Part I

Foundations

 

Chapter 1
The Threat

America is surrendering its sovereignty to a world government.
Hooray.... World government is coming. Deal with it.1

— The New Republic magazine, cover story headlines for January 17, 2000

We need a system of enforceable world law — a democratic federal world government — to deal with world problems.2
— Walter Cronkite, 1999

We must do everything we can to abolish the United States.3
— Professor Mortimer J. Adler of the University of Chicago and the Aspen Institute, editor of Great Books of the Western World, 1945

As the year 2000 approached, prophecies of doom proliferated everywhere — in the major media, the Internet, talk radio, financial newsletters — offering dire predictions of massive computer failures, electrical grid blackouts, global technological meltdowns and "the end of the world as we know it." The dread Y2K forecasts were, of course, as everyone now knows, wildly exaggerated; the specter of global industrial collapse turned out to be a colossal bogeyman.*

The New American magazine, of which this author is a senior editor, can claim the stellar, if not singular, distinction of having called the shots correctly on Y2K. In two major articles by Dennis Behreandt — "Millennium Mayhem" (September 14, 1998), and "Y2K Is Here!" (April 26, 1999) — and in smaller articles, TNA repeatedly challenged, with calm reason and careful research, the widespread doomsday scenarios and "head for the hills" alarms that were leading many otherwise responsible citizens to give up the battle against collectivism and immorality. See www.thenewamerican.com/Y2K.

However, while fears of the Y2K phantom menace seized the minds of billions of people worldwide, a very real global peril went largely unnoticed. That global danger is with us still. And it truly threatens to bring about "the end of the world as we know it." The world as we know it is being radically "transformed." We are not referring here to the usual apocalyptic alarms about "global warming" and other eco-doom scenarios, economic "globalization," the mind-numbing pace of technological innovation, or the specters of biological and nuclear warfare.

We are talking about a revolutionary transformation that has been gathering steam since World War II and is now entering its final stages. It is a revolution that, if completed, will mean the end of the United States of America — as well as the abolition of every other sovereign, independent nation. This radical revolution is simultaneously overturning the nation-state system that has been the foundation for governance on this planet for the past several hundred years, and forging a world government with unprecedented powers.

This is the most profound and far-reaching revolution ever to hit our planet. If allowed to proceed to completion, it will usher in an Orwellian global tyranny under the United Nations. We know that to many people this is an astounding statement. You, dear reader, may be among those who find such a claim to be "ridiculous," "absurd," "nutty."

 

After all, you reason, the United States is the most powerful nation on earth, "the last superpower" — and the UN is a paper tiger, a joke, a bunch of global bureaucrats belching platitudes about peace and brotherhood and proposing grandiose schemes. Sure, it may waste some of our money, but it is no threat to the U.S. The UN has no military of its own to impose global laws or regulations upon unwilling Americans. In fact, the UN must come hat in hand to the U.S. every time it determines to send peacekeepers into some new area torn by conflict.

 

And hasn't the UN been complaining for years about U.S. refusals to pay dues? The UN looks like a pretty helpless, toothless "threat," you say.

And you would be right — except for one very important thing: You would have completely misunderstood the nature of the danger and direction from which the threat is coming. Observers who have carefully followed and analyzed international developments and the policies and institutions of the UN have never worried that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan — or one of his predecessors or successors — would impose a UN dictatorship upon a strong and resistant United States.

 

That is not going to happen. We are not worried that an imminent UN tyranny is about to be militarily imposed upon Americans against the wishes of our own government. Or that, like the Y2K computer bug, some midnight soon the UN will strike, overwhelm the U.S. military, and we will wake up in the morning with blue-helmeted policemen on every street corner.

The danger is very real, nonetheless, but it emanates not so much from Kofi Annan, the UN itself, or any foreign, external source as it does from those within our own government who seek to impose a "new world order" upon us. As one of our more famous former

U.S. presidents accurately noted:

Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!

