New World Order, by William P. Hoar
Excerpt from the book Architects of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History (pp. 314-324)
“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 peoples of all nations to embrace those principles and build those institutions which will enable mankind to survive and civilization to flourish. Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now we must join together with others to bring forth a new world order.”
That abominable parody of the U.S. Declaration of Independence was prepared by historian Henry Steele Commager as part of a so-called Declaration of INTERdependence, a project of the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia.
Shamefully, this altered Declaration was signed by more than one hundred members of Congress on the two hundredth anniversary of the proclamation of American independence.
The Declaration of INTERdependence was a part of the continuing drive to dilute, then dissolve, the sovereignty of the United States of America. The goal, we are repeatedly told, is a New World Order, a new international economic order, or any one of a half-dozen similar euphemisms.
In any case, it would mean the end of the U.S. as we know it, and her submission first to regional and then world government. The proponents claim that achievement of their goal is inevitable; Americans can acquiesce and take their medicine, or have it shoved down their throats.
Those are totally false alternatives, of course, but they are being aggressively promoted. For instance, by the World Order Models Project (known as W.O.M.P.).
Dr. Saul Mendlovitz, director of that important enterprise, contends that there “is no longer a question of whether or not there will be world government by the year 2000. The questions are how it will come into being (cataclysm, drift, more or less rational design), and whether it will be totalitarian, benign, or participatory (the possibilities being in that order).”
Mendlovitz is no nut. He is a professor of law at Rutgers University, a member of the Rockefeller-controlled Council on Foreign Relations, and definitely Big League. Indeed, he takes great pains “to thank the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Rockefeller Foundation for the support which they gave to specific research within the World Order Models Project.”
Men like Mendlovitz might well be termed Establishment Revolutionaries, being funded by the great foundations for the purpose of attacking our way of life. It is of course Mendlovitz’s task as a hired revolutionary to persuade (or scare) us into surrendering the freedom, liberty, and independence of our country.
“I believe,” declares the W.O.M.P. whopper, “that the most likely governance by the end of the century – compelled by the arms races and outbreaks of violence, the food, population and environmental imbalances as well as large-scale serious injustices – will be oligarchic and highly repressive.”
To forestall that, he contends, we will need “disarmament,” a world police force (which, of course, should control all arms), and other internationalist machinery to assure World Government.
Fortunately, the American are not that simple minded, and the Establishment propagandists are having trouble selling their goods. Consider the aforementioned Declaration of INTERdependence. Its promoters, commented an angry Congressman John Ashbrook, have attempted “to undercut patriotic American values…”
The World Affairs Council, continued the late Ohio republican:
“…has even joined with the Philadelphia school system to develop a fifth- and sixth-grade school program promoting the declaration of interdependence. Children are even asked to pledge themselves to the declaration’s concepts, thus repudiating their own patriotic heritage, and to lobby for signatures from their friends and relatives for the declaration of interdependence.
“This so-called declaration of interdependence is a complete repudiation of the statement of our cherished American freedoms signed by our Founding Fathers 200 years ago. 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 of interdependence 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 America freedoms and institutions, which the document calls ‘chauvinistic nationalism,’ ‘national prejudice,’ and ‘narrow notions of national sovereignty.’”
This was all part of a deliberate attack on the will of the American people to survive as a nation. It is but one such effort, and fell into justified disrepute when exposed by conservative newsweekly, The Review Of The News. Another such assailant has been the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies (long chaired by Robert O. Anderson, the Exxon mogul), which in December 1974 created the National Commission on Coping with Interdependence.
This body, said its announcements, would “consider the implications for Americans of what Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has called ‘the accelerating momentum of interdependence.’”
The succession of Cyrus Vance to head the State department provided no respite. He was identified in the January 1977 issue of Transition (published by the Institute for World Order) as yet another “world order type.”
Pollster Daniel Yankelovich, who served on the Institute’s board of directors, happily reported that Carter’s Secretary “is concerned with those [world order] issues. He is in a very important position.”
How does one go about “Coping with Interdependence”? The Aspen Institute spelled it out in a brochure, noting that “the most important changes will be modifications in attitudes which, in the nature of our pluralism, must first take place in the reasoning consciences of millions of individuals.
