Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree6Likes
  • 2 Post By moosetracks
  • 2 Post By Judy
  • 2 Post By Newmexican


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member ruthiela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Sophia, NC


    PART 2
    By Berit Kjos
    June 30, 2006
    "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis...."[1] David Rockefeller
    "I see a world of open borders, open trade and, most importantly, open minds.... I see a world building on the emerging new model of European unity. ... [T]he United Nations is the place to build international support and consensus for meeting the other challenges we face.... [W]e must join together in a new compact -- all of us -- to bring the United Nations into the 21st century."[2] Former President George H. W. Bush
    "Why won’t this president and Congress write and enforce a simple, straight-forward immigration policy?"[3] asks journalist Frosty Wooldridge. Others wonder why our government doesn't pull out of the United Nations and abandon its planned merger with Mexico and Canada. Their questions make sense!
    But logical answers often ignore the grandiose dreams of the elite revolutionaries who drive the UN agenda. To them, it makes more sense to open our borders, invite illegal immigration, and risk rising lawlessness and terrorism. In fact, each such crisis becomes a potential instrument for change -- a stepping stone toward Lord Tennyson's envisioned "Federation of the world."
    "All we need is the right major crisis," said David Rockefeller, "and the nations will accept the New World Order."[1]
    Former President Bush echoed that assurance. "Out of these troubled times... a new world order can emerge,"[4] he told Congress in a 1990 message aptly titled "Toward a New World Order." Back then, the opportune crisis was the Gulf War. It helped build public acceptance for a global management system, which had already begun to replace American "rights" with global rules.
    The pace of change has quickened since then. As you saw in Part 1, our current president (like his two predecessors) has willingly surrendered Americans to a spreading web of UN declarations, treaties and policies that undermine our constitution. America's "human resources" are now molded, measured and monitored according to global standards for educational outcomes, "mental health," "service learning," and training for a global workforce.[5]
    Legal or not, migration is vital to this transformational process! Let's look at some of its goals:
    Ancient monarchs understood the transformational power of mass migration. When the mighty Assyrians conquered Israel back in 722 BC, they resettled the land with people who had never heard the truths of God. Soon the blend of new settlers and local residents shifted the people's collective loyalties to new gods and rulers.
    This strategy still works! It may explain why globalist politician John Foster Dulles (Secretary of State in the Eisenhower administration) called for free, worldwide immigration in 1942. As chairman of a national conference held by the liberal Federal Council of Churches (precursor to the World Council of Churches), he introduced these goals:
    a world government of delegated powers
    immediate limitations on national sovereignty
    international control of all armies and navies
    a universal system of money [Revelation 13:17]
    worldwide freedom of immigration
    even distribution of the world’s natural wealth."[6]
    Even Time magazine seemed shocked by this blatant one-world socialism: "Some of the conference’s economic opinions were almost as sensational as the extreme internationalism of its political program. It held that a ‘new order of economic life is both imminent and imperative.”[7]
    Alger Hiss, the most infamous leader within the Federal Council, was an active Communist and the publisher of the socialist magazine International Conciliation. That didn’t keep him from serving President Roosevelt in the State Department. Nor did it hinder his assignments as the first Secretary General of the United Nations (1945) -- or as president of the multimillion dollar Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
    Western individualism has been thoroughly mocked and maligned by today's leading change agents. No wonder, since free, factual thinking would slow their revolution. They can't win their war unless they modify our minds. John Dewey, father of progressive education in America, described this psycho-social battle in his book, Democracy and Education.
    "There is always a danger that increased personal independence will decrease the social capacity of an individual.... It often makes an individual so insensitive in his relations to others as to develop an illusion of being really able to stand and act alone -- an unnamed form of insanity which is responsible for a large part of the remedial suffering of the world."[8]
    Equating independent thinking with insanity, Dewey's fighting words illustrate the heartless tactics of his totalitarian contemporaries. Stalin, Hitler and Mao didn't hesitate to remediate or incarcerate resisters as mentally ill. And with the rise of the UN, these views were legitimized among the ruling elite. For example, Canadian psychiatrist Brock Chisholm became the first head of the World Health Organization (WHO). Notice how he presented "mental health" as a useful crisis in the following message, which would later be published by Alger Hiss:
    "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."
    "For many generations we have bowed our necks to the yoke of the conviction of sin. We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents....
    "There is something to be said... for gently putting aside the mistaken old ways of our elders if that is possible. If it cannot be done gently, it may have to be done roughly or even violently."[9]
    Half a century later, the same ideology was cloaked in less threatening language. In 1995, UNESCO issued a report titled, Our Creative Diversity. I read this book on my flight back from the 1996 UN Conference on Human Settlements in Istanbul. It stated:
    “The challenge to humanity is to adopt new ways of thinking, new ways of acting, new ways of organizing itself in society, in short, new ways of living."[10]
    This message is staggering. Everything must be changed! Students must learn to embrace the "systems" view of reality. Our new "family" would be seen as the entire human race! And the key to success would be countless small groups around the world -- all following occultist Georg Hegel's dialectic process.
    Migration -- especially from non-Western nations would be encouraged, for the dialectic process required social and spiritual diversity. Led by trained facilitators toward a pre-planned consensus, the group members must agree to seek "common ground" -- an evolving "unity in diversity". They must share their feelings, listen respectfully, respect all contrary views, and bend their own views to group opinion. Offensive facts and the Bible's "poisonous certainties" would be banned, for these hinder group manipulation. [See Three kinds of group relationships]
    Notice that diversity itself is not the problem. Andy and I tramped around the world in our younger days -- paddling up the Nile on the mail boat, trucking through parts of Africa, sleeping on 4th class trains rumbling through India at night. Sometimes we were invited into homes -- Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Christian. We shared our beliefs, and they shared theirs, but no facilitator nudged us toward any compromising "common ground."
    UNESCO's ways are different. Peter Senge described them well. In his celebrated book, The Fifth Discipline, this MIT guru to corporate managers and church leaders around the world wrote, " should come as no surprise that the unhealthiness of our world today is in direct proportion to our inability to see it as a whole." With that revealing introduction, he goes on to define "systems thinking." Notice the reference to the psycho-social strategies needed for change:
    "Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationship rather than things... It is also a set of specific tools and techniques.... [T]hese tools have been applied to understand a wide range of corporate, urban, regional, economic, political, ecological and even psychological systems. [11]
    Dr. Senge also co-authored the report, "Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations." It highlights the crisis of "fragmentation" that keeps people from trading "divisive" Biblical views for a more systemic or holistic perspective.:
    "Fragmentation, competition, and reactiveness are not problems to be solved -- they are frozen patterns of thought to be dissolved. The solvent we propose is a new way of thinking, feeling, and being.... In the new systems worldview, we move from the primacy of pieces to the primacy of the whole, from absolute truths to coherent interpretations, from self to community."[12]
    From absolute truth" to what? A global community that bans God's Word?
    When applied to religion, the "new ways of thinking" means setting aside our old "narrow" or inflexible beliefs for the sake of unity. For this to happen, Christianity must either bend or break, yet even church leaders are imposing these psycho-social strategies on their unsuspecting followers. In fact, many Christians now believe this new "systems thinking" is God's purpose for all of humanity. Echoing the message of UNESCO and Dr. Senge, "America's Pastor" Rick Warren tells us,
    "We intend to leverage the attention that the Purpose Driven Life has garnered to bring about a whole new way of thinking and acting in the church about our responsibility in the world."[13]
    This "responsibility in the world" must focus on humanitarian service, which we will discuss in Part 3. But first, ponder Rick Warren's tone and suggestion in the recent article, "What to do when your church hits a plateau?" Apparently, he was asked how to handle obstacles to change. In his answer, he points to the new way of thinking and acting:
    "...some people are going to have to die or leave. Moses had to wander around the desert for 40 years while God killed off a million people before he let them go into the Promised Land. That may be brutally blunt, but it’s true. There may be people in your church who love God sincerely, but who will never, ever change....
    "People ask, 'Is it easier to start new churches, or is it easier to take existing churches and turn them around?' My answer is this: 'It's always easier to have babies than to raise the dead.'... People change very slowly. They are resistant to change because they recognize that life as they’ve known it will cease to exist."[14]
    Did you notice that the purpose-driven change agents are on the "good" side? People like us who question the new marketing strategies are the ones who must "die or leave."
    This mind-changing system has no tolerance for God's divisive Truth. Unless Christianity blends with other religions through diversity, dialogue and deconstruction (tearing down old beliefs) our globalist leaders will continue to face resistance. That's why Federico Mayor, former head of UNESCO used yet another crisis to fuel revolutionary fervor:
    "We have witnessed... the resurgence of nationalism, the growth of fundamentalism and of religious and ethnic intolerance. The roots of exclusion and hatred have shown themselves even deeper and more tenacious than we had feared... Peace... requires, in the words of the [UN] Constitution, 'the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind.'"[15]
    As hostility toward Biblical Christianity grows in America, these words of Jesus are becoming increasingly relevant:
    "If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.... If they persecuted Me they will persecute you... for they do not know the One who sent Me." John 15:19-21

