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
• 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,
[T]here is no longer a question of whether or not
there will be world government by the year 2000. As I 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 flags 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
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
Most Americans, however, find it difficult to believe that
individuals in prestigious positions, like Maynes, their senator, or
the President, would lie to them or deceive them. But it is time to
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
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, proclamations, 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/historian H. G.
Wells denounced “nationalist individualism” as “the world’s disease”
and proposed as an alternative a “collectivist one-world state.”5
Wells, a leading member of the Fabian Socialist Society, stated
[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
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
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 Francisco, 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
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 GuŽrard (Stanford),
Harold Innis (Toronto), Charles McIlwain (Harvard), and Erich Kahler
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 secretarygeneral, 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 Eisen’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
member of the CFR and one of Colonel House’s young protŽgŽs, 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”)
... 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
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
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,
“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
We could also cite the Humanist Manifesto II
(1973), a blatantly anti-Christian, anti-American document openly
endorsed by some of America’s most prominent authors, educators,
academicians, scientists, and philosophers.
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 of 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
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,”
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.
internationalist theme was delivered to the Foreign Affairs reading
audience 70 years ago in the CFR journal’s second issue. “Obviously
there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind,” the
December 1922 Foreign Affairs claimed, “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
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.
his 1964 book Old Myths and New Realities, Fulbright declared:
Indeed, the concept of national sovereignty has become in our time a
... 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
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 nationstates steadfastly resist the transfer of power necessary to
create strong supranational institutions.”42
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 initially 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
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,
“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
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
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
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
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.
• 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,
“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
(For further information, see also State Department Security
1963-65: The Otepka Case, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee
1. Philip Kerr, “From Empire to Commonwealth,” Foreign Affairs,
December 1922, pp. 97-98, quoted
by James Perloff, The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign
Relations And The American Decline
(Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1988), p. 11.
2. Allen W. Dulles and Beatrice Pitney Lamb, The United Nations
(booklet), Headline Series, No. 59
(New York: The Foreign Policy Association, September-October, 1946),
pp. 44, 86, quoted by Alan
Stang, The Actor: The True Story of John Foster Dulles Secretary of
State, 1953 – 1959 (Appleton, WI:
Western Islands, 1968), pp. 127, 180.
3. Saul H. Mendlovitz in Introduction, Saul H. Mendlovitz (ed.). On
the Creation of a Just World Order:
Preferred Worlds for the 1990’s (New York: The Free Press, 1975), p.
4. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, A World Effectively Controlled by the
United Nations, Institute For Defense
Analyses, March 10, 1962. Prepared for the IDA in support of a study
submitted to the Department of
State under contract No. SCC 28270, February 24, 1961, p. 3.
5. H. G. Wells, The New World Order (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1940), p. 9.
6. Ibid., pp. 23-24.
7. Reinhold Niebuhr, Lewis Mumford, et al., The City of Man: A
Declaration on World Democracy
(New York: Viking Press, 1940), p. 25.
8. Ibid., p. 23.
9. Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, A Constitution
for the World (New York: The Fund
for the Republic, 1965), p. 7.
10. Ibid., p. 8.
11. Ibid., p. 6, 8-9.
12. Senate Concurrent Resolution 66 first introduced in the Senate
on September 13, 1949 by Senator
Glen Taylor (D-ID), quoted by Dennis L. Cuddy, The “New World
Order”: A Critique and Chronology,
a pamphlet (Milford, PA: America’s Future, Inc., 1992), p. 10.
13. Cuddy, p. 10.
14. John Foster Dulles, War or Peace (New York: Macmillan, 1950), p.
40, quoted by Robert W. Lee,
The United Nations Conspiracy (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1981),
15. William H. McIlhany II, The Tax-Exempt Foundations (Westport,
CT: Arlington House, 1980), p.
40. See also, Alan Stang, The Actor: The True Story of John Foster
Dulles Secretary of State, 1953 –
1959 (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1968), pp. 164-65.
16. Rev. Edmund A. Opitz, “Religious Propagandists for the UN,” The
Freeman, March 1955, p. 382.
18. Dulles, War or Peace, p. 204, quoted by Lee, p. 115.
19. Senate Report (Senate Foreign Relations Committee), Revision of
the United Nations Charter:
Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, Eighty-First Congress
(Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1950) p. 494.
20. Giuseppe Antonio Borgese, Foundations of the World Republic
(Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press,
1953), inside flap of dust jacket.
21. Editorial, “The Climate of Freedom,” The Saturday Review, July
19, 1952, p. 22.
22. Lewis Mumford, The Transformations of Man (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1956), p. 184.
23. James P. Warburg, The West in Crisis (Garden City, NY: Doubleday
& Company, Inc., 1959), p. 30.
24. Ibid., p. 171.
25. “The Goal is Government of All the World, “ an address by
Atlantic Union Committee treasurer
Elmo Roper delivered in 1960, quoted by Dennis L. Cuddy, Now Is the
Dawning of the New Age New
World Order (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, Ltd., 1991), p.
26. Norman Cousins, abstracts from two addresses delivered on Earth
Day, April 22, 1970 published as
“Managing the Planet,” in Earth Day – The Beginning (New York: Arno
Press & The New York Times,
1970), p. 242.
27. Humanist Manifesto II first appeared in The Humanist,
September/October 1973 (Vol. XXXIII,
No.5). See also, Paul Kurtz (ed.), “Humanist Manifesto II” in
Humanist Manifestos I and II (Buffalo,
NY: Prometheus Books, 1973), p. 21.
28. A Constitution for the World, op. cit.
29. Sponsorship list from World Constitution and Parliament
Association, 1480 Hoyt Street, Suite 31,
Lakewood, CO 80215.
30. Kerr, pp. 97-98.
31. American Public Opinion and Postwar Security Commitments (New
York: CFR, 1944), p. 4, quoted
by Alang Stang, The Actor (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1968), p.
32. Philip C. Jessup, International Problems of Governing Mankind
(Claremont, CA: Claremont
Colleges, 1947), p. 2.
33. Hans (Henry) Morgenthau, quoted by Lester R. Brown, World
Without Borders (New York: Vintage
Books, 1972), p. 353.
34. “Why We Need to Change the System, And How We Can Do It,”
Transition, a bi-monthly
publication of the Institute for World Order, Inc., Vol. 2., No.1,
January 1975, p. 3.
35. Walt Whitman Rostow, The United States in the World Arena (New
York: Harper & Brothers,
1960), p. 549.
36. J. William Fulbright, Old Myths and New Realities (New York:
Random House, 1964), p. 87.
37. Ibid., p. 108.
38. Nelson A. Rockefeller, The Future of Federalism: The Godkin
Lectures at Harvard University, 1962
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964), p. 64.
39. Ibid., 67.
40. Ibid., p. 74.
41. Ibid., p. 79-80.
42. Brown, p. 353.
43. Ibid., p. 354.
44. Lester Brown, quoted by Cuddy, Now is the Dawning, p. 266.
45. Henry Steele Commager, “The Declaration of INTERdependence”,
October 24, 1975. World Affairs
Council of Philadelphia, 1975.
46. John Ashbrook, quoted in Congressional Record, May 12, 1976, p.
47. Harlan Cleveland, The Third Try at World Order (New York: Aspen
Institute for Humanistic
Studies, 1976), p. 2.
48. Ibid., pp. 8-9.
49. Harlan Cleveland in Introduction, Richard N. Gardner, In Pursuit
of World Order: U.S. Foreign
Policy and International Organizations (New York: Fredrick A.
Praeger, 1964), p. xviii.
50. Richard N. Gardner, “The Hard Road to World Order,” Foreign
Affairs, April 1974, p. 558-59.