The most important adjustment of all will be to blur, then erase, the psychic frontier between ‘domestic affairs’ and ‘international affairs.’” Stripped of self-justifying verbiage, that simply means we are to be conditioned to forget that we are Americans and become men and women without a country.
School indoctrination is of course important, especially among those expected to become “leaders” in the New World Order. We are assured of this by no less an authority than C. Douglas Dillon – the former Undersecretary of State, former Secretary of the Treasury, C.F.R Director, Brookings Institute Director, and Honorary Chairman of the Board of the Institute for World Order.
Dillon emphasized that it is essential “that we educate the intellectual elites so that thinking of this nature can come from a broad group of people.”
But even he agrees “it will 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.” Nonetheless, Douglas Dillon says, “global authorities will develop, possibly through the United Nations or parallel organizations.”
To speed up the development, the Institute for World Order has established both School and University Programs to teach “world order.”
At the university level, according to program director Michael Washburn:
“I think our success was somewhat spectacular. In 1960 there were virtually no courses being taught in this area. By 1963-64, there were 500 colleges or universities with these courses; 50 or 60 had some kind of major or graduate studies program.
“In phase three, we set about to catalyze a much higher level of institutionalization for world order through our university-based world order centers. We were fortunate in getting support then from the Rockefeller Foundation, the James P. Warburg1 family and from a number of smaller foundations in Southern California, Minnesota and elsewhere. We have raised nearly $500,000 for our centers program in two years.”
The barrage is falling upon our children from all sides. For instance, the director of the World Order School Program, Ms. Betty Reardon, happily reported that the National Education Association chose “Education for a Global Community” as a Bicentennial theme.
In an interview with Transition, Ms. Reardon indicated what New World Order means. She offered Martin Luther King as a hero for school children, claiming that he “was a moral leader and a great teacher without being a ‘moralist.’”
Never mind that the “Reverend” King was in fact a notorious libertine who was trained, backed, and advised by top Communists to provoke violence and build racial hatred as efficiently as any Grand Lizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
You see, says Ms. Reardon of the World Order School Program:
“I consider him [King] to be part of the world order movement. He had a vision of a transformed society based on principles of peace and justice and he had a transition strategy, nonviolent militant action, to get from the present to that preferred future. When the history of this period is written, he will be one of the greatest of those who symbolize the movement for community and the dignity of all human life.”
It is not surprising that a pro-Communist like King would be a World Order favorite. Among listed Sponsoring Institutions for the World Order Models Project, after all, is the Novosti “press agency” of Moscow,2 a Soviet propaganda organ largely staffed by the Kremlin’s Secret Police.
In his authoritative book, KGB, John Barron described the director of Novosti, one Ivan Ivanovich Udaltsov, as “a KGB officer who, as minister counselor in Prague, participated in preparations for the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. An entire division of Novosti, known as the Tenth Section, is staffed with KGB men, one of whom is the noted British traitor Harold A.R. (‘Kim’) Philby.”
Is Prague’s recent past to become the world’s future?
Indeed, in Commentary magazine for February 1975, Johns Hopkins professor of international relations Robert W. Tucker commented on the anticipated Communist role in the proposed New World Order.
Professor Tucker observed that, “the new equality is also likely to lead to an international system in which the relative power position of the Soviet Union will be considerably enhanced, for the Russians are neither dependent in any significant way on the new [“developing”] states nor disposed to view their claims in the manner of the Western elites.”
But those “Western elites” are working with the Communists to siphon off our wealth. That is already in black and white in the United Nations Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order.
In the New World Order, we are informed, the system must be changed because the poorer nations “which constitute 70 per cent of the world population, account for only 30 per cent of the world’s income.”
Professor Tucker foresaw that “the world community will become a welfare community in roughly the same manner that Western states have become welfare states.”
As former U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim told the World Food and Energy Conference, “the time has come to think in terms of a redistribution of the wealth of the planet.”
All of this is to be handled in stages. Professor Richard N. Gardner, a top Carter advisor who became Ambassador to Italy, explained the strategy in the C.F.R. journal Foreign Affairs for April of 1974. The hope, announced Gardner.
Lies “not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war [World War II], but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis, as the necessity for cooperation is perceived by the relevant nations.”
In short, said the Columbia professor, the “‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down …. an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”
This strategy also appears in the work of the other big names in the World Order business, among them Princeton professor Richard A. Falk, another member of the C.F.R. in the volume, On The Creation Of A Just World Order (edited by Saul H. Mendlovitz, New York Free Press), Mr. Falk laid out a roadmap.
