The Occult Matrix
Recently Updated as of 2017 - This Website is Completely AD FREE - Please Support Me Via Paypal, Promoted Products and Bitcoin, Etherium Or Ripple

Welcome Page About Me Announcements Personal Writings Knowledge Base News Articles
Video Links Digital Downloads Shop Store Suggested Reading Links Page Contact Me
 
Global Tyranny...Step By Step (Chapter 2)

by William F. Jasper
 
From: nancyk@bga.com (Nancy K)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.un,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,
alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.perot,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Global Tyranny...Step by Step (C-2--In the Name of Peace)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 04:29:08 GMT
Message-ID: <4jsn99$tda@news3.realtime.net>

(Over the next several weeks I will post the first 5 chapters of this
book.  The 2nd chapter is in this post.)
In Liberty,
Nancy K
======================================================

        CHAPTER 2

        In the Name of Peace

    The U.N. jets next turned their attention to the center of the
city. Screaming in at treetop level ... they blasted the post office
and the radio station, severing Katanga's communications with the
outside world... One came to the conclusion that the U.N.'s action was
intended to make it more difficult for correspondents to let the world
know what was going on in Katanga...(1)
-- Smith Hempstone
Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends, 1962

Early in 1987, millions of American television viewers tuned in to
watch the dramatic ABC mini-series, AMERIKA. What they saw was a grim,
menacing portrayal of life in our nation after it had been taken over
by a Soviet-controlled United Nations force. Their TV sets showed a
foreboding picture of America as an occupied police-state, complete
with concentration camps, brainwashing, neighborhood spies, and
Soviet-UN troops, tanks and helicopter gunships enforcing "the rule of
law."

Liberals angrily denounced the mini-series, claiming it demonized both
the Soviets and the UN and insisting that it would rekindle
anti-communist hysteria at a time when Soviet-American relations were
at their best point since the end of World War II. The fact that
Soviet troops were at that very time committing real atrocities
against the peoples of Afghanistan didn't matter. UN officials,
furious about the way their organization was being portrayed, even
tried to have the program cancelled.(2)

Why all the furor? Is the UN's image so sacrosanct or the goal of
US-Soviet rapprochement so sacred that even fictional tarnishing is
akin to blasphemy? After all, it was just a television program.
Haven't there been scores of highly acclaimed Hollywood productions
depicting the U.S. military and American patriots in similarly bad or
even far worse light? Besides, the totalitarianism depicted in AMERIKA
could never happen here. Could it?

Dress Rehearsal?

You may be surprised to learn that it HAS ALREADY HAPPENED HERE. NO,
not in the same manner and on the same scale as viewers saw in the
television series, but in an alarming real-life parallel of that
dramatic production What follows is the true, but little-known story
of the "invasion" of about a dozen American cities by "UN forces," as
told by economist/author Dr. V. Orval Watts in his 1955 book, THE
UNITED NATIONS: PLANNED TYRANNY.

        At Fort MacArthur, California, and in other centers,
considerable numbers of American military forces went
into training in 1951 as "Military Government Reserve
Units." What they were for may appear from their practice
maneuvers during the two years, 1951-1952.

        Their first sally took place on July 31, 1951, when they
simulated an invasion and seizure of nine California cities:
Compton, Culver City, Inglewood, Hawthorne, Huntington
Park, Long Beach, Redondo Beach, South Gate and
Torrance. The invading forces, however, did not fly the
American flag. They came in under the flag of the United
Nations, and their officers stated that they represented the
United Nations.

        These forces arrested the mayors and police chiefs, and
pictures later appeared in the newspapers showing these
men in jail. The officers issued manifestoes reading "by
virtue of the authority vested in me by the United Nations
Security Council." At Huntington Park they held a flag-
raising ceremony, taking down the American flag and
running up in its place the United Nations banner.

