believe whatever they were told by
their parents or their teachers are the people who are the menace to the
world.3
� Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, Director General of the UN's

World Health Organization, speech of September 11, 1954
If we want to talk about equality of opportunity for children, then the
fact that children are raised in families means there's no equality.... In
order to raise children with equality,
261
we must take them away from families and communally raise

them.4
� Dr. Mary Jo Bane,

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Clinton administration
Every child is our child.5
� motto of the United Nations Children's Fund

(UNICEF)
One of the most terrifying features of totalitarian society is the
control and brainwashing of children and youth by the Omnipotent
State. The 20th century's experiments with such "education" must
never be forgotten, for they produced monstrosities of
unimaginable evil: the Hitler Youth; Mao's Red Guard; the Young
Pioneers of Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Fidel Castro; and
the cold-blooded murderous youth of the Cambodian Khmer
Rouge.
Children were "transformed" through a "reshaping of consciousness."

They were taught to publicly denounce (and even
execute) their parents, to reject all tradition, to renounce their
religion and embrace atheism (or, in the case of Nazi Germany, to
embrace Hitler's Teutonic paganism), and to betray their countries.
Matt Cvetic, who for nine years was an undercover agent in the
Communist Party USA for the FBI, attended a secret meeting of
top-level Communists in 1948, at which a Soviet agent relayed a
speech that Stalin had given directing the American Communists to
put new emphasis on the recruitment of youth. Here is part of
Stalin's speech:
Comrades, Hitler gained control of the Youth in Germany before he was

able to wage a successful Nazi Revolution in Germany. We Communists
gained control of the Youth in Russia before we were able to wage a successful
Communist Revolution in Russia, and Comrades, we must gain control of the
Youth in the United States
THE UN DECLARES TOTAL WAR ON THE FAMILY
if we are to wage a successful Communist Revolution in that nation. For this

purpose, we are ordering our Comrades to set up a new Communist Youth
group in the United States.6
As Cvetic pointed out, "Within a few short months after this

meeting, more than 6,000 American students were recruited into
this new Communist Youth movement known as the Labor Youth
League." 7 This youth apparatus has gone through various structural
and name changes over the years, but its purpose has
remained unchanged. In 1983, it was reorganized and renamed the
Young Communist League (YCL), the name under which it still
operates.
However, the primary danger to American children and youth at

that time emanated not from the YCL or other groups overtly
associated with the Communist Party. Those efforts that were
openly Communist only reached tens of thousands of young people.
Far more dangerous were the pro-Communist, pro-UN,
internationalist programs in our schools that were reaching tens of
millions of students. Thanks to generous funding from the
Carnegie Endowment, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, and
the other Insider foundations, subversive textbooks and curriculum
materials were flooding our schools. Thousands of teachers were
being programmed at college to serve as "change agents." Change
agents like Lydia Shchevchenko. In his memoirs, former Soviet
dictator Nikita Khrushchev told of the lasting influence of this
childhood teacher on his life:
I suppose you could say my political education began during my boyhood in the
little village of Kalinovka where I was born. My schoolteacher there was a
woman named Lydia Shchevchenko. She was a revolutionary. She was also an
atheist. She instilled in me my first political consciousness and began to
counteract the effects of my strict religious upbringing. My mother was very
religious, likewise her father � my grandfather.... When I think back to my
childhood, I can remember vividly the saints on the icons against the wall of
our wooden hut, their faces darkened by fumes from the
oil lamps. I remember being taught to kneel and pray in front of the
icons with the grown-ups in church. When we were taught to read, we
read the scriptures. But Lydia Shchevchenko set me on a path which
took me away from all that." 8
Where did that path lead? Nikita Khrushchev's subsequent career

was detailed in a seven-part study, The Crimes of Khrushchev,
published by a congressional committee in 1959.9 During Stalin's
bloody purges, the report notes, Khrushchev, "as the Number 1
Communist official in the Moscow area ... sent thousands to their
death, scores of thousands to hideous slave-labor camps."10 When
Stalin was ready to launch his planned genocide of the people of
the Ukraine, Khrushchev "was sent in 1937 as Stalin's trusted
killer.... When his two-year Ukrainian purge was over, an
estimated 400,000 had been killed and terror gripped the whole
population." 11 Later, he added to his infamy, gaining the title of
"the Butcher of Budapest" for his ruthless subjugation of
Hungary.12
State-of-Mind Marxists
How many would-be and wanna-be Khrushchevs have been created
by Lydia Shchevchenko's myriad counterparts in America?
The thought is frightening; the number is certainly far greater than
most Americans would ever imagine. Khrushchev was born in
1894 and the time period of his revolutionary formation referred to
above was probably around 1900-1910, before the Czar was
overthrown and Lenin came to power. Khrushchev did not say
whether Lydia was actually a member of one of the Communist
organizations in Czarist Russia.
The important point is that it is not necessary for someone like

Lydia to be an actual disciplined Party member in order to be an
effective "change agent" in carrying forward the Communist revolution.
As Lenin said, "We must build Communism with non-
Communist hands."13
Lydia Shchevchenko was, at the very least, a "state-of-mind

Marxist." She had consciously rejected God and country,
embraced the "revolutionary faith," and dedicated herself to its

propagation. Like Lydia, there are many thousands of American
educators who have imbibed of the "revolutionary faith," and, to
varying degrees, have adopted and propagated its tenets. Many are
"state-of-mind Marxists" without even knowing it. Some of these
consider themselves Democrats, Republicans, liberals, or even
conservatives and libertarians, but they are transmitting the
Marxist contagion nonetheless. They are greatly assisted in this
subversion, as we shall see, by the major teachers unions, the CFR-
dominated tax exempt foundations, and the various agencies of the
United Nations.
Equally important to this subversion process is the massive

disinformation and moral corrosion provided by the Insider-run
mass media and pop culture, most especially the so-called "entertainment"
aimed at youth. Over the past two generations, we have
seen these educational and cultural elements carrying forward a
massive, coordinated program of conquest through "a slow
reshaping of consciousness," as prescribed by Italian Communist
theorist Antonio Gramsci.14
"In a developed society, 'the passage to socialism' occurs neither

by putsch nor by direct confrontation," Gramsci maintained, "but
by the transformation of ideas, which is to say � a slow reshaping
of consciousness." "And the stake of this war of positions is the
culture, that is � the source of values and ideas," said Gramsci.
"The seizure of political power is not possible until after the
seizure of cultural power."15 (Emphasis added.)*
Dumb Down, Bum Down, Numb Down, Scum Down
The Pratt House thought cartel has been doing all within its power
to speed this "seizure of cultural power." Like their Fascist and
Communist brethren, the CFR one-worlders realize full well that
for their global totalitarian vision to succeed, they must
*For the most complete exposition of the Gramsci strategy for "the seizure of
cultural
power" in America, see the special "Gramsci issue" of The New American, "Prisoners
of the
Total State," July 5, 1999.
take control of the children and youth. For their New World Order
to triumph they must have obedient, subservient masses � an
unthinking, goose-stepping lumpen proletariat. In order to achieve
this goal they know they must destroy, or "Reconstruct," what they
refer to as "mass thought patterns" and "consciousness" � most
especially in children and youth � so they can "reconstruct" and
"reshape" the thought patterns and consciousness according to their
own designs.
Through their dominant influence in education, the mass media,

and the centers and instruments that produce our popular culture,
the Insiders' change agents are aggressively pursuing this
destruction-deconstruction/reshaping-reconstruction process. This
process contains several components, which we refer to as the
dumbing down, bumming down, numbing down, and scumming
down of American society and culture.
The dumbing down of America has been the subject of intense

concern and great debate for several decades. The alarming 1983
report A Nation At Risk, by the National Commission on
Excellence in Education, warned that "the educational foundations
of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of
mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people."
16 That report and dozens of others before and since have cataloged
the grim results of this dumbing-down process: widespread
illiteracy, high student dropout rates, continuous decline in scores
in all areas of academic achievement, the plummeting of the U.S.
to last or near-last place on test scores, etc.
These results should not surprise: Traditional academic core

subjects have been replaced with "politically correct," multi-cultural
programming; phonics instruction has been supplanted by
various look-say, whole-word "reading" programs; and evolutionary
dogma, sex education, and enviro-Leninist propaganda have
replaced real science.*
The bumming down of America is proceeding on many fronts,

but the attack through the schools is especially pernicious. The
public (i.e., government) schools have trained several generations
of children to look to Big Brother in Washington for the
"solution" to every problem, whether real or contrived.

Responsibility, initiative, pride of workmanship, self-sufficiency,
and independence are being replaced by the irresponsibility, sloth,
slovenliness, and dependence of the welfare state. The government
schools are being transformed into socialist cradle-to-grave,
womb-to-tomb "community centers" that also serve as daycare
centers, medical clinics, senior citizen centers, and providers of
"lifelong learning" for adult education.
The numbing down and scumming down of America, likewise,

are proceeding on many fronts, the educational system working in
tandem with the CFR-controlled mass media and the "entertainment"
industry to destroy every vestige of decency, honor, and
virtue. Since fomenting the social upheavals of the 1960s, these
same forces have been accelerating their attack, promoting alienation,
rebellion, cynicism, hedonism, promiscuity, paganism, and
false idealism. They are pressing on to destroy the residual
Christian culture of America and the values system it upholds in
order to clear the way for their planned "reshaping" process.**
Attack From Within

The aforementioned study A Nation At Risk ominously noted: "If
an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America
the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might
well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands we have allowed
this to happen to ourselves.... We have, in effect, been
*For one of the most informative exposes of this scheme to intellectually cripple
and subvert
American children and youth, see: The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by
Charlotte
Iserbyt (Ravenna, Ohio: Conscience Press, 1999). This 750-page, telephone book-size
opus
is a masterpiece of research and educational detective work by one of America's top
education experts. Other important works along these lines are Educating for the
New World
Order by Beverly K. Eakman (Portland, Ore.: Halcyon House, 1991) and America 2000 /
Goals 2000 � Moving the Nation Educationally to a "New World Order," compiled and
edited by James R. Patrick (Moline, 111.: Citizens for Academic Excellence, 1994).
Deliberate Dumbing Down is available from American Opinion Book Services, P.O. Box
8040, Appleton, WI 54912.
committing an act of unthinking, unilateral, educational disar
mament."17
The statement is both true and false at the same time. While it is
true that no foreign nation has "imposed" (in the military sense,
that is) our educational disaster upon us, it is not alto-gether true
that we have "done this to ourselves." A close examination of the
subversive educational "reforms" of decades past that produced
our present catastrophe shows that the individuals and
organizations most responsible do indeed constitute a power
"foreign" to � and militantly hostile to � our constitutional and
spiritual heritage. And they have indeed been carrying out
unrelenting, total warfare against American society.
Integral to this total war is the rooting out of individualism and

all loyalties that compete with supreme loyalty to the omniscient,
omnipotent, omni-beneficent state � in this case, the world state.
Thus the traditional family is viewed by these aspiring global
overlords not just as a competitor, but as a mortal enemy.
Philosophers as varied as Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, and G.K.
Chesterton have noted that the family is ordained by God and
Nature to raise and educate children. That truth is plainly obvious.
But the one-worlders will have none of that. The parents and the
family must be supplanted by agents of the global state: the school
and other social agencies.
This is basic Tyranny 101; it follows the statist, textbook dogmas

of Rousseau, Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others of
their totalitarian ilk throughout history. The Hitlerian UNESCO
**Some of the most important works exposing this war on America's moral foundations
are:
Judith A. Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences (Arlington, Va.: Institute for
Media
Education, 1998); Samuel Blumenfeld, Is Public Education Necessary? (Boise, Idaho:
The
Paradigm Co., 1991); Balint Vazsonyi, America's Thirty Years War (Washington, D.C.:
Regnery Publishing, 1998); Berit Kjos, Brave New Schools (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest
House
Publishers, 1995); Barbara Morris, The Great American Con Game (Escondido, CaL:
Image
FX, 1997); Paul C. Vitz, Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism
(Dallas, Texas:
Spence Publishing Company, 1999); Brenda Scott, Children No More (Lafayette, La.:
Huntington House Publishers, 1995); and Claire Chambers, The SIECUS Circle: A
Humanist Revolution (Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1977).
screed quoted at the head of this chapter, charging the family with
"infecting" the child with bad attitudes, is taken from a UNESCO
program for teachers, published in 1949 under the heading
Towards World Understanding. In this 10-part series, UNESCO
(United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)
complained that "before the child enters school his mind has
already been profoundly marked, and often injuriously, by early
influences" � most particularly by parents, of course, who are
deemed hopelessly ignorant and insufficiently "world-minded." 18
Parents are seen by UNESCO as retrograde influences who tend to
teach their children love for God and country, which UNESCO
condemned as "infecting" the minds of children with
"nationalism," "chauvinism," and "sclerosis of the mind."19
This pernicious one-world, anti-parent, anti-family, anti-patriotism

sentiment was already being spread through the schools
many years earlier by the radical National Education Association
(NEA), the nation's largest teachers union. When the United
Nations was created, the NEA became (and remains) one of its
biggest promoters.20
For the NEA, the United Nations became the hope of the world.
In January 1946, Joy Elmer Morgan wrote in the NEA Journal:
In the struggle to establish an adequate world government, the teacher has

many parts to play. He must begin with his own attitude and knowledge and
purpose. He can do much to prepare the hearts and minds of children for global
understanding and cooperation.... At the very top of all the agencies which will
assure the coming of world government must stand the school, the teacher, and
the organized profession.21
The NEA's ardor for the UN and a global school board has
intensified over the years. In 1993, the militant teachers union took
a major step in its push for one-worldism by launching Education
International (EI), a worldwide federation of teachers unions.22
Mary Hatwood Futrell, the NEA's radical-left former
president, moved to Brussels, Belgium (headquarters for the European

Union) to head EI's new global union operation.23 Futrell, ever the darling
of the CFR coterie, had proven her one-world bona fides by serving on
many Carnegie panels and commissions and reliably promoting the big
government, globalist line. The Insiders knew she could be entrusted with
the task of spearheading this new global initiative.
Education International, which now claims 24 million members

through its 304 affiliate organizations, serves as an important teachers
auxiliary to the Socialist International, dependably supporting just about
every socialist scheme imaginable. EI boasts of its "privileged" status
with UNESCO: "At UNESCO, EI is one of 16 organisations worldwide
holding the coveted status of NGO in formal associate relations." 24 With
Futrell holding the reins at EI, it is not surprising that the union behemoth
follows the NEA lead, supporting every move to empower the UN, particularly
in the area of education.
The NEA's 2000-2001 Resolutions include this paean to the UN:
The National Education Association recognizes the interdependence

of all people.... The Association urges all nations to develop treaties
and disarmament agreements.... The Association further believes that
the United Nations (UN) furthers world peace and promotes the rights
of all people by preventing war, racism, and genocide.25
The NEA and EI support increased funding for the UN, increased
authority for the World Court, creation of the International Criminal
Court, ratification of most UN treaties, and expansion of UN power in
virtually all areas.26 The NEA-EI education mafia is tailor-made for the
Insiders' one-world purposes. With tens of millions of dollars in dues
forcibly taken from members' paychecks, the union is a cash cow for
revolution. With tens of millions of teachers worldwide as members, it
can exert enormous influence in classrooms, as well as local, state and
national elections.27
The NEA one-world subversives also affect the classrooms and

national and state education policy through think tanks like the
National Training Laboratory (NTL) in Bethel, Maine. The NTL
was set up by the NEA in the 1940s to reeducate teachers along
politically correct lines. NTL says it works "to change teachers'
inflexible patterns of thinking."28 An NTL teachers manual says of
children: "Although they appear to behave appropriately and seem
normal by most cultural standards, they may actually be in need of
mental health care in order to help them change, adapt, and
conform to the planned society in which there will be no conflict of
attitudes or beliefs." 29
Another NEA-created and -supported think tank is the Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), one
of the leading educational purveyors of "global think." At a 1985
international-curriculum symposium in Enschede, Netherlands,
ASCD officials told participants of the need for a "world core
curriculum" to meet the needs of our "increasingly global
interdependency."30 ASCD executive director Gordon Cawelti told
symposium participants that the proposed world core curriculum
would be based on UN guru Robert Muller's book New Genesis:
Shaping a Global Spirituality.31
At the beginning of his World Core Curriculum Manual Muller

states that "the underlying philosophy upon which [his] School is
based will be found in the teaching set forth in the books of Alice
A. Bailey by the Tibetan teacher Djwhal Khul..." and M. Morya.32

