Part 2:Treason...The New World Order

Normally I do more then one chapter at a time here,but I had to make exception here. I figured that if the reader is anything like myself,he or she would be plenty disgusted,and not much more for reading.Plenty of quotes and all out in the open,some of course you have seen before,but to see this much arrogance in 15-20 pages,is just totally disgusting.

Treason 

the New World Order 

by Gurudas

Chapter IV 

The New World Order 

“We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” 

-Justice Louis D. Brandeis- 

“The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.” 

-Abraham Lincoln- 

In hundreds of books, articles, studies, and speeches in the 20th century, many influential and powerful people including many in Congress have called for a new world order and the surrender of U.S. sovereignty and individual freedoms to a one world government usually, involving the UN. People who attack these plans are called paranoid conspiracy theorists, extremists, or racists, but the national media ignores this extensive literature. Consider this, and you will begin to appreciate how the press deliberately and maliciously uses propaganda to lie to the people. When confronted with this evidence, elitists deny the existence of this literature or lie and say this is no longer the policy. Some, like Kenneth S. Stern in A Force Upon the Plain, make a brief comment about one part of this literature, downplaying and making fun of it to fool the public. People who think it is paranoid to be concerned about those who call for a world government should ask why this literature exists and why critics of the right almost never discuss this material. When you carefully study this literature and the events of the 20th century, the threat to our rights and way of life in a one world government with a new corporate-inspired Constitution is obvious. 

During the 20th century many prominent leaders have supported the new world order and world government. For instance, on May 13, 1947 in London Winston Churchill said: “Unless some effective world super government, for the purposes of preventing war, can be set up and begin its reign, the prospects for peace and human progress are dark and doubtful....Without a United Europe there is no prospect of world government.” 1 Elsewhere Churchill said: “The creation of an authoritative world order is the ultimate aim toward which we must strive.” Charles De Gaulle said: “Nations must unite in a world government or perish.” Nehru said: “We have arrived at a stage where the next step must comprise a world and all its states, each having economic independence, but submitting to the authority of world organization.” 2 

Secrecy is very important to these people. While many leading politicians support a world government, they refuse to openly discuss this topic with voters. In a 1976 interview in Transition, Senator Cranston warned against publicly promoting world government since “the more talk about world government the less chance of achieving it, because it frightens people....” 3 Jeffrey A. Baker said: “They camouflage their actions through the actions of others, constantly hiding behind people or institutions of purported good intent.” When information leaks out, like the Report From Iron Mountain, it is always attacked by the media and corporate-approved experts. These experts hide their plans by denial or by claiming they are protecting the people's rights. In 1931 Arnold Toynbee said: “We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty (from) nation states....All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local nation states of the world is still a heresy....” 

The Brandt Commission, a multinational group of national leaders and international financiers, defined the new world order as “A supra-national authority to regulate world commerce and industry; an international organization that would control the production and consumption of oil; an international currency that would replace the dollar; a world development fund that would make funds available to free and communist nations alike; an international police force to enforce the edicts of the New World Order.” 

The goal of the new world order is for the large corporations and superrich to totally control the world's population, resources, communications, finances, trade, and labor. This involves manipulating economics, politics, society, and religion on a global level. Lincoln Bloomfield wrote “Arms Control and World Government” in the July, 1962 journal World Politics. The article began: “The notion of a world government is today—and perhaps for all time—a fantastic one.” Walter B. Wriston, ex-chairman of Citicorp, wrote The Twilight of Sovereignty, explaining how the information revolution was ending nation-state sovereignty. He said: “A truly global economy will require concessions of national power and compromises of national sovereignty that seemed impossible a few years ago and which even now we can but partly imagine.” World citizenship is to become the standard. Already the Boy Scouts of America have a citizenship of the world merit badge. 

Individuals in all nations must submit to international law and a world court. World law, not our Constitution, will rule supreme, and a world parliament is planned. On June 14, 1992 on ABC's This Week with David Brinkley, ex-Reagan adviser Michael Deaver said: “In five years we're going to have a World Parliament.” Free trade with a stable system of payments is part of the plan, as is controlling the central bank in many countries like our Federal Reserve. These elitists believe the only way to make big money is through a monopoly. John D. Rockefeller once said “Competition is a sin.” The free market myth is perpetuated by the giant corporations that strive to increase government regulation to limit competition, to enhance their profits and power. The plan is to also establish a new world religion and to remake the education system. 

To reach these goals requires the destruction of the nation state, sovereignty, patriotism, nationalism, property rights, and the family unit. In the book Experiences, Toynbee, who spent many years working at the Chatham House discussed in Chapter III, said: “We are now moving into a chapter of human history in which our choice is going to be...between one world and no world....In the field of politics, nationalism is going to be subordinated to world-government....” 4 Elsewhere Toynbee said: “The cult of sovereignty has become mankind's major religion. Its God demands human sacrifice.” On September 29, 1988, on ABC's Nightline Ted Koppel referred to nationalism as a virus. By controlling people, world government can be established. 

There is an intimate relationship between socialism and those promoting the new world order with a one world government. Many early Fabian socialists like H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and George Bernard Shaw supported world government and an end to sovereignty. Fabian socialists established the London School of Economics to train government bureaucrats to enhance central government control. Ultimately socialism is a greater threat than is communism, because socialism uses a gradual and insidious approach to achieve total control over the people, while the objectives of communism are more obvious. In the early 1900s when plans for a world government were further developed, businessmen like Cecil Rhodes provided money and influence while socialist intellectuals contributed ideas to achieve world government. 

A constant strategy is to claim that governments must work together to solve the major problems of today. Supposedly, it is beyond the ability of individual nations to solve today's problems, so there must be a co-ordinated world strategy. A global approach with world government is needed to solve global problems, especially as the world gets more complex. Arnold Toynbee said: “In all developed countries a new way of life—a severely regimented way—will have to be imposed by a ruthless authoritarian government.” 5 The plan is to create a world army, world court, world currency, world bank, and world tax. Each state will have only a lightly armed police force, while private gun ownership will end. 