All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined ... could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.4 [Abraham Lincoln, 1838]

The Danger Springs From Within The danger has indeed sprung up amongst us. There are many who go by the name "American" who prefer to think of themselves as "global citizens" or "citizens of the world" and who consciously are leading us to national suicide. An alarming number of American citizens who hold high elective and appointive office, and who have taken oaths to defend our nation, our Constitution, and our laws, are now committed to a "new world order" which does not allow for a free, independent, sovereign United States of America.

 

They are joined by prominent individuals holding influential positions of trust in many of our private institutions. In the new "interdependent" world order they envision, a U.S.A. with continuing superpower status is viewed as a "threat" to global peace and security.

Let us be completely blunt: These globalists are after power — raw, absolute, global power, unimpeded by constitutional restraints, the rule of law, and the natural checks and balances against worldwide power provided by sovereign nation-states. We all ought to be familiar with this dangerous lust for power. The 20th century, which we so recently left, was washed in the blood of millions of victims sacrificed on the altars of powerlust. The leaders of totalitarian socialism — of both the Communist and Fascist varieties — trod the same paths to power that are now taken by our globalist would-be rulers.

 

Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Fidel, Pol Pot, and innumerable lesser thugs all came to power invoking virtue and noble ideals. They appealed to fears about supposed emergencies and crises. They incited and mobilized resentment and hatred of one group or class for another, and made scapegoats of their opponents. They gradually centralized and consolidated power and eliminated all legal and structural restraints on their exercise of it.

In every case, a small circle of power-lusting conspirators used large movements of idealists and dupes to accomplish their schemes. In every instance, the danger signs were there for those who were willing to see. The opportunities were there for those with courage to stop the madness by exposing and opposing the criminals before they could seize total political power. Alas, in each case, too few citizens were willing to see and to act courageously. For this they paid a horrendous price.

 

The signs are here for us to see today; we will have no excuse if we fail to act with responsibility and courage. Our price for failing to do so will be far more terrible than anything this planet has yet seen.
 

Millennium Meetings

In September 2000, some 150 presidents, premiers, dictators, and potentates converged on New York City for the UN Millennium Summit, the most spectacular UN gathering ever.

 

Serving as cochairman of the week-long political gala was Sam Nujoma, the Communist terrorist who was installed as "President" of Namibia in 1990 by the United Nations, the Soviet Union, and the U.S. State Department. The Summit attendees all received a copy of We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, a report "authored" by Kofi Annan to guide the UN's "reform agenda" at the event.

Annan's We the Peoples proposed nothing less than a global, socialist superstate dressed in New Deal verbiage. The Annan plan even adopted Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Brain Trust rhetoric of "Freedom from Fear" and "Freedom from Want" as titles for the report's sub-themes.

 

It called for, among other things:

• a global war on poverty (imagine a planetary version of our costly federal Department of Health and Human Services!)

• ending "gender discrimination" (i.e. mandated gender quotas) "in wages, property rights, and access to education"

• government-provided education, school lunches, and health care for all

• a global youth employment initiative, under the direction of the International Labor Organization and the World Bank

• creation of an International Criminal Court

• adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, which mandates drastic reductions in so-called "greenhouse gases." 5

We the Peoples also proposed "new forms of global governance," "global norms," "global rules" — all of which infer a role for the UN as global legislator. None of this surprises us, of course; UN poohbahs like Annan are well known for their self-aggrandizing pontifications and appeals for new global powers. However, this was not a typical, run-of-the-mill summit; something new and more sinister was at work here.

 

The Millennium Summit showcased a frightening new level of capability for sophisticated orchestration of an intensive, worldwide, multi-pronged, multi-level propaganda campaign. This astonishing process is capable of mobilizing and coordinating the activities of an impressive number of politicians, UN officials, corporate leaders, major organs of the media, academic institutions, think tanks and innumerable private, special-interest groups.

 

Thus a relatively small but noisy, lavishly funded, and incredibly well organized minority has shown that it can generate tremendous, synchronized pressure completely out of proportion to its real size. This pressure is generated by deception, by falsely presenting the appearance of irresistible, universal support for UN proposals.