        On April 3,1952, other units did the same thing at
Lampasas, Texas. They took over the town, closed
churches, strutted their authority over the teachers and
posted guards in classrooms, set up concentration camps,
and interned businessmen after holding brief one-sided
trials without HABEAS CORPUS.

        Said a newspaper report of that Texas invasion: "But the
staged action almost became actual drama when one
student and two troopers forgot it was only make-believe.
'Ain't nobody going to make me get up,' cried John Snell,
17, his face beet-red. One of the paratroopers shoved the
butt of his rifle within inches of Snell's face and snarled,
'You want this butt placed in your teeth? Get up.'"

        The invaders put up posters listing many offenses for which
citizens would be punished. One of them read:"25. Publishing
or circulating or having in his possession with intent to publish
or circulate, any printed or written matter ... hostile,
detrimental, or disrespectful ... to the Government of any other
of the United Nations."

        Think back to the freedom-of-speech clause of the United
States Constitution which every American officer and
official is sworn to support and defend. What was in the
minds of those who prepared, approved and posted these
UN proclamations?

        The third practice seizure under the United Nations flag
occurred at Watertown, New York, August 20, 1952, more
than a year later than the first ones. It followed the same
pattern set in the earlier seizures in California and Texas.

        Is this a foretaste of World Government, which so many
Americans seem to want?(3)

Who ordered these "mock" UN invasions? And to what purpose were they
carried out? Do answers to these questions really matter? Or are these
merely idle concerns about curious but irrelevant events that happened
decades ago and have no bearing on our lives today? Events,
developments, and official policies in the succeeding years, under
both Republican and Democratic administrations, indicate that the mock
invasions of the early 1950s do matter and that they do have a bearing
on our lives today. The dress-rehearsal takeovers of American cities
described above occurred just six years after the founding of the
United Nations, while the organization was still enjoying widespread
public support. American military personnel were at that very time
fighting and dying under the UN flag in Korea. But as recounted in our
previous chapter, a decade later in September of 1961, the President
of the United States would propose a phased transfer of America's
military forces to the UN. Under such a plan, our Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marine Corps, even our nuclear arsenal, would be given over to
UN command, making it possible for our nation's military forces to be
used in a REAL U.N. invasion at some future date anywhere in the
world.

Interestingly, the Kennedy FREEDOM FROM WAR plan differed little from
one proposed earlier that same month by the Soviet-dominated
"nonaligned" nations at a conference held in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.(4)
And it was merely an expansion of the policy enunciated by Secretary
of State Christian Herter (CFR) during the latter days of the
Eisenhower Administration. But few Americans even saw, and fewer still
ever read and understood the incredible disarmament document. For
those who did see, read and understand it, however, there could be no
doubt that it created a path leading to global dictatorship.

If the American public had been aware of FREEDOM FROM WAR
and a number of then-classified government studies being prepared at
that time -- each of which spelled out even more explicitly the intent
of government and Establishment elitists to surrender America to an
all-powerful United Nations  -- there may well have been a popular
uprising that would have swept all of the internationalist schemers
from public office and public trust.

In February 1961, seven months before the President released the
FREEDOM FROM WAR plan to the public, his State Department, led by
Secretary of State Dean Rusk (CFR), hired the private Institute for
Defense Analyses (contract No. SCC 28270) to prepare a study showing
how disarmament could be employed to lead to world government. On
March 10, 1962, the Institute delivered Study Memorandum No. 7, A
WORLD EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED NATIONS,
written by Lincoln P. Bloomfield (CFR).(5) Dr. Bloomfield had himself
recently served with the State Department's disarmament staff, and
while writing his important work was serving as an associate professor
of political science and director of the Arms Control Project at the
Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

This Bloomfield/IDA report is especially significant because the
author is uncharacteristically candid, eschewing the usual euphemisms,
code words, and double-talk found in typical "world order"
pronouncements meant for public consumption. The author believed he
was addressing fellow internationalists in a classified memorandum
that would never be made available for public scrutiny. So he felt he
could speak plainly.