Previously, the nuclear threat was stressed. Jonathan Schell, in The Fate of the Earth, said world government was essential to avoid nuclear destruction. Today environmental concerns, third world poverty, food shortages, hunger, and national debts are more often used as an excuse for a world government. At a recent conference of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, the German Chancellor said: “The stability of the new world order and the new global challenges require cooperation between all global players to fight organized crime, international terrorism, fundamentalism, and nationalism. The First Global Revolution A Report By the Council of the Club of Rome presented similar views. The Club of Rome is one of the corporate groups pushing for world government. Maurice Strong, a senior UN environmental official, said: We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” 

Supposedly, if certain steps aren't taken by the elites of the world, conditions will continue to deteriorate so the poor will inherit the earth and live in misery. The U.S. standard of living is being deliberately lowered to the lowest common denominator to match that of many other nations to promote world government. It is claimed that democracy, or rule by the people, has too many limitations to really work especially in the current grave crisis. “Democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead....Few politicians in office are sufficiently aware of the global nature of the problems in front of them and have little if any awareness of the interactions between the problems.” 6 Supposedly, the people need the wise hand of the elite, even if they don't realize this. The elite have decided this on their own and believe they must act to save the world, also making themselves rulers to save the people who have no say in the matter. The people must continue believing they have a say in government, although that is a lie. CFR member George C. Lodge has just released Managing Globalization in the Age of Interdependence, in which he called for world “convergence and integration.” If necessary, this convergence will be created by autocratically imposed fiat. Government will decide what the people need, and the people will be reeducated to accept this new ideology. 

Fateful Visions, edited by CFR members, reviews from many sources what a world government will entail. For instance, some declare a world government will have the right to militarily enter a nation when there is just a rumor that a nation will take disruptive action, or to support world government policy. A nation's leaders could be arrested and direct rule imposed as in Somalia. The world government army, at least 500,000 strong, will control all nuclear weapons, and extensive international inspection will be required to maintain control. Admittedly, there may be a misuse of international police powers. As the debate to establish world government intensifies, civil war might occur in some countries as local patriots try to block their nation from joining a world government, and foreign troops will be used to defeat the patriots and support the pro-world government faction. Bloomfield explains how a UN international military force would be used to invade various countries. 7 In other words, if the U.S. government continues moving towards world government and widespread violence starts with the militias trying to save our Republic, UN troops would be brought in to destroy the militias. In addition, once world government is established, secession will not be allowed. Once a consensus has formed to establish a world government, all nations will have to join it. If some nations refused to do this, it supposedly would threaten peace, so force would be used against them. 8 

While most people remain asleep, elitists have for decades had deadly serious debates about how to create a one world government. The Institute for World Order, Inc. (now the World Policy Institute) through its newsletter, numerous books, and lectures has promoted world government for years. Richard Falk, in the Yale Law Journal, reviewed four proposed strategics to create a world government. The first is the Utopian legalism of Clark and Sohn, as discussed in Introduction to World Peace Through World Law, and World Peace Through World Law. A second approach is Kissinger's geopolitical power politics, while a third school of thought involving the multinational corporations and Trilateral Commission is more geoeconomic. A fourth view involves global populism and human dignity. Falk rejected the first approach as too unrealistic and the second and third approaches for being too ruthless and exploitative. As a Utopian dreamer, he believes the fourth approach will best serve the people. Falk and others also seriously debate the importance of time and a transitional period for the claimed paradigm shift into a world government. 9 

Paul Warburg, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950, said: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it—by conquest or consent.” 10 Warburg was a prominent Wall Street financier and CFR leader. His father helped establish the Federal Reserve. In 1959 he wrote The West in Crisis saying: “A world order without world law is an anachronism; and that, 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....” 11 The Economist June 22, 1991 called for a global police force, an international court, and said the U.S. must submit to “a collective world order.” 

The second Humanist Manifesto in 1973 said: “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 world order based upon transnational federal government.” Several strategics are being used to create a world government. One plan is to gradually strengthen the UN and related international institutions. The UN has published many documents calling for its expanded role, and Global Bondage by Cliff Kincaid is a good reference on this. Second, regional governments and institutions are developing. Third, economic union is being used to create a political union. 12 The plan is to make people more dependent on each other, to become comfortable with international institutions and control. Richard N. Gardner said, in Foreign Affairs in April, 1974, “The hopeful aspect of the present situation is that even as nations resist appeals for 'world government' and 'the surrender of sovereignty,' technological, economic and political interests are forcing them to establish more and more far-ranging institutions to manage their mutual interdependence.” David Korten of the People-Centered Development Forum, a pro-UN group, presented a paper at the 1995 International Development Conference revealing part of the strategy to create world government. He said, led by multinational banks, global consolidation was being promoted from above with NAFTA, GATT, and the Maastricht treaty, and it was being promoted from below by environmentalists, activists, and indigenous people. 

The plan to create a one world government using a UN type body has existed for decades. About the League of Nations in 1922 Foreign Affairs declared: “Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind so long as it remains divided into fifty or sixty independent states....The real problem today is that of world government.” 13 The United Nations: Planned Tyranny, by V. Orval Watts, was published in 1955. In great detail, Walls described the coming one world government and the UN's role in it. One person I spoke to in researching this book told me her father, who worked in defense in the 1950s, learned of these plans. Another contact working in the U.S. military in the early 1980s was ordered to provide highly classified documents to the Soviets. When he refused, he was told that by the end of this century the U.S. and the Soviet Union would join in a one world government. When he still refused to commit treason, his career was ruined. 

Right from the start, the elite always planned for the UN to be a vehicle towards a one world corporate dictatorship. On September 7, 1948, The Philadelphia Inquirer quoted Senator Alben Barkley as stating: “The time is not yet mature for what we mean by world government....We must strengthen the UN before we can achieve our goal of world government.” John Foster Dulles, in 1950, wrote War or Peace saying: “The UN 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....Then, perhaps, a world police force could work.” 14 On September 17, 1990, Time magazine said: “The Bush administration would like to make the UN a cornerstone of its plans to construct a New World Order.” On March 6, 1991, Bush told Congress: “Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is a very real prospect of a new world order....A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders.” On February 1, 1992, Bush said: “My vision of a New World Order forsees a UN with a revitalized peacekeeping function. It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN charter to which we henceforth pledge our allegiance.” A president should only pledge his allegiance to the U.S. and the Constitution. The UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali recently said: “The time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed; its theology was never matched by reality.” 

A constant issue raised by elitists is a concern about overpopulation, food shortages, and the environment. Especially since the turn of the last century, various scientists have said overpopulation threatened economic growth and our very existence. George Bernard Shaw, a Fabian socialist and early supporter of world government, in 1928 wrote The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism. He said people would be forcible fed, taught, and employed even if they didn't like this but “If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner....” 

In Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Thought, H.G. Wells said: “The ethical system which will dominate the world state, will be shaped primarily to favor...beautiful and strong bodies, clear and powerful minds...and to check the procreation of base and servile types....The new ethics will hold life to be a privilege and a responsibility...and the alternative in right conduct between living fully beautifully, and efficiently will be to die....The men of the New Republic (one world government) will have little pity and less benevolence....They will hold...that a certain portion of the population exists only on sufferance...and on the understanding that they do not propagate, and I do not foresee any reason to suppose that they will not hesitate to kill when that sufferance is abused....The men of the New Republic will not be squeamish either in facing or inflicting death....They will have an ideal that will make killing worth the while;....They will have the faith to kill....If deterrent punishments are used at all in the code of the future the deterrent will (be) good scientifically caused pain.” 15 

Franklin Roosevelt closely followed and supported Well's views on having a world government. On December 4, 1933 he wrote Wells saying: “I have read, with pleasure and profit, almost everything that you have written....You are doing much to educate people everywhere, and for that I am grateful.” On February 13, 1935 he wrote Wells: “How do you manage to retain such extraordinary clear judgements?...I believe our (the New Deal) biggest success is making people think during these past two years. They may not think straight but they are thinking in the right direction—and your direction and mine are not so far apart....” 

Born into an English aristocratic family, the philosopher Bertrand Russell played a role in the British branch of the secret government. In various books like Fact or Fiction, The Impact of Science on Society, and The Prospects of Industrial Civilization, Russell called for world government. On July 11, 1955, he and others presented a manifesto claiming that nuclear war threatened humanity's survival, so national sovereignty must be limited. At times, Russell openly expressed his contempt for the common man. In The Impact of Science on Society he discussed the planned terror: “I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing....War...has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full....The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's. There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority....These considerations prove that a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government....Unless...one power or group of powers emerges victorious and proceeds to establish a single government of the world with a monopoly of armed force, it is clear that the level of civilization must continually decline....” 16

In 1948 Julian Huxley, the first head of UNESCO, wrote UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy. He spoke of “the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization....Political unification in some sort of world government will be required....Even though...any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” 17 Ex - Senator William Benton said: “In its education program (UNESCO) can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization....Political unification in some sort of world government will be required.” 

In 1968 the Club of Rome concluded that civilization would collapse unless the death rate was increased and the birth rate was lowered. Various investigators, like John Coleman, report the Club of Rome developed a plan Global 2000 to kill several billion people by 2050. The mass killings in Cambodia and Africa are early stages of this operation. Paul Ehrlich, famous for his work on the population threat, said it might be necessary to add “a sterilant to the drinking water or staple foods” to sterilize the entire population, giving the antidote to a select few. 18 The forced sterilization programs of India and China may be the wave of the future in a corporate controlled society. In The Population Bomb, Ehrlich said: The population will drop from one of two solutions. The birth rate will be lowered or the “death rate solution” will be used through “war, famine, pestilence.” Ehrlich's wife is a member of the Club of Rome. 19 He also said the “time of sugar coated solutions is long gone,” and in a recent PBS documentary Ehrlich said: “If you don't solve the population problem the environment will collapse and our civilization will go along with it.” 

The UN Fund for Population Activities praised China's “exceptionally high implementation rate” and “high commitment” to population control methods such as abortion. The liberal New Republic recently said the UN acted with extreme slowness in Ethiopia regarding that nation's famine and then supported the government so many more died. Much UN food aid went to the military instead of the people. In Somalia, the UN stayed away when other relief agencies tried to help. When the UN finally got involved there were many problems. In Rwanda, the UN  helped the armed militias, which had killed almost a million people, take control of numerous refugee camps. One private aid official said the UN took the lead in supporting these militias. 20

In 1969, U Thant said: “I do not wish to seem overdramatic but I can only conclude that from the information that is available to me as Secretary-General (of the UN) that the members of the UN have perhaps ten years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership...to defuse the population explosion, and to supply the required momentum to development efforts.” In 1987 the UN released a report, Our Common Future, claiming that in order to achieve sustainable development, lifestyle habits must be radically altered and closely regulated by government at all levels. Central planning was necessary under the UN's environmental bureaucracy.

In Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited, William Ophuls called for a world government with coercive powers. In Preparing For the Twenty-First Century, Paul Kennedy described how the global outlook is causing a weakening of the nation state. Overpopulation represented a threat to the nation state and the large transnational corporations. Former Washington governor Dixy Ray said, in Environmental Overkill, “The future is to be world government, with central planning by the UN....If force is needed, it will be provided by a UN greenhelmeted police force.” Already there are the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, UN Global Environmental Facility, and the UN treaty Agenda 21. The UN is ready to regulate the world to have a sustainable environment. Jacques Yves Cousteau, in his journal Calypso Log, said it was necessary to create “an international environmental police, 'green helmets,' who would be under the direction of the UN. Our planet needs guardians...free of the constraints of...national sovereignty.”  

Foreign Affairs published an article with the ominous title “The Population Threat.” 21 In Living Within Limits: Ecology, Economics and Population Taboos, Garrett Hardin said: “The issue of coercion must be faced....Loss of freedom is an inevitable consequence of unlimited population growth.” Jacques-Yves Cousteau said: “It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.” 22 In one year that would equal 128 million people. At the UN Earth Summit in Rio, Cousteau said we have 10 years to solve the overpopulation problem, and he urged “drastic, unconventional decisions.” The horrible truth is that there are individuals behind the new world order who plan to exterminate vast numbers of people, so the elite will have a world that meets with their approval. Covert Action and other sources report that AIDS is really germ warfare. 23  I discuss many population-extermination programs in Chapter XIX.

To end overpopulation, many elitists call for controlling the family. Warren Bennis and Philip Slater said, in The Temporary Society “One cannot permit submission to parental authority if one wishes to bring about profound social change....In order to effect rapid changes, any such centralized regime must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved.” The state must “create an experiential chasm between parents and children to insulate the latter in order that they can more easily be indoctrinated with new ideas. The desire may be to cause an even more total submission to the state....One must teach (children) not to respect their tradition-bound elders, who are tied to the past and know only what is irrelevant.” 24 As shown in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, totalitarian governments weaken the family unit in order to transfer loyalty to the state. 

In the February, 1946 issue of Psychiatry, G.B. Chisholm said: “We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school teachers, our politicians, our priests....The re-interpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of the old people, these are the belated objectives...for charting the changes in human behavior....Freedom from moralities means” to be “free from outmoded types of loyalties....” 25  

Garrett Hardin said: “It should be easy to limit a woman's reproduction by sterilizing her....People need to recognize that population control is needed to protect the quality of life for our children. The 'right' to breed implies ownership of children. This concept is no longer tenable. 'My' child's germ plasm is not mine; it is really only part of the community's store. I was merely the temporary custodian of part of it. If parenthood is a right, population control is impossible.” 26 

In the April, 1981 issue of The Futurist magazine, Gene Stephens said to lessen crime by 2000 much more control will be needed. “The movement to license or certify parents may be well under way.” Usually couples will be allowed to raise their own children; however, certain parents will be forced to surrender “superior babies” to be raised by others the state deems more appropriate to be the parents. “Child breeding and rearing...may be considered too important to be left to chance....” Drugs and genetic engineering will be used so that “controlled breeding will result in fewer biological reasons for crime.”

In The Case for Compulsive Birth Control, Edgar R. Chasteen proposed subverting the traditional family by promoting alternative lifestyles. He said the birth rate would be lowered if citizens were made “politically insecure” through arrest and imprisonment with no right of appeal, no free speech, and invasion of the home. For compulsory population control, the public must be convinced that “parenthood (is) a privilege extended by society, rather than a right inherent in the individual. Accordingly, society has both the right and the duty to limit population when either its physical existence or its quality of life is threatened....There are no natural rights conferred upon man....Rights are derived from the law and the law is man-made.” 27 The British surgeon Sir Roy Calne recently wrote Too Many People, in which he called for adopting many of China's birthing policies such as state-approved licensing to have children. The Manchester Guardian endorsed this saying: “If we don't sacrifice some freedoms we may be left with none.” 

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child places the state over the family. Already in some countries where this convention has passed, UN representatives are interfering in traditional family practices, supposedly to protect children. Clinton is pushing to get this treaty passed in the Senate. Hillary Clinton's book It Takes a Village and Other Lessons Children Teach Us is a thinly veiled attempt to increase state authority over the family in the name of protecting the state's investment in children. Home visits by government agents will be required in a world government. Ultimately, human births may only occur through artificial means, when the state gives permission.

The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, The World Research Institute, Resources for the Future, and the Worldwatch Institute, led by members of the CFR, donate large sums to support population control and ecology groups. Under CFR member Adele Simmons, the MacArthur Foundation leads the way in donations to these groups. Over the years, these foundations have issued many reports calling for central planning and world government to save the environment. For instance, CFR member Lester R. Brown, head of the Worldwatch Institute declared, in World Without Borders, that a world environmental agency was needed because protecting the environment was not “possible within the existing framework of independent nation-states.” He called for developing “supranational institutions” to create a world government. Many environmental organizations have little interest in protecting the environment; they have been subverted to support the corporate agenda. These groups have even covered up Clinton's strong anti-environment policy. 28  

Laurance Rockefeller, in The Reader's Digest, warned that humanity must follow a simpler path, more in tune with the environment, or “authoritarian controls” may be used. 29 Barbara Marx Hubbard, supported by Rockefeller's Fund for Enhancement of the Human Spirit, wrote The Revelation: A Message of Hope for the New Millennium. She said humanity may chose a “gentle path” surrendering rule to an elite, but a sharp reduction of the world's population was necessary, which may require a “violent path.” In the early 1980s, some of this material was distributed privately but was not publicly published, because the corporate controllers don't want the public to learn what is coming. Hubbard said: “Out of the full spectrum of human personality...one-fourth is destructive....They are defective seeds....In the past they were permitted to die a 'natural death.'...” Now “the elders” have decided that “the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body” in order to save everyone else. “Fortunately, you...are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God's selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death....We come to bring death....The riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. This is the most painful period in the history of humanity.” 30 Population and environment concerns are considered a valid excuse for the elite to ultimately seize control, act like Gods, and kill huge numbers of people. 