    1, David Rockefeller speaking at the UN, Sept. 14, 1994. 109.
    2, George Bush, Address Before the 45th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, New York, October 1st, 1990.
    3, Frosty Woldridge's article #163
    4, President H. W. Bush addressing Congress, September 11, 1990.
    5, The UN Plan For Your Mental Health and Molding Human Resources (That's You) For Global Workforce.
    6, Edgar C. Bundy, Collectivism in the Church (195, page 196-197.
    7, Time, March 16, 1942. See also Conforming the Church to the New Millennium
    8, John Dewey, Democracy and Education (The Macmillan Company, 1916), chapter 4. Referenced by Dennis Laurence Cuddy, Ph.D., in Chronology of Education With Quotable Quotes.
    9, G. Brock Chisholm, "The Re-Establishment of Peacetime Society," Psychiatry, February 1946. Later published by Alger Hiss.
    10, UNESCO, Our Creative Diversity, UNESCO's Commission on Culture and [human] Development, page 11.
    11, Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline ( Doubleday, 1994), pages 68-69.
    12, Communities of Commitment
    13, Article
    14, What to do When your church hits a plateau
    15, Federico Mayor, former Director-General of UNESCO, “Education and Human Development,” UNESCO, 1993. Quoting from Edgar Faure's 1972 report, “Learning to be.”

    © 2006 Berit Kjos - All Rights Reserved
    Order Berit's book Brave New Schools
    END OF AN ERA 1/20/2009

  2. #2
    Senior Member moosetracks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    I want the UN kicked out of our Country, sooooo bad!
    Judy and GeorgiaPeach like this.
    Do not vote for Party this year, vote for America and American workers!

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Heart of Dixie
    Looking back - we see that it is on steroids.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Heart of Dixie
    Part 1 from 2006 included for archive - and refresher.

    By Berit KjosJune 13,
    "The implications for state sovereignty are also complex.... All states should establish coherent national migration policies that are ... consistent with international treaty law."[1] Global Commission on International Migration

    "Why, oh why, is Bush so stubbornly rejecting the advice of his supporters even though that advice is consistent with the thunderous message from public opinion surveys?"[2] Phyllis Schlafly

    A borderless world! Social solidarity! Economic equality! Housing and health for all! The feel-good togetherness of serving the greater whole.... The list of utopian promises stretches the imagination. How can this dream be fulfilled? What will it cost? Why is migration vital to this process? How free is our president to block this transformational plan?

    The dream of a New World Order was born long before socialist visionaries (including Franklin Roosevelt and the leaders of the Federal Council of Churches) enthroned Communist Alger Hiss as the first head of the United Nations.[3] [See The Revolutionary Roots of the UN] Hiss was the primary author of The UN Charter, which summarized its vision in noble terms that few could criticize.

    "WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS," it began, "DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war... to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained... and for these ends to practice tolerance and... to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all.... Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco... do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."[4]

    It took the Second World War to make the new system acceptable to the people. In the wake of that useful crisis, the masses willingly embraced the UN promise of "economic and social advancement of all" under the guiding hand of the new "international machinery."

    In the decades that followed, most people seemed to dismiss UN treaties and declarations as "soft laws" and policies with little effect on national sovereignty. They didn't know the many ways UN declarations would permeate national laws and policies. The mainstream media didn't tell us. So when the "The Global Commission on International Migration was launched by the United Nations Secretary-General and a number of governments on December 9, 2003," few saw the red lights.[5]

    But America is awakening. An immigrant-friendly nation, it has welcomed grateful immigrants from around the world into its system. Now, it faces a new kind of migration -- one that intentionally clashes with everything we have valued and shared. Thomas Sowell summarizes some of its more obvious problems:

    "Under affirmative action, combined with amnesty, [illegals] would have preferences in jobs and other benefits. Those who set up their own businesses would be entitled to preferences in getting government contracts. Their children would be able to get into college ahead of the children of American citizens with better academic qualifications. ... [I]f an illegal alien gets stopped for going through a red light... in many communities the cop is forbidden to arrest him.... Under a provision recently passed by the Senate, illegal aliens who forged Social Security cards not only get a pass, they get to collect Social Security benefits."[6]

    This legalized lawlessness fuels the "crisis" needed to persuade the masses to accept mass surveillance, universal data collection, and other intrusive strategies for worldwide control. And it gets worse:

    "Based on a one-year in-depth study, a researcher estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each."[7]

    "The immigration reform bill now under congressional consideration would grant amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants.... Within two decades, the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today."[8]

    "When Sept. 11 hijackers Hani Hanjour and Khalid Almihdhar needed help getting fraudulent government-issued photo IDs before embarking on their suicide mission, they hopped into a van and headed to the parking lot of a 7-Eleven store in Falls Church, Va. That's where scores of illegal alien day laborers ply bogus identity documents to other illegal aliens from around the world."[9]

    A web of secrecy and a flood of misleading propaganda hides the truth from taxpayers who cover the costs. For example, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America undermines both security and prosperity for ordinary people. Wondering why elected leaders ignore their pleas, many face rising lawlessness, litter, lost jobs, and fear of violence.[10]

    The reasons are actually simple. International regulations have already bound the nations around the world to regional as well as global laws and policies. To understand their aims, let's look at the United Nation's Report of the Global Commission on International Migration [GCIM]. Chapter 6 warns us that "international migration is a complex phenomenon," and most nations (states) recognize the importance of international migration and seek to address it in a way that enables them to respect their international obligations."[1] Might the word "respect" actually imply "obedience" to international guidelines?