The Seventies, he revealed, were to be the decade of “Consciousness Rising”; the Eighties, of “Mobilization”; and the Nineties are to be the decade of “Transformation.”
The piecemeal approach is to involve, to start, the transformation of the European Economic Community (E.E.C.) into a regional government. The leaders of the founding nine nations of the E.E.C. agreed in 1972 to a “European Union” by 1980.
Plans were made in Paris for a preliminary political government with complete economic and monetary unity including one currency, budget, and central bank. Direct elections to a European Parliament have been held twice, in 1979 and in June of 1984.
The latest voter drive, waged under the slogan “United in Democracy,” had a 4.8 million television and print campaign by a French-based advertising agency that admitted it was “no different from persuading them to buy dog food.” Somehow, that gullet-stuffer says it all.
While consolidation of Europe proceeds, regionalism is also going forward at other levels. David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission has been sent to develop the next step, which is to make “partners” of Western Europe, North America, and Japan.
Rockefeller selected his old college roommate and long time director of the Council on Foreign Relations, George S. Franklin, as the Commission’s first North American Secretary; meanwhile, Zbigniew Brzezinski, another C.F.R. member and protégé of David Rockefeller, became the first Director of the T.C.
As is now well known to political observers, more than a dozen Trilateralists – about a quarter of the total American members – were soon holding positions in the Carter Administration.
They included President Jimmy Carter, Vice President Walter Mondale, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, National Security Advisor Brzezinski, Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, United Nations Ambassador Andrew Young, and Secretary of the Treasury Michael Blumenthal.
Professor Richard Ullman commented on the T.C. in Foreign Affairs for October 1976 that the desired “result – to quote Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former director of the Trilateral Commission – would be ‘a community of the developed nations.’
“The path to that community, he wrote in this journal…, runs through intensive ‘regular and ever more formal political consultation’ and ‘common political planning with regard to problems or areas of mutual interest’ in order to achieve ‘a shared political perspective among the governmental bodies of the three (trilateral) units.’ Governor Carter used almost the same language in addressing the Foreign Policy Association last June.”
Is this some kind of a conspiracy or plot? “If you like conspiracy theories about secret plots to take over the world,” chortled the Washington Post, “you are going to love the administration of Jimmy Carter.”
And, the New York Times for January 6, 1977 echoed: The “founding fathers of Trilateralism were members in good standing of the so-called Eastern Establishment. James E. Carter Jr., the former Governor of Georgia, joined the Trilateral Commission when he decided to make his run for the Presidency. Believers in the conspiracy theory of history will surely regard the Trilateral Commission as an Eastern Establishment front organization whose main purpose is to co-opt Jimmy Carter.”
Co-opt Jimmy Carter? Hardly. Mr. Carter knew all about the objectives of the Trilateral Commission well before he became President.
In march of 1976, for example, he told the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations how we should “coordinate” our policies with the Trilateral nations; in May of that year in Tokyo he told the American Chamber of Commerce that we need a “commitment” to Trilateralism; and, in June 1976 he informed the Foreign Policy Association: “The time has come for us to seek a partnership between North America, Western Europe, and Japan.” (Italics in original prepared text.)
World order is the order of the day, President Carter declared in his inaugural “Statement to the World” of January 20, 1977, announcing: “The United States will meet its obligation to help create a stable, just and peaceful world order.”
Mr. Carter did not deign (publicly) to endorse the plans of the World Order Models Project, as described by Professor Richard Falk:
“WOMP accepts as self-evident the need to reorient American public and elite opinion; hopefully, this country can be encouraged to play a less domineering global role,” writes Falk, “and to share its wealth and income with the world community on a far greater scale.” — (A Study of Future Worlds, New York, Free Press, 1975)
Among other things, said Professor Falk, “To achieve this [better world order], central institutions would be substantially deprived of military capabilities.”
Well, now. Mr. Carter actually aimed to eliminate all nuclear weapons from the earth, proposed Trilateralist Paul Warnke to bargain away our arms, and made his earliest major Budget reduction in defense.
Meanwhile, on the domestic level, the F.B.I. was hamstrung and warned (under Carter) that the number of Soviet-bloc agents legally in the U.S. had doubled in the previous decade.