The concentrated pressure is aimed at intimidating, silencing, and neutralizing all active and potential opposition, among both elected officials and private citizens. And it works with frightening effect. The element of surprise, together with concerted force, overwhelms the opposition.

Virtually all of the Heads of State attending the Summit took their turns at the UN General Assembly rostrum and echoed Kofi Annan's appeals for global governance, some adding even stronger appeals for global taxation, a permanent UN military, a global environmental police force, etc. Meanwhile, outside the UN, crowds composed of members of various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) clamored for the creation of a Global Peoples Assembly, a sort of UN Congress to enact global legislation.

 

A few blocks away another global confab was underway promoting the same one-world agenda. The State of the World Forum 2000, sponsored by the Gorbachev Foundation, featured a week-long series of symposia with prominent participants from the worlds of international business and finance, labor, academe, philanthropy, religion, environmental activism, government, intergovernmental organizations, and non-governmental organizations — all beating the drums for world government under an empowered and greatly expanded UN.

However, all of these meetings, symposia, demonstrations and speeches might be dismissed as bluster, globaloney, rant and cant — except for several important facts:

• They were preceded and accompanied by similar one-world endorsements from some of America's top officials and political and intellectual leaders

• They were preceded and accompanied by concrete actions and proposals by leading U.S. political and intellectual leaders to implement these proposals

• Very wealthy and powerful U.S. individuals, companies, and institutions have committed massive financial support to establishing "global governance"

• The UN system has been expanding dramatically in size and scope and now constitutes a huge planetary bureaucracy

• Equally important (and dangerous) as the expanding superstructure of the UN itself is the proliferation of the UN's subordinate international organizations and institutions, such as NATO, the Organization of American States (OAS), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO), etc.

• A huge network of radical NGOs, financed by governments and tax-exempt foundations, and masquerading as authentic representatives of "global civil society," can now assemble mobs at will to "lobby" for the cause du jour

• This drive for an empowered UN is the culmination of plans set in motion decades earlier by a power-seeking cabal (see Chapter 3).

 

Top Leaders Advocate World Government

On February 18, 2000, the World Federalist Association (WFA), one of the largest and most ardent organizations promoting world government, took out a full-page advertisement in the New York Times to proclaim triumphantly that "Cronkite and Clinton make a strong case for recasting the United Nations as a world federation."6

The Clinton referred to was, of course, then-President Bill Clinton, while the other name referred to famed television newsman Walter Cronkite. The World Federalist Association ad noted:

"Last October, President Clinton applauded federalism — the basis for the U.S. Constitution — as 'the arrangement of government most likely to give us the best of all worlds — the integrity we need, the self government we need, the self-advancement we need — without pretending that we can cut all cords that bind us to the rest of humanity....' The President claimed that'... we become more of a federalist world when the United Nations takes a more active role in stopping genocide ... and we recognize mutual responsibilities to contribute and pay for those things.'"

President Clinton's speech was delivered at the Forum of Global Federation Conference in Mont-Tremblant, Canada. Both the group he addressed and the WFA, which placed his words in their newspaper ad, recognized the importance and true meaning of his speech when he predicted that there will be "more federalism rather than less in the years ahead."

What kind of "federalism" was Mr. Clinton predicting and endorsing? He cited "as Exhibit A the European Union," or EU, which is rapidly subsuming its member countries in a colossal, socialist, and increasingly tyrannical superstate.

The WFA's New York Times ad noted that in the same month that Clinton was making his above-mentioned federalism speech, former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite received the WFA's "Norman Cousins Global Governance Award for his promotion of world government in his autobiography A Reporter's Life."

 

In accepting the award, Cronkite said:

"Those of us who are living today can influence the future of civilization. We can influence whether our planet will drift into chaos and violence, or whether through monumental educational and political effort we will achieve a world of peace under a system of law where individual violators of that law are brought to justice.... We need a system of enforceable world law — a democratic federal world government — to deal with world problems."7

At the World Federalist tribute to Cronkite, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton — now a U.S. senator — offered her congratulations via closed-circuit TV.

 

She said,

"For more than a generation in America, it wasn't the news, until Walter Cronkite told us it was the news." Hillary continued, "For decades you told us, 'the way it is.' But tonight we honor you for fighting for 'the way it could be.'... [T]hank you, Walter, thank you for inspiring all of us to build a more peaceful and just world."

Please keep in mind the significance of such a statement. The cause for which Cronkite was being honored was the cause of world government, and world government would mean the end of

U.S. sovereignty, the end of our country, the end of our Constitution — the document to which her husband had sworn allegiance (and to which she also has sworn allegiance in her Senate oath).

However, Bill Clinton himself had already praised an earlier recipient of the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award: his old Oxford University roommate, Strobe Talbott, whom he had appointed U.S. Ambassador at Large. That praise came in the form of a letter dated June 22, 1993, which was read at the WFA awards ceremony two days later. Mr. Clinton's letter praised WFA founder Norman Cousins' lifetime effort "for world peace and world government" and noted that Talbott's "lifetime achievements as a voice for global harmony have earned him this recognition." 8

Specifically, the World Federalists were honoring Talbott for a pro-world government essay he had written for Time magazine entitled "The Birth of the Global Nation" (July 20, 1992 issue).

 

Therein Talbott approvingly forecast that in the future,

"nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority."

 

"[I]t has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government," he said.9

Talbott's advocacy of world government did not prevent President Clinton from appointing him Deputy Secretary of State. That should not surprise anyone. Clinton, like Talbott, is a member of the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), as were over 400 other members of his administration. In addition, both are also "members in public service" of the Trilateral Commission (TC), an even more exclusive establishmentarian club greasing the skids for global governance.

Greasing the Skids These groups have orchestrated an outpouring of symphonic appeals for world government and have been preparing the American psyche for a major globalist push to provide the United Nations, the WTO, and other international institutions with legislative, executive, and judicial powers.

 

This is a small sampling of that orchestrated outpouring:

Richard Falk (CFR), Professor of International Law at Princeton University, an influential legal scholar, wrote "On the Creation of a Global Peoples Assembly" for the Summer 2000 Stanford Journal of International Law, with Professor Andrew Strauss. Said Falk and Strauss: "At this historical juncture we believe that the time for the establishment of a global assembly is ripening.

 

We believe that our circumstances and values are raising a crucial new question: If democracy is so appropriate in the nation-state setting, why should not democratic procedures and institutions be extended to the global setting?... The existence and empowerment of a Global Peoples Assembly (GPA) would, at the most general level, challenge the traditional claim of states that each has a sovereign right to act autonomously...."10

 

Falk and Strauss subsequently penned a similar appeal, "Toward Global Parliament," for the January/February 2001 issue of the CFR journal, Foreign Affairs.11

The headline on the cover of The New Republic for the liberal-left journal's January 17, 2000 issue proclaimed, "America is surrendering its sovereignty to a world government. Hooray."

Inside, teaser copy above a less descriptive title ("Continental Drift") declared: "World government is coming. Deal with it." The author of the piece, senior editor Robert Wright, noted: "Much power now vested in the nation-state is indeed starting to migrate to international institutions," and "world government ... is probably in the cards.... And, what's more, it's a good idea."12

Writing in Foreign Affairs, the highly influential quarterly of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Representative Jim Leach (R-Iowa) declared:

"Since one of the most effective antidotes to the irrationality of ancient enmity is the swift justice of the law, a turn (or in the case of the United States, return) to the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court would appear to be one of the most appropriate and achievable objectives of the decades ahead."13

Henry Grunwald (CFR), a former editor in chief of Time Inc. and former U.S. ambassador to Austria, authored a January 1, 1999 Wall Street Journal op-ed article entitled "A World Without a Country?" and subtitled "Not right away. But the idea of the nation-state is in for some profound changes."