    The subtle language in many UN documents hides the assault on national sovereignty. While sounding affirmative, it undermines any "sovereign" action that might oppose UN policies. The UN Declaration on Human Rights illustrates this manipulative language well. Its Article 18 upholds "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion..." Article 19 affirms "the right to freedom of opinion and expression...."

    But Article 29 states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, its promise of "human rights" does not apply to those who would criticize the UN or its policies. Nor does it apply to Christians who cling to God's "offensive" truths -- or refuse to follow UNESCO's Declaration on the Role of Religion in the Promotion of a Culture of Peace.[11]

    The migration issue shifts national sovereignty onto the same slippery ground. In the numbered items below, notice the GCIM's promising assurance -- followed by a clear denial of traditional sovereignty:

    "8.First, state sovereignty is the very basis for international cooperation...."

    "9. Second, with sovereignty comes responsibility. As the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty has
    observed, recent years have witnessed a reorientation 'from sovereignty as control to sovereignty as responsibility in both internal functions and external duties.' Sovereignty as responsibility has become the minimum content of good international citizenship." [Note: That responsibility falls primarily on the "rich" developed nations considered capable of hosting, funding and managing the world's migrating human resources.]

    "10. ...The European Union (EU) can be viewed as an example of a group of states that have retained their sovereignty [Have they?]..."

    "11. ...States establish international bodies when certain issues... warrant a more formal and collective form of governance."[1]

    All nations must "establish coherent national migration policies... consistent with international treaty law..." The following points show some of the ways nations must cooperate with regional and global policies.

    "15. If states are to address the issue of international migration in a coherent manner, they must have... criteria for the entry and residents of non-citizens that are consistent with international law. ... [T]hey should at minimum address the following issues:

    � family reunion, asylum, refugee protection and resettlement;

    � the prevention of irregular migration and the promotion of regular migration [The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA) would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the nation's population];[8]

    � integration, including the rights and obligations of migrants, citizens and the state...

    � the protection of migrant rights."[12]

    "17. All states should adopt a coherent approach to international migration that is consistent with international law and other relevant norms...."

    "21. ...This in turn requires effective data collection, policy analysis, research, monitoring and evaluation...."

    "23. ... develop an infrastructure that provides social, educational and legal assistance to migrants, and that helps the host society adapt to the presence of migrants; ensure that resident foreign nationals are effectively represented by migrant associations.... [B][12] uild up a capacity for data collection and analysis, research, monitoring and evaluation."[1]


    Regional integration, such as the European Union (EU), was planned long ago as a stepping stone toward global governance. Since the regulations for regionalism are established at the UN level, this initial merger of nations -- such as Canada, United States and Mexico -- redefines sovereignty and submits everyone to international controls. Ashley Mote, an independent member of the European Parliament, explains how this revolutionary system would swallow up any representative form of government:

    "Even the EU's public face - the unelected commission - is part of the charade. Power does not lie with them. It lies with the senior staff running their departments, entrenched by some 3000 working groups and committees on which no elected MEP sits.... We do not know what their budgets are, how they are financed, or who approves their costs. Indeed, we do not even know what powers they have been given, nor by whom. And we cannot get rid of them....

    "The EU would no longer be the servant of the member states. It would have become their master. Every previous treaty was a small step along that road.... The other 24 commissioners, each appointed by the other member states... are figure-heads. They take the flak in the public arena, and make announcements decided for them by their senior staff, with the guidance of the secret committees.

    "...officially above the commission sits a Council of Ministers.... But the council is just more of the same elaborate illusion of accountable government. ... The European Parliament sits below this vast superstructure... designed to create an illusion of accountable democracy. A condescending pat on the head for voters held in contempt.

    "...the EU�s parliament... is the repository of an unspoken agreement between the left and the multinationals. ... In effect, the left has said to the multinationals: you can have your markets stitched up for you, if we can indulge ourselves in endless social engineering. Big business has agreed. The result is a largely supportive parliament both from the left and right of the political divide."[13]

    Today's euphemistic propaganda for regional governance continues to mislead the public. These statements by GCIM show only the positive side of the issue:

    34. In the EU, for example, citizens of member states can move with relative ease from one country to another, enjoying the benefits of a common labour market."

    35. Efforts have also been made to establish various types of economic integration and related freedom of movement agreements in other regions of the world, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)."

    The Commission commends in particular the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), which aims to establish an integrated socio-economic development framework for Africa."[1]

    In Part 2, we will look more closely at how the values, poverty and lawlessness within the migration crisis create a public mindset that welcomes other UN goals: universal surveillance and data tracking, total gun control, a new kind of "human settlement" and collective participation in the dialectic process. Meanwhile, study this chart and remember God's promise to His people:

    "Be strong and of good courage; do not be afraid, nor be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go." Joshua 1:9 Endnotes:
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

  5. #5
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    It's all been a conspiracy against the US and yes, it's been quite apparent that they have exploited and actually bought "religions" to achieve it. Disgusting.
    Newmexican and Beezer like this.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

  6. #6
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Heart of Dixie
    A Chronology of the UN
    The Revolutionary Steps to Global Tyranny
    and the radical minds behind the New World Order
    Council of Churches| Tragedy and Hope | Cecil Rhodes | RIIA
    "Locksley Hall"by Alfred Lord Tennyson, 1842
    For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
    Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be...
    Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd
    In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.
    There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,
    And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law.

    The roots of the United Nations -- the most visible part of the new global management system -- might be compared to the many deep and spreading roots of a tenacious vine. Some of the roots are short and shallow. Others are long and deep, firmly imbedded in powerful social, political and financial institutions in Europe and North America, which -- for various reasons -- shared Lord Tennyson's vision of a "federation of the world."

    The tangled roots of this vine spread beneath the surface of public life until 1945, when delegates from 50 countries met in San Francisco to sign the UN Charter. Communist spy, Alger Hiss, co-authored that founding charter and served as the first acting UN Secretary-General. This initial glimpse of the global agenda should have raised a big red flag. But our war-torn world was already blinded by the well-publicized vision of a peaceable planet "lapt in universal law." Who dared oppose such a noble purpose?

    Actually, many Americans did see the sign posts along the way, but their warnings were drowned out by the mainstream media's resounding praise. Small wonder! The 25 main U.S. newspapers had been bought by the banking goliath, J. P. Morgan -- one of the stronger stems in the vine's tangled root system.

    The young vine grew fast and its branches spread throughout the world. The signs of political and social compromise multiplied. It was no secret that each consecutive socialist Secretary General -- Trygve Lie (from Norway but recommended by Russia), Dag Hammersjold (Sweden), U Thant (Burma), Kurt Waldheim (Austria), etc. -- sympathized with Communism and helped build an imposing web of international declarations and treaties ("soft" laws) that would overrule constitutional rights and domestic laws in America.

    For decades only Communist leaders would fill the UN's highest military post, Under-Secretary-General for Political and Security Council Affairs. Fourteen of the fifteen men who held this vital post up until 1995 (and probably into the new century [2]) represented the USSR. The one exception was Dragoslav Protitich, a Communist from Yugoslavia. So when American soldiers fought Communism in Korea and Vietnam in partnership with the UN, the top UN military leaders were Communists. No wonder American soldiers fought two futile and deadly wars.

