Gobal Tyranny Step by Step

The United Nations and the Emerging New World Order
by William F. Jasper

Contents

1. The New World Army
2. In The Name of Peace
3. The UN Founders
4. Reds
5. The Drive for World Government
6. Treaties and Treason
7. The Global Green Regime
8. The UN Grab for Your Child
9. The UN War on Population
10. The New World Money System
11. The Compassion Con
12. The New World Religion
13. UN Regionalism-The European Community
14. Get US out!

Bibliography
Personal Acknowledgments
About the Author

Introduction

America and the world stand on the brink of one of the most perilous epochs
in this planet's history. According to the purveyors of conventional wisdom,
communism is dead, the Cold War is over, and the greatest threats to world
peace and security are rampant nationalism, inequitable wealth distribution,
overpopulation, and environmental degradation. Yet the threat to a just world
peace and comity among nations and peoples comes not from political
fragmentation, ozone holes, greenhouse gases, an over-abundance of people, a
shortage of natural resources, or even from the frequently offered scenarios
of "rogue" elements in the former USSR acquiring contro] of nuclear weapons.

The true, imminent danger to America and to all nations seeking peace and
good will stems from widespread acceptance of the monstrous falsehood that in
order to live in an "interdependent" world, all nation-states must yield
their sovereignty to the United Nations This lie is given dignity by other
lies, chief of which is that Soviet totalitarianism has been buried
forever.(1) A too wide acceptance of these dangerous falsehoods is resulting
in: 1) a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers in the West to the
still-socialist governments of the East that remain under the control of
"former" communists; 2) the gradual but accelerating merger or "convergence"
of the U.S. and Russia through increasing economic, political, social, and
military agreements and arrangements; and 3) the rapidly escalating transfer
of power -- military, regulatory, and taxing -- to the UN. Unless the fiction
underlying these developments is exposed, national suicide and global rule by
an all-powerful world government are inevitable.

"The Bush Administration," Time magazine noted on September 17, 1990, "would
like to make the U.N. a cornerstone of its plans to construct a New World
Order."(2) That observation merely stated the obvious. In his speech to the
nation and the world on September 11, 1990, Mr. Bush stated: "Out of these
troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge...."
He proceeded to announce his hopes for "a United Nations that performs as
envisioned by its founders."(3) It became abundantly clear to veteran
students of "world order" politics that a major new push for world government
had begun. Only a few years ago, any such attempt would have flopped
miserably. During the 1970S and 80S, the UN's record as an enclave of spies,
a sinkhole of corrupt spendthrifts, and an antiAmerican propaganda forum for
terrorists, Third World dictators, and Communist totalitarians, had
thoroughly tarnished its carefully manufactured image as mankind's "last best
hope for peace."

From 1959, when the UN could boast an 87 percent approval rating, the annual
Gallup Poll showed a continuous decline in popularity for the organization.
BY 1971, a Gallup survey reported that only 35 percent of the American people
thought the UN was doing a good job. BY 1976, Gallup claimed that the support
had dropped to 33 percent. In 1980, it declined further to an all-time low of
31 percent. "At no point since [1945]," said Dr. Gallup referring to his
latest figures, "has satisfaction with the overall performance of the world
organization been as low as it is today."(4) The John Birch Society's long
and frequently lonely billboard, bumper sticker, petition, letter- writing,
and pamphleteering educational campaigns to "Get US out! of the United
Nations" had made good sense to many Americans.

In the early years of the Reagan Administration, UN-bashing became positively
respectable, even fashionable. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick
could be seen and heard almost daily denouncing the world body's
anti-Americanism, tyranny promotion, and fiscal profligacy. Editorials
opposing UN actions and the organization itself began appearing with
frequency in local and regional newspapers, and occasionally even in major
national news organs.

Anti-UN sentiment had already reached the point in 1981 that veteran
UN-watcher Robert W. Lee could report in his book, The United Nations
Conspiracy: "Today the UN is increasingly regarded not as a sacred cow, but
rather as a troika composed of a white elephant, a Trojan horse, and a Judas
goat."(6) The supermarket tabloid Star, while not exactly a consistently
reliable heavyweight in the news and analysis category, expressed the
sentiments of a large and growing segment of the American people with a
November 3, 1981 article by Steve Dunleavy entitled, "Rip Down This Shocking
Tower of Shame."

In March of 1982, syndicated columnist Andrew Tully authored a piece
headlined: "[Mayor] Koch Should Chase UN Out of Town."(6) Many similar
articles and editorials could be cited, but perhaps one of the most
surprising was the August 24, 1987 cover story by Charles Krauthammer for The
New Republic, entitled "Let It Sink -- The Overdue Demise of the United
Nations."

But the advent of Mikhail Gorbachev's "new thinking" in the late 1980s
coincided with the beginning of a remarkable rehabilitation in the public's
image of the UN. First Gorbachev, and then Boris Yeltsin, won plaudits for
reversing the traditional Soviet (or Soviet surrogate) practice of using the
UN as a venue for strident antiAmerican diatribes. Yassir Arafat and his PLO
terrorists dropped their regular anti-Israel philippics. And the UN's
"peacekeepers" won a Nobel Prize and worldwide praise for their roles as
mediators in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Central America, Southern Africa, and the
Middle East.

Then came Operation Desert Storm, the holy war against the aggression of
Saddam Hussein. And mirabile dictu, the United Nations was once again the
world's "last best hope for peace." Suddenly UN "peacekeepers" began to
appear almost everywhere-with more than 40,000 troops in the field in Africa,
Asia, Europe, Central America, and the Middle East(7) -- and every new day
now brings new appeals for the world body's intervention and "expertise."

On United Nations Day 1990, a new Gallup Poll indicated that "American
support for the United Nations ... is higher than it has been in over 20
years." According to the national polling organization, "Fifty-four percent
of Americans now think the United Nations has done a good job of solving the
problems it has had to face...." The poll cited the "rapprochement between
the U.S.S.R. and the U.S., and the dissolution of the Iron Curtain," as well
as the developing Persian Gulf situation, as major factors contributing to
the enhancement of the UN's image.(8)

Gallup reported that "almost six out of ten Americans think that the U.N. has
been effective in helping deal with the current [ IraqKuwait] crisis, with
only 8% saying that the U.N. has not been at all effective." Even more
disturbing, if accurate, is the poll finding that 61 percent of those
surveyed thought it a good idea to build up the United Nations emergency
force to "a size great enough to deal with 'brush fire' or small wars
throughout the world."(9)

The euphoria following the Persian Gulf hostilities temporarily boosted
George Bush's approval rating to an all-time high for any president. Rude
economic realities and an accumulating number of political problems then
caused his star to plummet just as rapidly as it had risen. The UN's gains,
however, appear to have been more durable. As reported by Richard Morin
("U.N. Real Winner After Gulf War," Salt Lake Tribune, January 24, 1992), a
survey by the Americans Talk Issues Foundation "found that approval for the
United Nations actually increased from 66 percent in June to 78 percent in
November [1991], a period when other measures of war- induced euphoria were
sinking fast." The Tribune reported:

[H]alf of those questioned-51 percent-agreed that "the U.S. should abide
by all World Court decisions, even when they go against us, because this
sets an example for all nations to follow." That was up from 42 percent
in May.

More than half also would support increasing the amount of dues that the
United States pays to the U.N. to "help pay for a U.N. space satellite
system to detect and monitor such problems as arms movements, crop
failures, refugee settlements and global pollution."

And, remarkably, 38 percent of those questioned said United Nations
resolutions "should rule over the actions and laws of individual
countries, where necessary to fulfill essential United Nations functions,
including ruling over U.S. laws even when our laws are different."

While we recognize that pollsters often structure their polling questions to
achieve results that will influence rather than accurately reflect public
opinion, and these surveys may be exaggerating the rise of pro-UN sentiments,
there is little doubt that the world organization is experiencing a dramatic
turnaround in citizen acceptance. In large measure, this has resulted from
the enormously effective UN drum-beating campaigns of the Establishment news
media.


The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post have led the way,
with an avalanche of fawning editorials, news stories, and op-ed columns
glorifying the alleged accomplishments and yet-to-be-realized potential of
the UN. These pro-UN public relations pieces have been reprinted in thousands
of newspapers and have also found their way into the mainstream of broadcast
journalism.

Unfortunately, the religious media have followed along with their secular
brethren in promoting this unquestioning faith in the salvific capability of
the United Nations. One of the more egregious examples of this misplaced
fervor appeared in a lengthy January 19,1992 editorial in Our Sunday Visitor,
the nation's largest Catholic publication. Headlined "UNsurpassed," the piece
declared "If the John Birch Society had its way and the United Nations had
ceased to exist back in the 1950s, 1991 would have been a far more dismal
year." The editorialist then proceeded to praise the UN's latest "
accomplishments":

It is unlikely that international support for the liberation of Kuwait
and the dismantling of the Iraqi war machine would have been so easily
marshaled by the United States. Cambodia's warring factions would most
likely still be warring. Terry Anderson and his fellow hostages would
still be languishing in Lebanon. Croats and Serbs would still be locked
in their death grip with no international organization pressing for a
cease-fire. And El Salvador would still be a vast cemetery slowly filling
up with the victims of its fratricidal opponents....

Now in its fifth decade of existence, the U.N. is finally coming into its
own, thanks in part to the demise of the superpower standoff that hobbled
the international organization for much of its existence. Nations are
finding the mediation efforts of U.N. negotiators preferable to either
unilateral actions or a bloody status quo of unwinnable conflicts.

Similar paeans of praise can be found in leading Protestant periodicals. New
Age publications which have multiplied in number and influence in the past
decade virtually worship the UN.

Readers of this book will be in a far better position to benefit from our
presentation in the pages that follow, and to understand unfolding world
events, if they keep in mind the two major principles underlying virtually
all of our federal government's foreign and domestic policies: "convergence"
and "interdependence." The plan to bring about a convergence or merger of the
U.S. and the USSR is not a recent policy response to the supposed reforms of
Gorbachev and Yeltsin. It first came to light officially in 1953 when public
concern over large tax-exempt foundation grants to communists and communist
causes prompted Congress to investigate. Of particular concern were the
funding activities of the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations.
Perhaps the most startling revelation of that investigation came when Ford
Foundation president H. Rowan Gaither admitted to Norman Dodd, staff director
of the Congressional Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations:

Of course, you know that we at the executive level here were, at one time
or another, active in either the OSS, the State Department, or the
European Economic Administration. During those times, and without
exception, we operated under directives issued by the White House. We
are continuing to be guided by just such directives.... The substance [of
these directives] was 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.(10)

At that time -- even though the activities of the foundations coincided
exactly with Gaither's startling admission -- it was simply too fantastic for
many Americans to believe. It still is. Asked to assess such information,
most Americans ask: Why would some of our nation's wealthiest and most
powerful capitalists use their great fortunes to promote such a goal? This
compelling question has stymied many good Americans for decades.

If you, too, are perplexed about this seemingly suicidal practice, you will
find it explained -- and condemned -- in the pages that follow. Of one thing
there can be little doubt: Our nation is plunging headlong toward
"convergence" and the eventual "merger" referred to by Rowan Gaither many
years ago.

Simultaneously, our nation-along with the other nations of the world-is being
steadily drawn into the tightening noose of " interdependence." Our political
and economic systems are being intertwined and increasingly are being
subjected to control by the United Nations and its adjunct international
organizations. Unless this process can be stopped, it will culminate in the
creation of omnipotent global governance and an "end to nationhood," as Walt
Whitman Rostow once phrased the goal he shared with many others.(11) All
These were (and still are) the ultimate objectives of Gaither, his world
order cronies, and their modern-day successors.