This is quite an admission considering that Mrs. Bailey's exalted
position in the occult theosophical firmament is second only to that
of Theosophy founder and high priestess Madame Blavatsky.
Bailey, who alleged that Khul and Morya communicated with her
telepathically, was a rabid Luciferian and founded the Lucifer
Publishing Company and the theosophical journal Lucifer.33
So we are not engaging in hyperbole at all when we refer to the
Insiders' attack on families and children as devilish, demonic,
diabolic, or satanic. The totalitarian threat to the family posed
by UNESCO, NEA, EI, NTL, ASCD, Carnegie, et al., is real and is

thoroughly evil. The threat presents itself in three significant ways:
� The Rule
of Law. The militant shock troops first lobby for
ratification of UN treaties, such as the Convention on the Rights
of the Child. Once ratified (or even before ratification), they
fraudulently assign these treaties the exalted status of
"international law," which, they assert, overrides all federal,
state, and local authority. In order to show our respect for the
"rule of law," they and their prostitute "legal scholars" say, we
must "harmonize" our laws and policies with those of the
"international community." They know that most local officials,
school board members, state legislators, and congressmen are
unfamiliar with, and unable to muster an effective defense
against, the supposed authority of "international law." Thus the
UN treaties provide the homegrown revolutionaries with the
weapons to undermine our laws and transform our government
and institutions into subservient instruments of the UN to
enforce global political correctness.
� The Global School Board. Through UNESCO, NEA, EI, and
hundreds of other organizations and think tanks, the global
structure bureaucracy is already being established for a worldwide
socialist system that is intended to provide school teachers
with indoctrination and certification, schools with accreditation,
and students with the subversive materials and programs they
"need" for graduation.
� The New Faith. In our "interdependent" world, the UN provides
the new focal point to teach children about our global "oneness."
Loyalty will be transferred from the family to the state and from
the nation to the UN. Children will be (or are already being)
taught to be "citizens of the world." They are being programmed
to reject "narrow," "divisive," "bigoted," "dogmatic" Christianity
and to adopt pagan and occult beliefs.
UNESCO Subversion
In the early 1950s, as the UNESCO programs began working their

way into school textbooks and curricula, and as the truly
subversive nature of the programs became known, a significant
number of parents and educators became alarmed. They prevailed
upon elected officials, who began to challenge and condemn the
UN's perfidious insinuation of collectivist propaganda into the
schools.
In 1953, Senator William Jenner (R-Ind.), the courageous

chairman of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, attacked
the UNESCO subversion head-on, challenging his Senate
colleagues in these words:
How many of you Senators know what the UN is doing to change the
teaching of the children in your own home town? The UN is at work there,
every day and night, changing the teachers, changing the teaching materials,
changing the very words and tones � changing all the essential ideas which we
imagine our schools are teaching to our young folks.
How in the name of Heaven are we to sit here, approve these programs,
appropriate our own people's money � for such outrageous "orientation" of
our own children, and of the men and women who teach our children, in this
nation's schools?34
Some of the one-worlders were audacious and zealous enough

candidly to admit the subversive agenda of UNESCO, though they
praised it as a necessary and righteous subversion. Such, for
instance, was the case at the Saturday Review, which, in 1952,
published a wildly pro-UNESCO editorial which declared:
If UNESCO is attacked on the grounds that it is helping to prepare the

world's peoples for world government, then it is an error to burst forth with
apologetic statements and denials. Let us face it: the job of UNESCO is to help
create and promote the elements of world citizenship. When faced with such a
"charge," let us by all means affirm it from the housetops.35
More astute Insiders realized, however, that the time was not yet
ripe for open confrontation on such fundamental and emotionally
charged issues. The wiser course was to ease up and drop back for
awhile, and cloak their true aims in more noble-sounding and less
threatening verbiage about "world peace," "collective security,"
"ending world hunger," etc. Which is what they did.
Now, however, after decades of softening up the American public

with one-world propaganda, calculatedly undermining our
morality and religious fervor with carnal and irreligious "entertainment,"
and destroying patriarchal authority and responsibility
and family ties through welfare statism, the totalitarian
internationalists are pressing forward with fresh audacity.
They are rapturously pushing on toward the dystopic vision of

the developing cradle-to-grave socialist world state outlined years
ago by UNESCO director-general Julian Huxley. In 1947, Huxley
announced that UNESCO would be exploring "the application of
psycho-analysis and other schools of 'deep' psychology to
education." 36 The use of such techniques to cultivate a sense of
world citizenship, said Huxley, "would mean an extension of education
backwards from the nursery school to the nursery itself."37
This Huxleyite conception of lifelong, womb-to-tomb, UN-driven

indoctrination (and re-indoctrination, repeated as often as the
UN mandarins deem necessary) has been integral to the UNESCO
drive over the decades. It has come frighteningly close to fruition
in many current UN programs, declarations and proposals, such as
the UN's Millennium Forum Declaration of May 2000, which
states that "education will be universal and lifelong, and will
nurture a sense of world citizenship." 38
"The Rights of the Child"

In 1989, the UN General Assembly adopted the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC), which, shorn of its
pretended concerns for the welfare of children, is a blatant statist
attack on the family and parental authority and respon
sibility. It proposes a massive intrusion of government into family

matters. Implementation of the CROC would radically alter the parent-
child relationship, interjecting government-appointed "child advocates"
between parents and children. Ultimately, it aims at stripping parents of
their traditionally recognized rights to control the upbringing and
education of their children and to pass on to their children their religious
values and beliefs. If the people of the United States allow the
conspirators in our government to subject us to the supposed authority of
the CROC, we will soon see UN-approved government child "experts"
assuming complete control over our children and parental rights
completely destroyed.*
In March 1990, representatives from more than 150 countries met in

Jomtien, Thailand, for a five-day World Conference on Education for All
(WCEFA).39 Official sponsors of this Insider-run event included
UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP (United Nations Development Program), the
World Bank, other UN agencies, and one-world NGOs. Out of this major
agenda-setting palaver came two documents: The World Declaration on
Education for All, and The Framework for Action to Meet Basic Learning
Needs.40 The Framework set forth six education goals, which just
happened to be virtually identical to the controversial Outcome-Based
Education (OBE) program set out by then-President George Bush (CFR)
in his "America 2000" education plan.41
In order to facilitate coordination of U.S. OBE policies with those of

the UN globocrats, a U.S. Coalition for Education for All (USCEFA) was
launched at a meeting held on October 30-November 1, 1991 in
Alexandria, Virginia.42 Gathering under the banner of "Learning for All:
Bridging Domestic and
*For a more detailed analysis of the dangers posed to families, parents, and
children by the
CROC and other related UN schemes, see: this author's book, Global Tyranny, Chapter
8;
William Norman Grigg, Freedom on the Altar: The UN's Crusade Against God and
Family;
and the following articles posted on our Internet website: "Your Child, the Global
Citizen,"
July 21, 1997; "A Higher Warfare," April 17, 1995; and "UN Takeover of the Child,"
August 8, 1994. For a complete text of the UNCROC, see www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm.
International Education" were movers and shakers from the government

and private sector. Conference cosponsors included Apple
Computer, IBM, the National School Board Association the
American Federation of Teachers, the National Education
Association, the U.S. Department of Education, the College Board,
USAID � and the usual tax-exempt foundations.43 Heading up the
USCEFA as president was Janet Whitla, director of the Education
Development Center, Inc., infamous for its pro-homosexual,
pornographic, promiscuity-promoting sex education programs and
globalist curricula.44 The Coalition is pushing to make UNESCO
the global school board which will dictate educational policy for
the world.
For the past decade, unbeknownst to American parents, the

Convention on the Rights of the Child has been in the process of
implementation through the USCEFA programs. One indication of
the frightening progress of this subversion is the increasing
acceptance, especially in political and academic circles, of totalitarian
sentiments. Among those promoting dangerous new state
authority, we point to Professor Jack C. Westman of the University
of Wisconsin-Madison, Professor David Lykken of the University
of Minnesota, and Connecticut Superior Court Judge Charles D.
Gill, a co-founder of the National Task Force for Children's
Constitutional Rights (NTFCCR). Dr. Westman, Dr. Lykken, and
Judge Gill are leaders in the despotic drive to mandate government
licensing of all parents.
"The United Nations Convention [on the Rights of the Child]

clearly declares that the state has a role in child-rearing," says Dr.
Westman, approvingly. "Because the consent of children is not
required for the exercise of parental power, it is in the privacy of
their homes that their civil rights are least assured."45
In a 1991 law journal article, Judge Gill wrote: "The [UN]

Convention makes a total break from previous approaches to
children's rights. Previous 'rights' were paternalistic, whereas the
Convention makes the state directly responsible to the child."46
Westman, Lykken, Gill, et al., view the family and parents with
outright hostility, while idolizing the state and its sup
posed capacity to raise better children.
These extreme, totalitarian sentiments have been made

"respectable" in influential circles thanks to help from the Pratt
House one-world elites. These statist nostrums have moved from
the stage of advocacy by socialist fringe groups to acceptance by
"mainstream" Democrat and Republican politicians. The forces
pushing this agenda have enormous financial resources at their
disposal, and they are geared up for major, continuous, offensive
action. If they are not aggressively exposed and opposed by a significant,
growing, and increasingly determined constituency of
parents, grandparents, and concerned citizens, an American version
of the Hitler Youth or Red Guard � under the rubric of
national service, of course � will not be long in coming.
That is a terrifying prospect, but even that does not begin to

depict the full extent of the anti-family agenda the Insiders and
their UN lackeys envision for their global police state. Space permitting,
we would detail the UN programs for global:
� Forced abortion;47
� Proliferation of chemical abortions (RU486);48
� Coercive population control and eugenics programs;49
� Forced mass population relocation;
� Mandatory school "sexual orientation" programs promoting
homosexuality;
� Outlawing of independent home schooling and independent
private and religious schools;
� Euthanasia and assisted suicide.
The piecemeal Marxist abolition of the family is a fact, and the
UN is the instrument through which the one-world Insiders intend
to carry out their abolition program worldwide.
Chapter 14
What Must Be Done
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they
will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible
struggle.1
� Edmund Burke (April 23, 1770)

[I]t does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.2
� Samuel Adams
If we wish to be free ...we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must
fight!! 3
� Patrick Henry (March 23, 1775)

In the preceding chapters, we have painted, we admit, a very
alarming picture of reality. It was entirely our intent to do so. We
believe, like Founding Father James Madison, that it is proper and
prudent to sound the alarm, wake the town, and tell the people
when danger is threatening. In fact, it would be immoral not to
warn others about an imminent peril. Madison wisely advised, as
we have noted previously:
[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold
this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of [the] noblest
characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till
usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in
precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided
the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much,
soon to forget it.4
279
Tragically, most Americans have forgotten this important lesson.

We are long past "the first experiment on our liberties." We
are rushing headlong to destruction, tyranny, and slavery.
Some will say that our concerns are wildly exaggerated, that the
UN, while often obnoxious and corrupt, is toothless and can
present no real danger to the mighty United States. And besides,
they will aver, it still represents mankind's noblest aspirations for
peace. We can reform it and use it to good purpose. We can trust
our president and Congress to watch out for our interests.
Others will react in the opposite direction, asserting that the

Insiders' new world order and their plans to empower the UN have
proceeded too far to be stopped now. The enemy is too rich and
powerful, too well organized and deeply entrenched. Resistance is
futile; we have already lost.
Both of these attitudes � blind, senseless optimism and hopeless

defeatism � should be equally repugnant to free peoples. We
assure you there is nothing exaggerated about the dire threat posed
by the UN in anything we have written. But it is not necessary for
anyone to rely on our word. We have quoted extensively from UN
and U.S. documents and copiously cited the statements of many of
the key players in this drama. We have gone to considerable
lengths to make many documents available on our Internet website
and to provide links to many other primary sources. Any person of
ordinary intelligence, with an open, honest mind, can read the
literature and compare it with readily verifiable facts concerning
the rapidly growing "empowerment" of the UN in all of the areas
we have discussed.
Let us take a lesson from the patriots who founded our nation. In
the summer of 1775, these courageous souls faced a situation not
dissimilar from our own. Some argued that, in spite of the Crown's
tyrannical acts, things were not all that bad and that the prudent
course was to continue entreating England for fairness and justice.
Others warned that it would be futile and foolhardy to dare to
challenge the British military might.
In his famous oration at St. John's Church, Patrick Henry

addressed the faulty arguments of both the Panglossian opti
WHAT MUST BE DONE
mists and the defeatists. He eloquently and forcefully expressed the

position that full and complete information, even though unpleasant, was
the necessary basis for a proper decision:
[I]t is natural for a man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt
to shut our eyes against a painful truth � and listen to the song of that siren
till
she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great
and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those
who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly
concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it
might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to
provide for it.5
Mr. Henry then spoke words that are as relevant today (if not more so)
as they were in that desperate time:
They tell us, sir, that we are weak � unable to cope with so formidable an
adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next
year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British [or a UN]
guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution
and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying
supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our
enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a
proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.
Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a
country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy
can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a
just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up
friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone;
it is
to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we
were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There
is no retreat, but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged, their clanking
may be heard on the plains of Boston!...

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of

chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course
others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!6
The submission and slavery the American colonists faced was a

very real and dire prospect, but was nothing compared to that
which we will face under a fully empowered UN. The British
government was autocratic, abusive, even tyrannical at times but
not outright totalitarian. The organized one-worlders, however,
intend to transform the UN into the global governing instrument of
their ruthless, totalitarian "New World Order."
Projecting the Lines

Let us summarize the case we have made and, from what is already
known, project the lines concerning what we can expect in the
future � if, that is, by "irresolution and inaction" we allow the
Insiders' plans for the UN to come to fruition. Those plans include:
� Creating a United Nations Military, with army, navy, air force,

and nuclear weapons.
� Dispatching
U.S. military personnel on ever-increasing UN
missions throughout the world.
� Gradually disarming all nation states, including the U.S., so that
the UN military forces will be unchallengeable.
� Establishing
the International Criminal Court and rapidly
expanding its jurisdiction.
� Establishing
a global UN police force and bringing all local
police under its control.
� Outlawing private ownership of firearms and disarming citizens.
� Imposing global draconian
regulations on all human activity
under the pretext of protecting the environment.
� Drastically restricting and, ultimately, destroying property rights.
WHAT MUST BE DONE
� Forcing vast relocations of human populations in order to cre-ate

"Wildlands" for UN-designated animal species. � Imposing global
"carbon taxes" on all fuels, a "Tobin tax" on financial transactions,
and myriad other tax proposals.
� Placing
a vast regulatory regime on all labor, business, and
employment policies.
� Imposing population controls, including mandatory abortion a
la Red China's UN-approved-and-funded "one child policy."
� Accelerating UN
subversion in our schools and bringing all
education under the jurisdiction of UNESCO.
� Subjecting all parents to licensing and claiming UN "protective"
authority over all children.
�Striking down all laws against homosexuality and pedophilia/
pederasty.
� Greatly expanding the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide.
� Promoting paganism, "New Age" spirituality, the occult, and
Satanism under the guise of promoting peace, brotherhood, and a
"Global Ethic."
The list above is far from exhaustive. Anyone willing to study
the facts will be able to readily verify that the Pratt House mafia
promoting the UN is pushing for all of these insidious programs
and more. All of these incredible grabs for power are, in fact,
already in various stages of implementation.
So what will be the consequences of inaction? What will an all-

powerful UN government mean to life as Americans know it? Isn't
it possible that our would-be slavemasters will be more benevolent
than old-style Communist dictators? Surely American leaders
would not want to preside over bloodletting, torture, and genocide.
That is a dangerous assumption. First of all, while many of the

Insiders of this one-world cabal are American citizens, they are not
Americans; they are internationalists, with loyalties to no country.
Many of them hold, or have held, public office and have sworn to
uphold and defend the Constitution � while doing
everything in their power to subvert and destroy it. Secondly, while

no one can predict with absolute certainty what others would do
given the power and opportunity, nonetheless there are compelling
principles we dare not ignore. Let's look first at the lessons of
history regarding the consequences of power.
We have previously invoked Lord Acton's famous maxim

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." 7
This principle was accepted as an undisputed truism by the
American Founding Fathers. They were so firmly convinced that
the best of men, regardless of character and intentions, could not be
trusted with unrestrained power that they designed our government
to thwart the ambitions of men. Thomas Jefferson expressed it this
way: "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of
confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains
of the Constitution." 8
The situation is even worse when the system encourages the

worst of men to gravitate to the top as happened so often in so
many nations in the last century. Then we are no longer talking
about "mischief with our liberties. Our lives, the lives of our
families and neighbors, and the lives of billions of others are at
stake.
John Locke warned centuries ago that "he that thinks absolute
power purifies men's blood, and corrects the baseness of human
nature, need read but the history of this, or any other age, to be
convinced of the contrary."9 The history of the spectacularly
bloody 20th century offers a definitive rebuke to those who believe
that a world government would be a blessing.
In his important book Death by Government, Professor R.J.

Rummel documents that the case for global government rests
entirely upon an essentially superstitious belief in the benevolence
of government as an institution.10
Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of

Hawaii, is perhaps the world's foremost authority on the phenomenon
of "democide" � the systematic murder of human beings
by governments. "Democide is committed by absolute Power; its
agency is government," Rummel declares, and the
WHAT MUST BE DONE
death toll of democide is nearly incomprehensible: "In total, during

the first eighty-eight years of this [20th] century, almost 170
million men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured,
knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death;
buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the
myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed,
helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be
nearly 360 million people." 11
Although "the common and fundamental justification for government

[is] that it exists to protect citizens against the anarchic
jungle that would otherwise threaten their lives and property," in
the era of the total state "government has been truly a coldblooded
mass murderer, a global plague of man's own making." The
supposed "wisdom" of academic elites who depict government as a
benign institution, says Rummel, ignores a "preeminent fact about
government" � namely, "that some of them murder millions in
cold blood. This is where absolute Power reigns.12
One of Professor Rummel's most important insights is that

"peace" under a tyrannical government is actually more lethal than
war. "Putting the human cost of war and democide together, Power
has killed over 203 million people in this century," Rummel points
out.13 However, "even if all to be said about absolute and arbitrary
Power was that it causes war and the attendant slaughter of the
young and most capable ... this would be enough. But much worse
[is the fact that] even without the excuse of combat, Power also
massacres in cold blood those helpless people it controls � in fact,
several times more of them."14
If this has been the record of death and desolation caused by the
exercise of unrestrained power by totalitarian governments of
nation-states, can we expect the horrors of unrestrained world
government to be less? Remember, it is the same perpetrators of
these unspeakable crimes (or their totalitarian successors) whom
the one-world Insiders insist we must join in common cause for
"peace." The "respectable" CFR elites have always been comfort
able with mass-murdering thugs like Stalin, Mao, Tito, Castro,

Sukarno, Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Lumumba, Ben Bella, Ceausescu,
Aristide, Mandela, Arafat, et al.
As we have noted, David Rockefeller, one of the most powerful

drivers of the Establishment agenda during the 20th century has
praised "the social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's
leadership" as "one of the most important and successful in human
history."15 He made this incredible statement in spite of the well-
known fact that Mao Tse-tung's "social experiment" had by that
time (1973) cost the lives of as many as 64 million Chinese at the
hands of their Communist masters!
Rockefeller and his fellow one-worlders share with "Mao the

Master Butcher" the addictive lust for absolute power. Again,
Patrick Henry has provided us the proper attitude toward a record
of tyranny. He said, "I have but one lamp by which my feet are
guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of
judging the future but by the past." "And judging by the past," he
declared, "I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the
British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with
which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves...?"16
What has there been in the conduct of the CFR-UN cabal in the
last fifty years to justify any hopes of benign intent on their part?
Patrick Henry's exhortation is echoed today by the FBI's famous
profiling pioneer John Douglas, who has written extensively on the
criminal mind and obstacles to criminal rehabilitation.17 From his
extensive studies, Douglas maintains that the best predictor of
human conduct is previous conduct.18 While many violent
criminals may perform well and give indications of rehabilitation
under the restraints of prison, when they are released and confront
the same opportunities and pressures that gave rise to their original
offenses, they repeat their crimes. What would be the crimes of
such men if they attained sufficient power that they did not have to
fear being caught or brought to justice? That is the near reality we
face today.
What could we expect from men with proven amoral character

WHAT MUST BE DONE
who would gain unrestrained power and the opportunity to do evil?