    How could the public be so deceived? Part of the answer lies in subtle power of gradualism -- the incremental steps that function like the proverbial frog in the pot of slow-heating water. You become so used to gradual change that you hardly notice the next step.

    Just as important is the grand vision of global peace, which burns in the heart of many idealists who have learned to hate war. These two -- vision and gradualism -- serve to both motivate and deceive the masses at the same time. Of course, many of the leaders who utilize these strategies have more totalitarian goals in mind.

    That quest began long for Alfred Lord Tennyson penned his visionary poem, Locksley Hall. History points to monumental feats such as the Tower of Babel, the vast Hittite, Babylonian and Persian civilizations and, later, the Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Muslim empires. In more modern times the world watched with awe as "civilized" nations such as Russia and Germany sacrificed personal freedom and millions of lives on their altars to Soviet and Nazi dreams of totalitarian socialism.

    Hindsight helps us trace the early, incremental steps toward a world government, and we can now look back at a foundation laid by an eclectic blend of socialist visionaries, global-minded financiers, communist revolutionaries, secret societies, New Age leaders, wealthy capitalist and tax-exempt foundations primarily in Great Britain and the USA. Long before the United Nations became an official organ under socialist leadership, that early vision had spread through all the main institutionsRepublicans or Democrats; it doesn't really matter.

    Few have done more to expose this revolutionary agenda than Carrol Quigley, the history professor at the Foreign Service Schools of Georgetown University whom Clinton honored in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, July 16, 1992. [See Quigley's credentials] In his 1300-page tome, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, he wrote:

    "The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so the that American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." [4-Quigley, 1247-1248]

    In other words, elected officials come and go, but the unelected leaders behind the scenes continue their reign. As European Parliament member Ashley Mote wrote in an article titled "Beware the Secret Heart of the EU,"

    "Even the EU's public face - the unelected commission - is part of the charade. Power does not lie with them. It lies with the senior staff running their departments.... We do not know what their budgets are, how they are financed, or who approves their costs. Indeed, we do not even know what powers they have been given, nor by whom. And we cannot get rid of them....

    "The EU would no longer be the servant of the member states. It would have become their master. Every previous treaty was a small step along that road.... The other 24 commissioners, each appointed by the other member states... are figure-heads. They take the flak in the public arena, and make announcements decided for them by their senior staff, with the guidance of the secret committees.
    "...officially above the commission sits a Council of Ministers.... But the council is just more of the same elaborate illusion.... The European Parliament sits below this vast superstructure... designed to create an illusion of accountable democracy. A condescending pat on the head for voters held in contempt.

    "...the EU’s parliament has a built-in majority in favour of the social market. It is the repository of an unspoken agreement between the left and the multinationals. ... In effect, the left has said to the multinationals: you can have your markets stitched up for you, if we can indulge ourselves in endless social engineering. Big business has agreed. The result is a largely supportive parliament both from the left and right of the political divide." [The "Americas" are moving in the same direction!]

    Summarizing a key point in Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, Dr. Stanley Monteith wrote in his well researched book, Brotherhood of Darkness: "Professor Quigley assured his readers that the threat of communism was exaggerated, and that he had researched the men and the organizations that rule the world. In those days many people believed that our State Department had turned Eastern Europe and China over to the communist because our government was dominated by subversive agents." Professor Quigley clarified that confusion:

    "This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent in the way the radical Right believes the Communist act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records." [4.Quigley, 950]

    "One of Professor Quigley's most shocking revelations," wrote Dr. Monteith, "was the fact that the American Communist Party was partly financed by J. P. Morgan and Company.... J. P. Morgan and his associates financed the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, conservative groups, liberal organizations, communist groups and anti-communist organizations. [See the dialectic process] Thus we should not be surprised to learn that someone purchased Professor Quigley's publisher and destroyed the plates to the first half of his book so it couldn't be reprinted."[1, page 99-100]

    The Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) would become the U.S. equivalent to the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in Great Britain. Professor Quigley explains:

    "At the end of the war of 1914, it became clear that the organization of this system had to be greatly extended... the tasks was entrusted to Lionel Curtis who established, in England and each dominion, a front organization to the existing local Round Table Group. This front organization called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table Group. In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a front for J. P. Morgan and Company.... In fact, the original plans for the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations were drawn up at Paris."[4.Quigley, 951-952]

    Banks and tax-exempt foundations were essential to this global vision :

    "The powers of financial capitalism has another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole....
    "The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank... sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards...."[4.Quigley, 324]

    "In 1924, the chairman of the board of the Midland Bank said, "...banks can and do create money... And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Government and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."[4.Quigley, 325]

    "During the early decades of the 20th century," explained Dr. Monteith, "the three largest banks in the US were owned by the Rockefellers, the Morgan's, and the Mellon's." Contrary to popular speculations, the powerful European central banks preceded the House of Rothschild. Jewish banks "never controlled the financial institutions of the world." [1, page 35]Quigley, 50-62

    There you have a glimpse into the hidden Anglo-American power structure and its European branches. To see how all the pieces fit together, we suggest you read Brotherhood of Darkness [800-544-8927] by Dr. Stan Monteith. Many of the quotes below are taken (with permission) from his book.

    1842. Alfred Lord Tennyson penned the poem, Locksley Hall, expressing his belief that "Great Britain had a moral obligation to consolidate the world under British rule.[1, page 12]

    1870s. Oxford professor John Ruskin embraced Tennyson's vision with students, persuading them that "they had a moral obligation to disseminate English culture and unite the world under British rule.[1, page 14] By early 1900s, many held strategic positions in the English Government, but none of his disciples would further the vision more effectively than Cecil Rhodes.

    1877. In his book, Confession of Faith, Cecil Rhodes wrote: "The Society [of the Elect] 'should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people. The Society should always be searching for members who might by their position in the world by their energies or character forward the object…"[Cecil Rhodes: Confessions of Faith]

    1888. Edward Bellamy also embraced Tennyson's vision, and his book, Looking Backward, helped spread the vision of a socialist world government.[1, page 15] Bellamy clubs began forming across the USA. Among his followers was Andrew Carnegie who believe in monopoly capitalism -- socialism (a universal welfare system) with a ruling class of powerful capitalists who would control both governments and the people.[1, page 16]
    1890 (Autumn): "Rhodes sent his close friend W. T. Stead a letter explaining his plan for world government:
    The key of my idea discussed with you is a Society, copied from the Jesuits as to organization... an idea which ultimately (leads) to the cessation of all wars and one language throughout the world.... The only thing feasible to carry this idea out is a secret one [society] gradually absorbing the wealth of the world to be devoted to such an object."[6, page 13]
    "Rhodes’ 'universal peace' would begin, according to him, 'after one hundred years,' and it will be exactly one hundred years later in the autumn of 1990 that President George Bush will spell out his “New World Order” concept for universal peace and cooperation."[6-Cuddy, p.13] According to Dr. Cuddy, Rhodes’ letter would be "published in W. T Stead’s article in Review of Reviews (May 1902)."
    Looking back many years later, Professor Quigley described another step toward completion of this 100-year plan. Many of these men would undoubtedly be Rhodes Scholars:
    "after thirty years there would be 'between two and three thousand men in the prime of life scattered all over the world, each one of whom, moreover, would have been specially-- mathematically -- selected toward the Founder’s purposes.” [Quigley quoting Stead].[6-Cuddy, p.14]
    1891 (February 5): "Rhodes’ secret society, 'The Society of the Elect,' is formally established.... Rhodes is the 'General,' with Stead, Milner, and Reginald Baliol Brett (Lord Esher) forming the executive committee. They were followed by the 'Circle of Initiates,' with an 'Association of Helpers' (later organized by Milner as the semi-secret Round Table Groups) beyond them."[6, page 14]
    1895: The Fabian Socialists establish the London School of Economics. Though the Fabians are dominated by an intellectual elite, and The Group [Rhodes' Round Table members] is dominated by a financial elite, they both believe in a socialist relationship between government and the masses...."[6, page 14-15]