Thirty-five years after Mr. Gaither's admission, U.S. Senator Jesse Helms
(R-NC) warned America of "establi6hment insiders" who are "bringing this
one-world design -- with a convergence of the Soviet and American systems as
its centerpiece -- into being." "The influence of establishment insiders over
our foreign policy has become a fact of life in our time," the Senator
charged. "... It is an influence which, if unchecked, could ultimately
subvert our constitutional order." In this 1987 Senate speech, Senator Helms
also identified the organizations through which these insiders operate:

A careful examination of what is happening behind the scenes reveals that
all of these interests are working in concert with the masters of the
Kremlin in order to create what some refer to as a new world order.
Private organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal
Institute of International Affairs, the Trilateral Commission, the
Dartmouth Conference, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, the
Atlantic Institute, and the Bilderberg Group serve to disseminate and to
coordinate the plans for this so-called new world order in powerful
business, financial, academic, and official circles.(12)

Unfortunately, because of the tremendous power that these Establishment
Insiders wield in our major media, Senator Helms' warning never reached the
American people. It was drowned under a flood of one-world propaganda on the
Gorbachev "revolution" and the "new potentialities" for world peace through a
revived and strengthened United Nations.


[The terms "Establishment" and "Insiders" will be used throughout this
text to refer generally to the elite coterie of one-world-minded
individuals associated with the organizations named above by Senator
Helms. For identification purposes, and to demonstrate the inordinate and
dangerous influence these interests wield, individuals who are, or have
been, members of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral
Commission will be so noted parenthetically in the text as (CFR) or (TC)
respectively.]


Yet, contrary to the many seductive pro-UN siren songs, the lesssons of
history about the relationship of man to government loudly and clearly
proclaim that far from guaranteeing a new era of peace and security, the
centralization of political and economic power on a planetary level can only
bring about global tyranny and oppression on a scale never before imagined.

In late September of 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain
journeyed to Germany for his third meeting with Adolph Hitler. Blind to the
menace of Hitler's "new world order" (Hitler's own words),(13) Chamberlain
returned from that now-infamous meeting brandishing an agreement he had
signed with der Fuehrer and proudly proclaiming that he had won "peace with
honor" and "peace for our time." He was greeted with clamorous huzzahs by
British politicians, the press, and throngs of citizens who also blindly
called the betrayal "peace." Within months, Europe was convulsed in conflict,
and soon even America was dragged into the bloodiest war in world history.

The peril America and the free world face today is every bit as real, though
far greater in scope, than what a peace-hungry world faced in 1938. National
sovereignty is threatened as never before. As UN power grows, the entire
world stands on the brink of an era of totalitarian control. We must pull
back before it is too late -- too late to save our country, our freedoms, our
families, and all we hold dear.

Here is what this book claims the new world order under the United Nations
would mean:

* An end to your God-given rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,
i.e., freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, the right to
trial by jury, etc. (Chapter 6)

* National and personal disarmament along with conscription of U.S.
citizens into a United Nations Army or Police Force to serve at the
pleasure of the UN hierarchy. (Chapters 1 and 2)

* The end of private property rights and the ability to control your
own home, farm, or business. (Chapters 6 and 7)

* Economic and environmental regulation at the hands of UN bureaucrats.
(Chapter 10)

* Loss of your right as parents to raise and instruct your children in
accordance with your personal beliefs. (Chapter 8)

* Coercive population control measures that will determine when -- or
if -- you may have children. (Chapter 9)

* Unlimited global taxation. (Chapter 10)

* A centrally managed world monetary system that will lead all but the
ruling elite into poverty. (Chapter 10)

* Environmental controls that will mean the end of single family homes
and personal automobile ownership. (Chapter 6)

* The enthronement of an occult, New Age, new world religion.
(Chapter 12)

* Communist-style totalitarian dictatorship and random, ruthless
terror, torture, and extermination to cow all peoples into abject
submission. (Chapters 2 & 14)

All of this need not happen. As late as the hour has become, it is still not
too late to avert catastrophe and save our freedom. The world's future need
not degenerate into what George Orwell wrote would resemble "a boot stamping
on a human face -- forever!" But the urgency of our situation cannot be
overstated. Simply put, unless significant numbers of Americans can be
awakened from their slumbers, shaken from their apathy and ignorance, pulled
away from their diversions, and convinced to work, pray, vote, speak up,
struggle, and fight against the powers arrayed against them, then such a
horrible fate surely awaits all of us.

CHAPTER 1

The New World Army


In the Gulf, we saw the United Nations playing the role dreamed of by its
founders, with the world's leading nations orchestrating and sanctioning
collective action against aggression.(1)

-- President George Bush, August 1991
National Security Strategy of the United States

The army of tomorrow is neither the Red Army nor the U.S. Army.... If there
is to be peace, it will be secured by a multinational force that monitors
cease-fires ... and protects human rights. Blue-helmeted United Nations
peacekeepers are doing just that....

-- "The Unsung New World Army"
New York Times editorial, May 11,1992

[I]t is time for the United States to lead in the creation of a modest U.N.
rapid-deployment force.

-- Republican Congressman James A. Leach
Foreign Affairs, Summer 1992

The United States should strongly support efforts to expand the U.N.
peacekeeping role.

-- Democratic Congressman Lee H. Hamilton
Foreign Affairs, Summer 1992

Though few seemed to notice, January 31, 1992 was an historic day on the
march toward the new world order. To most New Yorkers, it simply meant worse
than usual traffic jams, as motorcades and security cordons for the many
foreign dignitaries on their way to United Nations headquarters tied up
traffic for hours. For the rest of America, the blur of headlines and
evening news sound bites about the need for "collective security" coming from
visiting potentates gave little hint of the significance of what was
transpiring. Yet, this 3,046th meeting of the United Nations Security Council
that attracted the dignitaries marked the first time that the body had
convened at the level of heads of state or government.

The exalted group of world leaders representing the five permanent and ten
rotating member states of the Security Council included a king, five
presidents, six prime ministers, a chancellor, a premier, and two foreign
ministers. They were gathering to launch a process that should have set off
alarms worldwide: THE ARMING OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

The assemblage took on a religious aura as, one by one, the national leaders
worshipped at the UN altar, referred to the UN Charter with a reverence
usually reserved for Holy Writ, and recited the by-now-familiar doxology
always heard at these increasingly frequent "summits": new world order;
peace, equity, and justice; interdependence; global harmony; democracy; human
rights; the rule of law; collective engagement; an enhanced and strengthened
United Nations; etc.

President Bush enthusiastically extolled "the sacred principles enshrined in
the United Nations Charter" and, recalling its messianic mission, proclaimed:
"For perhaps the first time since that hopeful moment in San Francisco, we
can look at our Charter as a living, breathing document."(2)

The UN's newly-installed Secretary-General, Egypt's Boutros Boutros-Ghali,
was no less caught up with the spiritual purpose of the world organization.
He called for additional summit-level meetings of the Security Council, since
this "would also help to assure that transfiguration of this house which the
world hopes to be completed before its fiftieth anniversary, in 1995."(3) How
he divined what the world's "hopes" for the organization on its 50th birthday
might be, he did not say. And he did not have to explain the motive behind
his use of Biblical metaphor. That was transparent enough. Webster defines
"transfigure" this way: "to give a new and typically exalted or spiritual
appearance to." To the Christian mind, of course, "transfiguration" recalls
the Gospel account of Christ's manifestation of his divine glory.

Boutros-Ghali undoubtedly knows the power of the symbolism he chose and, like
his fellow true believers in the one-world gospel, he realized that much more
of this evangelization is necessary if the masses are to be sold on the idea
of the UN as the world's savior.

When his turn at the UN podium came, even Boris Yeltsin was appropriately
religious, referring to the organization as "the political Olympus of the
contemporary world."(4) Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez proclaimed
that "the United Nations is indispensable to us all."(5) Presumably, we
cannot survive without it.

"This means," said Perez, "placing our trust in its leadership and in its
set-up, as well as in the decision-making machinery. The guiding principles
must be those that inspired its establishment, now brought to complete
fruition."(6) That's quite a contrast with the scriptural injunction to
"trust in the Lord," and far indeed from the admonitions of our founding
fathers to avoid putting trust in man (and government) but instead to "bind
him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."(7)


A Bigger and Better UN?

Such quaint notions as national independence and limitation of government
held no sway with these internationalists. The participants in this special
convocation of the Security Council were virtually unanimous in their support
of greatly expanded United Nations powers. This was necessary, they said,
because of the rapid " acceleration of history," the "critical stage" of
current world events, " global instability," "nuclear proliferation," and the
many "threats to peace and security" presented by economic, social,
humanitarian, and ecological "sources of instability."

The obsolete nation-state is incapable of meeting the world's needs, claimed
one speaker after another. Boutros-Ghali explained that in his vision of the
new world order, "State sovereignty takes a new meaning...." "[N]arrow
nationalism," warned the Egyptian, "can disrupt a peaceful global existence.
Nations are too interdependent, national frontiers are too porous and
transnational realities ... too dangerous to permit egocentric
isolationism."(8)

Repeated calls were made at this special UN session for increasing the powers
of the Secretary-General, enhancing the jurisdiction of the World Court,
expanding the membership of the Security Council, abolishing the veto power
of the five permanent members, establishing a permanent funding mechanism for
"peacekeeping," convening a summit meeting to address social development,
increasing economic aid from North to South, and more. Hardly a speaker
failed to hail the "end of the Cold War" and the demise of communism, but
socialist thought was still the order of the day as one leader after another
called for greater "global management" and redistribution of wealth.

French President Francois Mitterrand made the first concrete proposal to give
military teeth to the world body with his call for establishing a
rapid-deployment UN army. "I state that for its part France is ready to make
available to the Secretary-General a 1, 000man contingent for peace-keeping
operations, at any time, on 48hours notice," said the internationalist
Frenchman. And to buttress his enthusiasm for a UN military force, he added,
"That figure could be doubled within a week."(9)

Belgian Prime Minister Wilfried Martens seconded Mitterrand's proposal and
announced that "... Belgium will ensure rapid deployment of Belgian
contingents in United Nations peace-keeping forces."(10) His idea was
immediately endorsed by Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Hungarian Foreign
Minister Geza Jeszenszky.

Going further, Yeltsin declared to the august assemblage: "I think the time
has come to consider creating a global defence system for the world
community. It could be based on a reorientation of the United States
Strategic Defense Initiative, to make use of high technologies developed in
Russia's defence complex." This magnanimous gesture on his part, said
Yeltsin, could be made because "Russia regards the United States and the West
not as mere partners but rather as allies."(11)

To reinforce his contentions that the "evil empire" is no more, and that his
new-found devotion to human rights is genuine, Yeltsin announced: "A few days
ago, the 10 remaining political prisoners were pardoned by a decree of the
President of the Russian Federation. There are no longer any prisoners of
conscience in free Russia."(12) There were no guffaws and no one had the
inclination (or the guts) to ask what had happened to the consciences of
millions more political, social, and religious prisoners still populating the
gulags. Or why this former member of the Soviet Politburo wasn't being held
accountable for his part in the USSR's long history of crimes against
humanity.

Likewise, when Red Chinese Premier Li Peng rose to speak of " human rights,"
"peaceful coexistence," and "social tranquility," he was met with respectful
attentiveness. The Butcher of Tiananmen Square was politely given a world
stage for the most outrageous totalitarian propaganda. China, he proclaimed,
"will never become a threat to any country or any region of the world. China
is of the view that no country should seek hegemony or practice power
politics." His government, he said, looked forward to "the establishment of a
new international order that will be stable, rational, just and conducive to
world peace and development."(13) Not only was he not hooted down, he was
granted the prestige of separate meetings with Presidents Bush and Yeltsin
and Prime Ministers Major and Miyazawa.