Here is the document's opening passage, labeled SUMMARY:

        A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one
in which "world government" would come about through
the establishment of supranational institutions,
characterized by mandatory universal membership and
some ability to employ physical force. Effective control
would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the
hands of a supranational organization... [T]he present UN
Charter could  theoretically be revised in order to erect such
an organization equal to  the task envisaged, thereby
codifying a radical rearrangement of power in the world.

Dr. Bloomfield was still fudging a little as he began. The phrase
"some ability to employ physical force" was more than a slight
understatement, as the bulk of the report makes abundantly clear. He
continued:

        The principal features of a model system would include the
following: (1) powers sufficient to monitor and enforce
disarmament, settle disputes, and keep the peace --
including taxing powers -- with all other powers reserved to
the nations; (2) an international force, balanced
appropriately among ground, sea, air, and space elements,
consisting of 500,000 men, recruited individually, wearing
a UN uniform, and controlling a nuclear force composed of
60-100 mixed land-based mobile and undersea-based
missiles, averaging one megaton per weapon; (3)
governmental powers distributed among three branches...;
(4) compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court...(6)

"The notion of a 'UN-controlled world' is today a fantastic one," the
professor wrote. "... Political scientists have generally come to
despair of quantum jumps to world order as utopian and unmindful of
political realities. But fresh minds from military, scientific, and
industrial life ... have sometimes found the logic of world government
-- and it is world government we are discussing here --
inescapable."(7)

Dr. Bloomfield then cited Christian Herter's speech of February 18,
1960, in which the Secretary of State called for disarmament "to the
point where no single nation or group of nations could effectively
oppose this enforcement of international law by international
machinery."(8) To this CFR-affiliated academic, who had recently
worked for the disarmament agency where Herter's speech had most
likely been written, there was no question about the meaning of the
Secretary of State's words.

"Here, then," said Bloomfield, "is the basis in recent American policy
for the notion of a world 'effectively controlled by the United
Nations.' It was not made explicit, but the United States position
carried the unmistakable meaning, by whatever name, of world
government, sufficiently powerful in any event to keep the peace and
enforce its judgments."9

Then, to be absolutely certain that there would be no confusion or
misunderstanding about his meaning, he carefully defined his terms:

        "World" means that the system is global, with no
exceptions to its fiat: universal membership. "Effectively
controlled" connotes ... a relative monopoly of physical
force at the center of the system, and thus a preponderance
of political power in the hands of a supranational organization..."
"The United Nations" is not necessarily precisely the
organization as it now exists... FINALLY, TO AVOID
ENDLESS EUPHEMISM AND EVASIVE VERBAGE, THE
CONTEMPLATED REGIME WILL OCCASIONALLY BE
REFERRED TO UNBLUSHINGLY AS A "WORLD
GOVERNMENT." (10) [Emphasis added]

If government is "force" -- as George Washington so simply and
accurately defined it -- then world government is "world force." Which
means that Bloomfield and those who commissioned his report and agreed
with its overall recommendations wanted to create a global entity with
a monopoly of force -- a political, even military power undisputedly
superior to any single nation-state or any possible alliance of
national or regional forces. It is as simple as that.

"The appropriate degree of relative force," the Bloomfield/IDA study
concluded, "would ... involve total disarmament down to police and
internal security levels for the constituent units, as against a
significant conventional capability at the center backed by a
marginally significant nuclear capability."(11) Again and again as the
following excerpts demonstrate, the study drives its essential points
home:

        *  "National disarmament is a condition SINE QUA NON
for effective UN control... [W]ithout it, effective UN control
is not possible."(12)

        *  "The essential point is the transfer of the most vital
element of sovereign power from the states to a
supranational government."(13)

        *  "The overwhelming central fact would still be the loss of
control of their military power by individual nations."(14)

Putting Theory Into Practice

While Dr. Bloomfield was still writing his treatise for global rule,
the hapless residents of a small corner of Africa were experiencing
the terrible reality of "a world effectively controlled by the United
Nations." The site chosen for the debut of the UN's version of "
peacekeeping" was Katanga, a province in what was then known as the
Belgian Congo. The center of world attention 30 years ago, the name
Katanga draws a complete blank from most people today.