    1891: To select and train world leaders worthy of his vision, Cecil Rhodes established the Rhodes Trust and the Rhodes Scholarship Fund. He had acquired the wealth needed to pursue his global ambitions in the gold and diamond mines of southern Africa.
    The power and influence of Rhodes Scholars who have pursued their sponsor's vision has, through the last century helped steer "progress" toward global governance. Dr. Monteith wrote:

    "During the past century over 4600 young men have been sent to Oxford University where they were indoctrinated in socialism and world government. President Bill Clinton, General Wesley Clark, Strobe Talbot, Senator Bill Bradley and thousands of other prominent men are Rhodes Scholars. They work in government offices, in international banks, on the board of corporations, in tax-exempt foundation, in the Supreme Court, in the media, in our universities in the United Nations Association, and in the Council on Foreign Relations."[1, page 22]
    1902. Cecil Rhodes died, and Lord Alfred Milner took control of the Rhodes Trust.

    1909. Lord Milner's secretive Round Table Group was established. Professor Quigley exposed some of the evolving ties between the global banking fraternity and these evolving "semi-secret discussion and lobbying groups," which helped foment World War I as a means to raise public support for a League of Nations.
    "By 1915, Round Table Groups existed in seven countries, including England...(and) the United States.... Since 1925, there have been substantial contributions from wealthy individuals, and from foundations and firms associated with the international banking fraternity, especially... organizations associated with J. P. Morgan, the Rockefeller and Whitney families...." Quigley, 950-951.
    1913 (January). President Woodrow Wilson wrote in his book, The New Freedom: "We are in a new world.... In the new order, government and business must be associated closely.... We stand in the presence of a revolution.... (which) will come in peaceful guise...." He continued with this amazing revelation. Remember, this was happening almost a century ago! What we see today is the result of this hidden but rising iceberg:
    "Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. . . . We
    have been dreading all along the time when the combined power of high finance would be greater than the power of government....

    "We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.... We are in a new world.... Behind the
    whole subject, of course, is the truth that, in the new order, government and business must be associated closely.... We stand in the presence of a revolution... (which) will come in peaceful guise."[6-Cuddy, pps.24-25]
    1913 (December 23): President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act. "One of the individuals who helped to plan the Federal Reserve is Frank Vanderlip, president of Rockefeller’s National City Bank."[6-Cuddy, p.25]
    1915. According to the Reece Committee (the Special House Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations), which would later investigate tax-exempt foundations that funded communist organizations and their international goals, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace launched a propaganda program in 1915 to persuade the American people to fight in World War 1. During these investigations in the 1950s, the Congressional Committee found that:

    • Many of our large foundations were actively promoting communism and socialism
    • The foundations influenced State Department policy and were largely responsible for bringing communism to China.
    • The foundations were working to undermine our constitutional form of government.
    In the official minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Reece Committee also found the following specific questions which were discussed by the Carnegie trustee:
    "Is there any means known to man more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?'"
    "How do we involve the United States in a war?"
    "How do we control the diplomatic machinery of the United States?" [Their conclusion: "We" must control the State Department][5]
    1917. Dr. Monteith wrote that "J. P. Morgan and his associates controlled twenty five of our most influential newspapers. The atrocity stories [about the war] were designed to raise public support of American entry into World War 1" -- an essential step toward public acceptance of a world government. According to the Congressional Record (2-17-1917),
    "...the J.P. Morgan [banking] interests.... and their subsidiary organizations got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the US.... They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. ... an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information...."[1, page 9]

    1917 (11-2. After Lenin's triumph in Russia, Colonel Mandel House, President Woodrow Wilson's main advisor and -- as President Wilson called him, "my altar ego" -- cabled the president the following message from Paris: "There have been cabled over and published here statements made by American papers to the effect that Russia should be treated as an enemy. It is exceedingly important that such criticism should be suppressed."[6-Cuddy, p.32]
    According to Dr. Dennis Cuddy, Col. House was "the man primarily responsible for the League of Nations Covenant (influenced by the Fabian Socialists' drafts for the League), would also be largely responsible for the establishment of the Council on Foreign Relations. In June, 1923, he wrote in its Foreign Affairs journal:
    "If war had not come in 1914 in fierce and exaggerated form, the idea of an association of nations would probably have remained dormant, for great reforms seldom materialize except through great upheavals.... If law and order are good within states, there can be no reasons why they should not be good between states [nations]."[6-Cuddy, p.30]
    1917. In its report published in 1954, the Reece Committee (the Special House Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations) explained and quoted the official minutes of the Board of Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
    "These trustees in a meeting about 1917 had the brashness to congratulate themselves on the wisdom of their original decision because already the impact of war had indicated it... could alter life in this country. ... they even had the brashness to ... dispatch a telegram to Mr. Wilson, cautioning him to see that the war did not end too quickly....
    "The concern became, as expressed by the trustees, seeing to it that there was no reversion to life in this country as it existed prior to 1914. And they came to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, they must control education. And then they approached the Rockefeller Foundation and they said: 'Will you take on the acquisition of control of education as it involves subjects that are domestic in their significance?' And it was agreed. Then together they decided that the key to it was the teaching of American history and they must change that."[7]
    1918. "Russia is pointing the way to a great and sweeping world changes. It is not in Russia alone that the old order is passing . There is a lot of the old order in America, and that is going, too.... I am glad it is so." William Boyce Thompson, Federal Reserve Bank director and founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote these words in the January issue of New York World.[10, p. 10]
    1918 (August 7). Financier Bernard Baruch, chairman of the War Industries Board (who in 1944 advised President Roosevelt concerning "War and Postwar Plans"), said:
    "Every man's life is at the call of the nation and so must be every man's property. We are living today in a highly organized state of socialism. The state is all; the individual is of importance only as he contributes to the welfare of the state. His property is only as the state does not need it. He must hold his life and his possessions at the call of the state." [6-Cuddy, p.32]
    1919 (February). The League of Nations. "The terrible losses of World War 1 produced... an ever growing public demand that some method be found to prevent the renewal of the suffering and destruction which were now seen to be an inescapable part of modern war. So great was the force of this demand that within a few weeks after the opening of the peace conference of Paris in January 1919, unanimous agreement had been reached on the text of the covenant of the League of Nations." Brit-13-851 Col. House wrote the first draft of that covenant.