Hundreds of Chinese demonstrators who came to protest this travesty were kept
blocks away from the UN building by security forces. The Los Angeles Times
reported the following lamentation uttered by one of the young demonstrators:

"His [Li's] hand is full of the blood and tears of the Chinese people,
and I don't understand why world leaders would shake hands with him,"
said a weeping Chai Ling, one of the leaders of the Tian An Men Square
pro-democracy demonstrations.(14)

On the morning following this precedent-setting Security Council session, the
Establishment media were ready to peddle the politically correct one-world
view. For example, Joseph S. Nye Jr., whose Insider credentials include being
the director of the Center for International Affairs, a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR), a Harvard University professor, and a former
Deputy Under Secretary of State, led off with an op-ed column in the New York
Times entitled, "Create a U.N. Fire Brigade." Nye told readers: "If a new
world order is ultimately to emerge from yesterday's summit meeting of the
world's leaders at the U.N., they will have to stretch their
imaginations.(15)

According to Nye, Messrs. Mitterrand, Martens, and company were thinking too
small. "The U.S. should go beyond rhetoric to promote a new order.... To
achieve this, the U.S. ought to propose the creation of a U.N.
rapid-deployment force.... made up of 60,000 troops in brigades from 12
countries."(16)

That same morning, Los Angeles Times reporter Norman Kempster enthused:
"Creating a standing army under the control of the United Nations Security
Council would give the world organization a military punch it has never had
before and could convert it into a full-time international police
department." That should be a truly bone-chilling thought for anyone who
values freedom. But Kempster didn't stop there, adding: "If adopted ... the
plan would mark the transformation of the Security Council from a Cold
War-hobbled debating society to an organization with the power to enforce its
decisions...."(17) Even more chilling! But not, apparently, to the apostles
of one-worldism who have been lustily cheering such proposals.

In the months following the summit, as the Bush Administration moved brazenly
forward with never-announced plans to supplant the U.S. Constitution with the
UN Charter, the Establishment news media, dominated by members of the Council
on Foreign Relations and led by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the
Los Angeles Times, and the CFR's own Foreign Affairs, provided both cover and
support. So began the audacious propaganda campaign to resurrect a
decades-old, one-world scheme to transfer U.S. military might to the United
Nations.

In its March 6, 1992 lead editorial entitled "The New World Army," the New
York Times came close to dropping all pretenses and subtlety:

For years the United Nations has been notable mostly for its vocal cords.
That's changed. Nowadays the U.N.'s muscle -- its blue-helmeted
soldiers -- seems to be everywhere. And costs have soared. The bill for 11
peacekeeping missions could approach $3.7 billion this year. Never before
have so many U.N. troops been committed to so many costly and diverse
missions.

But don't get the idea that anyone at the Times is about to let fiscal
worries stand in the way of its commitment to "world order" politics. The
editorial ticked off the current count of blue-helmeted troops deployed
worldwide: In Lebanon 5,900; Cyprus 2,200; Golan Heights 1,300; El Salvador
1,000; Iraq/Kuwait 540; Angola 440; Arab-Israel conflict 300; India/Pakistan
40; Cambodia 22,000; Yugoslavia 14,300; Western Sahara 2,700 This grand total
of 50,720 UN troops is just the start of what these internationalists are
planning Any of these hot spots could, of course, develop into a major
conflagration a any moment, requiring thousands -- or tens of thousands --
of UN reinforcements.

There are also numerous other trouble spots around the globe offering
virtually unlimited opportunities for UN intervention: South Africa,
Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Korea, and Myanmar.
Myanmar? Yes, although you probably remember it by its former name, Burma.
The Los Angeles Times lead editorial for March 16, 1992 carried the title,
"Next Target for World's Conscience: Myanmar -- An apocalyptic 'killing field'
for the former Burma?" It signaled that we may soon be seeing UN troops,
possibly including American men and women, in that tragic land.

In the face of all of this support for a UN military arm, the only protests
in Congress about the developing "New World Army" questioned merely the
financial costs of the peacekeeping operations, including the
disproportionate share (an automatic 30 percent) the U.S. is expected to
shoulder. When Secretary of State James Baker appeared before a Senate
subcommittee on March 5,1992 to present the Bush Administration's request for
an additional $810 million (above the $107 million already appropriated) for
peacekeeping in 1992-93, he ran into resistance even from traditionally
strong UN supporters. Senator Jim Sasser (D-TN) told Baker that although he
believed the UN peacekeeping efforts were important, in this recessionary
economy, constituent opposition to foreign aid had become "politically
irresistible."(18) After the hearing, Sasser told an interviewer "Our
constituents are saying that they have borne the burden as long as they
intend to."(19)

Yes, the bill for the UN's blue helmet operations is escalating rapidly.
"Yet," said the New York Times in its "New World Army" editorial, "in hard
cash terms, peacekeeping is a bargain.... Every war prevented saves blood and
treasure, expands markets and trade." Though such an argument has a certain
simplistic appeal, it breaks down rapidly under any close examination. And
although the economic cost is a legitimate concern, a far more serious matter
is the looming UN military threat to U.S. sovereignty. As the Times itself
pointed out: "Now the peacekeepers are doing more than monitoring truce
lines. They are becoming peacemakers, too. U.N. forces were asked to disarm
guerrillas, conduct elections and enforce human rights, first in Namibia,
then in Cambodia and El Salvador."(20)

The UN itself is finding new opportunities right and left to justify
expansion of its armed forces. "The Security Council recently expanded the
concept of threats to peace," the Times reported, "to include economic,
social and ecological instability "(21) Talk about proliferation! This kind
of assumed, open-ended authority virtually guarantees unlimited interference
by the United Nations in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. And you
can be sure that interference won't be directed primarily at stopping human
rights violations in repressive communist/socialist regimes or petty third
world dictatorships. It will be directed against what these internationalists
consider the greatest threat to global peace and stability -- the United States
of America.

Yes, America is the target. According to an Associated Press report appearing
on March 12, 1992, "a United Nations official said Wednesday ... that the
United States is the greatest threat to the world's ecological health." That
official, Canadian Maurice F. Strong, who served as secretary-general of the
1992 UN Earth Summit, declared: "In effect, the United States is committing
environmental aggression against the rest of the world." He added: "At the
environmental level, the United States is clearly the greatest risk."(22)

This would not be the first or last time Strong and other UN envirocrats
would storm against what they consider the evils of U.S. consumption and
production. It has become a standard theme at UN environmental conferences
and was the major message at the world body's 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil.
Judging from the vitriol these eco-globalists regularly throw at Americans,
it's probably safe to assume they would eagerly deploy the blue helmets (or
as some advocate, environmental police in green helmets) to close down much
of the U.S.

Will UN "peacekeepers" be deployed against the U.S. to rectify economic,
social, or ecological "instabilities" determined by UN Marxists to be
"threats to peace"? America would never stand for it, you say? But the stage
is already being set to render nations incapable of blocking such moves by
the UN.

Many of the UN's defenders claim that the organization can only send in its
peacekeeping forces if they are officially invited. Yet, President Bush has
already put the United States on record officially favoring UN action within
the borders of sovereign nations. In his "Pax Universalis" speech delivered
at UN headquarters on September 23,1991, he said there was a need for UN
action to settle "nationalist passions" within nations and also to remove an
undesirable national leader from his post.(23) Even New York Times columnist
Leslie Gelb (CFR) found the President's clearly stated policy "revolutionary"
and "threatening."(24)

According to the CFR globalists, no single nation should have veto power over
whether or not the UN should act. Writing in the Spring 1991 Foreign Affairs
("The U.N. in a New World Order"), Professors Bruce Russett and James S.
Sutterlin concluded: "It is worth emphasizing that nothing in the [UN]
charter prohibits the Security Council from deploying peacekeeping forces
without the consent of all the parties, or from including troop contingents
from the permanent members of the council in such forces where the need for
deterrence arises." If this attitude prevails, UN eco-saviors can first
declare your factory, your logging, ranching or farming practices, or even
your use of an automobile a threat to the environment, and then decide under
authority derived from the new definition of "peacekeeping" to send in the
blue (or green) helmeted troops to address the breach of "peace" with force.


The Great Mutation

Although the UN has not yet used any of this steadily building "peacekeeping"
muscle for enforcement of environmental or social dicta, the precedent for
uninvited intervention has already been established under the assumed
authority of "peacekeeping." As Los Angeles Times columnist William Pfaff
observed in his March 5, 1992 column appearing in the International Herald
Tribune, the 1992 UN action in what was once Yugoslavia is a signal event,
representing an overturning of national sovereignty. "Slowly, too slowly, the
great mutation occurs," said Pfaff. "The principle of absolute national
sovereignty is being overturned.... The civil war in Yugoslavia has rendered
this service to us."

Pfaff, a committed internationalist, applauded the UNS " uninvited
international intervention into the affairs of a state" which, until now,
"has been held an unacceptable attack upon the principle of unlimited state
sovereignty." He saw the intervention of the European Community and the UN in
Yugoslavia as a new model of collective action that has many other potential
applications. "What they have thus far done has been improvisation, but it is
a start on something new," the Paris-based columnist noted approvingly. "We
are now in a situation where improvisation and experiment are essential, in
contrast to the big programmatic reforms of 1918 and 1945 -- the League and
the U.N." The "improvisation" Pfaff and his fellow globalists talk about is
hardly spontaneous and is eminently predictable; it involves the expansion
and concentration of the UN's political, economic, and military powers in
response to global or regional or even local "crises."

The excuse for UN "peacekeeping" action in a crisis involving civil war and
ethnic fighting is the supposed potential for the conflict to escalate to
global dimensions if not checked by collective international force. "What may
now be needed," said the New York Times in its March 6, 1992 editorial, "is
a permanent force for rapid deployment in chaotic circumstances." The Times
editorial continued: "One promising possibility is to make fuller use of the
U.N. Charter. Article 43 already calls on members to make available 'armed
forces, assistance and facilities' necessary to maintain international peace.
To that end, the Charter established a Military Staff Committee...."

But, lamented the Times, this UN committee has never worked as intended,
because "American armed forces have traditionally resisted Lit] as a threat
to command autonomy." Again, the far greater threat to national security and
sovereignty was ignored.

"But in a transformed world," continued the Tines editorial, "it makes sense
to consider direct contributions of personnel and equipment to a rapid
deployment force under real multinational control." Going still further, the
article proposed that the UN military force be expanded with funds taken from
the U.S. defense budget instead of from its foreign aid budget. "That won't
be easy," the Times acknowledged. "But what a chance for President Bush to
take the lead in giving real meaning to his still hazy vision of a New World
Order."


A Long-Established Policy

The only haze surrounding either Mr. Bush's or that newspaper's vision of the
new world order is that which they have deliberately created. They know that
the real substance of the new world order was very clearly presented in 1961,
more than 30 years ago, when President John F. Kennedy presented his plan for
national disarmament to the United Nations. Crafted by his CFR-dominated
State Department and 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), it presented a three-stage program for
the gradual transfer of U.S. arms to the United Nations.(25)

During Stage II (the stage we are currently in), the document mandates: "The
U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively strengthened." 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."(26)

This incredible 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.(27)

Freedom From War was superseded 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.(28) 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."(29) That means, of course, that upon completion of this
partially completed plan, every nation state, including the United States,
would he subject to the unchallengeable military forces of the all-powerful
United Nations.