Compare these developments with the comments of New World Order Professor Richard Falk:
“The first and central priority of the movement for a preferred world is to make progress toward diminishing the role of the war system in international life,” writes Falk, “and toward dismantling the national security apparatus in the major states of the world.” (Italics in original.)
Of course this could all be coincidence. Step right up and buy a tin of Dr. Carter’s Little Sell-‘Em-Down-The-River Pills. You will have to get in line. America magazine – published by the Jesuits of the United States and Canada – has been telling us it was not too early to speak of the Trilateral movement as a new “ism.”
Jeremiah Novak, formerly of the Washington Post, contends: The “trilateral world has the means to bargain in the same way the United States once did.” Certainly the Trilateralist impact is already being felt.
Novak wrote in America for February 5, 1977:
“According to sources in the State Department, the trilateral papers have directly influenced the summoning of the Rambouillet and Puerto Rican conferences, the sale of IMF gold, the Law of the Sea conferences, the formation of the International Energy Agency, and steps to establish a new international currency, which replaces the U.S. dollar and gold. The commission’s record and its powerful influence after the 1976 elections deserve a great deal of respect.”
The Trilateral Commission has called for the creation of a number of new institutions “to deal with planetary interest groups.”
New structures, reports Jeremiah Novak, “are recommended to meet the needs of oil users and producers and to ‘bridge the economic systems’ of Communist and non-Communist states. These interest-group institutions are seen as subordinate to a superstructure of planetary institutions.”
And remember that we are no longer talking about the theories of impotent utopians. These planners are actually moving ahead. Take the strengthening of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.).
The Commission’s “most immediate concern,” observed Novak, “is the creation of a new world monetary system to replace gold and the dollar as the international exchange units with a new currency called special drawing rights (SDR’s).
In fact, as a move in this direction, the commission was instrumental in the IMF’s sale of its gold and in the creation of a system of denoting all currencies in terms of SDR’s as a first step in the push for a new world system.” Trilateralism, remember, is only a way station on the road to the New World Order.
One by one, the bonds of internationalism are being wrapped around us in preparation for what Ford Foundation president Rowan Gaither admitted years ago is the ultimate goal – “so to alter our life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”
This is recognized by the Reds. As the Marxist Guardian noted some time ago:
“In discussing the Trilateral group, the author of one commission report noted that ‘it does not envisage a new anti-communist alliance; indeed, at some point in the future the more advanced communist states might choose to become partners.’”
That is the Establishment’s offensive game plan. And patriots must attempt to intercept this lateral pitchout – this ” end run around national sovereignty” – and again move the ball in the right direction. The lines and goals are clearly marked.
As syndicated columnist Nicholas von Hoffman observed in late January of 1977:
“Here at home it has been the John Birch Society and similar right-wing groups who first recognized collusion between capitalists of the Rockefeller stripe and socialists like Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt.
“As a glance at the membership of the Trilateral Commission, the world’s ruling class’s floating seminar, shows, Social Democrats and global capitalists have no trouble cooperating.”
Nor, he might have added, do Communist dictators who want Western technology to expand their hegemony by increasing the power of their military forces.
The Communist World Order elitists are playing this game together. Thierry de Montbrial, an influential French economist, has written in the C.F.R. journal Foreign Affairs that “in an interdependent world sovereignty is always limited; hence we have already advocated the concept of management of the earth’s natural resources for the general good and not for the benefit of a few.”
At this point, the author introduces what he calls a “relevant quotation” from Karl Marx’s Das Kapital:
“When our society reaches a higher level of economic organization, the right of ownership by a few individuals of land forming part of the planet will seem as absurd as the idea of man’s ownership of man appears nonsensical to our society today.
“No nation, nor all the nations covering the globe, are owners of the land, but merely possessors, tenants, with the responsibility like diligent heads of families, of transmitting it, improved, to future generations.”
Proponents of the New World Order go so far as to openly express admiration for the vast tyranny of Communist China.
This is a recurrent theme, for instance, in On The Creation Of A Just World Order, where University of Michigan professor Ali Mazrui calls Occupied China “a major model of political and cultural engineering, with all its potentialities as a whole new civilization in the world.”
It is a “civilization” built, the admiring professor neglects to add, on the bodies of some sixty-four million dead Chinese.