    1919. Col. House deliberately misled world leaders into rejecting any notion of blocking the Bolshevik Revolution. The following statement is from his diary: "I had a heart to heart talk with Clemenceau [Premier of France] about Bolshevism in Russia and its westward march. I made him confess that military interventions was impossible.... Later in the afternoon, when Orlando [Premier of Italy] called, I gave him very much the same kind of talk.... I am trying, and have partially to succeeded, to frighten not only the President [Wilson] but the English, French and Italians regarding what might be termed 'the Russian peril.'"[6-Cuddy, p.34-35]

    1921. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was founded -- mainly through Col. House's influence. To build the needed network of globalist support groups, it would disperse tens of millions of dollars annually from the major tax-exempt foundations such as the Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations. Global Tyranny, page 54

    The CFR would be the U.S. equivalent of the British RIIA, the Royal Institute of International Affairs. As Professor Quigley wrote,
    "...the original plans for the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations were drawn up at Paris." Quigley, 952.

    1922. New York city Mayor John Hylan's description of the shadow government developing on the national level fits the international transformation as well:
    "the real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, State and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of self-created screen. It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers and every agency created for the public protection."[8]
    1925. The International Bureau of Education was founded with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. It later became part of UNESCO.

    1931 (November). Arnold Toynbee delivers a speech to the institute for the Study of the International Affairs at Copenhagen in which he explains,

    "We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. 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 for which as statesman or publicist can... be ostracized or discredited." [The Trend of International Affairs Since the War," International Affairs, Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs.] [6-Cuddy, p.50]

    1932. Rockefeller Foundation president Max Mason tells trustees that "The Social Sciences will concern themselves with the rationalization of social control... the control of human behavior."[8, p.18]

    1932. Dr. Ernst Rudin, the Nazi director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry (funded by "Rockefeller) was appointed president of the global Eugenics Federation.

    1934 (February). A Rockefeller "progress report" (by one of the division heads) asks, "Can we develop so sound and extensive a genetics that we can hope to breed, in the future, superior men?" Cuddy, 18.

    1935. The Masonic symbol of the eye in the pyramid is officially added to the U.S. dollar bill. Henry A. Wallace, President Roosevelt's Secretary of Agriculture (a Socialist and Theosophist who later became Roosevelt's vice-president) explained:

    "Roosevelt as he looked at the colored reproduction of the Seal was first struck with the representation of the 'All Seeing Eye,' a Masonic representation of The Great Architect of the Universe.... Roosevelt like myself was a 32nd degree Mason. He suggested that the Seal be put on the dollar bill." Henry A. Wallace, Socialist Sec. of Agriculture and, later, Vice President under Roosevelt." [more]

    1935. In a report presented at the 72nd annual NEA meeting, Willard Givens (later NEA executive secretary) wrote: "A dying laissez-faire must be completely destroyed and all of us... must be subjected to a large degree of social control. .. The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual. It must seek to give him understanding of the transition to a new social order."[9]

    1937. John Foster Dulles, former (?) chairman of the Rockefeller foundation and of the executive committee of the Federal Council of Churches (replaced by the National Council of Churches) praised totalitarianism saying:
    "...Communism and Fascism [are] changing almost overnight the characteristics of entire peoples. Millions of individuals have been made into different and, on the whole, finer people...personal prides (individualism) ... (is) replaced by ... self-sacrifice and discipline. There is a conscious subordination of self to the end that some great objective maybe furthered." (Religion in Life, Vol. 6 No. p.197)

    1939. Future Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (CFR member) delivers a speech to YMCA. He states, "[There must be] some dilution of sovereignty, to the immediate disadvantage of those nations which now possess the preponderance of power...." (New York Times, 10-29)

    1941 (January 6). In his speech to a Joint Session of Congress, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "Since the beginning of our American history we have been engaged in change – in a perpetual peaceful revolution – a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions.... The 'World Order' which we seek is the co-operation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.... Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere."

    1941. The Declaration of the United Nations was signed by 26 states. It would help lay the foundation for the envisioned global reign. Few realized the very real conspiracy behind World War II -- a stepping stone to the planned future. [See Trusting God as Freedom Fades]

    1942 (February or March) "...six years before the World Council of Churches was formally launched, its organizers within the Federal Council of Churches [renamed National Council of Churches] held a National Study conference at Wesleyan University in Ohio. Among the 30 delegates were 15 bishops, seven seminary presidents, and eight college and university presidents.

    John Foster Dulles, who later became Secretary of State in the Eisenhower administration, chaired the conference. As head of the Federal Council's inter-Church “Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace,” Dulles submitted the conference report. It recommended:

    • "a world government of delegated powers
    • "immediate limitations on national sovereignty
    • "international control of all armies and navies
    • "a universal system of money
    • "worldwide freedom of immigration
    • "a democratically controlled international bank
    • "even distribution of the world’s natural wealth."[11]

    1942(March 16) Time magazine wrote a summary of the report. In its statement below, notice these words: “a new order... through voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy or through explosive political revolution.” This solution, “voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy” gives us a glimpse of the true meaning of nice-sounding words such as democracy, volunteerism, participation (involving everyone in the consensus process), partnerships, and civil society:

    Some of the conference’s economic opinions were almost as sensational as the extreme internationalism of its political program. It held that a ‘new order of economic life is both imminent and imperative' – a new order that is sure to come either ‘through voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy or through explosive political revolution.’ Without condemning the profit motive as such, it denounced various defects in the profit system for breeding war, demagogues and dictators…. Instead, 'the church must demand economic arrangements measured by human welfare."[9]

    1942. The editor of the NEA Journal, J. Elmer Morgan, wrote an editorial titled "The United Peoples of the World." In it, he explained a world government's need for an educational branch, a world system of money and credit, a world police force, 'a world bill of rights and duties.'" (December 1942).

    1943. John Foster Dulles -- together with leaders such as Alger Hiss (exposed by the FBI in 1939 as Communist spy) -- convened another Council of Churches conference. It endorsed “Six Pillars of Peace,” a plea for a world political organizationa United Nations. In his speech, recorded in the Council’s 1944 Biannual Report, Dulles said,

    "Interest in this subject had been enormously increased by the declaration of the Moscow conference, which stressed the necessity of creating at the earliest possible moment a general international organization…. People in and out of the churches were urged to 'remain united and vigorous to achieve such [an] international organization.' … This statement, signed by more than 1,000 Protestant leaders, was given to the press and mailed to the President and members of Congress.”[9]
    1944 (8/21-10/7): "The formation of an international organization to supersede the League of Nations was also undertaken by technical experts of the Allied nations. In the United States, numerous state department and interdepartmental committees studied the intricate problems of organization, membership, voting procedure and sanctions.... At Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, U.S., British, Russian and Chinese experts [which included co-author Alger Hiss] finally gathered to draw up a charter for the United Nations organizations. ... the experts were able to reach agreement on all but two issues....

    [1] whether a permanent member of the Security council should be able to employ the veto in a case in which it was a party....

    [2] whether the 16 Soviet republics should enjoy individual membership. These two issues had to be resolved by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin at their conference at Yalta." [Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 23, p.806]

    1944. President Roosevelt chose Alger Hiss as his acting director of the State Department's Office of Special Political Affairs in charge of all postwar planning -- ignoring all the FBI evidence of his Communist activities.