Katanga and its tragic experience have been expunged from history,
consigned to the memory hole. The region appears on today's maps as
the Province of Shaba in Zaire. But for one brief, shining moment, the
courageous people in this infant nation stood as the singular
testament to the capability of the newly independent Africans to
govern themselves as free people with a sense of peace, order, and
justice.

While all around them swirled a maelstrom of violent, communist
inspired revolution and bloody tribal warfare, the Katangese
distinguished themselves as a paradigm of racial, tribal, and class
harmony.(15) What they stood for could not be tolerated by the forces
of "anti-colonialism" in the Kremlin, the U.S. State Department, the
Western news media, and especially the United Nations.(16)

The stage was already set for the horrible drama that would soon
unfold when Belgium's King Baudouin announced independence for the
Belgian Congo on June 30,1960. The Soviets, who had been agitating and
organizing in the Congo for years, were ready. Patrice Lumumba was
their man, bought and paid for with cash, arms, luxuries, and all the
women, gin, and hashish he wanted. With his Soviet and Czech
"diplomats" and "technicians" who swarmed all over the Congo, Lumumba
was able to control the Congo elections.(17)

With Lumumba as premier and Joseph Kasavubu as president, peaceful
independence lasted one week. Then Lumumba unleashed a communist reign
of terror against the populace, murdering and torturing men, women,
and children. Amidst this sea of carnage and terror, the province of
Katanga remained, by comparison, an island of peace, order, and
stability. Under the able leadership of the courageous Moise Kapenda
Tshombe, Katanga declared its independence from the central Congolese
regime. "I am seceding from chaos," declared President Tshombe, a
devout Christian and an ardent anti-communist.(18)

These were the days when the whole world witnessed the cry and the
reality of "self determination" as it swept through the African
continent. Anyone should have expected that Katanga's declaration of
independence would have been greeted with the same huzzahs at the UN
and elsewhere that similar declarations from dozens of communist
revolutionary movements and pip-squeak dictatorships had evoked.

But it was Tshombe's misfortune to be pro-Western, pro-free
enterprise, and pro-constitutionally limited government at a time when
the governments of both the U.S. and the USSR were supporting Marxist
"liberators" throughout the world. Nikita Khrushchev declared Tshombe
to be "a turncoat, a traitor to the interests of the Congolese
people."(19) American liberals and the rabble at the UN dutifully
echoed the hue and cry.

To our nation's everlasting shame, on July 14, 1960, the U.S. joined
with the USSR in support of a UN resolution authorizing the world body
to send troops to the Congo.(20) These troops were used, NOT to stop
the bloody reign of terror being visited on the rest of the Congo, but
to assist Lumumba, the chief terrorist, in his efforts to subjugate
Katanga. Within four days of the passage of that resolution, thousands
of UN troops were flown on U.S. transports into the Congo, where they
joined in the campaign against the only island of sanity in all of
black Africa.

Smith Hempstone, African correspondent for the Chicago Daily News,
gave this firsthand account of the December 1961 UN attack on
Elisabethville, the capital of Katanga:

        The U.N. jets next turned their attention to the center of the
city. Screaming in at treetop level ... they blasted the post
office and the radio station, severing Katanga's
communications with the outside world... One came to the
conclusion that the U.N.'s action was intended to make it
more difficult for correspondents to let the world know
what was going on in Katanga...

