The Philosophical Agenda Behind Global Control
This post is interconnected to those dealing with most of the posts under our ‘Social Engineering’ page. I often tell people that, if you will bother to read what they write and have the courtesy to take them at their word, the people who really run the world will tell you what they want and how they intend to do it. I understand that much of the material involved is commonly associated with conspiracy theory. I also understand that this is by design; it serves the purposes of those who wish to remain in the shadows. Still, I am not making any claims to know who these people are, or exactly what they want or how they intend to do it. All I am doing here is presenting some of what they and others have said about their existence. What strikes me as most compelling about the quotes that follow is how far back they go; how internationally connected and consistent they are; and how – if we just look – we can and do find examples of what these people said they planned to do actually being put into policy and practice. So, with all this in mind, I present a little of the ‘evidence’ for the philosophical connections behind the quest for global control.
I wrote a piece for The Rio Norte Line entitled, YES! Progressive DOES = COMMUNIST! (and Wilson said so). In that post, I reference an essay by Woodrow Wilson, “The Study of Administration,” in which, Wilson embraces the principles of Communism as were being demonstrated at the time in the Russian Revolution. Wilson argued that the Communist model was superior as it provided for more centralized control of government (he called it ‘administration’). He even defended the idea of an elected dictatorship. However, Wilson realized the American people would never accept these ideas unless they were ‘Americanized.’ Thus, in referring to his plan to bring the Communist model to America, Wilson wrote:
If we would employ it, we must Americanize it, and that not formally, in language merely, but radically, in thought, principle, and aim as well.
And in justifying dictatorship as the most efficient means of ‘engineering the perfect society,’ Wilson wrote:
The recasting of French administration by Napoleon is, therefore, my second example of the perfecting of civil machinery by the single will of an absolute ruler before the dawn of a constitutional era. No corporate, popular will could ever have effected arrangements such as those which Napoleon commanded. Arrangements so simple at the expense of local prejudice, so logical in their indifference to popular choice, might be decreed by a Constituent Assembly, but could be established only by the unlimited authority of a despot. The system of the year VIII was ruthlessly thorough and heartlessly perfect.
Now, keeping this connection between Communism in Europe and the Progressive movement in America in mind, let’s look at some other quotes that will strengthen this connection and bring it forward to the present day. We will start with a little history:
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism.
The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them.
World dictatorship can be established only when the victory of socialism has been achieved in certain countries or groups of countries … [and] when these federation of republics have finally grown into a world union of Soviet Socialist Republics uniting the whole of mankind under the hegemony of the international proletariat organized as a state.
[After Communism succeeds] …then, there will come a peace across the earth.
What these three men had to say about the goal of world socialism is important, especially when placed in connection to Wilson’s embrace of their basic ideology. While Wilson may have had a different idea of where he wanted to go from Marx, Lenin and Stalin, what matters is they all embraced the same methodology for how to get there and, thus, aligned themselves as uncomfortable allies. This alliance can be seen by those students of history who are aware of the uncomfortable embrace between the U.S. government and Communist Russia under FDR, Eisenhower and most every president since – with the exception of Reagan. What’s more, those who have been on the inside of this alliance – or who have firsthand knowledge of it – have told the world that the quest for global government is the result of this alliance between the American and Russian versions of socialism.
In chronological order:
“We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world.”
—Professor Arnold Toynbee, in a June l931 speech before the Institute for the Study of International Affairs in Copenhagen.
“The government of the Western nations, whether monarchical or republican, had passed into the invisible hands of a plutocracy, international in power and grasp. It was, I venture to suggest, this semioccult power which….pushed the mass of the American people into the cauldron of World War I.”
–British military historian MajorGeneral J.F.C. Fuller, l941
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”
— Statement made before the United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 by James Paul Warburg (“Angel” to and active in the United World Federalists), son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which poured millions into the Russian Revolution through James’ brother Max, banker to the German government — See the Sisson Report
“We operate here under directives which emulate (sic) from the White House … The substance of the directives under which we operate is that we shall use our grant making power to alter life in the United States so that we can comfortably be merged with the Soviet Union.”
— Rowan Gaither, President of the Ford Foundation, 1954.
“The invisible Money Power is working to control and enslave mankind. It financed Communism, Fascism, Marxism, Zionism, Socialism. All of these are directed to making the United States a member of a World Government …”
— AMERICAN MERCURY MAGAZINE, December 1957, pg. 92.
“The International government of the United Nations, stripped of it’s legal trimming, then, is really the International Government of the United States and the Soviet Union acting in Unison.”
—From the American Jewish Committee’s official magazine “Commentary” of Nov. 1958, Pg. 376
“The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down…but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault.”
–CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFR’s journal, Foreign Affairs.
“The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control…. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.”
–Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets
“We can see beyond the present shadows of war in the Middle East to a new world order where the strong work together to deter and stop aggression. This was precisely Franklin Roosevelt’s and Winston Churchill’s vision for peace for the post-war period.”
— Richard Gephardt, in the Wall Street Journal (September 1990)
“We believe we are creating the beginning of a new world order coming out of the collapse of the U.S.-Soviet antagonisms.”
— Brent Scowcroft (August 1990), quoted in the Washington Post (May 1991)
“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.”
—President George Bush, 1991
“But it became clear as time went on that in Mr. Bush’s mind the New World Order was founded on a convergence of goals and interests between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, so strong and permanent that they would work as a team through the U.N. Security Council.”
–excerpt from A. M. Rosenthal, in the New York Times (January 1991)
“The time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty…has passed; its theory was never matched by reality.”
–UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace, 1992.
“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”
Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.
“[The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United
States to change it’s perceptions.”
—Henry Kissinger, World Affairs Council Press Conference, Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel, April 19th 1994
Finally, there is this quote, and it is the key to understanding the modern origins of the central ideology running through all the other quotes I have cited in this post and the other posts in this series on the ‘New World Order:’
“The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England … (and) … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.”
—Professor of History Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University, in his book “Tragedy and Hope”.
The English society to which Quigley refers is the Fabian Society. They gave birth to Lenin, who led the Russian Revolution. They were also instrumental in the formation of what became known as the American Progressive movement. And this is what accounts for the central ideology between the Fabians, Communists and Progressives. It even accounts for the commonality with the Fascists, who were also socialist, but national socialists (i.e. they opposed the globalization of socialism in favor of their individual nations).
Everything, everything we see today and which we mistakenly believe are signs that these different ‘isms’ are actually different is nothing more than a smokescreen born of ignorance and lack of understanding. The only differences between these different ‘isms’ are in whether or not the goal should be global or nationalistic, and how to achieve it: by revolution or legislation. Once you understand this, everything else suddenly starts to make sense and you understand how it is that all these supposedly different and competing ideologies always seem to work in the same direction: global control.
To me, the irony in all of this is that — in my opinion — the majority of these people truly believe that what they are trying to do is for the good of all mankind. Even if they have to enslave or kill billions in the process of saving them, they have convinced themselves that forcing their will on all of humanity is benevolent.
[NOTE: To those who know and understand Scripture, this is what we mean by ‘Spirit’ and ‘Types.’ The Spirit is global control: the replacing of God with Satan, through man. The Types are the different ‘isms:’ Fabianism, Communism, Fascism, and Progressivism. This is the central theme of all human history: the struggle in the Spirit world to replace God and re-make His creation to suit the desires of those who have rejected Him and His sovereignty.]