Peiping’s tyranny, emphasizes Professor Mazrui of the World Order Models Project, really reflects Red “China’s determined energy to transcend many of its problems through the energies of its own people and to mobilize a fifth of mankind in the quest for new social directions.”
Elsewhere in On The Creation Of A Just World Order, McGill University professor Paul T.K. Lin, of the Centre for East Asian Studies, actually declared:
“Red China’s dynamic society is indeed an enormously instructive paradigm of fundamental change along lines radically different from those of many other developing countries.”
So were the practices of Vlad the Impaler. And professor Lin praise the following as “The ‘end’ values of [Red] Chinese development”:
“1. Social justice based on freedom from exploitation, with human relations of egalitarianism, cooperation, and respect for work.
“2. Economic welfare for all in a society of abundance, with special attention to raising the level of life of marginalized groups (such as women and national minorities) and regions that have been resource-poor or historically oppressed. [This of the butchers of Tibet!]
“3. Maximum cultural and aesthetic fulfillment. This includes full popular participation in the production of culture.
“4. An aesthetically and ecologically sound environment. This value is not posed against growth, but as part of development, fulfilling the same purpose of service to the people as growth.”
This Red China, we are apparently to believe, is the very same acme of the World Order ideal – or will be when the rest of the “class enemies” are executed or enslaved.3 These minions of the anthill mentality are to be our ultimate partners in the New World Order – a scheme already being planned, for instance, by the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Institute for World Order’s honorary chairman, C. Douglas Dillon, has admitted the C.F.R. “is embarked on a new major program, looking ahead to the 80s. They call it the 80s Project.
It’s one of the largest projects they’ve ever undertaken, and it posits in their thinking the need for system improvement. They haven’t as yet [as of January 1975] reached any answers, and they don’t go as far [publicly] as the Institute for World Order, but they are now thinking and looking forward to this.”
As C.F.R. Director Dillon knows, The Council on Foreign Relations is a secret organization. It is not about to blare from the house tops that a world Gestapo is in the making. The C.F.R. style is more subtle.
But its 1980s Global Study is now under way, having been announced without fanfare on the day after Christmas 1976. A profusion of funding has been provided, reported the New York Times, “by the Ford Foundation, the German Marshal Fund of the United States, the Lilly Endowment, the Andrew W. Melon Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.
The unifying theme, according to [Professor Richard H. Ullman of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton], will be to suggest ‘desirable, achievable conditions of international relations and specifying policy avenues leading toward such conditions.’” That is, dropping the euphemisms of the C.F.R., the objective is to plan how to best dupe the American rubes into the New World Order.
Meanwhile, Professor Ullman’s fellow Ivy Leaguer and C.F.R. colleague, Marshall Shulman of Columbia, put out the word to Establishment insiders in Foreign Affairs for January 1977, concluding:
“It is therefore a central requirement that our actions serve to strengthen the Soviet Union, [Red] China and other authoritarian regimes into constructive participation in that system, as they come to appreciate their self-interest in doing so.”
Frankly, we are not enthused about fulfilling the Communists’ self-interest, nor even that of the European Socialists – especially when it means surrender of American sovereignty through merger in a New World Order.
We intend to see that there is no repudiation of the Declaration of Independence, wherein “with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred honor.”
1. James died in 1969. A member of the international banking establishment, with roots in Schiff and Loeb families, James P. Warburg was a Communist-Fronter, a backer of the United World Federalists, and a proponent of universal disarmament. Warburg once told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “We shall have world government whether we like it or not. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or conquest.” Recognize the line?
2. The U.S.-based sponsor is the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, named for the champion of the ill-fated League of Nations. After the U.S. failed to join the League, Wilson’s “alter ego,” Colonel E.M. House, helped establish the Council on Foreign Relations to work toward World Government. It might not yet be One World, but it’s a small world when the Wilson retinue and the K.G.B. are found openly supporting the same organization and goal.
3. One must credit the New World Order boys with utopian presumption. There is a ” disproportionate Western presence” in literature and law “in the global pool,” according to Professor Ali Mazrui. Therefore, “In our new world we would require that every child in the world should learn three languages – a world language (e.g., French or English), a regional language (e.g., German or Swahili) and either a national language (e.g., Swedish, Persian) or a sub national language (e.g., Gujarati or Luganga).”