        A car pulled up in front of the Grand Hotel Leopold II
where all of us were staying. "Look at the work of the
American criminals," sobbed the Belgian driver. "Take a
picture and send it to Kennedy!" In the backseat, his eyes
glazed with shock, sat a wounded African man cradling in
his arms the body of his ten-year-old son. The child's face
and belly had been smashed to jelly by mortar
fragments.(21)

The 46 doctors of Elisabethville -- Belgian, Swiss, Hungarian,
Brazilian, and Spanish -- unanimously issued a joint report indicting
the United Nations atrocities against innocent civilians. This is part
of their account of a UN attack on a hospital:

        The Shinkolobwe hospital is visibly marked with an
enormous red cross on the roof... In the maternity, roof,
ceilings, walls, beds, tables and chairs are riddled with
bullets... 4 Katangan women who had just been delivered
and one new-born child are wounded, a visiting child of 4
years old is killed; two men and one child are killed...(22)

The UN atrocities escalated. Unfortunately, we do not have space here
to devote to relating more of the details of this incredibly vicious
chapter of UN history -- even though the progress toward establishing
a permanent UN army makes full knowledge of every part of it more
vital than ever. Among the considerable body of additional testimony
about the atrocities, we highly recommend THE FEARFUL MASTER by G.
Edward Griffin; WHO KILLED THE CONGO? by Philippa Schuyler; REBELS,
MERCENARIES, AND DIVIDENDS by Smith Hempstone; and 46 Angry Men by the
46 doctors of Elisabethville.

In 1962, a private group of Americans, outraged at our government's
actions against the freedom-seeking Katangese, attempted to capture on
film the truth about what was happening in the Congo. They produced
KATANGA: THE UNTOLD STORY, an hour-long documentary narrated by
Congressman Donald L. Jackson. With newsreel footage and testimony
from eyewitnesses, including a compelling interview with Tshombe
himself, the program exposed the criminal activities and brutal
betrayal perpetrated on a peaceful people by the Kennedy
Administration, other Western leaders, and top UN officials. It
documents the fact that UN (including U.S.) planes deliberately bombed
Katanga's schools, hospitals, and churches, while UN troops
machine-gunned and bayoneted civilians, school children, and Red Cross
workers who tried to help the wounded. This film is now available on
videotape,(23) and is "must-viewing" for Americans who are determined
that this land or any other land shall never experience similar UN
atrocities.

After waging three major offensive campaigns against the fledgling
state, the UN "peace" forces overwhelmed Katanga and forced it back
under communist rule. Even though numerous international observers
witnessed and publicly protested the many atrocities committed by the
UN'S forces, the world body has never apologized for or admitted to
its wrongdoing. In fact, the UN and its internationalist cheering
section continue to refer to this shameful episode as a resounding
success.(24) Which indeed it was, if one keeps in mind the true goal
of the organization.

Following the Policy Line

Why did the government of the United States side with the Soviet Union
and the United Nations in their support of communists Lumumba and
Kasavubu and their denunciation of Tshombe? Why did our nation supply
military assistance to and an official endorsement of the UN's
military action against Katanga? The answer to both questions is that
our government was guided by the same "world order" policy line laid
out by the New York Times in its hard-to-believe editorial of August
16, 1961:

        [W]e must seek to discourage anti-Communist revolts in
order to avert bloodshed and war. We must, under our own
principles, live with evil even if by doing so we help to
stabilize tottering Communist regimes, as in East Germany,
and perhaps even expose citadel of freedom, like West
Berlin, to slow death by strangulation.(25)

Further elaboration on this theme is revealed in a 1963 study
conducted for the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency by
the Peace Research Institute. Published in April of that year, here's
what our tax dollars produced:

        Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, we benefit
enormously from the capability of the Soviet police system
to keep law and order over the 200 million odd Russians
and the many additional millions in the satellite states. The
break-up of the Russian Communist empire today would
doubtless be conducive to freedom, but would be a good
deal more catastrophic for world order...(26)

"We benefit enormously?" Who is this "we"? Certainly not the American
taxpayer, who carried the tax burden for the enormous military
expenditures needed to "contain" Soviet expansionism.

And who determined that freedom must be sacrificed in the name of
"world order"?

Dr. Bloomfield, in the same classified IDA study cited earlier, again
let the world-government cat out of the bag. If the communists
remained too militant and threatening, he observed, "the subordination
of states to a true world government appears impossible; BUT IF THE
COMMUNIST DYNAMIC WERE GREATLY ABATED, THE WEST MIGHT WELL LOSE
WHATEVER INCENTIVE IT HAS FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT." (27) ( Emphasis
added)

In other words, the world order Insiders were faced with the following
conundrum: How do we make the Soviets menacing enough to convince
Americans that world government is the only answer because
confrontation is untenable; but, at the same time, not make the
Soviets so menacing that Americans would decide to fight rather than
become subject to communist tyrants?

Are we unfairly stretching these admissions? Not at all. Keep in mind
that from the end of World War II, up to the very time these
statements were being written, the communists had brutally added
Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North
Korea, Hungary, East Germany, China, Tibet, North Vietnam, and Cuba to
their satellite empire and were aggressively instigating revolutions
throughout Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.

And, as was later demonstrated by the historical research of Dr.
Antony Sutton and other scholars, all of these Soviet conquests had
been immeasurably helped by massive and continuous transfusions from
the West to the Kremlin of money, credit, technology, and scientific
knowledge(28) It was arranged for and provided by the same
CFR-affiliated policy elitists who recognized in the "communist
dynamic" they created an "incentive" for the people in the West to
accept "world government."

Project Phoenix

The U.S. Departments of State and Defense funded numerous other
studies about US-USSR convergence and world order under UN control. In
1964, the surfacing of the Project Phoenix reports generated
sufficient constituent concern to prompt several members of Congress
to protest the funding of such studies.(29) But there was not enough
pressure to force Congress to launch full investigations that could
have led to putting an end to taxpayer funding of these serious
attacks on American security and our constitutional system of
government.

Produced by the Institute for Defense Analyses for the U.S. Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency, the Phoenix studies openly advocated
"unification" of the U.S. and USSR.(30) The following passages taken
from Study Phoenix Paper dated June 4, 1963 leaves no doubt about this
goal:

        Unification -- ... At present the approach ... may appear so
radical that it will be dismissed out of hand; nevertheless,
its logical simplicity... is so compelling that it seems to
warrant more systematic investigation...

        Today, the United States and the Soviet Union combined
have for all practical purposes a near monopoly of force in
the world. If the use and direction of this power could
somehow be synchronized, stability and, indeed even unity
might be within reach.(31)

The Phoenix studies, like many other government reports before and
after, urged increased U.S. economic, scientific, and agricultural
assistance to the Soviet Union. These recommendations are totally
consistent with the long-range "merger" plans admitted to a decade
before by Ford Foundation President Rowan Gaither. And both Republican
and Democratic administrations have followed the same overall policy
ever since. But world order think-tank specialists like Bloomfield
realized that the incremental progress made through these programs was
too slow. He even lamented that reaching the final goal "could take up
to two hundred years."(32)

Bloomfield then noted that there was "an alternate road" to merger and
eventual world government, one that "relies on a grave crisis or war
to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes
sufficient for the purpose."(33) The taxpayer-funded academic
explained that "the order we examine may be brought into existence as
a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks."(34)

Incredible? Impossible? Couldn't happen here? Many Americans thought
so 30 years ago -- before "perestroika," the Persian Gulf War,
propaganda about global warming, and other highly publicized
developments. But by the fall of 1990, Newsweek magazine would be
reporting on the emerging reality of "Superpowers as Superpartners"
and "a new order... the United States and the Soviet Union, united for
crisis management around the globe."(35) [Emphasis added]

In a seeming tipping of his hat to Bloomfield, President Bush would
state in his official August 1991 report, NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY
OF THE UNITED STATES: "I hope history will record that the Gulf crisis
was the crucible of the new world order."(36)

The CFR's house academics were already beating the convergence drums.
Writing in the Winter 1990 issue of Foreign Policy ( published by the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Thomas G. Weiss (CFR) and
Meryl A. Kessler exhorted: "If Washington is to seize the full
potential of this opportunity, it will have to ... begin to treat the
Soviet Union as a real partner."

The long-planned partnership began to take form officially with the
signing of "A Charter for American-Russian Partnership and Friendship"
by Presidents Bush and Yeltsin on June 17, 1992.

Among the many commitments for joint action in this agreement, we find
the following:

        *  "... Summit meetings will be held on a regular basis";

        *  "The United States of America and the Russian
Federation recognize the importance of the United
Nations Security Council" and support "the strengthening
of UN peace-keeping";

        *  The parties are determined "to cooperate in the
development of ballistic missile defense capabilities and
technologies," and work toward creation of a joint "Ballistic
Missile Early Warning Center";

        *  "In view of the potential for building a strategic
partnership between the United States of America and the
Russian Federation the parties intend to accelerate defense
cooperation between their military establishments ..."; and

        *  "The parties will also pursue cooperation in
peacekeeping counter-terrorism, and counter-narcotics
missions."(37)

Before this charter had even been signed, however, our new " partners"
were already landing their bombers on American soil. AIRMAN, a
magazine for the U.S. Air Force, reported in large headlines for the
cover story of its July 1992 issue: "The Russians Have Landed." The
cover also featured a photo of the two Russian Tu-95 Bear bombers and
an An-124 transport which had landed on May 9th at Barksdale Air Force
Base in Louisiana. An accompanying article noted that the Russians
were given "a rousing salute from a brass band and a thrilled
gathering of Air Force people and civilians who waved U.S. and
Commonwealth of Independent States flags."

The long-standing plan of the Insiders calls for a merger of the U.S.
and the USSR (or Commonwealth of Independent States as it has become)
and then world government under the United Nations (see Chapter 5).
Details leading to completion of the plan are unfolding week after
week, month after month, before an almost totally unaware America.

----------------------------------------
Copyright 1992 by Western Islands
Published by : Western Islands, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, Wisconsin,
54913.   (414-749-3783)

From: nancyk@bga.com (Nancy K)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.un,alt.politics.usa.republican,
alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.perot,
alt.conspiracy
Subject: Global Tyranny...Step by Step (C-5 The Drive for World Government)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 05:57:41 GMT
Message-ID: <4l4e05$u7s@news3.realtime.net>

GLOBAL TYRANNY...STEP BY STEP
by William F. Jasper

(To order:  414-749-3783)

                            CHAPTER 5

              The Drive for World Government

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

                        -- Philip Kerr
Foreign Affairs, December 1922

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extensive Evidence of Intent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        We shall have world government, whether or not we like it.
The question is only whether world government will be
achieved by consent or by conquest.(19)

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

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

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

At about the same time Saturday Review was candidly editorializing:

        If UNESCO is attacked on the grounds that it is helping to
prepare the world's peoples for world government, then it is
an error to burst forth with apologetic statements and
denials. Let us face it: the job of UNESCO is to help create
and promote the elements of world citizenship. When faced
with such a "charge," let us by all means affirm it from the
housetops.(21)

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

        [T]he destiny of mankind, after its long preparatory period

        of separation and differentiation, is at last to become one...
This unity is on the point of being politically expressed in a
world government that will unite nations and regions in
transactions beyond their individual capacity...(22)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just the Tip of the Iceberg

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

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

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

It would also be worthwhile to discuss the campaign during the 1960s
and '70s for A CONSTITUTION FOR THE WORLD, another effort of Messrs.
Tugwell,

Hutchins, et al., funded and promoted by the Ford Foundation through
the Fund for the Republic and the Center for the Study o Democratic
Institutions.(28) Or, we could examine the growing momentum behind
more recent efforts, such as those of the World Constitution and
Parliament Association, which have attracted the support of political
figures, jurists, celebrities, and intellectuals from 85 countries.