But that was long ago; perhaps those policies and proposals have expired.
Although that may be a comforting thought, unfortunately it is not true. On
May 25, 1982, Congressman Ted Weiss (D-NY) called for the implementation of
Blueprint for the Peace Race and entered its entire text into the
Congressional Record.(30) He also pointed out that this disarmament proposal
had never been formally withdrawn by the United States government. When
questioned about the commitment of the United States to the Blueprint, A.
Richard Richstein, General Counsel to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency, confirmed in a letter on May 11th of that year that "the United
States has never formally withdrawn this proposal."(31)

In January 1991, William Nary, the official historian of the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency, confirmed again that "the proposal has not been
withdrawn." Mr. Nary also confirmed that " certain features of it have been
incorporated into subsequent disarmament agreements."(32)

Indeed, significant portions of this long-range disarmament program have been
already enacted into law. On September 23, 1961, Congress passed the "ARMS
CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT ACT," which was signed into law (Public Law 87-297)
on September 26th by President Kennedy. According to the wording of the law
itself, its purpose was to establish a U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency that would advance efforts "toward ultimate world disarmament." But,
is the objective really "world disarmament"? How can it be? Like Freedom From
War, P.L. 87-297 calls not for the total elimination of arms -- a completely
utopian fantasy -- but the transfer of arms from national to international
control. Section 3 (a) of the Act states:

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...."
[Emphasis added]

By December 11, 1989, when President Bush signed the "Arms Control and
Disarmament Amendments Act of 1989" (Public Law 101-216), the original
Kennedy Administration legislation had already been amended nearly 20 times.
This steadily growing body of law is moving us step by step toward surrender
to a global UN military dictatorship. Like the original Act, the 1989
amendment contains the language "identification ... elimination" of
"ARMAMENTS OF ALL KINDS." Questions rush to the fore. Such as: Could the
phrase "armaments of all kinds" be construed at some future date by a
federal court or the UN's World Court to include the personal arms of private
citizens? In view of the increasing onslaught of state and federal anti-gun
legislation, the judicial activism of the federal courts, and the total
absence in the UN Charter and UN "Rights" documents of any protection similar
to our Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms, it
could hardly be considered extreme to consider the possibility.

For apostles of the new world order, perhaps the closest thing to holy writ,
and the scripture to which they all pay homage, is the 1958 volume World
Peace Through World Law by Grenville Clark and Louis B. Sohn.(33) In this
venerated text, Clark and Sohn proposed a socialist world government through
a revised UN Charter. The key to this global superstate would be a United
Nations "world police force" invested with "a coercive force of overwhelming
power." "This world police force would be the only MILITARY force permitted
ANYWHERE in the world after the process of national disarmament has been
completed." And what about the civilian police and private firearms owners?
The authors warned "that even with the complete elimination of all [national]
MILITARY forces," local "police forces, supplemented by civilians armed with
sporting rifles and fowling pieces, might conceivably constitute a serious
threat to a neighboring country..." (Emphasis in original) Accordingly, they
recommend extremely rigid controls on all firearms and ammunition possessed
by civil police and private citizens.(34)


Top Military Post

If these proposals are implemented, who will control these supreme United
Nations forces? Isn't that a question everyone should be concerned with? In
the past, the person in charge of all UN military activities has been the UN
Under-Secretary-General for Political and Security Council Affairs. Since the
UN was created, 14 individuals have held that post. ALL HAVE BEEN COMMUNISTS
AND ALL BUT ONE HAVE COME FROM THE SOVIET UNION. This is no coincidence.
Secretary-General Trygve Lie revealed that U.S. Secretary of State Edward
Stettinius (CFR) had agreed to naming a Soviet national to this strategic
post, which Lie described as "the premier Assistant Secretaryship."(35) Lie
said he first learned of the agreement from Soviet representative Andrei
Vishinsky, and that "Mr. Stettinius confirmed to me that he had agreed with
the Soviet Delegation in the matter."(36) The surprised Secretary-General Lie
wrote:

The preservation of international peace and security was the
Organization's highest responsibility, and it was to entrusting the
direction of the Secretariat department most concerned with this to a
Soviet national that the Americans had agreed. What did the Americans
want for themselves? To my surprise, they did not ask for a department
concerned with comparable substantive affairs, like the economic or the
social. Rather, Mr. Stettinius proposed that an American citizen be
appointed Assistant Secretary-General for the Administrative and
Financial Services.(37)

The communists have remained in control ever since, even though, Lie
maintained, this was not intended as a permanent arrangement. In January
1992, newly elected Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali reorganized the UN's
bureaucracy. There are now two posts of Under-Secretary-General for Political
Affairs (the "Security Council" part of the title was dropped) with joint
responsibilities for military affairs. Named to the positions were Vladimir
E. Petrovsky, a former deputy foreign minister in the Gorbachev regime, and
James O.C. Jonah of Sierra Leone, who has been a career UN bureaucrat since
1963.

The historical roster of the men who have held this "premier Assistant
Secretaryship" reads as follows:

1946-1949 Arkady Sobolev (USSR)
1949-1953 Konstatin Zinchenko (USSR)
1953-1954 Ilya Tchernychev (USSR)
1954-1957 Dragoslav Protitch (Yugoslavia)
1958-1960 Anatoly Dobrynin (USSR)
1960-1962 Georgy Arkadev (USSR)
1962-1963 E.D. Kiselev (USSR)
1963-1965 V.P. Suslov (USSR)
1965-1968 Alexei E. Nesterenko (USSR)
1968-1973 Leonid N. Kutakov (USSR)
1973-1978 Arkady N. Shevchenko (USSR)
1978-1981 Mikhail D. Sytenko (USSR)
1981-1986 Viacheslav A. Ustinov (USSR)
1987-1992 Vasiliy S. Safronchuk (USSR)
1992- Vladimir Petrovsky (Russia, "former USSR")
James O.C. Jonah (Sierra Leone)

Surrendering our military capabilities to the United Nations (or any other
international body) should be unthinkable to every American, even if there
were guarantees that a U.S. citizen would always hold the position of
Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs. To consider doing so in the
face of the current and historical facts just mentioned above is treasonous.

A more colossal betrayal of one's country would be difficult to conceive. But
the Los Angeles Times, for one, is more than willing to assist in preparing
the public's mind for the sellout. On January 5, 1992, the newspaper gave
generous space for an op-ed article entitled "Dream of Total Disarmament
Could Become Reality," written by radical leftists Gar Alperovitz and Kai
Bird. In it, Alperovitz, a senior fellow at the Washington DC-based Institute
for Policy Studies, and Bird, a research associate at this same rabidly
anti-American organization, urged a formal reaffirmation of the 30-year old
Kennedy disarmament proposals and praised the vision of the CFR "wise men"
who had designed them. The IPS duo quoted the Freedom From War Stage III
passage ("No state shall have the military power ...") and declared: "We
could refine and implement the ... disarmament plan by requiring all
countries to cut defense budgets by, say, 15%-20% per year." Those nations
that refused to go along "could be penalized with economic sanctions or --
in the extreme -- military intervention."


UN Leader Paves the Way

At the close of the special Security Council meeting convened on January
31,1992, Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali was instructed by the Council to
prepare by July 1st his "recommendations on ways of strengthening" the UN's
peacekeeping capabilities. In June, the energetic Egyptian completed his
assignment and issued AN AGENDA FOR PEACE. (38) A more apt title would have
been, AN AGENDA FOR GLOBAL SOCIALISTIC RULE. Signaling a new direction, the
report notes that, in the past, "United Nations operations in areas of crisis
have generally been established after conflict has occurred." But now, the
"time has come to plan for circumstances warranting preventive deployment."
The Secretary-General explains:

Under Article 42 of the Charter, the Security Council has the authority
to take military action to maintain or restore international peace and
security. While such action should only be taken when al] peaceful means
have failed, the option of taking it is essential to the credibility of
the United Nations as a guarantor of international security. This will
require ... special agreements ... whereby Member States undertake to
make armed forces, assistance and facilities available to the Security
Council ... not only on an ad hoc basis but on a permanent basis.(39)
[Emphasis added]

As a sop to anyone concerned about national independence, he promised: "The
foundation-stone of this work is and must remain the State. Respect for its
fundamental sovereignty and integrity are crucial to any common international
progress." But in the next breath, he showed his real intentions by noting,
"The time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty ... has passed."(40) Yes,
national sovereignty will remain, but only as DEFINED BY THE UNITED NATIONS.
As the Secretary-General himself said, the concept of sovereignty "takes a
new meaning."

Thc new agenda championed by the UN'S top official calls for "a United
Nations capable of maintaining international peace and security, of securing
justice and human rights and of promoting . . . ' social progress and better
standards of life in larger freedom."(41) If that sounds to you like the
globalists intend to blur the distinction between foreign and domestic
matters, then you have begun to grasp the evolving meaning of "peacekeeping,"
"peacemaking," and "peacebuilding."

For further evidence that the UN leader intends the world body to become a
global Big Brother meddling in every aspect of our lives, consider the
following from the Boutros-Ghali report: "The sources of conflict and war are
pervasive and deep.... To reach them will require our utmost effort ... to
promote sustainable economic and social development...."(42)

In what social or economic spheres, if any, will the world orderites NOT find
a pretext for intervention? According to the new UN agenda, there are none.
Among the "new risks for stability" listed by the Secretary-General are
"ecological damage" and "disruption of family and community life." Other
"sources of conflict" include "unchecked population growth," "drugs and the
growing disparity between rich and poor," "[p]overty, disease, famine,"
"drought," "a porous ozone shield," and about anything else you might
imagine.(43)

According to the UN leader, "the efforts of the Organization to build peace,
stability and security must encompass matters beyond military threats in
order to break the fetters of strife and warfare that have characterized the
past."(44) In other words, under the new UN definitions of"peacekeeping,"
virtually any circumstance or condition in any part of the world might
conceivably constitute a "risk for stability" or a "threat" to peace, and
therefore justify UN intervention, including military intervention.

What is so incredible about all of this is not the arrogance and effrontery
of Boutros-Ghali and his many like-minded associates in proposing such a
colossal power grab. What else can be expected from a gang of megalomaniacs?
The far more incredible feature of this developing nightmare is the almost
complete ignorance of, and near total absence of opposition to it. What
should be strikingly obvious to anyone -- particularly to Americans, who
should have a special appreciation for the limitation of governmental force
-- is that an organization powerful enough to enforce world "peace" would
also be powerful enough to enforce world tyranny. No organization should ever
have that kind of power!

Americans should have been shocked and outraged then, when President Bush, in
his address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 21, 1992,
announced: "I welcome the Secretary General's call for a new agenda to
strengthen the United Nations' ability to prevent, contain, and resolve
conflict across the globe.... Robust peace-keeping requires men and equipment
that only member states can provide.... These forces must be available on
short notice at the request of the Security Council...." Mr. Bush said the
challenges "as we enter the 21st century" will "require us to transform our
collective institutions." He pledged to work with the UN "to best employ our
considerable lift, logistics, communications, and intelligence capabilities,"
and stated: "The United States is prepared to make available our bases and
facilities for multinational training and field exercises. One such base,
nearby, with facilities is Fort Dix."(45)

Other than the John Birch Society, which has warned about these impending
developments for decades, very few have raised a voice to spread the alarm.
One who has is syndicated columnist Sam Francis. Commenting on AN AGENDA FOR
PEACE , he wrote: "If Americans would like to preserve the national
independence and sovereignty they and their forebears have fought for, they
need to pull down the one-world monstrosity Boutros-Ghali is planning before
he and his planners have a chance to build it."(46)

And to that every freedom-loving American should say, Amen!

CHAPTER 3

The UN Founders

We're now in sight of a United Nations that performs as enuisioned by its
founders.(1)

-- George Bush, September 11,1990
Televised address before a Joint Session of Congress

At last the United Nations is beginning to fulfill the security mission
its founders intended.