    1945 (2/4-2/11): The Yalta conference -- Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin met to discuss post-war resolutions. Alger Hiss accompanied Roosevelt as his advisor. Roosevelt continued to ignore the FBI warnings about Hiss
    ".. In addition to immediate military and political problems, the conferees discussed the United Nations organization charter that had recently been drafted a Dumbarton Oaks. A compromise formula to govern voting in the Security Council was found acceptable...." [Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 23, p.807]

    1945 (April 1, San Francisco):
    Alger Hiss, who coauthored the UN charter, served as Secretary General of the United Nations organizing conference. Later, John Foster Dulles recommend that Hiss head up the multimillion dollar Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    "Upon the basis of proposals submitted by China, the USSR, the UK and the US, the United Nations Conference on International Organization (UNCIO), which convened at San Francisco, CA, drafted the Charter of the United Nations. It was signed on June 26 and entered into force on October 24, 1945.

    "The San Francisco conference was attended by representatives of the 46 states that had signed the Declaration of the United Nations. Four other states (Ukraine, Belarusian, Argentina and Denmark) were admitted during the conference....

    "The Dumbarton Oaks proposals, certain Chinese proposals later adopted by the Big Four (US, UK, USSR and China) and the Yalta agreement.... provided the agenda of the conference.

    "The international Secretariat provided interpreters and translators and distributed documents and speeches daily in t he five official languages (English, French, Spanish, Russian and Chinese). The chairmanship of the plenary sessions rotated among the Big Four. ...

    "The Charter which emerged from the conference followed the general lines of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals but gave greater weight to the General Assembly." [Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 22, p.556]

    1945 (April 16): Time magazine gave a preview of the international conference: "As Secretary-general, managing the agenda, he [Alger Hiss] will have a lot to say behind the scenes about who gets the breaks."

    1945 (June 26): After decades of plans, propaganda and political and financial manipulation, the United Nations was officially launched with Alger Hiss as its first Secretary-General. Representatives from 50 nations met in San Francisco to sign the UN Charter. On June 28, President Harry Truman stated, "We are going to have to ratify this (UN) Constitution of San Francisco.... It will be just as easy for nations to get along in a republic of the world as it is for us to get along in the republic of the United States."

    For much of his life, Harry Truman carried the poem, Locksley Hall, by Lord Tennyson in his pocket. Remember its sobering words:

    "Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd
    In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world."

    1945. UNESCO, a specialized UN agency headquartered in Paris, was established "to contribute to world peace by promoting international cooperation in education, science and culture. It's first Director-General, Julian Huxley, wrote in his book, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy:

    "The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background... In its education program it can... familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization.... Tasks for the media division of UNESCO [will be] to promote the growth of a common outlook shared by all nations and cultures... to help the emergence of a single world culture." See more at

    1946. In his NEA editorial, "The teacher and World Government," J. Elmer Morgan, wrote, "In the struggle to establish an adequate world government, the teacher... can do much to prepare the hearts and minds of children.... At the very top of all the agencies which will assure the coming of world government must stand the school, the teacher, and the organized profession." [The NEA Journal (January 1946)]

    1946. The NEA printed "National Education in an International World" (Teacher's College): The establishment of [UNESCO] marks the culmination of the a movement for the creation of an international agency of education.... Nations that become members of UNESCO accordingly assume an obligation to revise the textbooks used in their schools.... Each member nation... has a duty to se to it that nothing its it curriculum... is contrary to UNESCO's aims."

    1946. An NEA-sponsored "World Conference of the Teaching Profession" drafted a Constitution for a World Organization of the Teaching Profession. It would be "a mighty force in aiding UNESCO" said William Carr (associate secretary of NEA's Education Policies Commission).[7,p.24]

    1946. The United States joined UNESCO, a UN agency. According to Charlotte Iserbyt, "this legislation was accompanied by President Harry Truman's remarkable statement: 'Education must establish the moral unity of mankind.' Truman's recommendation was bolstered by General Brock Chisholm, who would become the first director-generalof World Health Organization (WHO), a UN specialized agency."[10, p.28]

    1946. Dr. Chisholm presented a paper entitled The Psychiatry of Enduring Peace and Social Progress at a US conference on mental health. It was published by the (now prestigious) magazine Psychiatry, and by his Communist friend, Alger Hiss, the publisher of the socialist magazine International Conciliation. Hiss, then president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote the Preface to Chisholm's paper. Ponder Dr. Chisholm's words:

    "The responsibility for charting the necessary changes in human behavior rests clearly on the sciences working in that field. Psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, economists, and politicians must face this responsibility....
    "Can we identify the reasons why we fight wars...? Many of them are easy to list --prejudice, isolationism, the ability to emotionally and uncritically to believe unreasonable things....

    "The only psychological force capable of producing these perversions is morality, the concept of right and wrong... For many generations we have bowed our necks to the yoke of the conviction of sin. We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school teachers....

    " has long been generally accepted that parents have perfect right to impose any points of view, any lies or fears, superstitions, prejudices, hates, or faith on their defenseless children. It is, however, only recently that it has become a matter of certain knowledge that these things cause neuroses, behavior disorders, emotional disabilities, and failure to develop to a state of emotional maturity which fits one to be a citizen of a democracy....

    "Surely the training of children in home and schools should be of at least as great public concern as their vaccination for their own protection.... Individuals who have emotional disabilities of their own, guilts, fears, inferiorities, are certain to project their hates on to others... They are a very real menace... Whatever the cost, we must learn to live in friendliness and peace with... all the people in the world...."

    "There is something to be said... for gently putting aside the mistaken old ways of our elders if that is possible. If it cannot be done gently, it may have to be done roughly or even violently....

    "Can such a program of re-education... be charted?" See a longer excerpt at
    1948. The World Health Organization (WHO) is established under the leadership of Dr. Brock Chisholm, its first director-general.

    1948. The UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a legally binding contract for all nations who, like the U.S. ratified it. It sounds good, as do all the intrusive UN human rights treaties. Article 18 upholds "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion..." Article 19 affirms "the right to freedom of opinion and expression... and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
    But Article 29 states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

    In other words, these "rights" or "freedoms" don't apply to those who would criticize the UN or its policies. Your rights would be conditioned on your compliance. Only if your message supports official ideology are you free to speak it. As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet State, "There can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism." [Encyclopedia Britannica (1968, Volume V, page 164.]

    1949. The
    UNESCO textbook titled Toward World Understanding stated, "As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only rather precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism."

    1953. During the Reece Committee investigations, Ford Foundation president H. Rowan Gaither made the following admission to Norman Dodd, staff director of the hearings:

    " know that we at the executive level here were, at one time or another, active in either the OSS, the State Department, or the European Economic Administration. During those times... we operated under directives issued by the White House. We are continuing to be guided by just such directives.... The substance [of these directives] was to the effect that we should make every effort to so alter life in the Unites States as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union."[5] William H. McIlhany, II, The Tax Exempt Foundations (1980), page 63.

    1966. Quigley's Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time was published. Summarizing a key point in the book, Dr. Monteith wrote, "Professor Quigley assured his readers that the threat of communism was exaggerated, and that he had researched the men and the organizations that rule the world., In those days many people believed that our State Department had turned Easter Europe and china over to the communist because our government was dominated by subversive agents. Professor Quigley ridiculed that idea:

    "This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent in the way the radical Right believes the Communist act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records."

    1960s. Dr. Robert Muller, U.N. deputy secretary-general, prepared a "World Core Curriculum" with the following goal: "Assisting the child in becoming an integrated individual who can deal with personal experience while seeing himself as a part of 'the greater whole.' In other words, promote growth of the group idea, so that group good, group understanding, group interrelations and group goodwill replace all limited, self-centered objectives, leading to group consciousness."

