|
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 overabundance of people, a shortage of natural resources,
or even from the frequently offered scenarios of “rogue” elements in
the former USSR acquiring control 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:
-
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
-
the gradual but accelerating
merger or “convergence” of the U.S. and Russia through increasing
economic, political, social, and military agreements and
arrangements
-
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 anti-American
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.”5
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
anti-American 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 East7 — 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
[Iraq-Kuwait] 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-tobe-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
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 “establishment 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’s
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.
Yet, contrary to the many seductive pro-UN siren songs, the lessons
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.
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. The
people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.
• Edmund Burke (1784)
Notes
1. For factual information and perspective on developments in the
USSR and Eastern Europe, see, for example, the following articles
from The New American: John F. McManus interview with Russian chess
grandmaster Lev Albert, “Lev Albert’s Defense,” March 30, 1987; Kirk
Kidwell, “Has the Soviet Union Changed?” August 29, 1988; Robert W.
Lee, “U.S.S.R. & Eastern Europe,” January 29, 1991;
James J. Drummey, “Nice Smile, Iron Teeth,” March 12, 1991; Robert
W. Lee, “The New, Improved
USSR,” November 19, 1991; William F. Jasper, “From the Atlantic to
the Urals (and Beyond),” January
27, 1992; William F. Jasper, “Meeting Ground of East and West,”
February 24, 1992.
2. George J. Church, “A New World,” Time, September 17, 1990, p. 23.
3. President Bush in a televised address before a Joint Session of
Congress, September 11, 1990, Weekly Compilation of Presidential
Documents, September 17, 1990, Vol. 26 — Number 37, pp. 1359-60.
4. Robert W. Lee, The United Nations Conspiracy (Appleton, WI:
Western Islands, 1981), p. ix.
5. Ibid., p. xi.
6. Andrew Tully, “[Mayor] Koch Should Chase UN Out of Town,” San
Gabriel Valley Tribune (CA), March 3, 1982.
7. Author in telephone interview with Matthew Norzig, UN spokesman
at UN information Office, Washington, DC on September 11, 1992:
40,000+ UN troops in 12 operations in 13 countries.
8. “American Support for United Nations Highest in 20 Years; Strong
Support for Permanent Peacekeeping Force,” The Gallup Poll News
Service, Vol. 55, No. 23, October 24, 1990.
9. Ibid.
10. William H. McIlhany, II, The Tax-Exempt Foundations (Westport,
CT: Arlington House, 1980), p.
63. See also Norman Dodd, videotaped interview of, The Hidden
Agenda: Merging America Into World
Government, Westlake Village, CA: American Media, one hour (VHS).
11. Walt Whitman Rostow, The United States in the World Arena (New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1960), p. 549.
12. Senator Jesse Helms, Congressional Record, December 15, 1987, p.
S 18146.
13. Hermann Rauschning, Hitler m’a dit (Paris: CoopŽration,1939),
quoted by Jean-Michel Angebert,
The Occult and the Third Reich (New York: Macmillan, 1974), p. 155.
Back to
Contents
|