-- Democratic Congressman Lee H. Hamilton
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Summer 1992

With the United Nations finally beginning to function as its framers
intended, it is time for the United States to lead...

-- Republican Congressman James A. Leach
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Summer 1992

The United Nations has begun to fulfill the vision of its founders.(2)

-- Changing Our Ways, 1992 report of the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace


After suffering years of declining prestige, the United Nations is once again
basking in the same glory it enjoyed in the immediate post-World War II
years. Solemn references to the "ideals," "vision," and "wisdom" of the UN
founders abound in current speeches and articles as we experience another
round of historical revisionism. In 1945, we are told, a peace-hungry world
groped for solutions that would put an end to war. Atomic weapons made their
quest an absolute necessity, because an atomic exchange could put an end to
mankind. Statesmen of great vision seized the opportunity and fashioned an
instrument -- the United Nations -- to attain that lofty and elusive goal:
world peace.


Creation of the CFR

That, of course, is the standard textbook rendering and the interpretation of
history most frequently encountered today. Unfortunately, it is not accurate.
The organization known as the United Nations did indeed officially come into
being with the signing of the UN Charter by representatives from 50 nations
meeting in San Francisco on June 26,1945. But that signal event was the
culmination of years of planning by a private, high-level policy group that
had gained de facto control of our foreign policy during the Roosevelt
Administration. Immediately after our entry into the war, that organization,
the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), planted the idea of a world-governing
"peace" organization. At the instigation of our State Department, the 26
nations at war against the Axis powers proclaimed themselves the United
Nations in January 1942. Historian Clarence Carson observed:

Roosevelt worked to avoid the pitfalls that had helped to keep the United
States out of the League of Nations. His hand is clearly apparent in
trying to get the name accepted even before the organization had been
formed. (Americans continued to refer to their side as the "Allies"
during World War II, not the "United Nations," but officially the term
was being used anyhow.)(3)

President Roosevelt, however, was merely implementing the policies that were
being handed to him. In his 1988 expose, THE SHADOWS OF POWER: THE COUNCIL ON
FOREIGN RELATIONS AND THE AMERICAN DECLINE, James Perloff outlined the
genesis of the UN plan:

In January 1943, Secretary of State Cordell Hull formed a steering
committee composed of himself, Leo Pasvolsky, Isaiah Bowman, Sumner
Welles, Norman Davis, and Morton Taylor. All of these men -- with the
exception of Hull -- were in the CFR. Later known as the Informal Agenda
Group, they drafted the original proposal for the United Nations. It was
Bowman -- a founder of the CFR and member of Colonel House's old
"Inquiry" -- who first put forward the concept. They called in three
attorneys, all CFR men, who ruled that it was constitutional. Then they
discussed it with FDR on June 15, 1944. The President approved the plan,
and announced it to the public that same day.(4)

The list of those in the U.S. delegation to the UN's founding San Francisco
Conference reads like a CFR roll call. Delegates who were, had been, or would
later become members of the Council included:

Theodore C. Achilles Foy D. Kohler
James W. Angell John E. Lockwood
Hamilton Fish Armstrong Archibald MacLeish
Charles E. Bohlen John J. McCloy
Isaiah Bowman Cord Meyer, Jr.
Ralph Bunche Edward G. Miller, Jr.
John M. Cabot Hugh Moore
Mitchell B. Carroll Leo Pasvolsky
Andrew W. Cordier Dewitt C. Poole
John S. Dickey William L. Ransom
John Foster Dulles Nelson A. Rockefeller
James Clement Dunn James T. Shotwell
Clyde Eagleton Harold E. Stassen
Clark M. Eichelberger Edward R. Stettinius, Jr.
Muir S. Fairchild Adlai E. Stevenson
Thomas K. Finletter Arthur Sweetser
Artemus Gates James Swihart
Arthur J. Hepburn Llewellyn E. Thompson
Julius C. Holmes Herman B. Wells
Philip C. Jessup Francis Wilcox
Joseph E. Johnson Charles W. Yost
R. Keith Kane

The secretary-general of the conference was U.S. State Department official
Alger Hiss, a member of the CFR and a secret Soviet agent. Other high-level
American communists who served as delegates included: Noel Field, Harold
Glasser, Irving Kaplan, Nathall Gregory Silvermaster, Victor Perlo, Henry
Julian Wadley, and Harry Dexter White. Some -- like Hiss, Lauchlin Currie,
and Lawrence Duggan -- shared the odious distinction of membership in both
the Council and the Communist Party. In the next chapter, we will explore the
important relationship between these two seemingly disparate organizations as
well as the communist leadership role at the conference. But for now, let us
concentrate on the Council.

What the historical record shows, and what is essential for all people of
good will to understand, is that the United Nations is completely a creature
of the Council on Foreign Relations and was designed by that organization
eventually to become an instrument for an all-powerful world government. In
order to establish the factual basis for this claim, and to permit an
appreciation for the significance of it, we must revisit some murky pages of
the history of this century.


Some Necessary Background

Hitler's invasion of Poland, the CASUS BELLI of World War II, was launched on
September 1,1939. Although the United States would not enter the war for two
more years (December 1941), within days of the German invasion top members of
the CFR were taking over POST-WAR planning for the Roosevelt Administration.
In 1947, the Council published its own version of how it came to run FDR's
State Department:

Within a week [of the war's start], Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Editor of
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, and Walter H. Mallory, Executive Director of the
Council, paid a visit to the Department of State to offer such aid on the
part of the Council as might be useful and appropriate in view of the
war.

The Department was already greatly overworked as a result of thc crisis...
The Council representatives suggested that, pending the time when the
Department itself would be able to assemble a staff and begin research and
analysis on the proper scale, the Council might undertake work in certain
fields, without, of course, any formal assignment of responsibility on the
one side or restriction of independent action on the other...

The Department officers welcomed the Council's suggestion and encouragcd
the Council to formulate a more detailed plan. This wa done in
consultation with Department officials. The Rockefeller Foundation was
then approached for a grant of funds to put the plan into operation. When
assurances had been received that the necessary funds would be available,
the personnel of the groups were selected and on December 8, 1939, an
organization meeting was held in Washington...(6)

Following that meeting, as Robert W. Lee explained in his 1981 book, The
UNITED NATIONS CONSPIRACY, the State Department established a Committee on
Post-War Problems. It was assisted by a research staff that was organized in
February 1941 into a Division of Special Research. "After the Japanese attack
on Pearl Harbor," wrote Lee, "the research facilities were expanded and the
overall project was reorganized into an Advisory Committee on Post-War
Foreign Policies. Serving on the Committee were a number of influential CFR
members, including Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Sumner Welles, Isaiah Bowman,
Norman H. Davis, James T. Shotwell, Myron C. Taylor, and Leo Pasvolsky. The
Russian-born Pasvolsky became the Committee's Director of Research."(7)

The Council and its defenders insist that it has no sinister agenda; that, in
fact, it has no agenda at all. "The Council shall not take any position on
questions of foreign policy," the organization officia]ly declares.(8) It is
simply a study group, its spokesmen regularly maintain, and its civic-minded
members offered their expertise in service of their country during an hour of
great peril. And they have continued to provide their services ever since.

One who heartily disagreed with those protestations of innocence and
benevolence was Admiral Chester Ward, a former Judge Advocate General of the
Navy, who was himself a member of the Council for 16 years. His experience
led him to conclude that the group was formed for the "purpose of promoting
disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence
into an allpowerful one-world government." Together with coauthor Phyllis
Schlafly, he wrote that the most influential clique within the CFR "is
composed of the one-world-global-government ideologists -- more respectfully
referred to as the organized internationalists. They are the ones who carry
on the tradition of the founders." Moreover, he charged, "this 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 govcrnment..."(9) These are serious charges from a man of considerable
distinction who enjoyed the benefit of an inside look at the Insiders of the
American Establishment.

Admiral Ward is far from alone in rendering this harsh judgement of the CFR.
After surveying the colossal damage done to America and the Free World from
the foreign and domestic policies imposed by members of the Council, many
patriotic Americans have arrived at the same conclusion. These include
historians, journalists, academicians, members of Congress, and other civic
leaders. We will be introducing some of their statements further along in
this book. Morc immediatcly, however, let us examine the origins of thc
Council on Foreign Relations.


Origins of the CFR

According to the CFR's own history:

The origins of the Council on Foreign Relations lay in the concern of the
founders at what they regarded as the disappointing conduct of the
Versailles negotiations ... and at the short-sighted, as they saw it,
rejection by the United States of membership in the League of Nations.
In 1921 they founded the Council as a privately funded, nonprofit and
nonpartisan organization of individual members.(10)

Accompanying President Woodrow Wilson to the Versailles Peace Conference at
the end of World War I were a number of men who would become founders of the
CFR. Preeminent among these was Wilson's closest adviser, the mysterious
Colonel Edward Mandell House. So dependent was Wilson upon House that he
referred to him as "my second personality," "my independent self," "my alter
ego." Further, he asserted, "His thoughts and mine are one."(11) According to
Wilson biographer George Sylvester Viereck, "Woodrow Wilson stalks through
history on the feet of Edward Mandell House."(12) An appreciation of this
abnormal dependency, what Viereck would call "The Strangest Friendship in
History,"(13) is essential to understanding the course of American statecraft
in the ensuing decades.

It was Colonel House who penned the first draft of the covenant of the League
of Nations.(14) He also prevailed on Wilson to convene the group known as the
"Inquiry," a cabal of American one-worlders who formulated much of Wilson's
"Fourteen Points" peace program. Hand-picked by House, the group included
Walter Lippman, Allen W. Dulles, John Foster Dulles, Christian A. Herter, and
Norman Thomas. Director of the Inquiry was Dr. Sidney Mezes, House's
brother-in-law.(15)

Perhaps one of the best sources of insight into the mind and character of
Wilson's "alter ego" is a novel authored by House entitled PHILIP DRU:
ADMINISTRATOR. (16) Although it was published anonymously during the
presidential campaign of 1912, the colonel later acknowledged the book as his
own. He admitted it was "not much of a novel," but that fiction was the best
format for disseminating his political ideas to a large audience.(17) One
need barely open the book's cover to discover the author's radical ideals.
The title page prominently features a quotation by the 19th century
revolutionist and arch-conspirator Giuseppe Mazzini. Identified on the same
page is the book's publisher, B. W. Huebsch, a longtime publisher of leftwing
literature who was affiliated with numerous Communist Party fronts. The
dedication page declares, in typical Marxist fashion, that "in the starting,
the world-wide social structure was wrongly begun." The novel's hero, PHILIP
DRU, opines that American society is "a miserable travesty" and believes in
"Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx," modified with a "spiritual
leavening." Dru leads a military coup, establishes himself as dictator of the
United States, abolishes the constitution and institutes Marxist reforms.

Many of Administrator Dru's "reforms" would later be adopted by President
Wilson. Viereck observed that "The Wilson Administration transferred the
Colonel's ideas from the pages of fiction to the pages of history."(18)
House's novel, commented Dr. J. B. Matthews, "is an indispensable source book
on the origins of Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom and Franklin D. Roosevelt's
New Deal."(19) Through Phili.p Dru, House also proposed a "league of nations"
-- anticipating by seven years Wilson's appeal at Versailles for an
identicallynamed world body.

In its 1928 SURVEY OF AMERICAN FOREIGN RELATIONS, the CFR reported, "In the
first months of the World War a new movement sprang up spontaneously -- the
League to Enforce Peace."(20) Actually, it didn't spring up "spontaneously"
at all. The League was the creation of one Theodore Marburg, a wealthy
internationalist from Maryland, and was funded primarily by Andrew Carnegie,
at the time reputed to be the richest man in the world.(21) The CFR history
recounts that "the four years' activity of the League to Enforce Peace served
the League [of Nations] cause by preparing the public mind for its reception
and by popularizing the ideal of international organization in behalf of
peace."(22) Concerning Wilson's involvement with the Marburg/Carnegie League
to Enforce Peace, the 1928 volume reported:

As early as the autumn of 1914 Wilson said, when looking ahead to the end
of the war; "all nations must be absorbed into some great association of
nations..." When Wilson was persuaded to speak at the League to Enforce
Peace banquet in Washington on May 27, 1916, he endorsed the program of
that organization only indirectly, making no mention of force; but he
advocated the general idea of a league with such ardor that he was
henceforth regarded as its champion.(23)

The U.S. Senate, however, led by "irreconcilables" Henry Cabot Lodge of
Massachusetts and William Borah of Idaho, refused to ratify the Covenant.
Americans were suspicious of entanglements with the constantly warring
European powers and wanted no part of submersion in a world super-state.
Without American participation, the one-worlders' plans for a global
government would come to naught.

"Wilson had done his best in his individualistic way from 1914 to stimulate a
public desire for a liberal peace and a new world order," said the CFR's
director of research Charles P. Howland. But, he wrote, "Men's minds were not
ready for great decisions in a new political field; the mass opinion of
120,000,000 people orientates itself slowly in novel situations."(24)

Obviously, men's minds needed to be made "ready." It was for this purpose
that the Council on Foreign Relations was launched at a May 1919 meeting held
at the Majestic Hotel in Paris. Joining American members of the Inquiry were
like-minded internationalists from Britain belonging to the elite,
semi-secret Round Table group begun by that diamond and gold mogul of fabled
wealth, Cecil Rhodes.(25) According to Rhodes biographer Sarah Millin, "The
government of the world was Rhodes' simple desire."(26)

The Paris meeting was hosted by Colonel House.(27) Out of that gathering was
born an Institute of International Affairs, which would have branches in
London and New York. The locations were appropriate, since as one historian
of the Council observed, "nearly all of them [the CFR's founding members]
were bankers and lawyers."(28) Not just your ordinary, run-of-the-mill
bankers and lawyers, mind you, these were the top international barristers
and financiers of Wall Street who were associated with the magic name of J.
P. Morgan.

"The founding president of the CFR," wrote author James Perloff, "was John W.
Davis, who was J. P. Morgan's personal attorney and a millionaire in his own
right. Founding vice-president was Paul Cravath, whose law firm also
represented the Morgan interests. Morgan partner Russell Leffingwell would
later become the Council's first chairman. A variety of other Morgan
partners, attorneys and agents crowded the CFR's early membership rolls."(29)

In 1921, the American branch of the organization launched in Paris was
incorporated in New York as the Council on Foreign Relations. The British
branch became the Royal Institute of International Affairs, otherwise known
as Chatham House.


CFR Globalist Influence Grows

To propagate its "internationalist" world view among a select intelligentsia,
the Council launched a quarterly journal, FOREIGN AFFAIRS. TIME magazine
called FOREIGN AFFAIRS "the most influential periodical in print,"(30) while
the CFR itself boasts that its journal provides an "insider's look at world
politics."3l Admiral Ward said of its influence: "By following the evolution
of this 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. If a certain
proposition is repeated often enough in that journal, then the U.S.
Administration in power -- be it Republican or Democratic -- begins to act as
if that proposition or assumption were an established fact."(32) ( Emphasis
in original)

The CFR's globalist bent was evident from the first issue of FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
where readers were told, "Our government should enter heartily into the
existing League of Nations..."(33) With CFR members in charge of dispersing
tens of millions of dollars from the major tax-exempt foundations (Carnegie,
Rockefeller, Twentieth Century Fund) each year, it was not long before an
entire nationwide network of one-world support groups was established. BY
1928 the CFR's research division could report to the Council:

University courses dealing with international affairs have trebled in
number since the war; there has been an outpouring of books on foreign
relations, diplomatic history, and international law; periodicals such as
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, CURRENT HISTORY, and the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW, and the information service of the Foreign Policy
Association are supplying materials for a sound background; and
associations and organizations devoted to an impartial discussion of
international relations and the supplying of authentic information have
sprung up in almost every great city. As yet, however, these agencies for
furnishing adequate standards of judgment and accurate current
information have not penetrated very far down in society.(34)

Whether or not the Council's approved sources provided " impartial
discussion," "authentic information," and "adequate standards of judgment" is
something for each reader to decide for himself. It is worth noting, however,
that a congressional investigation by the Special House Committee to
Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations (the Reece Committee) concluded in 1954
that the CFR "productions are not objective but are directed overwhelmingly
at promoting the globalist concept," and that it had become "in essence an
agency of the United States Government ... carrying its internationalist bias
with it."(35)

The director of research for that investigative committee was the same Norman
Dodd whom we quoted in our Introduction (about the astonishing admission to
him by Ford Foundation President H. Rowan Gaither). If Dodd was jarred (and
he was) by Gaither's confessed involvement in a master scheme to merge the
U.S. and the Soviet Union, he was no less shocked by what his investigative
team found in the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

In his 1980 expose, THE TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS, William H. McIlhany, II
interviewed Norman Dodd, who repeated what his investigator Kathryn Casey had
found in the "peace" organization's minutes compiled several years before the
start of World War I:

[In the minutes] the trustees raised a question. And they discussed the
question and the question was specific, Is there any means known to man
more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire
people?" And they discussed this and at the end of a year they came to
the conclusion that there was no more effective means to that end known
to man. So, then they raised question number two, and the question was,
"How do we involve the United States in a war?"

And then they raised the question, "How do we control the diplomatic
machinery of the United States?" And the answer came out, 'e must control
the State Department. At this point we catch up with what we had already
found out and that was that through an agency set up by the Carnegie
Endowment every high appointment in the State Department was cleared.
Finally, we were in a war. These trustees in a meeting about 1917 had the
brashness to congratulate themselves on the wisdom of their original
decision because already the impact of war had indicated it would alter
life and can alter life in this country. This was the date of our entry
in the war; we were involved. THEY EVEN HAD THE BRASHNESS TO WORD AND TO
DISPATCH A TELEGRAM TO MR. WILSON, CAUTIONING HIM TO SEE THAT THE WAR DID
NOT END TOO QUICKLY. [ Emphasis added]

The war was over. Then the concern became, as expressed by the trustees,
seeing to it that there was no reversion to life in this country as it
existed prior to 1914. And they came to the conclusion that, to prevent a
reversion, they must control education. And then they approached the
Rockefeller Foundation and they said, 'ill you take on the acquisition of
control of education as it involves subjects that are domestic in their
significance? We'll take it on the basis of subjects that have an
international significance." And it was agreed.

Then, together, they decided the key to it is the teaching of American
history and they must change that. So, they then approached the most
prominent of what we might call American historians at that time with the
idea of getting them to alter the manner in which they presented the
subject.(36)

The first president of the Endowment was Theodore Roosevelt's Secretary of
State, Elihu Root,(37) who became an honorary member of the CFR in 1922 and
from 1931-37 served as honorary president of the group. Later a U.S. senator
and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Root stated in his address to the CFR, at
the opening of its new headquarters in 1930, that to achieve its goals the
Council would have to engage in "steady, continuous, and unspectacular
labor."(38)

That it has surely done. A host of adjunct organizations were created to
promote the CFR viewpoint: the United World Federalists, Atlantic Council,
Trilateral Commission, Aspen Institute, Business Council, Foreign Policy
Association, etc. Through its members, the CFR steadily gained influence in
and dominance of the executive branch of the federal government, both major
political parties, important organs of the news media, major universities,
influential think tanks, large tax-exempt foundations, huge multi-national
corporations, international banks, and other power centers.

Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger (CFR), who served as a special assistant to
President Kennedy, wrote in 1965 of "the New York financial and legal
community -- that arsenal of talent which had so long furnished a steady
supply ... to Democratic as well as Republican administrations. This
community was the heart of the American Establishment ... its front
organizations [are] the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the
Council on Foreign Relations; its organs, the NEW YORK TIMES and FOREIGN
AFFAIRS."(39)

John J. McCloy was known in CFR Insider circles as "the chairman of the
Establishment." Besides serving as chairman of the CFR from 193 to 1970, and
as chairman of both the Ford Foundation and the Rockefellers' Chase Manhattan
Bank for long periods, hc was friend and advisor to nine U.S. presidents,
from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan.(40) McCloy recalled: "Whenever we
needed a man we thumbed through the roll of the Council members and put
through a call to New York."(41)

The Council's imprimatur has become so essential for many top posts that
veteran CFR member Richard Barnet has stated, "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."(42)

Commenting decades ago on this Insider lockgrip on our government, newspaper
columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt (a granddaughter of Theodore Roosevelt)
wrote:

What is the Establishment's view-point? Through the Roosevc]t, Truman,
Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations its ideology is constant: That the
best way to fight Communism is by a One World Socialist state governed by
"experts" like themselves. The result has been policies which favor the
growth of the superstate, gradual surrender of United States sovereignty
to the United Nations and a steady retreat in the face of Communist
aggression.(43)

That CFR lockhold on the White House and other top positions in the federal
government has continued through to the present. Writing in the September 21,
1992 issue of THE NEW AMERICAN, Robert W. Lee briefly cited some key
indicators of continuing CFR dominance:

At least 13 of the 18 men to serve as Secretary of State since the CFR's
founding have belonged to the organization, not counting current Acting
Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, who is also a member. Our last
eight CIA directors have also belonged, including current chief Robert M.
Gates.

During the past four decades alone, the major-party candidates for
President and Vice President who were, or eventually became, members of
the CFR include: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson, John F. Kennedy,
Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Gerald Ford, Jimmy
Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Henry
Cabot Lodge, Nelson A. Rockefeller, Edmund Muskie, and Geraldine Ferraro.

President Bush was a CFR director in the 1970s. Members of his
Administration who belong include Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney,
National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, CIA Director Wi]liam Webster,
and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell.

The UN founders so highly lauded today were carrying out a decades-old plan
of -- in the words of Admiral Ward -- "promoting disarmament and submergence
of U.S. sovereignty and independence into an all-powerful one-world
government."44 They were " one-world-global-government-ideologists," who
conspired with totalitarian communists to subvert and destroy the
constitutional system of government they had sworn under oath to protect and
uphold. Their treasonous actions, "ideals" and "vision" deserve not honor but
utter contempt.
CHAPTER 5

The Drive for World Government

[T]here is going to be no steady progress in civilization or
self-government among the more backward peoples until some kind of
international system is created which will put an end to the diplomatic
struggles incident to the attempt of every nation to make itself
secure... The real problem today is that of world government.(1)

-- Philip Kerr
Foreign Affairs, December 1922

There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would
approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership
in it. In other words time -- a long time -- will be needed before world
government is politically feasible... [T]his time element might seemingly
be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active
propaganda campaign in this country...(2)

-- Allen W. Dulles (CFR) and Beatrice Pitney Lamb
Foreign Policy Association, 1946

[T]here is no longer a question of whether or not there will be world
government by the year 2000. As 1 see it, the questions we should be
addressing to ourselves are: how it will come into being -- by cataclysm,
drift, more or less rational design -- and whether it will be
totalitarian, benignly elitist, or participatory (the probabilities being
in that order.)(3)

-- Saul H. Mendlovitz, director
World Order Models Project, 1975


A major obstacle to alerting Americans about plans to cancel our national
sovereignty and personal freedoms and to submerge the United States in a
world government is the dissembling double-talk and outright lying routinely
employed by the world government advocates. While groups like Planetary
Citizens, the World Federalist Association, the Association of World
Citizens, the Committee to Frame a World Constitution, the World Constitution
and Parliament Association, the World Association for World Federation, etc.
have usually flown their world government flag openly, the Council on Foreign
Relations and other Establishment groups seeking world government prefer to
obfuscate their aims with terms like "collective security," "the rule of
law," "world law," "global institutions," "interdependence," and "world
order."

As we have already shown and will further demonstrate, the CFR and its
influential members are also on record favoring and promoting world
government. However, most of these public CFR utterances have appeared in
publications and speeches intended for a select, sympathetic audience where
the NEW WORLD ORDER adepts can "unblushingly" (in the words of Lincoln
Bloomfield) contemplate and discuss "world government."(4)

World government is not a subject to which most Americans, or other peoples
of the world for that matter, give much serious thought. However, if John Q.
Citizen does become cognizant of and disturbed about the threat of an
emerging global leviathan, and if he expresses this concern to his
congressman, senator, or local newspaper editor, he either meets with
derisive charges that he is chasing chimera, or he is provided with solemn
denials that plans for world government are even being considered.

This writer experienced a typical example of this derision/denial paradigm in
November 1990 at a branch of Purdue University in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The
occasion was a Citizens Forum to discuss "America's Role in the New World
Order." It featured as its three leading participants: Charles William Maynes
(CFR), editor of FOREIGN POLICY; Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist David
Broder; and Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), former chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee.

All three of these Establishment internationalists enthusiastically touted
the newly enhanced role of the United Nations as a result of the Persian Gulf
War and embraced President Bush's oft-mentioned NEW WORLD ORDER. Attending as
a member of the press, I questioned each of them concerning the meaning of
the term "NEW WORLD ORDER" and its relationship to "a strengthened UN." All
denied that there were any plans to transform the UN into a world government.
" Nobody even talks about world government anymore, or seriously considers
it," said Charles Maynes. People gave up on that idea 30 years ago." Maynes,
whose journal is published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
one of the premier fountains of world government propaganda, obviously knows
better because he regularly publishes the Establishment world order line.

Most Americans, however, find it difficult to believe that individuals in
prestigious positions, like Maynes, the* senator, or the President, would lie
to them or deceive them. But it is time to face facts: The historical record
and the unfolding of current events patently contradict the denials and
expose them for lies.

It daily becomes more obvious that the world government advocates are pushing
toward their goal with increased zeal and audacity. At the time of the Purdue
conference, President Bush was pressing for the most far-reaching transfers
of authority, prestige, and power to the United Nations that have taken place
since its founding. Under the pretext of saving the people of Kuwait from the
"naked aggression" of Saddam Hussein, he trumpeted his "NEW WORLD ORDER"
gospel almost daily, even including as its centerpiece a call for new
military muscle for the world body. In the succeeding months, as we have
mentioned in previous chapters, he went even further, supporting UN
Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali's call for a permanent UN Army and pledging
America's economic and military support for the revolutionary venture.


Extensive Evidence of Intent

Anyone who is willing to spend a little time in a library researching this
issue will have little difficulty verifying that the movement for world
government has been underway in earnest for many decades. It has been led and
supported by CFR members and their kindred spirits for most of this century.
They have left a revealing trail of books, articles, studies, proclamation,
and other documents, some blatantly obvious, others more discreetly veiled --
that unmistakably confirm their intention.

During the 1930s, '40s, and '50s, many influential works by noted political
leaders and intellectuals openly called for the supplanting of national
governments by a one-world government.

In his 1940 book, THE NEW WORLD ORDER, for instance, popular British novelist
and historian H. G. Wells denounced "nationalist individualism" as "the
world's disease" and proposed ag an alternative a "collectivist one-world
state."(5) Wells, a leading member of the Fabian Socialist Society, stated
further:

[T]hese two things, the manifest necessity for some collective world
control to eliminate warfare and the less generally admitted necessity
for a collective control of the economic and biological life of mankind,
are ASPECTS OF ONE AND THE SAME PROCESS.(6) [Emphasis in original]

That same year saw publication of THE CITY OF MAN: A DECLARATION ON WORLD
DEMOCRACY, which called for a "new order" where "All states, deflated and
disciplined, must align themselves under the law of the world-state..."(7)
Penned by radical theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, socialist philosopher Lewis
Mumford, and other famous literati, it was greeted with critical acclaim by
the CFR Establishment media. "Universal peace," these one-worlders declared,
"can be founded only on the unity of man under one law and one
government."(8) No, they were not envisioning the Second Coming of Jesus
Christ and a world subject to God's rule; they had in mind a worldly kingdom
of their own making.

In the fall of 1945, immediately following the UN founding conference in San
Francico, some of America's most famous educators met at the
Rockefeller-endowed University of Chicago to propose the creation of an
Institute of World Government. Their proposal resulted in the Committee to
Frame a World Constitution, under the chairmanship of University of Chicago
Chancellor Robert Maynard Hutchins.(9) Chancellor Hutchins was the
Establishment's golden boy" of academe and the logical choice to lead the
One-World crusade among the nation's intelligentsia. The Committee was heavy
with "Hutchins' boys" from the University of Chicago faculty: Mortimer Adler,
Richard McKeon, Robert Redfield, Wilbur Katz, and Rexford Guy Tugwell. They
were joined by such luminaries as Stringfellow Barr (St. John's College),
Albert Guerard (Stanford), Harold Innis (Toronto), Charles McIlwain
(Harvard), and Erich Kahler (Princeton).(10)

In 1948, the Committee unveiled its PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A WORLD
CONSTITUTION, published by the University of Chicago Press.(11) The principal
author of this document was the Committee's secretary-general, G.A. Borgese,
a renowned author of books dealing with literary criticism, history, and
political science and a professor of romance languages at the University of
Chicago.

The following year, Senator Glen Taylor of Idaho introduced a resolution in
the U.S. Senate stating that "the present Charter of the United Nations
should be changed to provide a true world government constitution."(12)
Authored by Borgese, Hutchins, Tugwell, et al., it was reintroduced in
1950.(13)

John Foster Dulles (CFR), who would become President Eisenhower's first
Secretary of State, added his considerable influence to the world government
campaign in 1950 with the publication of his book, WAR OR PEACE. "THE UNITED
NATIONS," he wrote, "represents not a final stage in the development of world
order, but only a primitive stage. Therefore its primary task is to create
the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed
organization."(14)

A founding member of the CFR and one of Colonel House's young proteges,
Dulles was a delegate to the UN founding conference. He had married into the
Rockefeller family and eventually served as chairman of both the Rockefeller
Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment. It was Chairman Dulles who chose
Communist Alger Hiss to be president of the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace.(15)

Earlier, Dulles had turned his attention toward religion and, in 1941, had
become the first chairman of the Commission on a Just and Durable Peace of
the subversive Federal Council of Churches. The efforts to draft a set of
internationalist principles on which peace might be built sounded to him, he
said, like an echo of the Gospels.(16) His commission's first order of
business was to pass a resolution proclaiming that

... a world of irresponsible, competing and unrestrained national
sovereignties, whether acting alone or in alliance or in coalition, is a
world of international anarchy. It must make place for a higher and more
inclusive authority.(17)

Dulles's credentials as a certified, top-level Establishment Insider
intimately involved in the design and creation of the UN make this following
quote from War or Peace especially significant. He wrote:

I have never seen any proposal made for collective security with "teeth"
in it, or for "world government" or for "world federation," which could
not be carried out either by the United Nations or under the United
Nations Charter.(18)

That same year, 1950, fellow one-world Insider James P. Warburg (CFR) would
testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee, claiming:

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.(19)

Additional intellectual ammunition for the campaign came with publication of
FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD REPUBLIC by Professor Borgese in 1953. There was no
mistaking the book's intent; the publisher (again, the University of Chicago
Press) had this to say in the opening sentences of the promotional fly-leaf
of the book's dust jacket:

WORLD GOVERNMENT, asserts Mr. Borgese, is inevitable. It will be born in
one of two ways. It may come as a World Empire, with mass enslavement
imposed by the victor of World War III; or it may take the form of a
World Federal Republic, established by gradual integration of the United
Nations.(20) [Emphasis in original]

Immediately below that promotional blurb appeared this endorsement from
University of Chicago Professor Robert Redfield: "This book is about the
necessary interdependence of peace, justice, and power. It is an argument for
world government. It is a revelation that justice is, in the end, love."

At about the same time Saturday Review was candidly editorializing:

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.(21)

Lewis Mumford added more endorsements for the idea of a world state with
statements like the following from THE TRANSFORMATIONS OF MAN:

[T]he destiny of mankind, after its long preparatory period of separation
and differentiation, is at last to become one... This unity is on the
point of being politically expressed in a world government that will
unite nations and regions in transactions beyond their individual
capacity...(22)

In his 1959 book THE WEST IN CRISIS, CFR member James P. Warburg (who was
also an Insider banker, economist and former member of FDR's socialist "brain
trust") proclaimed:

... a world order without world law is an anachronism ... since war now
means the extinction of civilization, a world which fails to establish
the rule of law over the nation-states cannot long continue to exist.

We are living in a perilous period of transition from the era of the
fully sovereign nation-state to the era of world government.(23)

Moreover, said Warburg, we must initiate "a deliberate search for methods and
means by which American children may best be educated into ... responsible
citizens not merely of the United States but of the world."(24)

In 1960, Atlantic Union Committee treasurer Elmo Roper (CFR) delivered an
address and authored a pamphlet, both of which were entitled, "The Goal is
Government of All the World." In his appeal for global rule, Roper said:

"For it becomes clear that the first step toward world government cannot
be completed until we have advanced on the four fronts: the economic, the
military, the political, and the social."(25)


Just the Tip of the Iceberg

We have, thus far, barely scratched the surface of the massive accumulation
of world-government propaganda issued during the past several decades.
Several additional chapters could easily be devoted to further presentation
of examples from Establishment sources. We could turn to the late Norman
Cousins (CFR, Planetary Citizens, United World Federalists, editor of
SATURDAY REVIEW), a one-worlder who tended to wear his colors openly. On
Earth Day, April 22,1970, he asserted, "Humanity needs a world order. The
fully sovereign nation is incapable of dealing with the poisoning of the
environment... The management of the planet, therefore -- whether we are
talking about the need to prevent war or the need to prevent ultimate damage
to the conditions of life -- requires a world-government."(26)

We could also cite the HUMANIST MANIFESTO n (1973), a blatantly
anti-Christian, anti-American document openly endorsed by some of America's
most prominent authors, educators, academicians, scientists, and
philosophers. It declares:

We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have
reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to
TRANSCEND THE LIMITS OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY and to move toward the
building of a world community... a system of world law and a world order
based upon transnational federal government.(27) [Emphasis in original]

It would also be worthwhile to discuss the campaign during the 1960s and '70s
for A CONSTITUTION FOR THE WORLD, another effort of Messrs. Tugwell,
Hutchins, et al., funded and promoted by the Ford Foundation through the Fund
for the Republic and the Center for the Study o Democratic Institutions.(28)
Or, we could examine the growing momentum behind more recent efforts, such as
those of the World Constitution and Parliament Association, which have
attracted the support of political figures, jurists, celebrities, and
intellectuals from 85 countries.

In 1991, the World Constitution and Parliament Association launched a "3-year
intensive global ratification campaign" for a proposed "Constitution for the
Federation of Earth." The organization enjoys the support of such "Honorary
Sponsors" as Nobel laureates George Wald, Glenn T. Seaborg (CFR), and Desmond
Tutu, and other notables such as actor Ed Asner, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN editor
and publisher Gerard Piel (CFR), SWAPO terrorist leader and President of
Namibia Sam Nujoma, psychologist Kenneth Clark, and former Attorney General
Ramsey Clark.(29)

We have space here, however, for presentation of only a small selection of
material out of a vast deposit of globalist agit-prop. Those who require more
evidence to become convinced that Americans have been subjected to -- and are
being subjected to -- a conscious, well-orchestrated, long-range propaganda
campaign by the CFR Establishment and its vast network of transmission belts
and allies need only spend some time in a major library perusing the
literature under the subject headings "world government," "world order,"
"interdependence," "internationalism," and "globalism."


Attacks on National Sovereignty

However, while many of the passages we have cited are straightforward appeals
for world government, the CFR Insiders and their one-world propagandists more
frequently resort to the oblique approach of advancing "world order" through
attacks on national sovereignty. Since a one-world government is impossible
as long as nations retain their sovereign powers to conduct their own affairs
as they see fit, it makes sense for the globalists to undermine the whole
concept of national sovereignty. Over a period of time, the peoples of the
world might be convinced gradually to surrender aspects of national
sovereignty to international institutions until, ultimately, world government
is an established fact.

This internationalist theme was delivered to the FOREIGN AFFAIRS reading
audience 70 years ago in the December 1922 Foreign Affairs, the CFR journal's
second issue:

"Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind, so
long as it remains divided into fifty or sixty independent states."(30)

The problem for the CFR was overcoming the American people's "sovereignty
fetish." The Council pondered this difficulty in its 1944 publication
entitled AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION AND POSTWAR SECURITY COMMITMENTS. Therein we
find:

The sovereignty fetish is still so strong in the public mind, that there
would appear to be little chance of winning popular assent to American
membership in anything approaching a super-state organization. Much will
depend on the kind of approach which is used in further popular
education.(31)

The gradualist approach, as outlined for instance in The International
Problem of Governing Mankind, by Columbia University professor and later
World Court justice Philip C. Jessup (CFR), was the strategy most often
adopted by the Insider internationalists. "I agree that national sovereignty
is the root of the evil," Jessup wrote in his 1947 book. But, he noted: "The
question of procedure remains. Can the root be pulled up by one mighty
revolutionary heave, or should it first be loosened by digging around it and
cutting the rootlets one by one?"(32) Like most of his elitist confreres, he
opted for the piecemeal approach.

Archetypal CFR Insider and former FDR Secretary of the Treasury Henry
Morgenthau recognized the need for the step-by-step approach: "We can hardly
expect the nation-state to make itself superfluous, at least not overnight.
Rather what we must aim for is recognition in the minds of all responsible
statesmen that they are really nothing more than caretakers of a bankrupt
international machine which will have to be transformed slowly into a new
one. The transition will not be dramatic, but a gradual one. People will
still cling to national symbols."(33)

Years later, in 1975, former Secretary of the Treasury C. Douglas Dillon, an
ardent CFR globalist and honorary chairman of the Institute for World Order,
admitted that it would still "take a while before people in this country as a
whole will be ready for any substantial giving-up of sovereignty to handle
global problems."(34)

Not that members of the CFR crowd were taking a lackadaisical attitude. Far
from it -- they had been engaged in full-scale sovereignty-bashing for
decades.

In his 1960 book THE UNITED STATES IN THE WORLD ARENA, Walt Whitman Rostow
(CFR), who would rise to become chairman of the State Department's Policy
Planning Board and the President's national security advisor, declared:

[I]t is a legitimate American national objective to see removed from all
nations -- including the United States -- the right to use substantial
military force to pursue their own interests. Since this residual right
is the root of national sovereignty and the basis for the existence of an
international arena of power, it is, therefore, an American interest to
SEE AN END TO NATIONHOOD as it has been historically defined.(35)
[Emphasis added]

That kind of statement -- literally advocating an end to our nation and our
constitutional system of government -- should have immediately disqualified
Rostow for any government position. It would be impossible for him, in good
faith, to take the oath of office to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution
while adhering to such a position. However, quite to the contrary, it was
this very same subversive, internationalist commitment that guaranteed his
promotion by fellow one-world Insiders.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the war against national sovereignty was being
led by the likes of Senator J. William Fulbright, longtime chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and one of the most influential members of
Congress. In his 1964 book Old Myths and New Realities, Fulbright declared:

Indeed, the concept of national sovereignty has become in our time a
principle of international anarchy...(36)

* * *

... the sovereign nation can no longer serve as the ultimate unit of
personal loyalty and responsibility.(37)

New York Governor and perennial presidential aspirant Nelson Rockefeller also
certified his globalist credentials with frequent attacks on nationalism.
Echoing the familiar Establishment theme at the 1962 Godkin lectures at
Harvard University, he averred that "the nation-state, standing alone,
threatens, in many ways, to seem as anachronistic as the Greek city-state
eventually became in ancient times."(38)

In his Harvard lectures, published in 1964 under the title THE FUTURE OF
FEDERALISM, Rockefeller warned against the "fever of nationalism" and
declared that "the nation-state is becoming less and less competent to
perform its international political tasks."(39) His solutions? "All these,
then, are some of the reasons -- economic, military, political -- pressing us
to lead vigorously toward the true building of a NEW WORLD ORDER."(40)
[Emphasis added] "More specifically, I hope and urge," stated Mr.
Rockefeller, "... there will evolve the bases for a federal structure of the
free world."(41)

In his 1972 book WORLD WITHOUT BORDERS, Worldwatch Institute President Lester
Brown (CFR) noted the continuing "problem" faced by himself and his fellow
globalists: "Needless to say, sovereign nation-states steadfastly resist the
transfer of power necessary to create strong supranational institutions."(42)
He continued:

There is discussion from time to time on the need for a full-fledged
world government. Realistically, this is not likely to come about in the
short run. If we can build some of the supranational institutions that
are needed in various areas ... adding them to the International Monetary
Fund, INTELSAT and the many others already in existence, these will
eventually come to constitute an effective, though initial]y limited
world government.(43)

The "existing international system," Brown has declared, "... must be
replaced by a NEW WORLD ORDER."(44) [Emphasis added]


"Declaration of INTERdependence"

One of the Insiders' most audacious propaganda gambits in support of the new
world order was the world-government-promoting "Declaration of
INTERdependence," unveiled in 1975 during the planning for our nation's 1976
bicentennial.(45) Sponsored by the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia and
written by Establishment historian Henry Steele Commager (CFR), the
"Declaration of INTERdependence" turned the Founding Fathers upside-down,
declaring:

When in the course of history the threat of extinction confronts mankind,
it is necessary for the people of The United States to declare their
INTERDEPENDENCE with the people of all nations...

To establish a NEW WORLD ORDER of compassion, peace, justice and
security, it is essential that mankind free itself from the limitations
of national prejudice, and acknowledge ... that all people are part of
one global community... [Emphasis added]

The document's penultimate paragraph, and its real raison d'etre, declares:
"We affirm that A WORLD WITHOUT LAW IS A WORLD WITHOUT ORDER, and we call
upon all nations TO STRENGTHEN AND TO SUSTAIN THE UNITED NATIONS and its
specialized agencies, and other institutions of world order..." [Emphasis
added]

Amazingly, 124 members of Congress endorsed this attack on our constitutional
system of limited government. One of those who did not support this
declaration was the late Congressman John Ashbrook (R-OH), who charged:

Unlike the Declaration of Independence, whose great hallmarks are
guarantees of individual personal freedom and dignity for all Americans
and an American Nation under God, the declaration abandons those
principles in favor of cultural relativism, international citizenship,
and supremacy over all nations by a world government.

The declaration of interdependence is an attack on loyalty to American
freedom and institutions, which the document calls "chauvinistic
nationalism," "national prejudice," and "narrow notions of national
sovereignty."(46)

To accompany, promote, and expand upon the "Declaration of INTERdependence,"
the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia and the Aspen Institute published
THE THIRD TRY AT WORLD ORDER: U.S. POLICY FOR AN INTERDEPENDENT WORLD written
by Harlan Cleveland (CFR).* In that book, Cleveland, a former Assistant
Secretary of State and U.S. Ambassador to NATO, lamented 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.(47)

* Like many of his fellow Establishment Insiders -- Walt and Eugene Rostow,
Dean Acheson, John McCloy, and Robert McNamara -- Cleveland had a long
career on the far left that is worthy of note. Dr. Francis X. Gannon, in
his authoritative BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF THE LEFT, recorded: "At
Princeton, Cleveland was president of the Anti-War Society for three
years and in the Princeton yearbook he listed himself as a 'Socialist.'"
Intelligence expert Frank A. Capell reported in his column for THE REVIEW
OF THE NEWS for August 21, 1974: Cleveland wrote articles for Far Eastern
Survey and Pacific Affairs, publications of the Institute of Pacific
Relations, a subversive organization described by the Senate Judiciary
Committee as 'an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda and military
intelligence.' He worked with John Abt and other key Reds on the staff of
the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee. He worked as deputy to Soviet
agent Harold Glasser inside U.N.R.R.A. [United Nations Relief and
Rehabilitation Administration] and took part in 'Operation Keelhaul,'
sending nearly five million Europeans into Russian concentration camps."
William J. Gill's shocking 1969 expose of the extensive subversion in the
U.S. government, THE ORDEAL OF OTTO OTEPKA (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington
House), devotes more than two chapters to the pro-communist exploits of
Harlan Cleveland. After having been brought into the State Department
during the Kennedy Administration on a security waiver signed by Dean
Rusk, Cleveland began to load up his staff with other security risks. One
of those he tried to hire was his longtime friend Irving Swerdlow, who
had been discharged eight years earlier as a security risk. He then
stunned Otto Otepka, the chief of the State Department's personnel
security, by asking: "What are the chances of getting Alger Hiss back
into the Government?" In 1962, the State Department's Advisory Committee
on International Organizations, chaired by Cleveland, attempted to devise
an end run around the security checks on Americans employed by the United
Nations. The new security procedures had been instituted in the wake of
the Hiss espionage scandal and the revelations that he and his brother,
Donald Hiss, had personally recruited more than 200 people for UN jobs.
(For further information, see also STATE DEPARTMENT SECURITY 1963-65: THE
OTEPKA CASE, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee Hearings, 1963-65.)

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."(48) It was a
recapitulation of what he had written in 1964 in the foreword to Richard N.
Gardner's book, IN PURSUIT OF WORLD ORDER, wherein Cleveland stated: "A
decent world order will only be built brick by brick."(49)


Piece by Piece, Brick by Brick

CFR luminary Richard N. Gardner took this same message of patient, persistent
plodding to the Council's members and followers in 1974, with his now-famous
article in FOREIGN AFFAIRS entitled "The Hard Road to World Order." Since
hopes for "instant world government" had proven illusory, he wrote, "the
house of world order" would have to be built through "an end run around
national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece." This could be done, he
noted, on an ad hoc basis with treaties and international "arrangements" that
could later be brought within "the central institutions of the U.N.
system."(50)

As we shall see, this gradualist road to world order, as outlined by Jessup,
Cleveland, Gardner, et al. -- "root by root," "brick by brick," "piece by
piece" -- has been followed assiduously by the one-worlders and is now
rapidly approaching completion. However, even at this late hour, it still is
not too late to throw a wrench into their well-oiled machine and topple their
planned "house of world order" like a house of cards.




Published by
Western Islands
Post Office Box 8040
Appleton, Wisconsin 54913
(414) 749-3786

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 92-081764
ISBN: 0-88279-135-4

Copyright (c) 1992 by Western Islands
All rights reserved
(reprinted with permission)