Moreover, can anyone imagine that a Hitler could, let alone would,
turn his back on the evil forces that propelled him to power?
Some may seek comfort in the illusion that tyranny is strictly a

foreign phenomenon � that domination and exploitation of one's
fellow man are not in the heart of American leaders. After all,
these men are cultured, genteel, and highly educated. They are
some of the most famous political, business, and academic leaders.
Some of them kiss babies, smile convincingly, and talk of God,
patriotism, and family values. Some of them give millions of
dollars to hospitals, schools, and charitable causes. They are
courted and praised by the media and responsible, respectable
members of society. Surely these eminent men are not capable of
the criminal activities we suggest.
This naivete and inability to judge by objective facts instead of

deceptive appearances have always been the boon of criminals and
the bane of their victims. Even the worst of criminals do not
always openly display their wickedness. In fact, most of the time
they disguise their evil beneath unctuous charm.
Adolf Hitler is universally recognized today as having been one

of our planet's premier criminals. Yet, during his rise to power (and
even after he attained power) prominent American and British
"liberals" and Insiders were singing his praises.19 They pointed to
the schools, hospitals, roads, and social projects he had built, and
they belittled or denied his well-known criminality and totalitarian
aspirations. We all have seen innumerable documentaries in which
Hitler is maniacally ranting to his Nazi hordes. However, he was
very capable of presenting an entirely affable, congenial image as
well, and was frequently filmed hugging children, petting dogs,
visiting war veterans, or chatting amiably with foreign dignitaries.
Al Capone, perhaps America's most notorious criminal, likewise,

knew how to turn on the charm at strategic moments and to posture
as the champion of "the little guy." According to the World
Encyclopedia of Organized Crime:
Capone was a murderous thug without remorse.... He was responsible for

perhaps as many as one thousand or more murders certainly hundreds. Worse,
for a decade the city of Chicago embraced this bragging, boasting, strutting
killer, its newspapers paying homage to him and quoting his every cretinous
statement, its citizens � a goodly portion of the population � nodding tolerantly,
if not approvingly, in his direction.20
With the fabulous wealth gained from his criminal enterprises,

Capone bribed cops, judges, jurors, prosecutors, and reporters �
and "gave generously to charity." Notes the Encyclopedia:
Capone spent money lavishly on himself and those about him,

projecting the image of generosity, of a philanthropist to the common man.
Old-timers in Chicago still pay his bloody memory offhand compliments about
the so-called soup kitchens Capone established in Chicago during the
Depression to feed the hungry, little realizing that the crime boss did this at the
suggestion of attorneys attempting to improve his horrible reputation when he

was being tried for income-tax evasion.21
Much of the public and many politicians were willfully blind,

refusing to believe that Capone was in fact the evil crime lord his
accusers made him out to be. Public officials, such as Chicago
Mayor William Hale Thompson, Chicago Police Chief John
Garrity, and Illinois Governor Len Small, who should have been
protecting the public from the likes of Capone, were actually in
league with the Capone mob.22 So it was also with the crime bosses
who followed after him.
Although now largely forgotten, during the 1970s and '80s Pablo
Escobar Gaviria was one of the most feared organized crime bosses
in the world. As head of Colombia's infamous Medellin drug cartel,
he was also touted as one of the world's richest men. His thugs
unleashed a reign of terror that included the assassination of dozens
of judges, prosecutors, presidential candidates, governors, police
officials, and journalists. Many
WHAT MUST BE DONE
more were bribed into complicity with his criminal operation. Yet he
showered millions of dollars on churches, clinics, hospitals, and schools;
provided college scholarships to many students; and funded many public
works and charitable institutions.23 Was this "bad guy" just
misunderstood? Did he really have a heart of gold underneath a rough
exterior? That's what his defenders claimed, including some members of
the press. Of course that was a lie. Escobar was just doing what all smart
bad guys do: buy protection in the form of public relations. He bought the
loyalty of thousands of people, and was elected to the Colombian
Congress, in spite of his murderous record.
The point is that hiding behind a patina of false respectability is

standard modus operandi for "smart" criminals. If relatively uneducated
street thugs like Capone, Escobar � and the infamous John Gotti, the
"Teflon Don," as he was glamorized in the press � can figure this out,
isn't it foolish to think that that lesson has escaped the notice of our
fabulously wealthy Insiders with their Ivy League pedigrees and hordes of
think-tank "experts" at their beck and call? Just because these
"respectable" leaders do not pull the triggers does not absolve them from
culpability anymore than a "respectable" Mafia boss is innocent of the
killings perpetrated by his underlings.
With more space, we could credibly demonstrate that U.S. Insiders

(direct forebears to the current new world order cabal) orchestrated the
rise of Communism to a world power in the USSR and in China and
supplied these criminal regimes with Western technology and the means
for nuclear weapons.24
It is also true that they willingly sent U.S. sons to die in no-win wars to
build their new world order. They betrayed friendly, anti-Communist
allies into Communist tyranny. They used U.S. foreign aid to further
communize and socialize nations under petty despots.25 They supported
brutal terrorist groups and Communist-directed wars of "national
liberation." 26 They have facilitated the Communist drug offensive against
the United States and frustrated all genuine efforts to expose and oppose
it.27 They have then turned around and offered dangerous, total
itarian proposals disguised as a "War on Drugs," but which, in

reality, are aimed at making war on our freedoms. They have
promoted the destruction of morality and the family. They have
sought the destruction of private property and the middle class.
They have worked to subvert the influence of monotheistic religions.
They have encouraged teaching methods that promote
illiteracy, conformity known as political correctness, and worship
of the Almighty State as God.
These and a host of other crimes too numerous to mention should

leave no doubt that top leaders of the Pratt House presidium are out
to create the kind of absolutist, all-pervasive, mind-and soul-
destroying, Big Brother dictatorship depicted with such horrifying
force in George Orwell's 1984.
In case your memory of that nightmarish world has dimmed

since you read Orwell's classic in high school, it may help to recall
commissar O'Brien's hideous colloquy with the tortured
protagonist, Winston Smith. After delivering an excruciatingly
painful electric shock to Smith, who is strapped to a bed, O'Brien
casually explains:
Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is
obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation.
Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in
new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of
world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias
that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a
world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less
but more merciless as it refines itself. [Emphasis in original.] Progress in our
world will be progress toward more pain. The old civilizations claimed that
they were founded on love and justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our
world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement.
Everything else we shall destroy � everything. Already we are breaking down
the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have
cut the links between child
WHAT MUST BE DONE
and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one
dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will
be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth,
as one takes eggs from a hen.... There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward
the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be
no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy.28
The brutish O'Brien then matter-of-factly continued his explanation

to the helpless and supine Winston Smith. "But always �
do not forget this, Winston � always there will be the intoxication
of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler.
Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the
sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a
picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face �
forever." 29
A Call to Action
A ruthless, tyrannical, Orwellian world state is precisely what the
top Insiders plan to have. Like Orwell's O'Brien, they are
intoxicated with power. They crave absolute power. And if they
should ever attain it, we will experience a murderous "plague of
power" such as this planet has not seen before. We will know
democide on a scale not previously imagined.
The moral man who fully realizes the terrible consequences of

allowing such a future to come to pass by default will be highly
motivated to join the battle against the forces of evil and oppression.
The moral person who understands what is at stake � for
himself, his loved ones, and the incredible heritage of freedom
with which we have been blessed � will be imbued with a high
level of commitment to stopping these would-be tyrants.
But how does one go about such a daunting task? Those committed
to this UN world-government goal enjoy, as we have
shown, enormous influence and prominent positions throughout
our institutions, especially in the media. They are able to create the
appearance of universal support for their agenda. As the late
Admiral Chester Ward, a former longtime member of the Council

on Foreign Relations, observed: "Once the ruling members of CFR
have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular
policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to
work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support
the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and
politically, any opposition."30
Clearly, anyone who dares to sound the alarm or question the

globalist agenda invites well-orchestrated attacks and ridicule. In
short, Americans face a very perilous situation: the major power
centers and safeguards on which they depend to protect their
interests have either been compromised or are secretly working to
enslave us. With the major channels of communication in
internationalist hands, alerting other Americans to this situation is
a formidable challenge. Yet, as we shall see, the situation is not
hopeless if a core of responsible Americans will organize and act
in pursuit of a sound plan.
A Commensurate Response
What needs to be done commensurate with the seriousness of the
danger? Our answer: Enlist many more citizens to follow a sound
program to get the United States out of the United Nations completely.
With the UN as a foundation, the globalists are waging assaults

on our sovereignty on an incredible number of fronts. And they
have equally incredible resources at their disposal for doing so,
including the support of now more than 1,000 NGOs lobbying for
the UN agenda. We cannot expect to obtain the resources to defend
against all of those attacks. Moreover, such a purely defensive
strategy is always doomed to defeat. The only sensible strategy is
to put the globalists' gains up for grabs by going after the
foundation for their assaults � the United Nations itself.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil," said

Henry David Thoreau, "to one who is striking at the root."31 Rather
than hacking at the ever-proliferating branches of the
WHAT MUST BE DONE
UN program, we must concentrate our forces where it counts. We

must wield a sharp axe to the root and trunk of the UN tree � by
forcing the U.S. to withdraw from the UN. U.S. withdrawal before
the UN acquires real, independent power would condemn the UN
to the ash heap of history. Without U.S. support, the United
Nations would share the same fate as its predecessor League of
Nations. When the U.S. Senate wisely refused to have the U.S. join
the League following World War I, the League soon faded into
oblivion.
The UN is not the only program or assault on the U.S. system

that has been mounted by the Establishment one-worlders. But it is
a cornerstone of their plans � an investment of over five decades.
As a mechanism to destroy our sovereignty, it threatens to take
many other battles in resisting the collectivist assault out of the
hands of Congress and the American people. Depriving the
Conspiracy of its creation, the UN, is essential to the preservation
of liberty and accomplishing this would be an incredible setback to
the Insiders' plans.
Of course, we are not claiming that convincing Congress to take

such a step will be easy. It will not be. We are not minimizing the
difficulty in the least. But, with an effort commensurate to the
danger, Congress can be persuaded. It will take enormous effort,
planning, and organization by thousands of concerned citizens in
order to overcome the momentum and influence that the many
powerful proponents of the new world order have built through
labor, subversion, and deceit. But just as America after Pearl
Harbor had to work to catch up, we shouldn't expect to overcome a
tough opponent who has the initiative with easy, half-way
measures.
One very significant advantage we have on our side in this

monumental effort is truth and the natural, God-given, human
desire to be free. Another is the considerable freedoms and protections
that still exist under what remains of our badly tattered
constitutional system. There are many layers of strength not yet
rotted and corrupted. One very important indication of that reality
is the fact that the Insiders still must resort constantly to
massive lies and deception to sell their fraudulent, totalitarian

programs. If the fight were already over, as the defeatists claim.
our enemies would not be going to such lengths to deceive; they
would be flying their colors openly.
But they cannot promote their agenda openly. As dumbed-down,

numbed-down, bummed-down, and scummed-down as a growing
segment of the American public is, there is still sufficient residual
morality and intelligence to force the conspirators for world
tyranny to cloak their schemes in noble-sounding rhetoric and
extravagant charades. This means they must invest hundreds of
times (even thousands of times) more in labor and resources to sell
their lies than what it takes to offset their lies by promoting the
truth.
The architects of the new world order have not yet been able to
entirely erode the republican form of government that our
Founding Fathers established and that has been passed on to us
through the sacrifices of so many dedicated Americans who have
gone before us. Concerned Americans just need to inform themselves
and use the rights, freedoms, and blessings we enjoy in
order to reverse our course.
Most Americans are not aware of what already has been

accomplished in this struggle. In 1997, 54 representatives voted for
the first measure ever to come before the full House calling for the
termination of our membership in the United Nations.32 Two years
later, 74 representatives voted to kill all funding for the UN, which,
if successful (218, a majority, would be required), would
effectively stop our participation in this traitorous sham.33 And
blocking all funding is an easier legislative step than outright
withdrawal, for the House alone can refuse to fund UN operations
(whereas withdrawal would require Senate action, and the
president would likely claim the constitutional power to veto such
action).
Even though there is growing legislative support for withdrawal

from the UN, at the moment there is not nearly enough support to
accomplish the task. The involvement of concerned citizens who
inform themselves and then inform others is the
WHAT MUST BE DONE
only route to generating sufficient political pressure that will force

Congress to vote to terminate U.S. support for the UN. This
informed pressure will be required to offset the enormous
Establishment pressure that would be brought to bear to prevent
Congress from taking such a step. Unfortunately, with so much at
stake, it is not sufficient to sell politicians on the merits of our case.
Instead, success will take clout. Realistically, most representatives
will bow to pro-UN pressure until there is sufficient well-informed
outrage to force them to quit making excuses and act! The vast
majority will not budge until they see that they must if they want to
remain in office.
What we are talking about is a plan to rebuild a higher standard

in Congress. The defense of freedom requires that principle must
govern our affairs, else pragmatism, dictated by the Conspiracy for
a global collectivist order, will destroy us. While we would like to
see more statesmen gain office, this is only a small part of the
solution. In today's climate even statesmen, who act on principle
rather than political pragmatism, will require the support of an
informed electorate if they hope to remain in office. And that same
informed electorate is also the key to holding all politicians
accountable for actions in defense of freedom. So the real
challenge is building and leading that informed electorate.
Sound Organization Required

Building sufficient understanding in time will require organization
under extremely tough, responsible, and knowledgeable leadership.
Taking on the UN means taking on the power and influence of the
Establishment, and in particular the Council on Foreign Relations
(the UN's creator and sponsor) as well as all of the politicians and
media moguls the CFR has in its pocket. This battle can't be carried
through to success without leadership that understands the wiles of
politicians and the pressures that the CFR can bring to bear.
For example, as public understanding grows that the UN is not

our friend, inevitably new proposals to "reform" the UN will
be offered � which politicians will be tempted to support. This is

not only a bad idea, but also a dangerous trap. No reforms will
change the nature of the beast. The UN was designed from the
beginning to promote global tyranny. But politicians love to
champion "compromise" because they see a chance to pacify
uninformed constituents while not risking the wrath of the globalists.
Which also means that freedom loses. These politicians love
to posture with calls for "reform" in order to deflect mounting
pressure that would force them to take real action with real
political consequences. Unfortunately, many conservative groups
that oppose most of the UN's agenda have already been co-opted to
adopt the "reform the UN" agenda. That is a prescription for defeat.
To force serious political action (and keep politicians from wiggling,

stalling, and doing nothing in the face of enormous pressure
and deception from the Establishment) requires a well-informed,
well-organized action group under sound leadership. And that's
why we recommend The John Birch Society (JBS) as uniquely
qualified to serve that role.
The JBS has a track record of over four decades of principled

leadership, of taking tough stands including working to expose the
influence of the Conspiracy we have been discussing in this book.
For more than 40 years, it has been courageously fighting the good
fight, blocking or slowing down many dangerous programs of that
Conspiracy, and, most importantly, surviving the heat directed at
anyone who takes the point in this fight.
And the Society has the plan and organization to get the job
done. In countless battles great and small, in cities and rural areas,
the challenge comes down to reaching enough Americans with the
problem and a workable solution in time. This book is part of that
plan. But success requires the wise and committed help of many
more like yourself. We encourage readers to contact the Society for
more information or the individual from whom the reader got this
book. *
*The John Birch Society, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54912. Phone: (800) JBS-USA1
[(800) 527-8721]. Or contact us through our website: www.jbs.org.
WHAT MUST BE DONE
We also urge readers to get informed and to contact their congressman

insisting that he support measures to Get US out! The
name of the game is to be effective. Be firm, but don't insult or be
strident. And most importantly, gain muscle by getting others to
help. Membership in the Society helps enormously with that
challenge.
The variety and extent of UN agencies and programs can be

bewildering. When one first comes to understand the incredible
organization the enemy has built to confuse, confound, and deceive
Americans into giving up their inheritance of freedom, it is easy to
become discouraged. But that reaction, if allowed to stand, only
serves the enemy. One of the key strategies of this cabal is to create
the "illusion" of overwhelming support � so that Americans see
no leadership for sanity. The Establishment one-worlders want to
demoralize good Americans so that they give up any idea of
resistance. And so these conspirators fear � and try to capture,
corrupt, discredit, or isolate � any leaders who would give
Americans hope that there is resistance, that there is sound
leadership to follow.
For more than four decades, members of The John Birch Society
have been educating their fellow citizens concerning the dangers of
the United Nations. Their work has been largely responsible for the
disfavor that befell the UN for many years. It took major deception
and planning by the new world order advocates, including new
"threats" and the "collapse" of Communism, to dust off the UN and
put their plans on a fast track. We now face the looming threat of
world tyranny � a danger greater than our nation has faced at any
previous time in its history. The danger is great because it is
neither seen nor understood by most of our citizens. And so The
John Birch Society has created a new drive to meet this challenge.
We are all fueled by the urgency to capture the attention of our
fellow citizens and finally put an end to the creature on the East
River. We respectfully ask for your help.34
We are asking for your help in an epic educational battle.

Thankfully, the primary challenge is not a military one. In fact,
for today's problems a call to arms would only serve the cause of our
enemy most powerfully and help him consolidate and acquire the
unrestrained power he seeks.
Our enemy's success all stems from the ignorance, delusion, and lack of
understanding of the American people. If good Americans gain a proper
understanding of what is happening, our problems can be resolved within
the institutions that George Washington and others fought to give us.
If the people don't gain the understanding to choose better leaders and
hold their politicians accountable to the Constitution, they cannot expect
to improve their government through revolution. In fact, just the opposite
would happen. What is needed instead is to use the resources and the
freedoms we have to inform our fellow citizens and put the government
our Founding Fathers gave us back on track.
But for success in the educational battle ahead, we do need to find the
same spirit of patriotism and determination that Patrick Henry captured so
well in his previously mentioned "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"
oration:
If we wish to be free � if we mean to preserve inviolate those

inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending � if
we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have
been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to
abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained � we
must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the
God of Hosts is all that is left us!
...Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of

chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course
others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!35
Notes
Prologue
1.
Alfred Lord Tennyson, "Locksley Hall,"
Poems (Boston: W.D. Ticknor, 1842).
2.
Thomas Molnar, Utopia: The Perennial
Heresy (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967),
p. 215.
3.
Attributed to George Washington by G.
Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master
(Appleton, Wis.: Western Islands, 1964), p.
196.
4.
Robert Muller, New Genesis: Shaping a
Global Spirituality (Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1984), pp. 27-28.
5. Ibid., pp. 28-29.
6. Ibid., pp. 29-30.
7. Ibid., p. 30.
8.
Daniel Sitarz (ed.), Agenda 21: The Earth
Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet
(Boulder, Colo.: EarthPress, 1993), p. 6.
9. Robert Muller,
My Testament to the UN
(World Happiness and Cooperation, U.S.A.,
1994), p. 172.
10. Muller, New Genesis, p. 30.
11. Molnar, p. 227.
12. Ibid.
13. Muller, New Genesis, p. 35.
14.
Nesta H. Webster, The French Revolution:
A Study in Democracy, Second Edition
(Hawthorne, Calif.: Christian Book Club of
America, 1969), p. 427. Note: Author used
different translation for text.
15.
R.J. Rummel, Death by Government, (New
Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers,
1994), p. 5.
16. Ibid.
17.
John Barron and Anthony Paul, Murder of a
Gentle Land, (New York: Reader's Digest
Press, Thomas Y Crowell Co., 1977), p.
209.
18. Rummel, Death by Government, p. 3.
19. Ibid., p. 25.
20. Ibid., p. 27.
21. John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (Lord
Acton) (1834-1902), quoted in John
Bartlett, Familiar Quotations
16th ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, and
Company, 1992), p. 521.
Chapter 1 � The Threat
1. The New Republic, January 17, 2000.