I do not fully agree with those who attack the entire environmental movement. There are serious environmental concerns that should be dealt with, but it is also essential to respect people and private property. There must be a spirit of compromise to solve real environmental problems. The millions of people involved in the environment movement have no understanding or interest in promoting world government. Most people in the environmental movement don't understand the new world order. Environment and overpopulation concerns have been manipulated by key environmental leaders who use the media to shape the environmental agenda and increase government control over the people. People in the wise use movement should understand that large corporations supporting this movement are often closely allied to the corporate elite promoting the new world order, and the corporations usually support both sides to manipulate events. Covert Action provided an excellent article on this involvement by the transnational corporations and Trilateral Commission. 31

Another constant theme raised in the rantings of those promoting the new world order is to use technology and economic power to achieve social engineering. A typical book is Changing Images of Man, edited by Markley and Harmon. The authors said there must be important changes in industrial man and industrial society if we are to survive. To deal with the growing scarcity of resources such as food and the population explosion, various methods of social control are explored. Zbigniew Brzezinski, in Between Two Ages, described a shift from an industrial to a technetronic society shaped by the impact of technology and electronics. “Both the growing capacity for the instant calculation of the most complex interactions and the increasing availability of biochemical means of human control augment the potential scope of consciously chosen direction, and thereby also the pressures to direct, to choose, and to change.” This new society will “give rise to difficult problems in determining the legitimate scope of social control. The possibility of extensive chemical mind control, the danger of loss of individuality inherent in extensive transplantation, the feasibility of manipulating the genetic structure will call for the social definition of common criteria of use and restraint.” 32

World War II was seen as a great opportunity to move towards world government. The CFR formed study groups and started working directly with the State Department in 1939, to work for world peace and union after the war. Clarence K. Streit formed the Federal Union in 1940 to promote world government. Supported by prominent people like John Foster Dulles, a founder of the CFR and later Secretary of State, it placed ads in major newspapers on January 5, 1942 urging Congress to support union with certain foreign governments. This new union would directly tax people, control all armed forces, and make and enforce all laws. Streit wrote Union Now, Union Now With Britain, and in 1961, Freedom's Frontier Atlantic Union Now calling for world government.

In 1942, Dulles while chairman of the Federal Council of Churches Commission, issued a report calling for “a world government, strong immediate limitation on national sovereignty, international control of all armies and navies, a universal system of money, world-wide freedom of immigration, progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade and a democratically controlled world bank.” The report said “a new order of economic life is both imminent and imperative.” 33 In 1946 Dulles, in a Federal Council of Churches Report, said changes in the U.S. and the Soviet Union would make it possible to merge the two systems into a world government. 34  

After the UN was formed, the United World Federalists (UWF) got 27 state legislatures to pass resolutions supporting a constitutional convention to change the U.S. Constitution to join a world government, but voters got most of these resolutions repealed. Recently, the North Carolina general assembly rescinded, by a 92-11 vote a 1941 resolution supporting participation in a “Federation of the World,” a “new world order,” and an international convention to create a world Constitution. 

In 1954 Rowan Gaither, head of the Ford Foundation, told Norman Dodd, a senator on the Reese Committee: “We operate here under directives which emulate from the White House. The substance of the directives under which we operate are that we shall use our grant making power to alter life in the U.S. so that we can comfortably be merged with the Soviet Union.” On December 4, 1985, World Federalist Association (WFA) vice-president John Logue told a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee: “It is time to tell the world's people not what they want to hear but what they must hear. What they ought to hear is that if we really want to have peace and promote justice, we must...strengthen the UN....The UN must have taxing power....It must have a large peacekeeping force....It must be able to make and enforce law on the individual.” 35

Over the years, especially after World War II, many in Congress worked to surrender U.S. sovereignty to a world government, while others harshly attacked such proposals. In 1947, Rep. Richard Nixon introduced a world government resolution, and he wanted a UN police force. In June, 1952 the Senate held a hearing on the push for world government and global citizenship. On July 10, 1952 Congress passed what became Public Law 495, Section 112 which said: “None of the funds appropriated in this title (Department of State Appropriation Act, 1953) shall be used...to pay the U.S. contribution to any international organization which engages in the direct or indirect promotion of the principles or doctrine of one world government or one world citizenship.” This law remained in effect until it was deleted in 1987. Obviously Congress is not filled with racists, anti-Semites, or conspiracy nuts.

In 1949, about 40 senators and 105 representatives introduced the Atlantic Union Resolution which called for a convention to strengthen the UN and establish a world government. For 10 years, this resolution was continually introduced, and one can read the Congressional Record to see the bitter debates on this topic. The Atlantic Union Committee included many CFR members, while Rockefeller provided rent free space for its headquarters. Its first head, former Supreme Court Justice Owen J. Roberts, said national sovereignty was a “silly shibboleth.” Back in 1943, in the May 2 issue of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Roberts said: “An international government, with police power over every individual citizen in the nations belonging to it...is the only way....” In a change of strategy, the NATO Citizens Commission Law was passed in 1960. Later, pushed by the World Affairs Council on January 30, 1976, 124 members of Congress signed a Declaration of Interdependence: “Two centuries ago our forefather brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a New World Order....”

Those promoting the new world order are now trying to influence more people. In Time, July 20, 1992, Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State, CFR and TC member, and Clinton's roommate at Oxford, said in the next century “nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority....National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all.” He said that GATT and IMF are the future world government's “proto-ministries of trade, finance and development for a united world.” 36 This senior government official wants to surrender U.S. sovereignty to a world government. Read this two-page article and you may appreciate how dangerous things are. In response to this article, Clinton wrote to the WFA expressing his congratulations. He said: “Norman Cousins (past head of the WFA) worked for world peace and world government....Best wishes for an enjoyable reception and for future success.” 

The November, 1994 issue of The Rotarian had an editorial calling for world government. 3 7 The March/April, 1995 issue of Sojourners magazine had an ad promoting world government, and Harper's magazine had a full page ad promoting world government in its January, 1995 issue. This ad was promoted by a group that has a world Constitution ready to replace our current Constitution. 

The Western corporate elite have long worked closely with the communists to promote world government. In 1916 Lenin said: “The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them.” In 1936 the Communist International formally described three stages for achieving world government. Speaking in Missouri in May, 1992, Gorbachev said: “This is a turning point on a historic and worldwide scale and signifies the incipient substitution of one paradigm of civilization for another....An awareness of the need for some kind of global government is gaining ground, one in which all the members of the world community would take part....Many countries are morbidly jealous of their sovereignty, and...of their national independence and identity....Here the decisive role may and must be played by the UN....The new world order will not be fully realized unless the UN and its Security Council create structures...authorized to impose sanctions and make use of other means of compulsion. All members of the UN must recognize the acceptability of international interference (in a nations internal affairs)....Under certain circumstances it will be desirable to put certain national armed forces at the disposal of the Security Council, making them subordinate to the UN military command.”

In 1993 Gorbachev said: “This has been a period of international transition.” He spoke about the need for “international institutions acting on behalf of all....Clinton will be a success if he manages to use American influence to accomplish this transformation of international responsibility and increase significantly the role of the UN.” While many feel this would limit U.S. independence “accepting the aegis of a higher institution that operates on a consensus such as the UN, would have many advantages....Clinton...will be a great president—if he can make America the creator of a new world order.” 38  

In late September, 1995, Gorbachev and his foundation hosted a world forum in San Francisco to promote a new world order and a council of wise men to solve the worlds problems. Jim Garrison, head of the Gorbachev Foundation, told the San Francisco Weekly in the May 31-June 6, 1995 edition that the ultimate purpose of the meeting was to shape the “next phase of human development....Over the next twenty to thirty years, we are going to end up with world government. It's inevitable.” Zbigniew Brzezinski said: “Finally, I have no illusions about world government emerging in our lifetime....We cannot leap into world government through one quick step....The precondition for eventual and genuine globalization is progressive regionalization because by that we move towards larger, more stable, more cooperative units.” Sam Keen declared that if the world population was cut 90 percent this would protect the ecology.

Many corporations and foundations like UPS, United Airlines, and Archer-Daniels financed and participated in this gathering, because they support the new world order. They feel that free trade will increase profits, and the Constitution doesn't show up in the balance sheet. In many ways, the large corporations are working to increase federal government power and tighten control over the people. Many people in government and the large corporations feel that world government is inevitable, so they support it. Norman Cousins wrote in 1985 in Human Events, “World government is coming, in fact, it is inevitable. No arguments for or against it can change that fact.” Cousins was head of the WFA and Chairman of Planetary Citizen. The debate to have a world government was concluded decades ago, although most Americans were not allowed to take part in this discussion. 

In 1984, in New Lies For Old, Anatoliy Golitsyn, an ex-KGB officer and defector, described the coming collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberalization policy, which he called a phony deception to mislead the West. He said the West has generally understood the communist military threat, but not its political threat. He said the coming collapse of the Soviet Union was part of a long-range disinformation campaign to fulfill long-range communist goals for world domination. By the end of 1993, 139 out of 148 of his predictions had been fulfilled for a 94 percent accuracy rate, while 46 predictions were yet to be fulfilled.39

Golitsyn is not psychic; he just leaked plans that have existed between the East and West for decades. Some communists, like Gorbachev, actually support working with Wall Street to create a world government. As long as working with the corporate elite brings Russia and China money, technology, and trade, most communists will support having a one world government someday, but they will never actually surrender their sovereignty unless they are in control. The cold war is over, but the communist threat remains. In the future, it will be a wolf in new clothes. They are playing the corporate elite for fools, and as with General Butler in the 1930s, the corporate elite stupidly think they can bribe everyone to accomplish whatever treason they want. The CFR does not control Russia and China to the degree that they think. In 1994 in Soil, Tied to Our Blood, Gennadi Zyuganov, head of the Russian communist party, said: “We (Russians) are the last power on this planet that is capable of mounting a challenge to the New World Order—the global cosmopolitan dictatorship. We must work against our...destroyers, using means as carefully thought-out and as goal-orientated as theirs are.” Reportedly, Russian nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, said on November 9, 1994, at the UN: “There has long been a hidden agenda to merge America and Russia under the new world order.”

Over the years, many have attacked the new world order. In The Open Conspiracy, Blue Prints For A World Revolution, H.G. Wells called for world government. G.K. Chesterton analyzed this work and said “Internationalism is in any case hostile to democracy....The only purely popular government is local, and founded on local knowledge...To make all politics cosmopolitan is to create an aristocracy of globe-trotters.” 40 Ralph Nader testified before a House subcommittee that GATT “formalized a world economic government dominated by giant corporations, without a correlative democratic rule of law to hold this economic government accountable.” 41 

On June 26, 1995, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher spoke at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. She attacked the new world order and defended state sovereignty, warning against turning British rule over “to European institutions and non-elected bureaucracies.” She was also against transferring the power of British courts to a European court. She said the agenda of European federalists would damage U.S. interests, and she was very critical of the attacks on national sovereignty that have become so common in the “forced internationalism.” At the Gorbachev conference, Thatcher warned, “Do not use the UN for something for which it was not founded. We cannot put executive decisions into its hands.” These views explain why she was removed from office. 

The Catholic Church and the Pope understand what is coming. As an archbishop in 1976 the Pope said: “We are standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through...a test of 2000 years of culture and Christian civilization....Wide circles of American society and wide circles of the Christian community do not realize this fully....” 42 In The Keys of This Blood, Malachi Martin, with a decidedly Catholic Church influence, described how certain elite groups are striving towards global unity and world domination in a one world government. He identified certain groups involved, such as the internationalists—political bureaucrats that focus on agreements between nations and unity through politics, and transnationalism—business men who use cash to achieve their goals of increased international trade. Reportedly, some elements of the Catholic Church are quietly working to stop the coming world dictatorship, while others support it, determined to preserve a strong position for the Catholic Church.  

A clue to what is coming was revealed in 1967, when Report From Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace was published. Some 15 Americans from various fields took over two years to do this think-tank study for the government. It was never supposed to be published, which is understandable when one reads it. Translated into 15 languages, it was on the best seller list, so naturally its validity was denied, because it revealed so much about the coming terror. When you plan to destroy a society, it is not wise to acknowledge this. I read five reviews of this book, with the best one in the March, 1968 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. It admitted the report might be false, but then explained why it might be true. The report was written when ending the cold war was considered possible and when there were many private government studies. In November, 1967, the president of Dial Press, the publisher, defended the book's authenticity in the New York Times, while John K. Galbraith, in a review, defended its authenticity admitting he was asked to be part of the study group. Reportedly, the report was leaked by a guilt-ridden participant to Leonard C. Lewin. In 1972, Lewin, who wrote the book's introduction, claimed that he wrote the book, and it was a satirical attack on the military. 43 Simon & Schuster recently republished this book.