 

In his Journal article, Grunwald predicts that the "nation-state will undergo sharp limitations of its sovereignty" and that, "just as the old, petty principalities had to dissolve into the wider nation-state, the nation-state will have to dissolve into wider structures." Moreover, "it will be increasingly difficult for the future nation-state to argue that its treatments of its own citizens is a purely internal matter."14

On October 14, 1999, the Wall Street Journal's lead editorial praised the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for awarding Robert Mundell the Nobel Prize for Economics. The Journal noted that Mundell "was the chief intellectual proponent of the euro" and acclaimed him for championing the "common currency" for Europe.15 The Journal then devoted nearly one

third of a page to reprinting a 1990 essay by Mundell advocating a world central bank, including this large blow-up quote: "We have a better opportunity to create a world central bank with a stable international currency than at any previous time in history."16 A world central bank would globalize the centralization already being wrought by the European Central Bank, which is bringing the countries of the EU under the control of one-world Eurocrats in Brussels and Frankfurt.

 

The end result of the Mundeli-Journal vision is a world economic cartel leading to world political control under the United Nations.

Dr. Rashmi Mayur is Director of the International Institute for a Sustainable Future, editor of The War & Peace Digest, and a regular speaker at UN and other globalist programs. In an essay entitled "World Government," in the March/April 2000 issue of the Digest, he states:

"The world is not working, and each day we are getting closer to an unprecedented catastrophe, possibly bringing an end to human civilization and earth's ecological system on which life's survival depends.... If the human civilization is to survive in the next millennium, there must be world rule of law, in which laws apply equally to all human beings and all societies.... Such a rule of law can only be implemented by an institution which has legitimacy and power on a global scale, that is, World Government.... [I]ts responsibility would be total and global."

 

Dr. Mayur continues, "Our children have dreams.... Humanity has no future until we realize their dreams: World Government Now."17 (Emphasis in the original.)

On May 15, 2000 Representative James McGovern (D-Mass.) introduced a resolution (H. R. 4453) calling for the creation of a standing 6,000-man UN Rapid Deployment Police and Security Force that could quickly be deployed to conflict situations worldwide.

 

According to McGovern, "a lot of lives could have been saved" in East Timor if the UN had been equipped with such a force.

"This force will allow the Security Council... to deploy well-trained peacekeepers within 15 days of a resolution," McGovern said.18

In 1998, while the United Nations was holding a summit in Rome to establish an International Criminal Court, three U.S. Supreme Court Justices traveled to Europe to visit the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which is now running roughshod over the national governments of the EU. In several frightening admissions, these justices (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Stephen Breyer — all CFR members) expressed their admiration for the ECJ and stated that they anticipate using and citing judgments from the ECJ and other jurisdictions in the future.19

In 1999 the International Academy of Humanism published the Humanist Manifesto 2000, signed by an impressive lineup of educators, authors, scientists, diplomats, philosophers, and political figures, including 10 Nobel Laureates.

 

It includes this appeal:

"We believe that there is a need to develop new global institutions.... These include the call for a bicameral legislature in the United Nations, with a World Parliament elected by the people, an income tax to help the underdeveloped countries, the end of the veto in the Security Council, an environmental agency, and a World Court with powers of enforcement."20

These are but a few of the numerous examples in an accelerating campaign of elite opinion molders and government officials who favor this new world order. The mere fact that so many prominent citizens are promoting such an obviously subversive and harmful agenda should be alarming in and of itself, even if they were taking no concrete actions to implement it.

But they have gone far beyond mere advocacy to actually ensnare us in international treaties, conventions, and programs that are bit by bit destroying U.S. sovereignty and independence and subjecting us to rule by unaccountable international bureaucrats and institutions. The vast majority of Americans have no idea that a huge array of UN schemes — some of which we have already become officially a party to, and others which are awaiting action by the U.S. government — pose very real threats to their freedom.

 

These include:

• The World Trade Organization

• The massive environmental manifesto, Agenda 21

• The Biodiversity Treaty

• The Global Warming

• Convention Programs for national and personal disarmament

• The Tobin Tax and global income tax

• The vast expansion of UN military operations

• Proposals for a standing UN military force

• The UN's new International Criminal Court

• The Convention on the Rights of the Child

• The UN's global Education for All program

In the chapters that follow, we will be closely examining these schemes, as well as the forces promoting them and the pretexts under which they are being promoted.
 

Back to Contents