America is surrendering its sovereignty to a world government.
Hooray.... World government is coming. Deal with it.1
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,
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
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
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
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.
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
ending "gender discrimination" (i.e.
mandated gender quotas) "in wages, property rights, and access to
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
creation of an International Criminal
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
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
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
— 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
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."
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
— to deal with world problems."7
At the World Federalist tribute to Cronkite, First Lady
Clinton — now a U.S. senator — offered her congratulations via
"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
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
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
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
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."
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
"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
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
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.
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
expansion of UN military operations
Proposals for a standing UN military
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
Back to Contents