According to this report, the war system has worked quite well and peace is not desirable, because there would be many problems converting from a war economy. Poverty is necessary and desirable, while the war system must continue until new institutions can be developed to maintain social stability and political control. War is also supposedly a necessary means of population control, because disease no longer sufficiently reduces the population. Undesirable genetic traits were self-liquidating but now continue because of medical advances, so new methods of eugenics are needed. Most medical advances were considered a problem and birth-control drugs might be added to food and water to limit population growth. Teams of experimental biologists in the U.S., Mexico, and the USSR were working to create life to make it much easier to limit population growth. 44 A world without war must ultimately turn to universal test-tube procreation to limit population growth. In 1968 Brzezinski wrote of genetic manipulation to maintain social control and “the creation of beings” that will function and reason like men. 45 George Bernard Shaw said: “If you want better people you must breed them as carefully as you breed thoroughbred horses and pedigree boars.” 46 

Without war, new institutions and alternate enemies must be created to maintain control. Many substitutes for war were considered but each had serious limitations. Space research and an outer space UFO menace were deemed to not be sufficiently credible. It would be difficult to deliberately damage the environment so that nations would surrender their sovereignty. A credible substitute for war must create an omnipresent and readily understood fear of personal destruction, and this fear must be sufficient to ensure adherence to society's values. The report suggested “the reintroduction...consistent with modern technology and political processes, of slavery.” Noting the works of Wells, Huxley, and Orwell, the report said that slavery might be essential in the future to maintain social control. 

The book concluded that war is a good excuse to control and expand the economy, control antisocial tendencies, establish standards for the arts, provide motivation for scientific and technological progress, and help maintain political authority, class distinctions, and ecological balance between the population and raw materials necessary for survival. War helps maintain a stable government “by providing an external necessity for a society to accept political rule.” Bertrand Russell, in The Impact of Science on Society, said: “War has been throughout history, the chief source of social cohesion....” This is the sick mentality of the secret government. This vile report has to be read to be believed. 

There are many who call the new world order socialist or communist. Certainly there are leftist elements in these groups, but there is also a strong neo-Nazi faction in the corporate elite. In the 1930s, the corporate elite used fascist ideas to promote a police state; in more recent years, they turned to communist principles. In truth, the philosophical views of these people is not the key issue. Their common ideology is an unrelenting lust for money, power, and control. Any ideology is acceptable towards that end. Barry Goldwater correctly said of the CFR and other elitist groups: “They have no ideological anchors. In their pursuit of a new world order they are prepared to deal without prejudice with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state, monarchy, oligarchy—it's all the same to them.” 47 

People who attack the view that there is a conspiracy involving the wealthy and powerful to achieve world government are attacked for presenting a conspiracy view of history. This is done partly because critics are unable to refute these claims. When the message cannot be refuted, the messenger is attacked. “One of the things we most need to understand—and one of the things historians most often fail to discuss—are the precise means by which the dominant class and those who serve it go about accomplishing their goals in politics.” 48 Michael Parenti said: “It should be noted that there are conspiracies among ruling groups, things done in secrecy with the intent to sustain or extend power—as Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, the FBI's COINTELPRO campaign against the left, and the CIA's daily doings have demonstrated.” 49 Thomas Jefferson warned: “Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day, but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, unalterable through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.”  

At the same time, William Cooper has a point in saying there isn't a conspiracy, because so much is published about the coming new world order. The move towards world government involves the quiet networking of thousands of individuals. If there is a conspiracy to establish a one world government, it is an open one. Remember the title of H.G. Well's book, The Open Conspiracy, Blueprints For A World Revolution. The corporate elite reveal much about their plans, because they look at the people with contempt and they have had their way for many years. President Nixon told the New York Times on November 10, 1972: “The average American is just like the child in the family.” Averell Harriman said the American people wanted nothing better than to “go to the movies and drink Coke.” In 1996, Ted Turner, head of CNN, said before an international forum: “The U.S. has got some of the dumbest people in the world. I want you to know that. We know that.” 50 These elitists are too blinded by their arrogance to understand just how angry and educated more and more Americans are becoming.  

The elites have traditionally had an extremely negative attitude towards the people they ruled and have always had problems accepting the involvement of the people in government. Charles Lasch, in The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, said the elites “regard the masses with mingled scorn and apprehension.” Jose Ortega y Gasset, in The Revolt of the Masses, said the masses cannot rule and their involvement in government has created a grave crisis. Walter Lippmann said the “omnicompetent citizen” was no longer possible in the age of specialization. He believed public opinion was no better than gossip and that real governing should be left in the hands of experts.

While many dismiss the view of a corporate elite creating a one world government as left or right wing extremists, the reality is that the new world order is increasingly here. While most people ignore the motives behind the coming one world government, and some debate whether or not such a government is coming and if there is a conspiracy, the new world order is unfolding before our eyes. You don't have to believe what I and others write; study the literature noted above and the laws passed by Congress and other governments.

Stopping the corporate traitors from establishing a world dictatorship is the foremost issue of our time. Many of the concerns people have today from labor rights, to ending abortions, to having a balanced budget however important these issues are will be irrelevant if we live in a police state. Many conflicts in our society have been deliberately created to divert the people's attention so the corporate elite can quietly and gradually shift this Republic into a world dictatorship. However, with many people awakening to these plans and a freer flow of information, I believe the one world government dictatorship will never occur. In the end, the new world order crowd will join Hitler's Third Reich in the ash heap of history.

next
Fooling the People     

  
notes
Chapter IV New World Order 
1 Alfred M. Lilienthal, “Which Way to World Government?” Foreign Policy Association Headline Series, Number 83 (September-October, 1950), p. 43. 
2 George W. Blount, Peace Through World Government (Durham, N.C: Moore Publishing Co., 1974). 
3 Jean Drissell, “A Senator's View of World Order,” Transition, III (April, 1976). 
4 Arnold Toynbee, Experiences (N.Y: Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 110. 
5 Takashi Oka, “A Crowded World: Can Mankind Survive,” Christian Science Monitor, February 10, 1975, p. 5-6. 
6 Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution A Report By the Council of the Club of Rome (N.Y: Pantheon Books, 1991), p. 110-115. 
7 Lincoln P. Bloomfield, “International Force in a Disarming-Bui Revolutionary World,” International Organization, XVII (Spring, 1963), 444-64; Graham T. Allison, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., and Albert Carnesale, eds., Fateful Visions (Cambridge, Ma: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1988), p. 211. 
8 Ibid., p. 212. 
9 Richard Falk, “A New Paradigm for International Legal Studies: Prospects and Proposals,” Yale Law Journal, 84 (April, 1975), 969-1021; Richard Falk, A Study of Future Worlds (N.Y: The Free Press, 1975). 
10 U.S., Congress, Senate, Subcommittee on Foreign Relations, Revision of the U.N. Charter, Hearings, 81st Cong., 2d Session. February 17, 1950. (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 1950), p. 494. 
11 James Warburg, The West in Crisis (Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday & Co., 1959), p. 30. 
12 Gary Allen, Say No To the New World Order (Seal Beach, Ca: Concord Press, 1987), p. 59-61. 
13 Philip Kerr, “From Empire to Commonwealth,” Foreign Affairs, I (December 15, 1922), 97-98. 
14 John Foster Dulles, War or Peace (N.Y: The Macmillan Co., 1950), p. 40. 
15 H.G. Wells, “Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Thought” (N.Y: Harper and Brothers, 1901), p. 322-325. 
16 Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (N.Y: Simon & Schuster, 1953), p. 103-105. These words appeared in the 1953 edition of this book. 272 Treason The New World order 
17 Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy (Washington, D.C: Public Affairs Press, 1947), p. 13, 15, 21. 
18 Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, Population, Resources, Environment: Issues on Human Ecology (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co., 1970), p. 204. 
19 Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (N.Y: Ballantine, 1978), p. 17. 
20 Peter Beinart, “Aid and Abet,” New Republic, October 30, 1995, p. 23-25. 
21 Michael S. Teitelbaum, “The Population Threat,” Foreign Affairs, 71 (Winter 1992/1993), 63-78. 
22 Bahgat Elnadi and Adel Rifaat, “Interview Jacques-Yves Cousteau,” The Unesco Courier, (November, 1991), 8-13. 
23 Robert Lederer, “Chemical-Biological Warfare, Medical Experiments, and Population Control,” Covert Action, Number 28 (Summer, 1987), 33-42. 
24 Warren Bennis and Philip Slater, The Temporary Society (N.Y: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968), p. 44-45. 
25 G.B. Chisholm, “The Reestablishment of Peacetime Society,” Psychiatry, IX (February, 1946), p. 7, 9. 
26 Garrett Hardin, “Parenthood: Right or Privilege?” Science, June 31, 1970, p. 427. 
27 Edgar R. Chasteen, The Case for Compulsive Birth Control (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971), p. 79, 204. 
28 Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, “Slime Green,” The Progressive, 60 (May, 1996), 18-21. 
29 Laurance Rockefeller, “The Case for a Simpler Life-Style,” The Reader's Digest, 108 (February, 1976), 61-65. 
30 Barbara Marx Hubbard, “The Book of Co-Creation: The Revelation Alternative to Armageddon”, Part III Manuscript 1980, p. 59-61. 
31 Joyce Nelson, “Burson-Marsteller, Pax Trilateral, and the Brundtland Gang vs. the Environment,” Covert Action, Number 44 (Spring, 1993), 26-33, 57-58. 
32 Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages (N.Y: The Viking Press, 1970), p. 10, 16. 
33 “American Malvern,” Time, March 16, 1942, p. 44, 46-48. 
34 Edgar C. Bundy, Collectivism in the Churches (Wheaton III: The Church League of America, 1958), p. 174-7. 
35 U.S., Congress, House, Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on International Operations, U.S. Policy in the UN, 99 Congress 1st Sess. December 4, 1985. (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 1985), p. 152-157. 
36 Strobe Talbott, “The Birth of the Global Nation,” Time, July 20, 1992, p. 70- 7 1 . 
37 Ross Smyth, “Towards Global Governance,” The Rotarían, 165 (November, 1994), 67. 
38 “New World Order: Consensus,” Cape Code Times, January 28, 1993. 
39 Mark Riebling, Wedge The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA (N.Y: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), p. 407-409. 
40 G.K. Chesterton, “Wells and the World State,” in The Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton, ed. by Robert Royal (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), p. 215-216. 
41 Testimony before the Trade Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, February 2, 1994. Notes 273 
42 Malachi Martin, The Keys of this Blood (N.Y: Simon & Schuster, 1990), p. 16. 
43 Best Studios has produced 3 videos on this report. P.O. Box 69 Wheeler, Wi. 54772(1-800-257-2672). 44 Leonard C. Lewin, Report From Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace (N.Y: The Dial Press, Inc., 1967), p. 73. 
45 Zbigniew Brzezinski, “America in the Technetronic Age,” Encounter, XXX (January, 1968), 16-26. 
46 George Bernard Shaw, The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism (N.Y: Brentano's Publishers, 1928), p. 53. 
47 Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies (N.Y: William Morrow and Co., 1979), p. 278. 
48 Frank Kofsky, Harry S. Truman and the War Scare of 1948 (N.Y: St. Martin's Press, 1993), p. 308. 
49 Michael Parenti, Inventing Reality (N.Y: St. Martin's Press, 1986), p. 240- 241. 
50 “Viewpoint,” U.S. News & World Report, May 20, 1996, p. 22.