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

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

Attacks on National Sovereignty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                    * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Declaration of INTERdependence"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To accompany, promote, and expand upon the "Declaration of
INTERdependence," the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia and the
Aspen Institute published THE THIRD TRY AT WORLD ORDER: U.S. POLICY
FOR AN INTERDEPENDENT WORLD written by Harlan Cleveland (CFR).* In
that book, Cleveland, a former Assistant Secretary of State and U.S.
Ambassador to NATO, lamented that the first try at "world order"
collapsed with the failure to secure U.S. entry into the League of
Nations and that the second failure resulted from a United Nations
that was not invested with sufficient authority and power to enact and
enforce world law.(47)

        * Like many of his fellow Establishment Insiders -- Walt
and Eugene Rostow, Dean Acheson, John McCloy, and
Robert McNamara -- Cleveland had a long career on the far
left that is worthy of note. Dr. Francis X. Gannon, in his
authoritative BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF THE
LEFT, recorded: "At Princeton, Cleveland was president of
the Anti-War Society for three years and in the Princeton
yearbook he listed himself as a 'Socialist.'"Intelligence
expert Frank A. Capell reported in his column for THE
REVIEW OF THE NEWS for August 21, 1974: Cleveland
wrote articles for Far Eastern Survey and Pacific Affairs,
publications of the Institute of Pacific Relations, a
subversive organization described by the Senate Judiciary
Committee as 'an instrument of Communist policy,
propaganda and military intelligence.' He worked with John
Abt and other key Reds on the staff of the LaFollette Civil
Liberties Committee. He worked as deputy to Soviet agent
Harold Glasser inside U.N.R.R.A. [United Nations Relief
and Rehabilitation Administration] and took part in
'Operation Keelhaul,' sending nearly five million
Europeans into Russian concentration camps."

        William J. Gill's shocking 1969 expose of the extensive
subversion in the U.S. government, THE ORDEAL OF
OTTO OTEPKA (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House),
devotes more than two chapters to the pro-communist
exploits of Harlan Cleveland. After having been brought
into the State Department during the Kennedy
Administration on a security waiver signed by Dean Rusk,
Cleveland began to load up his staff with other security
risks. One of those he tried to hire was his longtime friend
Irving Swerdlow, who had been discharged eight years
earlier as a security risk. He then stunned Otto Otepka, the
chief of the State Department's personnel security, by
asking: "What are the chances of getting Alger Hiss back
into the Government?" In 1962, the State Department's
Advisory Committee on International Organizations,
chaired by Cleveland, attempted to devise an end run
around the security checks on Americans employed by the
United Nations. The new security procedures had been
instituted in the wake of the Hiss espionage scandal and the
revelations that he and his brother, Donald Hiss, had
personally recruited more than 200 people for UN jobs.

(For further information, see also STATE DEPARTMENT SECURITY 1963-65:
THE OTEPKA CASE, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee Hearings,
1963-65.)

According to Cleveland, the "third try," now underway, is an attempt
to arrive at "world governance" piecemeal, by strengthening the UN to
deal with various global "crises" involving, for instance, "the global
environment," "food reserve[s]," "energy supplies," " fertility
rates," "military stalemate," and "conflict in a world of
proliferating weapons."(48) It was a recapitulation of what he had
written in 1964 in the foreword to Richard N. Gardner's book, IN
PURSUIT OF WORLD ORDER, wherein Cleveland stated: "A decent world
order will only be built brick by brick."(49)

Piece by Piece, Brick by Brick

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

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

----------------------------------------
Copyright 1992 by Western Islands
Published by : Western Islands, P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, Wisconsin,
54913.   (414-749-3783)