2.
Walter Cronkite's remarks in accepting the
Norman Cousins Global Governance Award,
October 19, 1999, as cited by John B.
Anderson, "In Response to Senator Helms:
Cronkite and Clinton make a (strong case for
recasting the United Nations as a world
federation," The World Federalist
Association advertisement in the New York
Times, February 18, 2000. [Note: Source of
quote in ad is ambiguous: Mr. Cronkite's
acceptance remarks in 1999 or his 1996
autobiography, A Reporter's Life. We
verified the former from a video of his
remarks in 1999.]
3.
Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 29, 1945,
quoted in Frank Hughes, Prejudice and the
Press (New York: Devin-Adair, 1950), p.
577.
4.
Roy P. Basler (ed.), "Address Before Young
Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois,
January 27, 1838," The Collected Works of
Abraham Lincoln, Volume I, p. 109, per
http://home. att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html
on 3/29/01.
5.
Kofi Annan, We the Peoples: The Role of
the United Nations in the 21st Century
(report from the September 2000 UN
Millennium Summit).
6.
World Federalist Association ad, New York
Times, February 18, 2000.
7. Same as 2 above.
8.
Bill Clinton, letter to World Federalist
Association, June 22, 1993.
9.
Strobe Talbott, "The Birth of the Global
Nation," Time, July 20, 1992, p. 70.
10. Richard Falk and Andrew Strauss,
"On the
Creation of a Global Peoples Assembly,"
Stanford Journal of
299
International Law, Summer 2000, pp. 36:1,
36:3.
11.
Richard Falk and Andrew Strauss, "Toward
Global Parliament," Foreign Affairs,
January/February 2001, pp. 212-220.
12.
Robert Wright, "Continental Drift," The
New Republic, January 17, 2000, p. 18.
13. Jim Leach, "A Republican Looks at Foreign
Policy," Foreign Affairs, Summer 1992, pp.
11-31.
14.
Henry Grunwald, "A World Without a
Country?" Wall Street Journal, January 1,
1999, p. R44.
15. Lead editorial, "A Supply-Side Nobel," Wall
Street Journal, October 14, 1999, p.A26.
16.
Robert A. Mundell, "Mundell on Supply-
Side Economics," Wall Street Journal,
October 14, 1999, p. A26.
17.
Rashmi Mayur, "World Government," The
War & Peace Digest, March/April 2000, p.
1.
18. Sean
Scully, "Armed Troops Sought for
UN," Washington Times, June 1, 2000, as
posted on Global Policy Forum -UN
Security Council webpage: www.globalpolicy.
org/security/peacekpg/reform/
mcgovern.htm on 03/13/01.
19. Elizabeth
Greathouse, "Justices See Joint
Issues With the EU," Washington Post, July
9, 1998, p. A24.
20. Quoted
by Paul Kurtz (International
Academy of Humanism, USA) in "Humanist
Manifesto 2000," The War and Peace Digest,
March/April 2000, p. 4.
Chapter 2 * Disarmament and Submission
1.
Lincoln P. Bloomfield, A World Effectively
Controlled By the United Nations
(Washington, D.C.: Institute for Defense
Analyses, 1962), p. iv.
2. Ibid., pp. 23, 25.
3.
Freedom From War: The United States
Program for General and Complete
Disarmament in a Peaceful World,
(Washington, D.C.: Department of State
Publication 7277, 1961), pp. 18-19.
4.
Paul H. Nitze, op-ed: "A Threat Mostly to
Ourselves," New York Times October 28,
1999.
5. Charles
P. Howland, Survey of American
Foreign Relations 1928 (New Haven: For
Council on Foreign Relations by Yale
University Press 1928), p. 237.
6. Bloomfield, p. iv.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., p. 1.
9. Ibid., p. 3.
10. Ibid., p. 23.
11. Ibid., p. 22.
12. Freedom From War, p. 18.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., pp. 18-19.
15. Lewis C.
Henry (ed.), Best Quotations for
All Occasions (Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett
Publications, 1964), p. 45.
16. U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3.
17. Blueprint
for the Peace Race: Outline of
Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and
Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World,
(United States Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency Publication 4, General
Series 3, Released May 1962), p. 33.
18.
"Remarks by Mikhail Gorbachev on the
Release of the Global Security Programme
Findings on October 19, 1994 at the New
York Council on Foreign Relations," Global
Security Programme: Final Report of the
Global Security Project (The Gorbachev
Foundation/Moscow; The Gorbachev
Foundation/USA; Rajiv Gandhi Foundation,
October 1994), p. 3.
19.
"Investigation of Un-American Activities in
the United States, ("Hearings before a
Special Committee on UN-American
Activities, House of Representatives,
Seventy-eighth Congress, First Session, on
H. Res. 282") (Washington, D.C.: United
States Government Printing Office, 1943), p.
3386; Frank A. Capell, "Alan M. Cranston,"
The Review Of The News, February 17,
1971; Gary Allen, "Alan Cranston: The
Shadow In The Senate," American Opinion,
June 1974, pp.
NOTES
1-17.
20. Global Security Programme, p. 3.

21. Ibid., pp. 3, 15.
22. Ibid., pp. 17-20.
23. George
Cothran, "One World, Under
Gorby," SF Weekly, Vol. 14, No. 16, May
31-June 6, 1995, pp. 11-12.
24. Our
Global Neighborhood: The Report of
the Commission on Global Governance
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).
25. Ibid., pp. 372, 374.
26. Frank L.
Kluckhohn, Lyndon's Legacy: A
Candid Look at the President's Policymakers
(New York: Devin-Adair, 1964), pp. 194195.
See also: William J. Gill, The Ordeal of
Otto Otepka (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington
House, 1969), especially Chapter XIV
"Cleveland."
27. Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary
Of The Left, Consolidated Volume I
(Belmont, Mass.: Western Islands, 1969), p.
281.
28.
"Institute of Pacific Relations," Report of the
(Senate) Committee on the Judiciary,
Eighty-Second Congress, Second Session,
July 2 (legislative day June 27), 1952, p.
223.
29. Kluckhohn, pp. 197, 200-201; Gannon, p.
281. Regarding the "Operation Keelhaul"
betrayal itself, see: Julius Epstein, Operation
Keelhaul: The Story of Forced Repatriation
from 1944 to the Present (Old Greenwich,
Conn.: Devin-Adair, 1973); and Robert
Welch, The Politician (Belmont, Mass.:
Belmont Publishing Co., 1964).
30. Harlan Cleveland, The Third Try at World
Order: U.S. Policy for an Interdependent
World (New York: Aspen Institute for
Humanistic Studies, 1976), p. 2.
31. Ibid., Chapter 2: "Nobody in Charge," pp. 59.
32. Harlan Cleveland, "The United Nations: Its
Future is its Funding," Futures, March 1995,
p. 109.
33. Ibid., p. 110.
34. Ibid., p. 111.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
37. George H. W Bush, "Presidential
Address: Bush Announces War on Iraq,
Assures 'We Will Not Fail,' " reported in
Congressional Quarterly, January 19, 1991,
p. 197.
38.
"U.S. Participation in Military Operations,
1990-Present," a May 2000 report prepared
for the Joint Chiefs of Staff by the General
Accounting Office, quoted in William F.
Jasper, "New World Army," The New
American, July 3, 2000, p. 10.
39. Ibid.
40. Floyd
Spence, "Chairman's Views...,"
Military Readiness Review, July 1999, p. 1.
41. Ibid., "The U.S. Air Force and Kosovo."
42. Ibid.
43. Sean
Scully, "Armed Troops Sought for
UN," Washington Times, June 1, 2000, as
posted on Global Policy Forum -UN
Security Council webpage: www.globalpolicy.
org/security/peacekpg/reform/
mcgovern.htm on 03/13/01.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
Chapter 3 � The Secret Network of Power
1.
Professor Arnold Toynbee in a June 1931
speech before the Institute for the Study of
International Affairs in Copenhagen, quoted
in Tony Pearce, "Is there really a New World
Order?" posted on
www.saltshakers.com/mid-night/nwo.html.
2.
"Revision of the United Nations Charter:
Hearings before a Subcommittee of the
Committee on Foreign Relations, United
States Senate, Eighty-First Congress, Second
Session, on Resolutions relative to revision
of the United Nations Charter, Atlantic
Union, World Federation, etc.," February 2,
3, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, and 20,1950, p. 494.
3.
Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A
History of the World in Our Time (New
York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 950.
4.
George Cothran, "One World, Under
Gorby," SF Weekly, Vol. 14, No. 16, May
31-June 6, 1995, pp. 11-12.
5. Lawrence
Shoup and William Mintner,
Shaping a New World Order: The Council
on Foreign Relations' Blueprint for World
Hegemony, excerpted from Holly Sklar
(ed.), Trilateralism (South End Press, 1980),
posted on www.thirdworldtraveler.com.
6. Robert
W. Lee, The. United Nations
Conspiracy (Appleton, Wis.: Western
Islands, 1981), p. 243.
7. William F.
Jasper, Global Tyranny ... Step
By Step (Appleton, Wis.: Western Islands,
1992), p. 68. (Reference: Time magazine,
April 16, 1945).
8. Richard
Rovere, "The American
Establishment," Esquire, May 1962, p. 107.
9.
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., A Thousand
Days (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965), p.
128.
10. Newsweek, September 6, 1971, p. 74.
11.
Lawrence Shoup and William Mintner,
Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on
Foreign Relations and U.S. Foreign Policy
(New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977),
p. 16.
12.
Richard J. Barnet, Roots of War (New York:
Atheneum, 1972), p. 46.
13. Barry M.
Goldwater, With No Apologies
(New York: William Morrow and Co., Inc.,
1979), p. 279.
14. Richard
Harwood, "Ruling Class
Journalists," Washington Post, October 30,
1993, p. A21.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Minute,
June 19, 1991 and Lectures
Francoises, July/August 1991, quoted in
HduB Reports, September 1991, p. 2.
18.
Hilaire du Berrier, HduB Reports,
September 1991, p. 2.
19.
William F. Jasper, "Europe: Meeting Ground
of East and West," The New American,
February 24, 1992, pp. 19-25.
20. du Berrier, pp. 1-2.
21. Harwood, op. cit.
22. Quigley, p. 950.
23. Ibid., p. 324.
24. George J. A. O'Toole, Honorable Treachery,
A History of U.S. Intelligence,
Espionage, and Covert Action from
the American Revolution to the CIA (New
York: The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1991), p.
303.
25. Peter
Grose, Continuing the Inquiry: The
Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to
1996 (New York: Council on Foreign
Relations Press, 1996), Quigley, Tragedy
and Hope, pp. 950-952.
26. Quigley, p. 131.
27. Ibid., p. 324.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid., p. 325.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid., p. 326-27.
32. Sarah Gertrude Millin, Cecil Rhodes (New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1933), p. 8.
33. Herbert
Baker and W T. Stead, Cecil
Rhodes: The Man and His Dream,
(Bulawayo, Rhodesia: Books of Rhodesia,
1977. Includes: W T. Stead (ed.), The Last
Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes
(London: "Review of Reviews" Office,
1902)), pp. 39-40, 44, 52.
34. Ibid., pp. 39-40, 44.
35. William F. Jasper, "A 'Rhodie' In the White
House," The New American, January 25,
1993, pp. 37-39.
36. Carroll
Quigley, The Anglo-American
Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden
(New York: Books in Focus, 1981), p. 197.
37. Ibid.
38. Chester
Ward, Kissinger on the Couch,
(New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House
Publishers, 1975), p. 150.
39. Ibid, p. 146.
Chapter 4 � "Capitalists" and the Communist
Dimension
1.
Earl Browder, Victory and After (New York:
International Publishers, 1942), p. 110.
2.
V.I. Lenin, quoted in "Target: World
Government," The New American,
September 16, 1996, p. 23.
3. Program
of the Communist International
(New York: Workers Library
NOTES
4.
Socialist International 1962 Conference,
Oslo, Norway, quoted in Rose L. Martin,
The Selling of America (Santa Monica,
Calif.: Fidelis Publishers Inc., 1973), p. 17.
5.
Mortimer J. Adler, Haves Without Have-
Nots (New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company, 1991), p. 251.
6. Browder, p. 110.
7.
See Global Tyranny ... Step By Step,
chapters 3 and 5 (Appleton, Wis.: Western
Islands, 1992); Shadows of Power
(Appleton, Wis.: Western Islands, 1992);
The Insiders, 4th edition (Appleton, Wis.:
The John Birch Society, 1996); Financial
Terrorism, (Appleton, Wis.: The John Birch
Society, 1993).
8.
Robert W Lee, The United Nations
Conspiracy (Appleton, Wis.: Western
Islands, 1981), p. 11.
9.
Gary Allen with Larry Abraham, None Dare
Call It Conspiracy (Rossmoor, Calif.:
Concord Press, 1971), p. 138.
10.
Soviet World Outlook: A Handbook of
Communist Statements, U.S. Department of
State Publication 6836 (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959), p.
171.
11. Browder, p. 110.
12. Ibid., pp. 160, 169.
13.
William Z. Foster, Toward Soviet America
(Balboa Island, Calif: Elgin Publications,
1961), pp. 272, 326.
14.
Official 1936 program of the Communist
International, recorded in hearings before the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, July
11, 1956, p. 196, quoted in G. Edward
Griffin, The Fearful Master: A Second Look
at the United Nations (Appleton, Wis.:
Western Islands, 1964), pp. 69-70.
15.
Bella V. Dodd, School of Darkness (New
York: Devin-Adair, 1963), p. 179.
16.
Pravda, March 23, 1946, quoted in Robert W
Lee, The United Nations Conspiracy
(Appleton, Wis.: Western Islands, 1981), p
73.
17.
"Organized Communism in the United
States," U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Un-
American Activities, May 1958, p. 130.
18. Griffin, p. 88.

19. Regarding
White's leadership role at the
Bretton Woods Conference, see, for
example: The American Banker, April 20,
1971, as cited in Gary Allen, Say "No!" to
the New World Order (Seal Beach, Calif.:
Concord Press, 1987), p. 241. Regarding
White's efforts as a Soviet agent of influence,
see: David Rees, Harry Dexter White: A
Study in Paradox (New York: Coward,
McCann & Geoghegan, 1973); Whittaker
Chambers, Witness (New York: Random
House, 1952); Allen Weinstein, Perjury: The
Hiss-Chambers Case (New York: Vintage
Books, 1978); James Burnham, The Web of
Subversion: Underground Networks in the
U.S. Government (New York: The John Day
Co., 1954); Elizabeth Bentley, Out of
Bondage (New York: Devin-Adair, 1951);
and Christopher Andrew and Oleg
Gordievsky, KGB: The Inside Story Of Its
Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev
(New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991).
For more recent revelations, see also: Allen
Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev, The
Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in
America � The Stalin Era (New York:
Random House, 1998); Herbert Romerstein
and Eric Breindel, The Venona Secrets:
Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's
Traitors (Washington, D.C.: Regnery
Publishing, Inc., 2000).
20. Griffin, p. 87.
21. Ibid., p. 120.
22.
"Lenin Aims Like U.N.'s, Thant Says," Los
Angeles Times, April 7, 1970.
23. This Kremlin influence at the United Nations
extended even to American nationals
employed by the UN, according to the
United States Senate Judiciary Committee's
1953 report, "Activities of United States
Citizens Employed by the United Nations."
That report concluded American nationals
employed by the UN as well as other "UN
officials were involved in the Communist
conspiracy."
For a more detailed background on the

United Nations' support of communism
abroad from the 1940s through the 1980s,
see: The Fearful Master by G. Edward
Griffin, The United Nations Conspiracy by
Robert W. Lee, or the author's Global
Tyranny... Step by Step.
24. Arthur Bliss Lane, I Saw Poland Betrayed

(New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1948),
pp. 143, 214.
25.
"Soviet Schedule for War: 1955," Executive
Hearings Before the Committee on Un-
American Activities, House of
Representatives, May 13 and 14, 1953
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1953), p. 1727.
26. Eugene
W Castle, Billions, Blunders, and
Baloney (New York: Devin-Adair, 1955), p.
47.
27. Robert
Welch, May God Forgive Us
(Chicago, 111.: Henry Regnery Company,
1952), p. 87.
28. Activities
of United States Citizens
Employed by the United Nations, Hearings
before the Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee of the Committee on the
Judiciary (1952), pp. 181-182.
29. Amity
Shlaes, "Communism Becomes
Cronyism at the U.N.," Wall Street Journal,
October 24, 1991, p. 35A
30. Carroll
Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A
31. Ibid., p. 954.
32. Ibid., p. 956.
33. Ibid., pp. 954-955.
34. Ibid., p. 955
35. Rene
A. Wormser, Foundations: Their
Power and Influence (New York: Devin-
Adair, 1958), p. 304.
36. Ibid., pp. 304-305.
37. Ibid., p. 305.
38. Tax-Exempt
Foundations, Report of the
Special Committee to Investigate Tax-
Exempt Foundations and Comparable
Organizations," U.S. House of
Representatives, Eighty-Third Congress,
Second Session on H. Res. 217 (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1954), pp. 176-77.
39. William H.
Mcllhany II, The Tax-Exempt
Foundations (Westport, Conn.: Arlington
House, 1980), p. 63. As recorded in note
number 30 (p. 235) to Chapter 3, Mcllhany
interviewed Norman Dodd in 1976 and
recorded that conversation as the "Dodd
Interview Transcript." Mcllhany also
compared Mr. Dodd's memory of the
conversation in 1976 "with his description
of it years earlier in a letter he wrote to
Howard E. Kershner on December 29,
1962." "Where there are any slight
discrepancies between the two accounts
[Mr. McIlhany] used the 1962 version." In
later years, Mr. Dodd gave similar statements
in other interviews.
40. See:
Antony Sutton, National Suicide:
Military Aid to the Soviet Union (New
Rochelle, N.Y: Arlington House, 1975); The
Best Enemy Money Can Buy (Billings,
Mont.: Liberty House Press, 1986); and
Western Technology and Soviet Economic
Development, 1917-1930 (Stanford, Calif.,
Stanford University: Hoover Institution,
1968); James Perloff, Shadows of Power
(Appleton, Wis.: Western Islands, 1988);
Joseph Finder, Red Carpet (New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983); Charles
Levinson Vodka Cola (London: Gordon &
Cremonesi, 1978); Gary Allen with Larry
Abraham, None Dare Call It Conspiracy
(Rossmoor, Calif.: Concord Press, 1971);
John F McManus, The Insiders (Appleton,
Wis.: The John Birch Society, 1996);
William F. Jasper, Global Tyranny
(Appleton, Wis.: Western Islands, 1992).
41. Bloomfield, A World Effectively Controlled
by the United Nations, February 24, 1961.)
42. Ibid., p. 12.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid., p. 22.
Chapter 5 � Orchestrating the Globalist
Concert
1. Our Global Neighborhood: The

Report of
(New York: Oxford University
NOTES
Press, 1995), pp. 254, 255, 257.
2.
Jessica T. Mathews, "Power Shift," Foreign
Affairs, January-February 1997, pp. 50, 53.
3. Robert
Hormats, "Non-Governmental
Organizations at the Table," a presentation
of Edelman Public Relations Worldwide at
Atlanta, Singapore, and Sydney, October
2000, www.edelman.
com/ceo_corner/ngo/NGO_files/slide00
01.htm on 3/10/01.
4. Kofi
Annan, address to the (NGO)
Millennium Forum, New York, May 22,
2000. (See: www.millenniumforum.org/
html/docs/Speech_UNSG_openingplenary.
htm)
5. Steven
C. Rockefeller address, UN
Millennium Forum, May 2000, as
videotaped by The John Birch Society.
6. Sun
Tzu, The Art of War (Ware,
Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions, Ltd,
Cumberland House, 1995), pp. 132-133.
7. Ibid., p. 133.
8. E.
H. Cookridge, The Net That Covers the
World (New York: Henry Holt & Co.,
1955), pp. 15,16.
9. Ibid., p. 16.
10.
Martin Malia, foreword to Stephane Courtois
et al., The Black Book of Communism:
Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), pp.
xi, xvi.
11.
"Interlocking Subversion in Government
Departments," Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee report (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office), July 30,
1953, p. 49.
12.
J. Edgar Hoover, The Elks Magazine,
August 1956, quoted by Jerreld L. Newquist
in Prophets Principles and National Survival
(Salt Lake City: Publishers Press, 1964), p.
273.
13. Interview with author.
14.
Dennis L. Bark and Owen Harries (ed.), The
Red Orchestra, Volume 3: The Case of the
Southwest Pacific (Stanford University,
Stanford, Calif., Hoover Institution Press,
1989), pp. xix, xx.
15. Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (New
York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1984.)
16. Anatoliy
Golitsyn, The Perestroika
Deception: Memoranda to the Central
Intelligence Agency (London & New York:
Edward Harle, 1995).
17. Jan
Kozak, And Not A Shot Is Fired
(Appleton, Wis.: Robert Welch University
Press, 1999).
18. Kofi
Annan, address to the World Civil
Society Conference, Montreal, December 8,
1999, www.un.org/MoreInfo/
ngolink/sgmontre.htm on March 29, 2001.
19.
Freedom From War: The United States
Disarmament in a Peaceful World
(Washington, D.C.: Department of State
Publication 7277, 1961); Lincoln P.
Bloomfield, A World Effectively Controlled
By the United Nations (Washington, D.C.:
Institute for Defense Analyses, 1962).
20. Kofi
Annan, address to the Millennium
Forum.
21.
"The Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice
for the 21st Century," UN Ref A/54/98
(Hague Appeal for Peace).
22. Cora Weiss remarks at Forum videotaped by
JBS staff.
23. William
Norman Grigg, "Building World
Order," The New American, July 3, 2000, p.
6.
24. S.
Steven Powell, Covert Cadre: Inside the
Institute for Policy Studies (Ottawa, 111.:
Green Hill Publishers, 1987), pp. 38-39.
25. Grigg, pp. 6-7.
26. UN Charter, Chapter VII, Article 42.
27. "The Hague Agenda," p. 4.
28. Ibid., pp. 34, 44.
29. Ibid., p. 44.
30. Peace
Matters, Newsletter of the Hague
Appeal for Peace, May 2000.
31. James
Kunen, The Strawberry Statement:
Notes of a College Revolutionary (New
York: Avon, 1969), pp. 130-131.
32. Gary Allen, "Who is Paying: For the Student
Revolutionary Movement," American
Opinion magazine,
November 1970, p. 4. (Note: Kirk was also
interviewed by House and Senate
investigative committees. See: "Investigations
of Students for a
Democratic Society, Part 5," Hearings

Before the Committee on Internal Security,
House of Representatives, August 6 and 7,
1969 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1969); "Testimony of
Gerald Wayne Kirk, Part 1," Hearings
before Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee, March 9, 1970 (U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1970); and
"Testimony of Gerald Wayne Kirk, Part 2,"
Senate Internal Security Subcommittee
Hearings on March 11, 1970 (U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1970).
33. William Shawcross, Deliver Us from Evil:

Peacekeepers, Warlords, and a World of
Endless Conflict (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 2000).
34. Jonathan
Schell, "The Folly of Arms
Control," Foreign Affairs, September/
October 2000.
35. Ibid., p. 25.
36. Igor Ivanov, "The Missile-Defense Mistake,"
Foreign Affairs, September/October 2000,
pp. 15-20.
37. Andrew J. Goodpaster, "Advice for the Next
President," Foreign Affairs,
September/October 2000, p. 159.
38. Chester
Ward, Kissinger on the Couch,
(New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House
39. UN 2000: The United Nations Millennium
Summit, New York, 6-9 September 2000
(London: Agenda Publishing, 2000).
40. Robert D. Green, Fast Track to Zero Nuclear
Weapons: The Middle Powers Initiative,
Revised Edition (Cambridge, Mass.: Middle
Powers Initiative, 1999), p. 6.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid., pp. 37, 38.
43. Ibid., p. 37.
Chapter 6 � Enviromania
1.
World Association of World Federalists, The
Humanist, January-February 1972, quoted in
Global Tyranny ... Step By Step (Appleton,
Wis.: Western Islands, 1992), p. 123.
2. George F. Kennan, "The Wall Falls:
This is No Time for Talk of German
Reunification," Washington Post, November
12, 1989.
3.
Michael Oppenheimer, "From Red Menace
to Green Threat," New York Times, March
27, 1990, p. 19B.
4.
Quoted in Robert James Bidinotto "What is
the Truth about Global Warming?," Reader's
Digest, February 1990, page 97.
5.
Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider,
The First Global Revolution, A Report by
the Council of the Club of Rome (New
York: Pantheon Books, 1991), p. 115.
6.
"The New World Army," New York Times,
March 6, 1992, p. A14.
7.
William Norman Grigg, "Insider Report,"
The New American, October 4, 1993, p. 12.
8.
Dixy Lee Ray, Environmental Overkill
(Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway,
1993), p. 205.
9.
Heidelberg Appeal to Heads of States and
Governments, publicly released at the 1992
Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. See:
www.ceednet.org/issues/
globalclimate/heidelberg_appeal.htm.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12.
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) approved the IPCC
WG III Third Assessment Report at the 6th
session of WG III, held at Accra, Ghana,
from February 28th through March 3rd,
2000.
13.
1991 Gallup Poll cited in Kelly Stewart,
"Global Warming and the Kyoto Protocol,"
April 24, 1998,
www.publicsectorconsultants.com/PSR
/Periscop/1998/0402498.cfm on 3/19/01.
Same poll also cited in "Myths of Global
Warming Cited as Kyoto Approaches,"
Environment News, August 1997,
www.heartland.org/environment/
aug97/myths.htm on 3/19/01.
14.
See the author's interview with Dr. Miranda,
"The Amazing Amazon," in The New
American, August 10, 1992, pp. 16-17.
15. Ibid.
16. William F. Jasper, "Earth Summit
NOTES
Alternatives," The New American, July 27,

1992, p. 16.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19.
Lincoln P. Bloomfield, A World Effectively
Controlled by the United Nations, Institute
for Defense Analyses, March 10, 1962, p.
12. Prepared for IDA in support of a study
submitted to the Department of State under
contract No. SCC 28270, February 24, 1961.
20. Ibid., p. 12.
21. Herman
Kahn and Anthony J. Wiener,
"World Federal Government," essay in
Uniting the Peoples and Nations: Readings
in World Federalism, compiled by Barbara
Walker (Washington, D.C.: World Federalist
Association, 1993), p. 306.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Benjamin
B. Ferencz and Ken Keyes, Jr.,
Planethood: The Key to Your Future (Coos
Bay, Ore.: Love Line Books, 1991), pp. 9091.
25. Report
From Iron Mountain on the
Possibility and Desirability of Peace, (New
York: The Dial Press, 1967).
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., p. 66.
28. Ibid., p. 71.
29. Ibid., p. 66.
30. Ibid., p. 70.
31. Bloomfield, p. 22.
32. Iron Mountain, p. 71.
33. Mikhail Gorbachev
speech, "The River of
Time and the Necessity of Action," delivered
at Fulton, Missouri, May 6, 1992.
34. Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: Into the Greenhouse
World (New York: Bantam Books, 1989), p.
245.
35. Benjamin Ferencz, quoted by the author in
"Courting Global Tyranny," The New
American, August 31, 1998, p. 8.
36. Corinne McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson,
Spiritual Politics: Changing the World From
the Inside Out (New York: Ballantine
Books, 1994).
37. Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave (New York:
William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1980),
p. 342.
38. Jessica
Lipnack and Jeffrey Stamps,
Networking: The First Report and Directory
(New York: Doubleday, 1982), quoted in
Kirk Kidwell, "Network Difficulty," The
New American, October 12, 1987, p. 6.
39.
"Foundations Pay the Way," The New
American special report: "Conspiracy for
Global Control," 1997 expanded edition, pp.
56, 57.
40. Alvin and Heidi Toffler, Foreword by Newt
Gingrich, Creating a New Civilization: The
Politics of the Third Wave (Atlanta: Turner
Publishing, 1995).
41. McLaughlin and Davidson, p. 29.
42. Donnela H. and Dennis L. Meadows, et al.,
The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club
of Rome's Project on the Predicament of
Mankind (New York: Universe Books,
1972), p. 196.
43. Ibid., p. 197.
44. Ibid.
45. Gus
Hall, Ecology, quoted in Holly
Swanson, Set Up & Sold Out: Find Out
What Green Really Means (White City,
Ore.: CIN, 1995), p. 30.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid., p. 272.
48. See the author's report: "Socializing at Rio,"
The New American, August 10, 1992, p. 18.
49. Ibid.
50. Rene
Dubos and Barbara Ward (Lady
Jackson), Only One Earth: The Care and
Maintenance of a Small Planet (New York:
WW Norton, 1972).
51. Richard
A. Falk, "Toward a New World
Order: Modest Methods and Drastic
Visions," in Saul H. Mendlovitz (ed.), On
the Creation of a Just World Order: Preferred
Worlds for the 1990's (New York: The Free
Press, 1975).
52. Jeremy
Rifkin, Voting Green, quoted in
Swanson, op. cit., p. 40.
53. The State of the World, annual WorldWatch
Institute report. See the Worldwatch Institute
website (3/14/01): www.worldwatch.org.
54. Ibid.,
see: www.worldwatch.org/bios/
brown.html.
55. Ibid.
56. From "Acknowledgements," State of
the World 1995 (the "flagship publication of

the Worldwatch Institute").
57. Stephen
Schmidheiny and the Business
Council for Sustainable Development,
Changing Course (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press Books, 1992).
58. Al Gore, Earth In The Balance: Ecology and
the Human Spirit (New York: Plume, 1993),
p. 269.
59. William
Norman Grigg, "Al Gore's Red
Connections," The New American, March
31, 1997, pp. 15-17.
60. Jim
MacNeill, Pieter Winsemius, Taizo
Yakushiji, Beyond Interdependence: The
Meshing of the World's Economy and the
Earth's Ecology (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1991).
61. Maurice Strong in ibid., p. ix.
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid.
64. Ibid.,p.x.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid.
67. MacNeill, Winsemius, and Yakushiji, p. 128.
68. Ibid.
69. Ronald I. Spiers, "Keep the U.N. on a Roll,"
New York Times, March 13, 1992, p.A31.
70. George F. Kennan, "The Wall Falls: This is
No Time for Talk of German Reunification,"
Washington Post, November 12, 1989.
71. Jessica
Tuchman Mathews, "Two Views,"
EPA Journal, July/August 1990, p. 27.
72. Ibid.
73.
"Global Commentary" "We must 'ecolo-gize'
our society before it's too late," Birmingham
(Ala.) News, April 22, 1990.
74. Ibid.
75.
"From Red to Green," Audubon, November-
December 1994, quoted in Swanson, p. 272.
76. Grassroots, quoted in Swanson, p. 277.
77.
"Man of the Decade: Mikhail Gorbachev"
and "The Unlikely Patron of Change," Time,
January 1, 1990, cover and pp. 42-72.
78. Mikhail
S. Gorbachev, speech delivered
November 2, 1987 at the Kremlin
Palace of Congresses in Moscow before a
gathering of party officials and foreign
visitors. Translated into English by Tass, as
reported by Facts on File November 6,
1987, p. 820.
79. Mikhail
Gorbachev, Perestroika: New
Thinking for Our Country and the World,
Hungarian edition (1st para.), quoted in The
New Republic, December 21, 1987, p. 9.
80. Francis X. Clines, "Gorbachev: 'Enough' for
Glasnost?" New York Times International,
December 26,
1989, p. 11.
81.
"Gorbachev Interview," Time, June 4,
1990, p. 31.
82. Mikhail
Gorbachev, Perestroika: New
Thinking for Our Country and the World
(New York: Harper & Row, 1987), p. 51.
83. Ibid., pp. 32, 35.
84. Daniel Sitarz (ed.), Agenda 21: The Earth
Summit Strategy to Save the Planet
(Boulder, Colo.: EarthPress, 1993), pp. 6970.
85. Ibid., p. 70.
86. Gail Sheehy,
The Man Who Changed the
World: The Lives of Mikhail S. Gorbachev
(New York: HarperCollins Publishers,
1990), second page of section: "Quick Turn
Artist."
87. See
the following articles from The New
American: John F McManus, "A CFR Visit
to Moscow," March 16, 1987, p. 21; William
F. Jasper, "Global Gorby," October 30,
1995, p. 23. Also, State of the World Forum
reports for 1995-2000, Gorbachev
Foundation.
88. Richard N.
Gardner, "The Hard Road to
World Order," Foreign Affairs, April 1974,
p. 558.
89. Ibid., p. 560.
90. See for example: Leslie H.
Gelb, "Carter's
Foreign Policies In Liberal Democratic
Vein," New York Times, July 7, 1976, pp. 1,
12.
Chapter 7 � The UN's War on Private
Property
1. Preamble to
"The Vancouver Action Plan:
64 Recommendations for
NOTES
National Action," conference report of

"Habitat I," the United Nations Conference
on Human Settlements, Vancouver, Canada,
May 31 to June 11, 1976. For text, see
www.undp.org/ un/habitat/back/vp-intr.html.
2.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The
Communist Manifesto, 1848. American
Opinion edition with introduction by William
P. Fall (Appleton, Wis.: 1974), p. 20.
3. Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) quoted
in John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations (15th
and 125th anniv. edition) (Boston: Little,
Brown, and Company, 1980), p. 527.
4. Abbe Augustin Barruel, Memoirs Illustrating
the History of Jacobinism (Fraser, Michigan:
American Council on Economics and
Society, 1995), p. 410. This 1995 single-
volume (846 pp.) edition is a reprint of a
four-volume English translation published in
1798 by T. Burton, London.
5. Marx and Engels, p. 19.
6.
Noah Webster, "Examination of the Leading
Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787,"
October 10, 1787, p. 48, quoted on the
Potomac Institute web site: www.potomacinc.
org/2noah-web.html.
7.
Joseph Story, Wilkerson v. Leland, (2 Peters,
657), quoted in Russell, American Legal
History, White vs. White, 5 Barbour 474
(NY, 1849) at
www.law.du.edu/russell/lh/alh/docs/wh
itevwhite.html.
8.
"The Boston Gazette," April 4, 1768, quoted
in Verna M. Hall (compiler), The Christian
History of the Constitution of the United
States of America: Christian Self-
Government With Union, American
Revolution Bicentennial Edition (San
Francisco: Foundation for American
Christian Education, 1985), p. 453.
9. Verna M. Hall (compiler), Christian History
of the Constitution of the United States of
America (San Francisco: The American
Christian Constitution Press, 1960), p. 248A.
10. Rerum Novarum: On Capital and
Labor (May 15, 1891), in The Great
Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII (New
York: Benziger Brothers, 1903), pp. 237
238.
11.
Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom,
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1969), pp. 103, 104.
12. Preamble
to "The Vancouver Action Plan,
op. cit., May 31 to June 11, 1976.
13.
Ibid., "Recommendation D.1 Land resource
management."
14. Daniel Sitarz
(ed.), Agenda 21: The Earth
Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet
(Boulder, Colo.: EarthPress, 1993), p. 63.
15. Ibid., p. 65.
16. Ibid., p. 180.
17. Ibid.
18.
V. H. Heywood (exec. ed.), Global Biodiversity
Assessment, published for the
United Nations Environment Programme
(Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press, 1995), p. 767.
19. Ibid., p. 787.
20. Ibid.
21. William
Norman Grigg, "Sunset on the
West?" The New American, February 5,
1996, p. 30.
22. Sustainable
America, A New Consensus,
President's Council on Sustainable
Development report, 1995, p. 113.
23.
William Reilly, National Parks for a New
Generation, (Conservation Foundation,
1985), quoted in "Environmental Activist to
Head EPA," Human Events, January 14,
1989, pp. 23-24.
24. Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: Into the Greenhouse
World, (New York: Bantam Books, 1989) p.
237.
25. Ibid., p. 245.
26. Turner
Foundation website: www.
tumerfoundation.org/turner/sprawl.html on
March 15, 2001.
27. Ibid.
28. Marx and Engels, p. 19.
Chapter 8 � UN's International Court of Criminals
1.
Charles Rice interviewed by William F.
Jasper, "Courting Global Tyranny," The
New American, August 31, 1998, p. 17.
2.
Robert S. McNamara and Benjamin B.
Ferencz, "For Clinton's Last Act" [op
ed], New York Times, December 12,
2000, p. A3.
3.
Statement of President Bill Clinton,
quoted in "Clinton's Words: The Right
Action,'" New York Times, January 1,
2001, p. 6.
4. Albert Ellery Bergh (ed.), The Writings of
Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 15 (Washington,
D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Association, 1907), p. 331, quoted in The
American Freedom Library (CD-rom)
(Western Standard Publishing Co., 1997).
5.
Anne Swardson, "Pinochet Case Tries
Spanish Legal Establishment; Pinochet Case
Tries Legal System," Washington Post,
October 22, 1998, p. A27 f.
6.
"A Litany of the Big Powers' 'Sins,'" Terra
Viva, June 17, 1998, p. 4.
7.
Barbara Crossette, "U.N. Monitor to
Investigate U.S. Use of Death Penalty," New
York Times, September 30, 1997, p. A-8.
8.
Craig Turner, "U.S. death penalty called
violation of international law," Arizona
Republic, April 4, 1998, p. A16.
9.
"Report of the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions, Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye," UN
Economic and Social Council, Commission
on Human Rights document
E/CN.4/1998/68/Add.3, January 22, 1998,
paragraphs 145, 156 (a) and (b).
10.
"Report of the Independent Inquiry Into the
Actions of the United Nations During the
1994 Genocide in Rwanda," December
15,1999, paragraph 2 under II. Description
of Key Events, Arusha Peace Agreement.
Report posted at
www.org/News/ossg/Rwanda_report.ht m
on 3/17/01.
11.
William F. Jasper, "Courting Global
Tyranny," The New American, August 31,
1998, p. 14.
12.
"Police Brutality Deeply Rooted in US,"
Terra Viva, July 8, 1998, p. 7.
13. Shielded From Justice: Police Brutality
and Accountability in the United States,
(Human Rights Watch, 1998), as referenced
in ibid.
14.
The Ford Foundation website (www.
fordfound.org/grants) lists grant information
in the amount of $7,200,000 for Human
Rights Watch for 1999.
15. Jessica T. Mathews, "Power Shift," Foreign
Affairs, January/February 1997, p. 55.
16.
For Emma Bonino (now Member of the
European Parliament and Secretary of the
Transnational Radical Party): The 'Who's
Who' of the Transnational Radical Party,"
www.radicalparty.org/ member/emm.htm on
3/17/01. For Francesco Rutelli (Mayor of
Rome): "The 'Who's Who' of the
Transnational Radical Party,"
www.radicalparty.org/ member/bio_r.htm on
3/17/01.
17.
"Goldstone: US Stance Contradictory," Terra
Viva, June 17, 1998, p. 7. Released report:
"Making Justice Work."
18.
CFR press release, "Morton Halperin Rejoins
Council," January 25, 2001.
19.
Coalition for the ICC web page
(www.igc.org/icc/).
20. George
C. Lodge, Managing Globalization
in the Age of Interdependence, (San Diego,
Calif.: Pfeiffer, 1995).
21. Thomas R.
Dye, Who's Running America?
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc.,
1976), pp. 193-94.
22. Charles Rice interviewed by author, William
F. Jasper, "Courting Global Tyranny," The
New American, August 31, 1998, p. 17.
23. Ibid.
24. For
a more in-depth examination of the
serious problems with the definitions of
these "core crimes," see the following
articles in The New American: "Court of
International Criminals," May 30, 1994;
"International Injustice," April 13, 1998;
"The ICC: Courting Global Tyranny,"
August 31, 1998; and "International Court of
Criminals," July 3, 2000 at
www.thenewameri-can.com/focus/ICC/.
25. S.J.
Res. 32 (introduced by Senator
Christopher Dodd on January 28, 1993
NOTES
and referred to the Committee on Foreign

Relations), Section 1., point (2).
26. William F.
Jasper, "International Injustice,"
The New American, April 13, 1998, p. 23.
27. Betsy Pisik,
"U.S. seeks changes to accept
international criminal court," Washington
Times, February 26, 1999, p. A17.
28. William F. Jasper, "Black-Robed Globalists,"
The New American, September 28, 1998, p.
23.
29. Jim
Henderson, "Albright joins effort to
spare Canadian's life," Houston Chronicle,
December 2, 1998, pp. 1A, 16A.
30. Theodor
Meron, "Answering for War
Crimes," Foreign Affairs, January/ February
1997, p. 8.
31. Robert Fox, "Balkans provide new riches for
the Mafia," The (London) Daily Telegraph,
December 15, 2000, p. 22.
32. Ibid.
33. James Blitz, "Mafia-buster charts course 'for
UN of the future,'" Financial Times,
December 12, 2000.
34. Ibid.
35. Mathews, op. cit., p. 58.
36. Robert
Wright, "Pax Kapital," Foreign
Policy, Summer 2000, p. 68.
37. Transcript
of the October 12, 2000 CFR-
sponsored meeting in New York,
"Condoleezza Rice on Governor George W.
Bush's Foreign Policy," posted on the CFR
website: www.cfr.org/p/pubs/ Rice_10-1200_
Transcript.html, page 12 of 17, on
3/22/01.
38. James
Madison, quoted in Charles S.
Hyneman and Donald S. Lutz, American
Political Writing during the Founding Era:
1760 -1805, Vol I. (Indianapolis: Liberty
Press, 1983), p. 633.
Chapter 9 � Civilian Disarmament
1.
Rudyard Kipling, "The Gods of the
Copybook Headings," Rudyard Kipling's
Verse, Inclusive Ed.: 1885-1932 (Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran, and Co., Inc.,
1934), p. 886.
2. "Combat Arms Survey," administered to
several hundred Marines on May 10, 1994 at
the Twentynine Palms, California Marine
base. For more information, see note #94,
below.
3. Walter Shapiro, "It's high time to gun down
the 2nd Amendment," USA Today,
September 17, 1999, p. 14A.
4. Roger Rosenblatt, "Get Rid of the Damned
Things," Time, August 9, 1999, p. 38.
5. UN
Backgrounder: "Millennium Forum
Action Plan Adds People's Voice to Summit
Debate" (Published by the United Nations
Department of Public Information, DPI/2143
�August 2000,
www.un.org/millennium/media/action_
plan.htm viewed on 4/01/01.)
6. "High Noon," Washington Post, August 19,
1965, p. A20.
7.
Jean Latz Griffin and William Recktenwald,
"Warning: Health Risk � Guns Under
Attack on New Front," Chicago Tribune,
October 31, 1993, section "Perspective," p.
1f. See: www.archive.Chicago.tribune.com.
8. Richard Harris, "A Reporter At Large," The
New Yorker, July 26, 1976, pp. 57-58.
9. Editorial, "America's Gun Epidemic: What is
the Best Medicine?," Los Angeles Times,
November 8, 1993, p. 6f.
10. Editorial,
"Gun Prohibition, Phase II,"
Washington Times, December 9, 1993,
p.A20.
11.
Rosie O'Donnell, TV show of April 21,
1999, quoted by Greg Pierce, Washington
Times, April 26, 1999, section "Nation
Inside Politics," p. A7.
12.
Kofi Annan, We the Peoples: The Role of
the United Nations in the 21st Century (New
York: United Nations Department of Public
Information, 2000), p. 52.
13. Ibid., pp. 52-53.
14. Ibid., p. 53.
15. Charles J. Hanley, "World gun control is
U.N. body's aim," Washington Times, May
24, 1994, p. A1.
16.
From combined dispatches, "U.S. OKS
Study of U.N. Gun Control," Washington
Times, May 24, 1994, p. Al.
311
17. Phone conversation with author.

18. Freedom
From War: The United States
Disarmament in a Peaceful World
(Department of State Publication 7277)
Printing Office, 1961), pp. 18-19.
19.
Public Law 87-297 (H.R. 9118), "An Act: to
establish a United States Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency," Title I, Section 3.
and 3.a.
20. ACDA "Second Annual Report to Congress:
January 1, 1962 -December 31, 1962," U.S.
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
Publication 14, released February 1963.
21. Kai Bird, The
Chairman: John J. McCloy,
The Making of the American Establishment
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), pp.
495-516. Also see: John F. Kennedy,
"Address Before the General Assembly of
the United Nations," New York City,
September 25, 1961. Available at
www.cs.umb.edu/ jfkhbrary/j092561. htm,
the website of the John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Library.
22. J. Anthony Lukas, "The Council on Foreign
Relations: Is It a Club? Seminar? Presidium?
'Invisible Government'?" New York Times
Magazine, November 21, 1971; Walter
Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986), pp.
19-20, 587-604; and John F. McManus,
Changing Commands: The Betrayal of
America's Military (Appleton, Wis.: The
John Birch Society, 1995), p. 145.
23. Richard
Rovere, "The American
Establishment," Esquire, May 1962, p. 108.
24. Alan Brinkley, "Minister Without Portfolio,"
Harper's, February 1983.
25. Ibid.
26. Max
Holland,"Citizen McCloy," Wilson
Quarterly, Autumn, 1991, p. 37.
27. Bird,
The Chairman, p. 505; William F.
Jasper, "Gun Grabbers' Global Gestapo," The
New American, November 22, 1999, p. 17;
and The Arthur H. Dean Papers, Division of
Rare and Manuscript Collections Cornell
University Library. (Library maintains
extensive holdings of his records and
correspondence regarding his activities as
chairman of the U.S. delegation to several
international disarmament conferences.)
28. Albin
Krebs, "Arthur H. Dean, Envoy to
Korea Talks, Dies at 89," New York Times,
December 1, 1987, p. D28.
29. Joseph Keeley, The China Lobby Man: The
Story of Alfred Kohlberg (New Rochelle,
New York: Arlington House, 1969), p. 92.
30. Ibid., pp. 92-93.
31.
"Institute of Pacific Relations," Report of the
(Senate) Committee on the Judiciary,
Eighty-Second Congress, Second Session,
Hearings held July 25, 1951 -June 20, 1952
by the Internal Security Subcommittee
Printing Office, 1952: ordered to be printed:
July 2 [legislative day June 27]), p. 223.
32. Ibid., pp. 223-225.
33. Isaacson and Thomas, The Wise Men.
34. Bird,
The Chairman, pp. 41-45. Also:
"Grenville Clark, Lawyer, 84, Dies," New
York Times, January 14, 1967.
35. World
Government Highlights: Facts,
Opinions, & Personalities, revised edition
(New York: United World Federalists, May
1953), p.8. Also: "Announce Major Editorial
Awards: Contest Honors Grenville Clark,"
The Federalist, vol. 9, no. 5, January 1963
(published by United World Federalists), p.
3.
36.
"Grenville Clark, Lawyer, 84, Dies," New
York Times, January 14, 1967. See also:
William F. Jasper, "Hardselling the New
World Order," The New American,
September 7, 1992, p. 19", and: "Promoting
World Government," The Herald of
Freedom, Zarephath, N.J., Vol. XVIII, No.
13, October 25, 1974, pp. 3-4.
37.
"Correction, Please!" American Opinion
magazine, Vol. VI, No. 4, April 1963.
38. Grenville Clark and Louis B.
Sohn, World
Peace Through World Law,
NOTES
Second Edition (revised) (Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962).
39. Ibid., p. xxix.

40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid., p. 247.
43. Ibid., pp. 247-248.
44. Ibid., p. 248.
45. Ibid., p. 256.
46. Ibid., p. 225.
47. Ibid., p. 212
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid., p. xxxi.
50. Ibid., p. 330.
51. UN "Report of the Group of Governmental
Experts on Small Arms," August 19, 1999.
Document A/54/258, p. 24, note #5.
52. Ibid., cover page lists this document as "Item
76(f) of the provisional agenda [A/54/150]
General and complete disarmament."
53. Clark and Sohn, p. xxxv
54. Our
Global Neighborhood: The Report of
(New York, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995.)
55. Ibid., pp. 16, 131.
56. Ibid., p. 131.
57. Ibid.
58. "Experts on Small Arms," p. 17.
59. Ibid., pp. 17, 22.
60. UN Charter, Article 2, Item number 7, (see
UN website: www.un.org/about un/charter/).
61.
"Secretary-General Presents His Annual
Report to General Assembly," UN Press
Release SG/SM/7136 GA/9596, September
20, 1999.
62. Kofi Annan statement in "Security Council
Meets at Ministerial Level to Consider Issue
of Small Arms," UN Press Release SC/6732,
September 24, 1999.
63. Kofi Annan, foreword, "Report of the Group
of Governmental Experts on Small Arms,"
document A/54/258, August 19, 1999, p. 2.
64. Madeleine
K Albright, Remarks at UN
Security Council Small Arms Ministerial,
September 24, 1999, as
released by the Office of the Spokesman
U.S. Department of State. See:

http://secretary.state.gov/www/
statements/1999/990924a.html.
65. Amy Otchet,
"Small Arms, Many Hands,"
UNESCO Courier, November 1998. See:
www.unesco.org/courier/
1998_11/uk/ethique/txt1.html.
66. Kofi Annan,
remarks to Security Council
meeting, September 24, 1999 in Press
Release SG/SM/7145 SC/6733, "Addressing
the Security Council, Secretary-General Says
International Community Must Reverse
Global Proliferation of Small Arms," p. 3.
67. IANSA
website (www.iansa.org/action/
index.html), "IANSA Action Framework."
68. "Founding Document of IANSA." Section
III. Program of Action, items 1,3,4,&5. See:
www.iansa.org/mission/ ml/html.
69. Armed to the Teeth (UN video), (New York:
UN Department of Public Information,
2000).
70. Jay Simkin,
Aaron Zelman, and Alan M.
Rice, Rwanda's Genocide, 1994,
(Milwaukee: Jews for the Preservation of
Firearms Ownership, 1997), p. 12.
71. Ibid., p. 10.
72. Ibid., p. 25.
73. Ibid.
74. Lethal Laws:
"Gun Control" is the Key to
Genocide (Milwaukee: Jews for the
Preservation of Firearms Ownership, 1994).
75. The
Blue Helmets: A Review of United
Nations Peace-keeping (New York: United
Nations Department of Public Information,
1990), p. 215.
76. G.
Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master: A
Second Look at the United Nations
(Appleton, Wis.: Western Islands, 1964), pp.
18-20.
77. Ibid., p. 20.
78. Ibid.
79. The Blue Helmets, p. 248.
80. Griffin, The Fearful Master, p. 49.
81. Ibid.
82.
Philippa Schuyler, Who Killed the Congo?
(New York: Devin-Adair, 1962).
83. Smith Hempstone, Rebels, Mercen
aries, and Dividends: The Katanga Story

(New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1962).
84. The 46 Civilian Doctors of Elisa-bethville,

46 Angry Men (Belmont, Mass.: American
Opinion, 1962; originally published by Dr.
T. Vleurinck, 96 Avenue de Broqueville,
Bruxelles 15, 1962).
85. Congressman Donald L.
Jackson (narrator),
Katanga: The Untold Story, available on
video (VHS, 59 minutes) from American
Media, Westlake Village, Calif.
86.
"Visa Procedures of Department of State:
The Struelens Case," Report of the Senate
Internal Security Subcommittee
(Washington, D.C.: U.S Government
Printing Office, 1962), p. 28.
87. Tom
Farer, The Report of an Inquiry,
Conducted Pursuant to Security Council
Resolution 837, Into the 5 June 1993 Attack
on UN Forces in Somalia, August 23, 1993.
88. Ibid., pp. 21-31.
89. Ibid., pp. 96-98.
90. William
F. Jasper, "Behind Our Defeat in
Somalia," The New American, September 5,
1994, p. 4.
91. Julia
Preston, "U.N., U.S. Clash on
Disarming Haitians," Washington Post,
October 20, 1994, p. A31.
92. Jerry
Seper, "KLA Finances fight with
heroin sales," Washington Times, May 3,
1999, pp. A1, A11.
93.
"The Kosovo Liberation Army: Does Clinton
Policy Support Group with Terror, Drug
Ties?," press release of United States Senate,
Republican Policy Committee, March 31,
1999, quoted on www.senate.gov/~rpc/
releases/1999/fr033199.htm viewed on April
19, 1999.
94.
"Combat Arms Survey" administered to
several hundred Marines at the Twentynine
Palms, California Marine base on May 10,
1994. According to Marine spokesmen at
Twentynine Palms, the survey was
conducted as part of a Master's Degree thesis
of a Navy Commander studying at the
Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey,
California. John Sanders public affairs
officer at the school, told The New
American that the survey was designed by
the student "to determine if non-traditional
missions are undermining unit morale and
cohesiveness" and was supervised by two
civilian faculty members, one of whom is a
former Assistant Secretary of Defense. Copy
of full Survey on file. Interestingly, the
Twentynine Palms base weekly newspaper
for March of that year carried a report by
Cpl. M.T Mink, "Council on Foreign
Relations Visits Combat Center," describing
a tour by 40 members of the CFR.
95. Ibid., p. 6.
96.
"Insider Report," The New American, July
11, 1994, p. 10.
97.
"Survey of Marines On the Use of Military
Forces in Non-Traditional Missions," news
release of Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, Calif., Dept. of the Navy, undated
circa July-Sept. 1994. See also: William F.
Jasper, "I Am a United Nations Fighting
Person," The New American, September 19,
1994, sidebar, p. 6.
98.
Robert W. Lee, "Gun Report," The New
American, July 13, 1992, p. 38.
99.
See respectively: "Bush triggers petition to
oust him from NRA," USA Today, July 12,
1989, p. 4A; and Weekly Compilation of
Presidential Documents, March 18, 1991, pp.
289-290.
100. Interviewed
on The Joe Redburn Show,
radio station KTKK in Salt Lake City, on
April 26, 1991.
101.
Armando Villafranca, "Former President
Bush angrily resigns from NRA," Houston
Chronicle, May 11, 1995, pp. 1A, 21A.
102.
Steve Bonta, "The Power Elite & George
W.," The New American, July 17, 2000, pp.
18-19.
103.
Steve Mufson, "Secretary of State Gets
Hero's Welcome to Work," Washington
Post, January 23, 2001, p. A3. Also see:
"Reviving the State Department,"
Washington Post, January 31, 2001, p A20.
4. Barbara
Crossette, "Powell Vows
Strong Support for Many U.N.
Activities: Reassures Annan on Bush
Administration," New York Times,
February 15, 2001, p. A10.
5.
James M. Lindsay, The New Apathy:
How an Uninterested Public Is
Reshaping Foreign Policy," Foreign
Affairs, Vol. 79, Number 5,
Chapter 10 � Regionalism
1. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Gorbachev State

of the World Forum, Fairmont Hotel,
San Francisco, September 28, 1995, as
audiotaped by author.
2. John
Logue, "The Proper Goal" in
Barbara Walker (compiler), Uniting the
Peoples and Nations: Readings in
World Federalism (World Federalist
Movement & World Federalist Association,
1993), p. 347.
3. The Millennium Year and the Reform
Process (London: Commission on
Global Governance, 1999), p. 55.
4. Merry
and Serge Bromberger, Jean
Monnet and the United States of
Europe (New York: Coward-McCann
5. Joseph
Stalin, "Marxism and the
National Question," in Marxism and
the National and Colonial Question
(New York: International Publishers,
1942), p. 58.
6. Program
of the Communist International
(New York: Workers Library
Publishers, 1936), p.36.
7. Richard N.
Gardner, "The Hard Road
To World Order," Foreign Affairs, April
1974, p. 558.
8. Mark
D. Isaacs, "Forcing a United
Europe," The New American, November
16, 1992, p. 10.
9. M. Delal Baer,
"North American Free
Trade," Foreign Affairs, Fall 1991, p.
148.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. William
F. Jasper, Global Tyranny...
Step By Step (Appleton, Wis.: Western
Islands, 1992), Chapter 13, "UN
NOTES
Regionalism -The European Community."
13. "The Story of the Common Market -Part Six

(The End)," HduB Reports, January 1973, p.
2.
14. "European
Community Leaders Agree at
Maastricht Summit to Treaties on Monetary
and Political Union," Facts on File,
December 12, 1991, pp. 940-941.
15. Carroll
Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A
16. Ibid.
17. Michael
J. Hogan, The Marshall Plan:
America, Britain, and the reconstruction of
Western Europe, 1947-1952 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 367.
18. Ibid.
19. "The Men Behind the Common Market,"
HduB Reports, May 1972, p. 1.
20. Ibid, p. 6.
21. Bromberger, op. cit., p. 123.
22. Ibid.
23. Ernst H. van der Beugel, From Marshall Aid
to Atlantic Partnership (Amsterdam, N.Y:
Elsevier Publishing Co., 1966), p. 323.
24. HduB Reports, November-December 1972,
p. 6.
25. Hogan, p. 98.
26. Ibid, p. 97.
27. Ambrose
Evans-Pritchard, "Euro-federalists
financed by US spy chiefs," The (London)
Telegraph, issue 1943, September 19, 2000
quoted on Telegraph website.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Lord
Bruce of Donington, International
Currency Review, Vol. 23, No. 3, Summer
1996, p. 21.
31. Sir
Peregrine Worsthorne, "When
Democracy Betrays the People," London
Sunday Telegraph, August 4, 1991. (Quoted
in HduB Reports, September 1991, p. 3.)
32. Lord Bruce of Donington, p. 21.
33. Ibid., p. 8.
34. For
more a more detailed examination of
NAFTA, see the following articles
from The New American magazine: Thomas
R. Eddlem, "NAFTA: The Misnamed

Treaty," December 28, 1992; Eddlem,
"NAFTA: Bureacracy Unlimited," October
18, 1993; William P. Hoar, "The Great
Sovereignty Sellout," December 13, 1993;
Hoar, "NAFTA and Beyond," December 27,
1993. Also see the following articles from
The John Birch Society Bulletin: John F.
McManus, "It All Fits!" November 1993;
Eddlem, "Nix NAFTA Now!" November
1993; McManus, "An Open Letter to
Members of Congress," May 1995; William
F. Jasper, "The 'Dollar-ization' of the
Americas," August 1999.
35. Gardner, p. 558.
36. Richard N. Cooper, "A Monetary System for
the Future," Foreign Affairs, Fall 1984, p.
166.
37. Ibid., p. 177.
38. Zanny
Minton Beddoes, "From EMU to
AMU?: The Case for Regional Currencies,"
Foreign Affairs, July/ August 1999, p. 8.
39. Ibid., p. 12.
40. Joshua
Cooper Ramo, "The Committee to
Save the World," Time, February 15, 1999.
41. Ibid., pp. 34-42.
42. Judy
Shelton, "The Dollarization Debate"
(op-ed), Wall Street Journal, April 29, 1999,
p. A26 f.
43. Martin Walker, London Observer, quoted on
"Praise for the Institute" web-page of the
International Institute for Economics (HE)
website.
44. Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott,
Western Hemisphere Economic Integration
(Washington, D.C.: Institute for International
Economics, 1994).
45. Ibid., pp. 1-2.
46. Ibid., p. 5.
47. Ibid., p. 182.
48. The
Council of the Americas' website:
counciloftheamericas.org/about/history.
html.
49. Ibid.,
www.counciloftheamericas.org/
membersnetwork/coacr.html.
50. C.
Fred Bergsten in Hufbauer and Schott,
Western Hemisphere Economic
Integration, preface, p. xii. Chapter 11 �
World Money System
1.
Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies (New
York: William Morrow and Co. Inc., 1979),
p. 285.
2. C. Fred Bergsten (co-author), "Future of the
International Economic Order," (paper
distributed at April 1989 TC meeting in
Tokyo), quoted in Financial Terrorism
(Appleton, Wis.: The John Birch Society,
1993), p. 82.
3.
David Rockefeller, "Why We Need the
IMF," Wall Street Journal, May 1, 1998, p.
A14.
4.
Hilary Marquand, "The Theory and Practice
of Planning," Economic Development and
Social Change (London: Socialist
International Publications, undated circa
1962-63), p. 28, as quoted in Rose L.
Martin, Fabian Freeway (Belmont, Mass.:
Western Islands, 1966), p. 109.
5.
Richard N. Cooper, "A Monetary System
for the Future," Foreign Affairs, Fall 1984,
pp. 177, 179.
6.
Robert A. Mundell, "Mundell on Supply-
Side Economics," Wall Street Journal,
October 14, 1999, p. A26.
7.
Lead editorial, "A Supply-Side Nobel,"
Wall Street Journal, October 14, 1999,
p.A26.
8. Karl
Marx, The Communist Manifesto
(Appleton, Wis.: American Opinion Book
Services, 1974), p. 25.
9. Frank
Vanderlip, "From Farm Boy to
Financier," Saturday Evening Post,
February 9, 1935, p. 25.
10. William H.
McIlhany II, The Tax-Exempt
Foundations (Westport, Conn.: Arlington
House, 1980), p. 63. As recorded in note
number 30 (p. 235) to Chapter 3, Mcllhany
interviewed Norman Dodd in 1976 and
recorded that conversation as the "Dodd
Interview Transcript." Mcllhany also
compared Mr. Dodd's memory of the
conversation in 1976 "with his description
of it years earlier in a letter he wrote to
Howard E. Kershner on December 29,
1962." "Where there are
NOTES
any slight discrepancies between the two

accounts [Mr. McIlhany] used the 1962
version." In later years, Mr. Dodd gave
similar statements in other interviews.
11.
Robert Lenzner, "A Wealth of Names,"
Forbes magazine, January 10, 2000.
12. Collective Speeches of Congressman Louis
T. McFadden: As Compiled from the
Congressional Record (Hawthorne, Calif.:
Omni Publications, 1970), p. 398.
13.
Gary Allen, The Rockefeller File (Seal
Beach, Calif.: '76 Press, 1976), p. 119.
14. See collection of articles on the World Bank
and the IMF at: www.thenewamerican.
com/focus/world_bank/.
15.
Zygmund Dobbs, Keynes At Harvard:
Economic Deception as a Political Credo
(West Sayville, N.Y.: Probe Research, Inc.,
1969 edition), pp. 90, 138. Dobbs also
references: Bruce Page, David Leitch,
Phillip Knightley, The Philby Conspiracy
(New York: New American Library, 1969),
pp. 80, 174.
16. Richard
L. Strout, "White Case Stuns
Washington," The Christian Science
Monitor, November 12, 1953.
17.
William P. Hoar, "Harry Truman," American
Opinion, Vol. XXII, No. 4, April 1979, p.
54.
18. Strout.
19.
Whittaker Chambers, "The Herring and
..."Look, December 29, 1953, Vol. 17, No.
26, p. 14.
20. Allen
Weinstein, Perjury: The Hiss-
Chambers Case (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1978), p. 230.
21.
Dobbs, Keynes At Harvard, pp. 117122,133;
Yuri Modin, My Five Cambridge
Friends: Burgess, Mac-Lean, Philby, Blunt,
and Cairncross by their KGB controller
(New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1994), pp.
49, 67; Michael Straight, After Long Silence
(New York: WW. Norton, 1983), p. 80;
Page, Leitch, Knightley, The Philby
Conspiracy, pp. 43�47.
22. Michael
Holroyd, Lytton Strachey: A
Critical Biography (London: Heine-mann,
1967).
23. Dobbs.
24. U.S. News and World Report, June 29,
1959, p. 73, quoted in Anthony Kubek, How
the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and
the Creation of Communist China, 19411949
(Chicago: Henry Regnery Company,
1963), pp. 201-202.
25. James
Burnham, The Web of Subversion,
Americanist Library Edition (Boston:
Western Islands, 1965), pp. 113-115, 128129.
26. Doug
Bandow, "The IMF: A Record of
Addition and Failure" in Doug Bandow and
Ian Vasquez (eds.), Perpetuating Poverty:
The World Bank, the IMF, and the
Developing World (Washington, D.C.: Cato
Institute, 1994), p. 19.
27. Richard C.
Paddock (Los Angeles Times),
"Yeltsin crony says Russia 'conned' lenders
in West," Seattle Times, (On-line edition),
September 9, 1998; Christopher Story,
"Folly of Lending to the Russians is Exposed
as Scandals Multiply," Soviet Analyst, Vol.
25, No. 2, April 1999.
28. Marquand, p. 28.
29. Henry
Hazlitt, From Bretton Woods to
World Inflation (Chicago: Regnery Gateway,
1984), pp. 26-27.
30. Bovard,
"The World Bank and the
Impoverishment of Nations," in Perpetuating
Poverty, op. cit., p. 59.
31. rbid.
32. Edith
Kermit Roosevelt, "The United
Nations' Spiritual Companion," Long Island
Press, March 31, 1962. Also: Edith Kermit
Roosevelt, "A Temple of Propaganda," The
Wanderer, July 14, 1966.
33. Peter G. Peterson, 1996 Annual Report (New
York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1996),
p. 7.
34. Goldwater, p. 278.
35. David Rockefeller, "From a China Traveler,"
New York Times, August 10, 1973.
36.
"The Human Cost of Communism in China,"
report of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on
Internal Security (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1971), pp. iv,
16.
37. Joseph Finder, Red Carpet (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1983), p. 297.
38. Jay
Ross, "Rockefeller: US business
unhampered in Angola," Boston Globe,
March 3, 1982, p. 36.
39. Ibid.
40. Daniel
Wood, "The Wizard of Baca
Grande," West, May 1990, p. 35.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid., p. 33.
43. Paul Raeburn,
"Ecology Remedy Costly,"
Sacramento [Calif.] Bee, March 12, 1992.
44. Maurice
F. Strong, "The relationship
between demographics trends, economic
growth, unsustainable consumption patterns
and environmental degradation," an UNCED
PrepCom report, August 1991, quoted by
GreenTrack International, Report 26, August
15, 1991, Libertytown, Md., p. 3.
45. Maurice
F. Strong, Introduction to Jim
MacNeil, Pieter Winsemius, and Taizo
Yakushiji, Beyond Interdependence: The
Meshing of the World's Economy and the
Earth's Ecology (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1991), pp. ix-x.
46. Ibid., p. 128.
47. The
Earth Charter, Principle No. 10. See:
http://www.earthcharter.org/draft/
charter.htm.
48. Cooper,
"A Monetary System for the
Future," p. 166.
49. Ibid., p. 179.
50. Ibid., p. 177.
51. Editorial,
"Mr. Kohl's Common Currency,"
Washington Post, February 8, 1990, p. A24.
52. Cooper, pp. 181-82.
53. Ibid., p. 184
Chapter 12 � One-World Religion
1.
H. G. Wells, The Open Conspiracy: Blue
Prints For a World Revolution (London:
Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1928), pp. 24, 33.
2.
See Chinmoy quote in speech by Donald
Keys, President of Planetary Citizens
(consultative status at UN), November 11,
1984, cited in Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D., Now
is the Dawning of the New Age New World
Order (Oklahoma City, Okla.: Hearthstone
Publishing Ltd., 1991), p. 269.
3.
"The Declaration of the Sacred Earth
Gathering, Rio 92," Earth Summit Times,
June 3, 1992; William F. Jasper, "ECO '92:
Launching Pad for Inter' national Global
Governance" (a report from the Rio Earth
Summit), The New American, July 13,
1992, p. 5.
4.
In Our Hands: Earth Summit '92: A
Reference Booklet About the United
Nations Conference on Environment and
Development [UNCED]," (UNCED
Publications), p. 23.
5.
Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father: Toward
a Philosophy of Women's Liberation
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1973), p. 96.
6.
Gloria Steinem, "Words and Change," Ms.,
7.
H.G. Wells, The Open Conspiracy: Blue
Prints For a World Revolution (Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran, and
Company, Inc., 1928), p. 33.
8. Ibid., pp. 18, 19.
9. Ibid., p. ix.
10. Ibid., p. 163.
11.
Steve Bonta, "Creating the New World
Religions," The New American, July 3,
2000, p. 40. (Includes photo of Lucis Trust
Library plaque by William Norman Grigg.)
12.
"The Lucis Trust," a pamphlet distributed by
the Lucis Trust.
13.
The New Group of World Servers, a
pamphlet distributed by World Goodwill, an
activity of the Lucis Trust, p. 3. For current
information see the Radio For Peace
International website: www.rfpi.org.
14.
Claire Chambers, The SIECUS Circle: A
Humanist Revolution (Appleton, Wis.:
Western Islands, 1977), p. 34.
15.
Don Shannon, " 'Silent' Room: Tranquil
Center at U.N.'s Heart," Los Angeles Times,
May 15, 1974, p.1.
16.
Eunice S. Layton and Felix Layton,
Theosophy: Key to Understanding
(Wheaton, 111.: The Theosophical Publishing
House, 1967), pp. 12,13.
17.
Facsimile reproduction of The Last Will and
Testament of Cecil John Rhodes, with
additional chapters by W. T. Stead (1902
edition), in Herbert
NOTES
Baker and W. T. Stead, Cecil Rhodes:

The Man and His Dream, Rhodesiana
Reprint Library -Silver Series, Vol. 14
(Bulawayo, Rhodesia: Books of
Rhodesia, 1977), p. 74.
18.
Frank Aydelotte (American Secretary
to the Rhodes Trustees), The American
Rhodes Scholarships: A review of the
First Forty Years (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1946), p. 5.
19.
See: Edith Kermit Roosevelt, "Temple
of Understanding," The Freedom Press,
November 5, 1962, pp. 1-2; Claire
Chambers, The SIECUS Circle: A
Humanist Revolution (Belmont, Mass.:
Western Islands, 1977), pp. 32-35.
20. H. G. Wells, "How a
Federal World Government
May Come About," reprinted
from his The Outline of
History in Barbara Walker
(compiler), Uniting the
Peoples and Nations: Readings in
World Federalism (World Federalist
Movement & World Federalist
Association, 1993), p. 106.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Wells, p. 29.
24.
"American Malvern," Time magazine,
March 16, 1942, p. 44 f, quoted on
www.jps.net/landmark/TIME.htm on
3/22/01.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27.
Benjamin J. Hubbard, The Los Angeles
Times (On-line Record Edition) September
10, 2000, Start Page: 13.
28.
"John Paul canonizes 87 Chinese...,"
(Minneapolis) Star Tribune (On-line
Metro Edition) October 2, 2000, Start
Page: 05A
29. "Cardinal Ignatius Kung, 98, Long
Jailed by China, Dies," New York
Times, (On-line Late Edition) March 14,
2000, p. C.30 f. 30. Associated Press,
"Archbishop Arrested," ABCNEWS.com
February 14, 2000. 31. "Chinese
authorities arrest two bishops, priests,"
New Briefs by Catholic News Services,
September 19, 2000. Also: "Catholic
'Criminals' in China," Washington Post
(On-line Final
Edition) September 19, 2000, p. A.22 f.
32. Hannah Beech,

"When the Smugglers Are
Working for Jesus," Time Asia.com,
September 18, 2000.
33.
"Our Sorrowful Confession," DC Office of
Free China Movement, www.freechina.
net/bbs/messages/882.html, posted
October 29, 1999.
34. Erik Eckholm, "Psychiatric Abuse by China
Reported in Repressing [Falun Gong] Sect,"
New York Times, February 18, 2001, p. 1.
Also see: "China Executes 11 Muslims on
Eve of UNHRC Meeting," Lexington Area
Muslim Network, April 4, 2000,
www.muslim edia.com/chinamuslim.htm.
35.
"Chinese Bishop Calls for Purity of
Religion," People's Daily, (People's Daily
Online), August 30, 2000.
36. Ibid.
37.
"Turner remarks on tolerance, religion,
bears," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
(On-line edition), August 30, 2000.
38. Larry
Witham, "Religions asked to come
together for world peace," Washington
Times, November 9, 1991, p. B1.
39. Hans Kung, Global Responsibility: In Search
of a New World Ethic (New York:
Crossroad, 1991), p. 23.
40. Ibid., p. 35.
41. Robert
Muller, New Genesis: Shaping a
Global Spirituality (Garden City, N.Y.:
Image Books, 1984), p. 19.
42. Ibid., p. 30.
43. See note 2, above.
44.
"Insider Report," The New American, July 8,
1996, pp. 11-12.
45.
"Lenin Aims Like U.N.'s, Thant Says," Los
Angeles Times, April 2, 1970.
46. Matthew
Fox, The Coming of the Cosmic
Christ: The Healing of Mother Earth and the
Birth of a Global Renaissance (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), pp.
145,149.
47. Gerald O.
Barney, Global 2000 Revisited:
What Shall We Do? (Arlington, Va.:
Millennium Institute, 1993), p. 2.
48. Gerald
O. Barney, keynote address to
Parliament of World Religions, pp. 31,
34.
49. Barney, Global 2000 Revisited, p. 13.
50. Cuddy, Now is the Dawning of the New
Age New World Order, op. cit., p. 312.
51. Mikhail Gorbachev,
interview in Los
Angeles Times, May 8, 1997.
52. The
Earth Charter, March 2000 English
at www.earthcharter.org/draft/
charter.htm.
53. "Major gay law reform
in Tasmania,
Australia," IGLHRC (International
Gay & Lesbian Human Rights
Commission) News & Events (On-line),
May 2,1997.
54. Brice
Wallace, "Gorbachev laments
delays in creating new world order,"
Deseret News, September 28, 2000.
55. "Gorbachev Takes Southland Stage...,"
Los Angeles Times (On-line Record
Edition), October 8, 2000, Start Page:
B.1.
56. Jeremy Bransten,
"USSR: The Year
1989 Foreshadowed The Fall," Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty report,
October 6, 1999.
57. Gail Sheehy, The Man Who Changed
the World: The Lives of Mikhail S.
Gorbachev (New York: Harper Collins,
1990), pp. 76-77.
58. "Gorbachev Takes Southland Stage...,"
op. cit.
59. Vatican Information Service, June 20,
2000.
60. Sheehy, p. 77.
61. Li Wei Han, The Catholic Church and
Cuba: A Program of Action (Peking,
Foreign Language Press, 1959), cited
by Fatima Network: Our Lady's
Library Online: www.fatima.org/
library/cr19pg06.html on March 23,
2001.
62. Raimundo
Garcia Franco, Christian-
Marxist Unity: A Miraculous, Explosive
Prescription (New York: Circus
Publications, Inc., 1989), p.58.
63. "New
World Order Revisited," San
Francisco Chronicle (Online Sunday
Edition), September 24, 1995, Start
Page: 6.
64. "State of the Hidden Arts: An Overview
of Esotericism Today," Gnosis, Fall
1995 pp. 14-21.
65. Christopher
Bamford, "Esoteric
Christianity: The Recovery of a Lost
Tradition?," Gnosis, p. 15.
66. Diane Conn Darling, "Neopaganism: In
Diversity There is Unity," Gnosis, p.
18.
67. Ibid.
68.
Maurice F. Strong, "Statement at
Opening of United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development,"
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 June 1992, pp.
11-12.
69.
"The Declaration of the Sacred Earth
Gathering, Rio 92," Earth Summit
Times, June 3, 1992.
70.
Author's notes: The outdoor exhibit
featuring life-size photographs of fully
nude men engaged in various homosexual
acts was sponsored by Atoba, a
Brazilian homosexual organization. An
informational plaque at the exhibit
explained that this "art" was supported
by a grant from the Ford Foundation,
Chapter 13 � War On Family
1. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The

Communist Manifesto, 1848. American
Opinion edition with introduction
by William P. Fall (Appleton, Wis.:
1974), p. 22.
2. "Towards World Understanding: In the
Classroom With Children Under
Thirteen Years of Age," Part V,
UNESCO Publication 356 (Paris:
Georges Lang, 1949), pp. 9, 58.
3. Brock Chisholm on Education, speeches
by Dr. Chisholm at the Asilomar
Conference on Education, September
10-12, 1954, published by Asilomar
Conference of the Mental Health
Society of Northern California, p. 20.
4. Dolores
Barclay, "It's Surviving and
Healthy...," Tulsa World, Sunday,
August 21, 1977.
5. Motto in
letterhead of United States
Committee for UN1CEF, 333 East 38th
St., New York, NY 10016 (undated
[circa 1993-94] letter from Chair Hugh
Downs in file).
6. Matt Cvetic, The Big Decision (USA,
1959), p. 143.
NOTES
7.
Jasper, "U.S.-Soviet Educational Exchanges,"
The New American, March
13,1989, p. 12.
8.
Edward Crankshaw, Khrushchev Remembers
(Boston: Little Brown, 1970), p.
22.
9.
"The Crimes of Khrushchev," Parts 1-7,
Committee on Un-American Activities,
House of Represenatives (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959-60).
10.
Ibid., Part 1, "Consultation with Mr. Eugene
Lyons," p. 7.
11. Ibid.
12.
""Butcher of Budapest,'" Honolulu Star-
Bulletin, September 15, 1971, p. A-23.
13. Congressional
Record, "Extension of
Remarks of Hon. John H. Rousselot of
California," September 20, 1961.
14. Bernard Moran, "Race Relations, Churches,
Peace Movement," in Dennis L. Bark and
Owen Harries (eds.), The Red Orchestra,
Volume 3: "The Case of the Southwest
Pacific" (Stanford University, Stanford,
Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 1989), p.
181.
15. Ibid.
16. A Nation at Risk (The National Commission
on Excellence in Education, 1983), p. 5.
Report posted on U. S. Department of
Education website:
www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk. html on
3/29/01. See p.1 of web page.
17. Ibid.
18.
"Towards World Understanding: In the
Classroom With Children Under Thirteen
Years of Age," Part V, UNESCO Publication
356 (Paris: Georges Lang, 1949), pp. 7, 53.
19. Ibid., pp. 54-55.
20. Samuel L. Blumenfeld, NEA: Trojan Horse
in American Education (Boise, Idaho: The
Paradigm Company, 1984), pp. 193-197.
21. Joy Elmer Morgan, "The Teacher and World
Government," [NEAJ Journal, January 1946,
quoted in Blumenfeld, op. cit., p. 194.
22. See Education International website, "A few
words about EI,": www.ei-ie.
org/ei/english/eeiabout.htm viewed on
03/27/2001.
23.
"Executive Board of EI," Education
International website: www.ei-ie.org/
ei/eiexbo.htm viewed on 03/27/01.
24. For
EI status with UNESCO, see:
"EI/UNESCO Partnership," www.ei-ie.
org/ei/english/eeipartnership_unesco. html
viewed on 3/27/2001.
25.
"NEA 2000-2001 Resolutions": 1-1. Peace
and International Relations.
26. Ibid.
For Education International see its
website: www.ei-ie.org, viewed on 04/01/01.
27. "A few words about EI," Education
International website: www.eiie.
org/english/eeiabout.htm, viewed on
04/01/01.
28. William
F. Jasper, "Outcome-Based
Education: Skinnerian Conditioning in the
Classroom," The New American, August 23,
1993, p. 8.
29. Ibid.
30. Jasper,
"Communist 'Scholars'; Teacher
Training; and a 'New Age' Hero," The New
American, January 13, 1986, p. 36.
31. Ibid.
32. Robert
Muller, World Core Curriculum
Manual (Arlington, Texas: Robert Muller
School, 1986), Preface.
33. Douglas R. Groothuis, Unmasking the New
Age (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity
Press, 1986), p. 119; Alice A. Bailey, The
Externalisation of the Hiercharcky (New
York: Lucis Publishing Company, 1989).
Lucifer is on file at the Harvard University
Library.
34. Congressional Record, March 20, 1953.
35.
"The Climate of Freedom," Editorial,
Saturday Review, July 19, 1952.
36. Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its
Philosophy (Washington, D.C.: Public
Affairs Press, 1947), p. 33.
37. Ibid.
38. Samuel L.
Blumenfeld, "It Takes a Global
Village," The New American, July 3, 2000,
p. 31.
39.
"World Conference on Education for all
(EFA) Jomtien, Thailand, 5-9 March 1990."
See: www.un.org.lb/undbase/
conf/EFA/brief.htm on 3/27/01.
40. Ibid.
41. Six goal areas arrived at in Jomtien,
Thailand reported in "Learning for All:

Bridging Domestic and International
Education," Conference Report, October 30,
31, November 1, 1991, Alexandria, Virginia
(United States Coalition for Education for
All), p. 1. Compare to Bush program in:
Carol Innerst, "By any other name: America
2000 isn't dead yet," Washington Times,
February 8, 1993, p. A3.
42.
"Learning for All:..." Conference Report, op.
cit., p. 1.
43. Jasper,
"Outcome-Based Education:
Skinnerian Conditioning in the Classroom,"
p. 11.
44. Ibid.
45. Jack C. Westman, M.D., Licensing Parents:
Can We Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect?
(New York: Plenum Press, 1994), p. 153.
46. Charles D. Gill, "Essay on the Status of the
American Child, 2000 A.D.: Chattel or
Constitutionally Protected Child-Citizen?,"
Ohio Northern University Law Review, Vol.
XVII, No. 3, 1991, p. 578.
47. See,
for example, the following articles in
The New American: William F. Jasper,
"Death March to Cairo," June 27, 1994, p. 5;
Julie Makimaa,"Wolf in 'Humanitarian'
Clothing," July 3, 2000, pp. 35-37.
48. See,
The New American: Makimaa,"Wolf in
'Humanitarian' Clothing," July 3, 2000, pp.
35-37; Jasper, "Unleashing the Killer Pill,"
November 6, 2000, pp. 12-17; Steve Bonta,
"Exporting Infanticide," December 4, 2000,
p. 19.
49. See,
The New American: William Norman Grigg,
"Anti-Natalist Assault," April 3, 1995, pp.
35-36; Grigg, "Gender Politics in Beijing,"
October 30, 1995, p. 5; Jasper, "Unleashing
the Killer Pill," November 6, 2000, pp. 1217.
Chapter 14 � What Must Be Done
1. John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations (16th ed.)

(Boston: Little, Brown, and
Company, 1992), p. 330.
2. Tom Rose, "The American That Once Was,

And Could Be Again," July 4, 2000 column,
Chalcedon, Inc. (Note: different source used
by author.)
3.
Norine Dickson Campbell, Patrick Henry:
Patriot and Statesman (Old Greenwich,
Conn.: Devin-Adair, 1975), pp. 129-130.
4.
James Madison, quoted in Charles S.
Hyneman and Donald S. Lutz, American
Political Writing During the Founding Era:
1760-1805, Vol I., (Indianapolis: Liberty
Press, 1983), p. 633.
5. Campbell, Patrick Henry, p. 128.
6. Ibid., p. 130.
7.
John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (Lord
Acton) (1834-1902), quoted in John Bartlett,
Familiar Quotations (16th ed.) (Boston:
Little, Brown, and Company, 1992), p. 521.
8.
Thomas Jefferson, The Kentucky
Resolutions (1798), Bergh 17:388, in The
Real Thomas Jefferson, p. 382, quoted in
The American Freedom Library (on CD)
(Western Standard Publishing Company,
1997).
9. John
Locke, The Second Treatise on
Government: An Essay Concerning the True
Original, Extent, and End of Civil
Government, Section 92, in The American
Freedom Library (on CD) (Western
Standard Publishing Company, 1997).
10. R.J. Rummel, Death by Government, (New
Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers,
1994).
11. Ibid., pp. 25, 9.
12. Ibid., pp. 26, 69, 27.
13. Ibid., p. 13.
14. Ibid., p. 3.
15. David Rockefeller, "From a China Traveler,"
New York Times, August 10, 1973.
16. Campbell, Patrick Henry, p. 129.
17.
Bestsellers by John Douglas and Mark
Olshaker: Mindhunter: Inside the FBI's Elite
Serial Crime Unit (1995); Unabomber: On
the Trail of America's Most-Wanted Serial
Killer, Journey Into Darkness (1997),
Obsession (1998).
NOTES
The Anatomy of Motive (1999).

Professional works by John Douglas: Crime
Classification Manual (with Ann W.
Burgess, Allen G. Burgess, and Robert K.
Ressler); Sexual Homicide: Patterns and
Motives (with Robert K. Ressler and Ann
W. Burgess).
18. Douglas,
Mindhunter, p. 350; Douglas,
Journey Into Darkness, p. 19.
19.
Paul Hollander, Political Pilgrims (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1981), pp.
57-59, 169; Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn,
Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler
and Marcuse (New Rochelle, N.Y.:
Arlington House, 1974), chapters 14, 16;
Eugene Lyons, The Red Decade (New
Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1970),
chapter 29; James J. Martin, Revisionist
Viewpoints: Essays in a Dissident Historical
Tradition (Colorado Springs, Colo.: Ralph
Myles Publisher, 1971), pp. 60-61; George
T. Eggleston, Roosevelt, Churchill, and the
World War II Opposition (Old Greenwich,
Conn.: Devin-Adair, 1979), p. 70; Friedrich
A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1944), pp. 186189.
20. Jay Robert
Nash, World Encyclopedia of
Organized Crime (New York: Da Capo
Press, 1993), p. 78.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., pp. 81-82, 93.
23. Ibid. pp. 154-155
24. Antony C. Sutton, The Best Enemy Money
Can Buy (Billings, Mont.: Liberty House
Press, 1986); Senator William Armstrong
(R-Colo.), Technology Transfer: Selling the
Soviets the Rope, Speech to U.S. Senate,
Congressional Record, April 13, 1982, pp.
S3386-89; Graham Hancock, Lords of
Poverty: The Power, Prestige and Corruption
of International Aid (New York: Atlantic
Monthly, 1989); Staff, Perpetuating Poverty:
The World Bank, the IMF and the
Developing World (Washington, D.C.:
Heritage Foundation, 1994).
25. John Stormer,
None Dare Call It Treason
(Florissant, Mo.: Liberty Bell
Press, 1964); Hilaire du Berrier, Background
to Betrayal: The Tragedy of Vietnam
(Belmont, Mass., Western Islands, 1965);
John F. McManus, Changing Commands:
The Betrayal of America's Military
(Appleton, Wis.: The John Birch Society,
1995).
26. George B.N. Ayittey, Africa Betrayed (New

York: St. Martin's Press, 1992); Lt. Gen.
William P. Yarborough, USA (Ret.), Trial in
Africa: The Failure of U.S. Policy
(Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation,
1976); Robert H.W Welch, May God Forgive
Us (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); Arthur Bliss
Lane, I Saw Poland Betrayed (Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill, 1948); Anastasio Somo-za,
Nicaragua Betrayed (Belmont. Mass.:
Western Islands, 1980); Anthony Kubek,
How the Far East Was Lost (Chicago:
Regnery, 1963).
27. Candlin,
A.H. Stanton, Psycho-Chemical
Warfare (New Rochelle, N.Y: Arlington
House, 1973); Douglass, Joseph D., Red
Cocaine (Atlanta, Ga.: Clarion House, 1990);
Michael Levine, Deep Cover: DEA
Incompetence and the Lost Battle of the Drug
War (New York: Delacorte Press, 1990).
28. George Orwell, 1984 (New York, A Signet
Classic, New American Library, 1983), p.
220.
29. Ibid.
30. Chester Ward, Kissinger on the Couch, (New
Rochelle, N.Y: Arlington House Publishers,
1975), p. 151.
31. Public
Papers of the Presidents, L. B.
Johnson, 1966, p. 298, quoted in The
American Freedom Library (on CD)
(Western Standard Publishing Company,
1997).
32. Amendment to H.R. 1757, the 1998-99 State
Department Authorization Act, introduced by
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Rejected June 4,
1997 by a vote of 54 to 369. (Congressional
Record, page H3343, roll call 163.)
33. Amendment to H.R. 2415, State Department
Reauthorization Bill, introduced by Rep. Ron
Paul. Rejected July 20, 1999 by a vote of 74342
(Roll Call 314.)
34. For information about The John Birch Society's drive to get the United States
out of the United
Nations, contact: The John Birch Society, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54912. Phone:
(800) JBSUSA1
[(800) 527-8721]. Or contact us through our website: www.jbs.org. For information
specific
to the Society's campaign to Get US out! of the United Nations, also see:
www.getusout.org.
35. Campbell, Patrick Henry, pp. 129-130.
About the Author
For the past decade, William F. Jasper has served as a senior editor
of The New American magazine, published by an affiliate of The
John Birch Society.
Mr. Jasper has covered firsthand many of the major UN conferences,

including the 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro, the
1998 Rome summit for an International Criminal Court, and the
September 2000 UN Millennium Summit in New York. His
previous book, Global Tyranny � Step by Step: The United
Nations and the Emerging New World Order (1992), has been
praised as the most authoritative and detailed expose of the UN
ever written.
As a student, William Jasper was an early victim of the radical

Marxist indoctrination so prevalent on our nation's campuses.
However, following a thorough investigation into the authenticity
of what he had been taught, Mr. Jasper went through a conversion.
That conversion led to his joining The John Birch Society staff in
1976 as Director of Research for the Society's West Coast office.
He soon began contributing to the Society's magazines, American
Opinion and The Review of the News, which were superseded in
1985 by The New American.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Mr. Jasper attended, as an
undercover reporter, numerous meetings of revolutionary, terrorist,
and/or subversive groups. He also worked as a research adviser for
the video documentary No Place to Hide: The Strategy and Tactics
of Terrorism, produced by Congressman Larry McDonald's
Western Goals Foundation.
In 1988, Mr. Jasper scripted and produced his own video documentary,
Out of Control: The Immigration Invasion, based on a
decade of research, which included numerous trips to our southern
border riding alongside members of our border patrol. That
documentary was perhaps the first effort to thoroughly expose the
revolutionary agendas at work in creating the immigration
353
crisis � a crisis that didn't gain widespread public recognition until
several years later.
In the months following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing

tragedy, Mr. Jasper interviewed literally hundreds of witnesses. His
series of articles in The New American provided devastating
evidence contradicting the official "lone-bomber" scenario so
tenaciously promoted by the Janet Reno Justice Department.
354

The United Nations Exposed Jasper 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The United Nations Exposed Jasper 2001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The United Nations Exposed Jasper 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main topic of discussion in the document?

What is the main topic of discussion in the document?

What are some of the strategies discussed for building a 'superstate'?

What are some of the strategies discussed for building a 'superstate'?

Below the surface of public attention, internationalists have

From all directions we hear that global problems require global

In The United Nations Exposed, the author offers readers an

2. Disarmament and Submission......................................27

3. The Secret Network of Power .................................. 41

4. "Capitalists" and the Communist Dimension ... .53

Part II: Stealth Strategies for Building the

5. Orchestrating the Globalist Concert ..........................71

7. UN's War on Private Property....................................119

8. UN's International Court of Criminals ................... 129

9. Civilian Disarmament ................................................155

10. Regionalism ............................................................. 189

11. World Money System ............................................... 215

Part III: Bringing It Home

12. UN's One-World Religion......................................... 235

13. UN Declares Total War on the Family ..................... 261

14. What Must Be Done.................................................. 279

In his famous "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" oration at St.

� in large part because too few of us understand the threat. This

Determined to contribute what he could to prevent that from

As Mr. Jasper clearly demonstrates, the danger we are speaking

These internationalists see the UN as their primary vehicle for

The men who gave us our Constitution had a profound understanding

The United Nations embodies few of those checks and balances.

At UN conferences, as Mr. Jasper has observed firsthand, the

Expecting an empowered UN to dispense global justice is like

After years of reporting and research on this topic, Mr. Jasper is

The subversive drive to empower the UN is succeeding primarily

The tough reality, one that most otherwise informed Americans

Fortunately, Mr. Jasper doesn't just leave us with a horrible

If one understands that the United Nations was designed and

Another stellar accomplishment of The United Nations Exposed

Certainly one of the greatest deceptions is the appearance of

Organization and Approach

The extreme utopian pronouncements of UN supporters cited in

And then act! Self-education without action merely breeds

But action must follow an appropriate, realistic plan. As Mr.

As another step, we strongly encourage you to share copies of

A very common mistake is to underestimate the problem and

The challenge we face is nothing less than to change the course

Vice President, The John Birch Society

World peace through world government and world law. It is an ancient

acquaintance with Utopias empowered. And without exception, the

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it

World government, of course, would necessitate worldwide force �

Yes, the UN is concerned with our globe's climate....

Yes, the UN is concerned with the total biosphere through project

Earthwatch, the Global Environment Program of UNEP and

UNESCO's program, "Man and the Biosphere."

Yes the UN is dealing with our planet's seas and oceans....

Yes, the UN is dealing with the world's deserts....

being dealt with from the fetus to the time of death.

germ banks, labor, handicrafts, literature, industry, trade, tourism, energy,

finance, birth defects, sicknesses, pollution, politics, the prevention of