    1969 (March 27). "President Richard Nixon divided the country into 10 regions via the Government Reorganization Act. Then with Nixon’s Executive Order 11647, the nation was divided up into 10 administrative regions on February 14, 1972 (Federal Register February 12, 1972, Vol. 37, No. 30), which also established the Federal Regional Council for the newly designed 10 regions." Nixon "did so because the United Nations passed a resolution that the United States must reorganize into 10 regions." (Nancy Levant, "Bankrupted States=Con-Con & Newstate Constitution")

    1973. The Trilateral Commission was established, primarily by David Rockefeller (chairman of the Rockefeller controlled Chase Manhattan Bank) who funded it. He had been inspired by a proposal by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a global-minded Professor at Columbia University who suggested a three-fold partnership between Western Europe, North America (US and Canada) and Japan.

    Its US membership would include Brzezinski; former president George H. Bush; Richard Gardner (Columbia University); Alan Greenspan (Federal Reserve); Samuel Johnson (Johnson & Son Inc); Robert McNamara (former president of the World Bank); Brent Scowcroft; Donna Shalala (Chancellor, U. of Wisconsin and Clinton's Sec. of DHHS); Albert Shanker (Pres. of American Federation of Teachers); Strobe Talbott (Editor-at-large, Time); Lester Thurow (Faculty, MIT); Paul Volcker (Faculty, Princeton University).

    1973. After a trip to China, David Rockefeller praised Mao Tse-tung who had slaughtered over 40 million people. His report, "From a China Traveler," highlights the goals presented in UN reports such as "The Commission on Global Governance" and UNESCO's "Our Creative Diversity." Both focus on lofty ideals such as peace, harmony and unity in the communitarian "global" village -- a vision that demands absolute control and universal participation in facilitated small groups (modeled by the hierarchy of "soviets" or councils in Communist lands):

    "One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony.... Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution it has obviously succeeded .... in fostering high morale and community purpose. General social and economic progress is no less impressive....The enormous social advances of China have benefited greatly form the singleness of ideology and purpose.... The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history." New York Times, 8-10-1973.

    1974. In his book, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Anthony Sutton "documented the fact that Rockefeller and Morgan banks provided the Bolsheviks with loans, while American industry provided them with the plants and the technology thy needed. Westinghouse, Henry Ford, Averill Harriman, Armand Hammer, Exxon, and other American firms built the infrastructure that allowed the Soviet Union to survive."[1, page 71]

    1983. Speaking at Annapolis, Navy Secretary John Lehman told the graduating class that, "Within weeks, many of you will be looking across just hundreds of feet of water at some of the most modern technology ever invented in America. Unfortunately, it is on Soviet ships." [1, page 71] #107

    1991 (May 21). "In an address to the Bilderberg organization meeting at Evian, France, Henry Kissinger said,

    "Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenarios, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." (Transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates)
    2012. London Olympics closing ceremony. (Personal note by Berit) This dark but spectacular celebration was recorded on a video that we posted for a few days. But, due to its occult themes and suggestions, we deleted it. Among its images are the occult symbols of today's elitist secret societies -- which are ominously real and powerful. I can personally verify that the OTO, high-level "illuminated" Freemasons, and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn are real! (Berit)

    1. Stanley Monteith, MD, Brotherhood of Darkness (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 2000).
    2. This list of UN Under-Secretaries for Political and Security Council Affairs is missing the last decade. A futile search on the UN website reminded me that the UN is not "of the people or for the people." Its version of a Bill or Rights is conditioned on absolute compliance with UN ideology, and -- unlike the U.S.-- it has no "Freedom of Information Act."
    1946-49 Arkady Sobolev (USSR)
    1949-53 Constantine Zinchenko (USSR)
    1953-54 Iiya Tcherychev (USSR)
    1945-57 Dragoslav Protitich (Yugoslavia)

    1957-60 Anatoly Dorynin (USSR)
    1960-62 George Arkadev (USSR)
    1962-63 E.D. Kiselev (USSR)
    1963-65 V.P. Suslov (USSR)
    1965-68 Alexei E. Nesterenko (USSR)

    1968-73 Leonid N. Kutakov (USSR)
    1973-78 Arkady N. Shevchenko (USSR)
    1978-81 Mikhail D. Sytenko (USSR)
    1981-86 Viacheslav A. Ustinov (USSR)
    1987-92 Vasiliy S. Safronchuk (USSR)
    1992- Vladimir Petrovsky (Russia, former USSR)

    3. Marilyn Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy (Los Angeles: J. P. Tarcher, 1980), pages 23-24
    4. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1966).
    5. William H. McIlhany, II, The Tax-Exempt Foundations (Westport, CT: Arlington House, 1980), 60.
    6. Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D., Secret Records Revealed (Oklahoma City: Heartstone Publishing, 1994), pages 30, 32.
    7. Norman Dodd reported these findings in an interview with the writer, William H. McIlihany II, for his 1980 book, The Tax Exempt Foundations (Arlington House, Westport, USA), p. 60-61. The Special House Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations reported in 1954. It was named after its chairman, Representative, B. Carrol Reece of Tennessee.
    8. Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D., Chronology of Education with Quotable Quotes (Pro Family Forum, Highland City, FL 33846, 1994); page 13, 18, 24.
    9. Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D., "Mental Health, Education and Social Control," September 2004,
    10. Charlotte Iserbyt, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America (Ravenna, OH: Conscience Press, 1999).
    11. Edgar C. Bundy, Collectivism in the Church (195, 165, 91. See "Conforming the Church to the New Millennium."

    Additional Notes: Manly P. Hall explained the meaning behind the Great Seal (see picture at top of page) and linked its unfinished pyramid to the unfolding world history: "On the reverse of our nation's Great Seal is an unfinished pyramid to represent human society itself, imperfect and incomplete. Above floats the symbol of the esoteric orders, the radiant triangle with its all-seeing eye." For more information, see

    "CARROLL QUIGLEY, professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University, formerly taught at Princeton and at Harvard. He has done research in the archives of France, Italy, and England, and is the author of the widely praised Evolution of Civilizations.... He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Anthropological Association, and the American Economic Association, as well as various historical associations. He has been lecturer on Russian history at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces since 1951 and on Africa at the Brookings Institution since 1961, and has lectured at many other places, including the U.S. Naval Weapons Laboratory, the Foreign Service Institute of the State Department, and the Naval College at Norfolk, Virginia. In 1958 he was a consultant to the Congressional Select Committee which set up the present national space agency....
    "TRAGEDY AND HOPE shows the years 1895—1950 as a period of transition from the world dominated by Europe in the nineteenth century to the world of three blocs in the twentieth century. With clarity, perspective, and cumulative impact, Professor Quigley examines the nature of that transition through two world wars and a worldwide economic depression. As an interpretative historian, he tries to show each event in the full complexity of its historical context. The result is a unique work, notable in several ways. It gives a picture of the world in terms of the influence of different cultures and outlooks upon each other; it shows, more completely than in any similar work, the influence of science and technology on human life; and it explains, with unprecedented clarity, how the intricate financial and commercial patterns of the West prior to 1914 influenced the development of today’s world." [from the jacket of Tragedy and Hope]

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

  7. #7
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Heart of Dixie
    Additional UN history added for archive.
    Judy and GeorgiaPeach like this.
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts