World government has been the dream of man for centuries, but it was not until a wintry afternoon in 1891 when three men were engaged in earnest conversation in London, England. The leader was Cecil Rhodes, a most important person in South Africa. The second was William T. Stead, a famous journalist. The third was Reginald Baliol Brett, later known as Lord Esher, a friend and confidant of Queen Victoria, and later to be the influential advisor of King Edward VII and King George V. From that conversation were to flow consequences of the greatest importance to the British Empire and to the future of their world.

Cecil Rhodes was a fabulously wealthy man. He mercilessly manipulated South Africa and took lands and wealth from the black peoples. Only in theory are black people back in political control of Africa; the real decisions are still made by the European and American elites through their South African black puppet presidents and leaders. Independence is only an illusion.

Cecil Rhodes was a member of a group of high-born graduates at Oxford and Cambridge universities. They were fervent apostles of the ultra socialist professor John Ruskin, who together envisioned a “secret society,” which was finally created after Rhodes’ death in 1902. Rhodes called it the “Society of the Elect.” One of the important instruments Rhodes created to advance his “Global Vision” was the Rhodes scholarships given to bright young men in their prime from all over the world to study at Oxford University in England. The purpose was to inculcate and perpetuate his dream of world domination. Rhodes admitted that his plan for dominion was a scheme to create the government of the whole world, in other words, a conspiracy. He envisioned the creation of a world governing body over all nations which would have an irresistible military force.

In his third will, Rhodes left his entire estate to Freemason Lord Nathan Rothschild as trustee. (The very Rothschilds, who finance rulers of nations). Rhodes stipulated that his gigantic fortune was to be used by disciples worldwide that would carry out the program he envisioned. Rothschild appointed a Freemason Alfred Milner to head up the secret society for which Rhodes’ first will made provision.

After his appointment, Milner recruited a group of young men from Oxford and Toynbee Hall to assist him in organizing his administration of the new society. All were English Freemasons. Among them were Rudyard Kipling, Arthur Balfour, Lord Rothschild, and some Oxford College graduates known as “Milner’s Kindergarten.” It was this group in 1909, together with some other English Masons, who founded the “Round Table.” This gave birth to the grandfather of all British Masonic “think tanks.”

Three powerful think tank offshoots of the Round Table are (1) the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIA), organized in 1919 in London; (2) the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), organized in 1921 in New York City; and (3) the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), organized in 1925 consisting of twelve countries in what is called the Pacific Rim.

The purpose of these think tanks was to influence the direction of England’s and America’s foreign policies towards increasing world involvement independent of the world’s masses. The intent was:

(1) To create and establish a One World Government with a common unified church and monetary system under their direction.

(2) To bring about the utter destruction of all national identity and national pride, which was a primary consideration if the concept of a one-world government was to succeed.

(3) To engineer and bring about the destruction of existing religions and, more especially, the Christian religion, except their own interpretation of religion.

(4) To establish the ability to subtly influence each and every person through means of media control.

(5) To encourage, and eventually legalize the use of drugs and make pornography an “art form” which would be widely accepted and, eventually, become quite commonplace.

(6) To weaken the moral fiber of nations and demoralize workers in the labor class by creating mass unemployment. Discouraged workers will resort to alcohol and drugs. The youth of the land is encouraged by means of rock music and drugs to rebel against society, thus undermining and eventually destroying the family unit.

(7) To penetrate and subvert all governments, and work from within them to destroy the sovereign integrity of nations that wish to be free and independent. Nationhood and patriotism would be their enemy.

On September 17, 1796, George Washington in his farewell speech said: “It is our true policy to stay clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” He warned the American people not to get embroiled in the affairs of Europe. He understood that interference in other nations’ internal affairs would also create enemies and hatred of America; but in 1914 it was not to be. Rhodes scholars had already established themselves within governments of the world who had been indoctrinated with Cecil Rhodes’ dreams.

Up until World War I (1914) the United States had maintained its neutrality and steered clear of major entanglements around the world. The first attempt to create an international body based on the principle of “collective security” came in the aftermath of World War I. It was in 1919 when President Woodrow Wilson championed the creation of “The League of Nations,” but America was not yet ready to abandon its sovereignty and endanger its constitution.

The United States Senate refused to ratify The League of Nations agreement at the end of World War I. The American people were suspicious of entanglements with the constant warring European powers and wanted no part of submersion in a world super-state. They saw through the complex and seductive “peace” appeals. They believed that any league strong enough to “enforce peace” globally would also possess the power to impose tyranny worldwide. There would then be no way to limit its power.

In direct repudiation of Washington’s warnings, Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan and others during Woodrow Wilson’s administration manipulated America’s involvement into World War I. It was an excellent opportunity for the newly formed Council on Foreign Relations to begin promoting “world government” as being a desirable solution to the problems of the world. The Council on Foreign Relations was formed on July 29, 1921 by a group of “intellectuals” who felt that there was a need for world government devoid of nationhood, even though the people of America were not ready for it. Since the CFR was a semi-secret think tank, the American people could not see their subtle conspiratorial efforts toward world government.

To convince the people of the world to give up their sovereignty and turn it over to a world government was a monumental task. However, the planners did not feel it was insurmountable. One of those who foresaw the problem had also offered a solution. Dr. Brock Chisolm, Director of the World Health Organization, is on record as stating: “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism and religious dogmas, the very moral basics that made the American ‘Republic’ so successful for the first 150 years of its existence.”

Those, who read the CFR quarterly Foreign Affairs and study the editorial stance of CFR- controlled American media organs, know exactly which are the favored views and attitudes to support. The CFR and several like-minded groups can be expected to support the following: more pacts; treaties and agreements that compromise U.S. sovereignty; continued praise for the reliance on the United Nations; piecemeal transfer of U.S. military forces to U.N. supervision and command; more and newer forms of foreign aid (bribery); undermining and isolation of any national leader who does not favor world government under a “new world order”; and submission to the radical demands of environmental extremists, population planners, and human rights crusaders who will never be satisfied until the United States no longer exists as a free and independent nation.

The United Nations

The United Nations has been in existence for more than a half century, but its origins and goals are poorly understood. The following only touches upon the hard reality of the UN system and its purpose.

Initial plans for the United Nations were drafted in 1943 by the Informal Agenda Group (IAG), a secret steering committee set up by President Roosevelt’s Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, at the UN’s founding San Francisco Conference. Virtually all 43 individuals were members of the CFR. The top acting Secretary-General was Alger Hiss, not only a CFR member but also a secret Marxist Soviet agent who drafted the charter.

John Foster Dulles, a founding member of the CFR and early supporter of the United Nations, became President Eisenhower’s Secretary of State in 1953. He had taken part in formulating the League of Nations Conference in Paris on April 29, 1919. He was disgusted with members at the conference who were defending nationalism, which resulted in the rejection of the League of Nations. He then went to a meeting in Oxford and found a different atmosphere. He found in Cecil Rhodes’s teachings that the Christian religion could be the impediment to the cause of world government.

Christian religion played no real part in John Foster Dulles’s life. Under the guise of “world peace,” Dulles realized he could use Christian churches to achieve the goals of a one-world government. He became involved in the creation of the National and World Council of Churches. He was the most significant agent in subverting true Christianity as a tool for social change, leading to a one-world slave system. Dulles was a leader in the ultra liberal anti-Christian group the Federal Council of Churches, the predecessor of the National Council of Churches (NCC). Bent on separating the church from the Bible, Dulles also carried that philosophy into American diplomacy.

It would be very difficult to enumerate the hundreds of United Nations agencies that exist, but let us just review a few of them:
– United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
– United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

The real nature of UNICEF’s professed interest in children might surprise many people. Both UNICEF and UNESCO, two of the most visible organs of the UN, have long had histories of exploiting children for political gain. Behind the benign UN veil lurks a consistent premise that children are ultimately the property of the state. UN bureaucrats view the family as an institution competing with governments for the loyalties of children. One of the UN’s most important objectives is instilling in children an allegiance to the globalist cause, while sabotaging their natural affection for family, country, and the principles of liberty and traditional morality.

The UN has been a major sponsor in the campaign of inculcating innocent schoolchildren the twisted values of the ongoing “sexual revolution.” Worst still, UNICEF has been part of a revolting network of pedophiles and child pornographers who used their UN-sanctioned access to children to find victims for their twisted trade. In 1987, Joseph Verbeek, a Belgian who headed the Belgian office of UNICEF, and Michel Fetu, a UNICEF volunteer, were arrested and charged with using the UNICEF facilities in Brussels for child prostitution and production of child pornography. Their international ring was called Center for Research and Information on Children and Sexuality. They had taken UNICEF’s motto, “Every Child is Our Child.”

The most powerful body in the United Nations is the Security Council. It consists of 15 members of the United Nations, of whom five – the United States, China, France, Russia, and Great Britain — are permanent members, while the other ten are elected by UN member states for two-year terms. The UN charter clothes the Security Council with both legislative and executive authority. The Council has the power to deliberate and to issue resolutions, which, from the point of view of the United Nations, have the force of law and must be observed by all UN member states. If any offending nation disregards such resolutions, the Security Council then has the authority to use all measures, including unlimited war, to enforce the will of the United Nations, articles 41 and 42 of the charter, which spell these powers out very plainly.

The Security Council, in other words, has, according to the UN charter, final authority over all international disputes as well as domestic problems that it decides “are threats to the peace,” “breaches to the peace,” or “acts of aggression.” And to enforce its will, the Security Council has the power to make war in order to prevent war. A very curious provision for an organization supposedly charged with keeping the peace.

NATO: the UN’s Military Arm

Articles 52-54 of the UN charter authorize forming “regional arrangements,” precisely what NATO (The North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is. It was marketed to the American people as only a military alliance designed to check any westward movement of the Soviet bloc. NATO won immediate approval in the U.S. Senate. When the USSR supposedly dissolved, NATO should have as well but its founders had other plans.

On March 19, 1949 U.S. Secretary of State, Dean Acheson (CFR), stated that the pact was “designed to fit precisely into the framework of the United Nations,” that it was “subject to the overriding provisions of the United Nations Charter, and that it “is an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations.”

In November of 2002 NATO added seven more nations to membership and now has a total of 26. By joining, the thinking of smaller nations is that they will be more secure. Little do they know that now fewer nations will be able to stand up against NATO’s military power. In reality, they have signed their death certificate, as Christian Serbia did. In this process the United Nations will have acquired its own military army with fewer nations to deal with.

In the fall of 1996 former German Foreign Minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, stated in a Washington Times column: “NATO’s decision to send forces to Bosnia based on a UN Security Council decision is to be applauded.” NATO was then, and is still today, the UN’s military force.

An excellent example of NATO’s totalitarian terrorism was the lying that took place during the war on Serbia. Robert Hayden, Director of the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Russian and East European Studies, said, “There have been many discrepancies in the official stories …” He dismissed reports of 100,000 – 500,000 Albanian men massacred as “just ludicrous.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) political science professor, Barry Posen, who specializes in the history of warfare, pointed out that, because so little independent scrutiny of NATO’s atrocity stories has taken place, “NATO is able to absolve itself and make great use of very tragic pictures of people in very tragic circumstances to say, ‘See, this is why we fought the war, to reverse this’.”

The war was the destruction of Christian Serbia by NATO. The so-called Kosovo Liberation army KLA is tightly connected to the Albanian Marxist narco-mafia terrorists. According to Ben Works, Director of the Strategic Issues Research Institute of the United States (SIRIUS), “The KLA’s Islamic veneer helps explain the group’s alliance with renegade Saudi millionaire, Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt that Bin Laden’s people have been in Kosovo helping to arm, equip and train the Turkish Albanian KLA.”

NATO’s war against Yugoslavia was a terrorist enterprise that reflected a totalitarian mind-set. From President Clinton on down, NATO’s aerial bombardment of Radio Television of Serbia (SRT) represented a disturbing embrace of one of the fundamental tenets of totalitarianism: Government, in this case NATO’s ruling elite, was entitled to define how people think and punish those who commit “thoughtcrime.” “Yes, Serbian television could be hateful, biased, bad,” commented Robert Fisk, Belgrade correspondent for the London Independent. “It was owned by the government. But once you kill people because you don’t like what they say, you have changed the rules of war.” The war was the intended destruction of Christian Serbia by NATO. According to Ben Works, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) is tightly connected to the Albanian narco mafia.

Environmentalism

During the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the so-called Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, an eminent scientist, boldly challenged the absurd claims and dangerous proposals of the environmental fanatics. As a distinguished professor of zoology and commentator, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, former governor of the State of Washington, and recipient of many awards, she exposed some of the dangerous UNCED policies and proposals. She alerted many Americans to the perils of the global green agenda. In her publication Environmental Overkill, she wrote: “First, we must recognize that the environmental movement is not about facts or logic. More and more it is becoming clear that those that support the so-called “New World Order” or World Government under the United Nations have adopted global environmentalism as a basis for the dissolution of independent nations and the international realignment of power.”

Following are notes about Maurice Strong from the book “The United Nations Exposed” by William Jasper.

The master of world environmentalism is billionaire socialist of Canada, Maurice Strong. He is an industrialist, radical environmentalist, New Age spiritualist, United Nations plutocrat, fervent one-world socialist, a critical and provocative globalist, a great patron of Israel, and close friend of David Rockefeller and Mikhail Gorbachev. In 1990 a Canadian journalist, Daniel Wood, interviewed Mr. Strong at his sprawling Colorado estate. During the course of Wood’s visit, Strong told him of a novel he had been planning to write. It was about a group of world leaders who decided the only way to save the world was to cause the economies of the industrial countries to collapse. In describing the background of the novel, he starts by explaining the yearly meeting of the World Economic Forum which convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEO’s, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With this as a setting, Strong then says: “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: ‘Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?’ “Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Wood wrote: “At that point the amateur tycoon novelist makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette out the window.” Meaning, the fates of hundreds of millions, even billions, of people callously sealed with the flick of the finger – their livelihoods, life savings, jobs, businesses, homes, and dreams, all for a good cause (“to save the planet”) of course. Wood wrote: “I sat there spellbound. This is not any storyteller talking. This is Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the pinnacle of power. He is in a position to do it.”

Perhaps more important is that, from everything we know about the eminent Mr. Strong, he is very likely inclined to do it! Maurice Strong is the model global-elitist, a super-wealthy collectivist of uncontrolled arrogance, who believes that he and a select few others have been chosen to run the world and refashion it according to their utopian designs. It should be noted that, in 1917, Trotsky also thought what was good for Russia.

Recipe for Tyranny

Many supporters of an empowered United Nations sincerely believe that a global government would eliminate wars and establish world peace. But the utopian facade put forward by globalization advocates hides an ugly reality. Namely, a government with the strength to enforce world peace would also have the power to enforce global domination. Void of any provisions safeguarding against the abuse of power, the UN would become a war-making machine capable of stripping individuals of their rights. Under the guise of peace, global tyranny would be delivered.

The plan to establish a world federation under the UN banner is inherently flawed because it is based on the presupposition that rights come from government. The problem with this view, of course, is that if government is the source of our rights, then government may properly redefine, restrict, or eradicate rights whenever it chooses to do so.

The UN holds that government grants rights. But governments are not formed for the granting of natural rights; they are formed to ensure the protection and security of rights. In 1850, French economist, Frederic Bastiat, emphasized this essential principle in his treatise The Law. “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws,” Bastiat observed. “On the contrary, it was the fact that they existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” To illustrate his point, Bastiat cited America as the nation that best exemplified this ideal. “Look at the United States,” he said. “There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: The protection of every person’s liberty and property.” Bastiat could make this observation because America’s Founding Fathers, with incredible insight, formed a government that not only embodied the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, but ensured their lasting protection as well.

UN human rights instruments also promise social-welfare “rights” such as the right to a job, to an education, to medical care, etc. The problem is that such “rights” can only be provided through socialistic government controls. This perversion of the law would transform the UN world government into a tool of injustice. Bastiat emphasized that the law, if it is to protect individual rights, must be just. Any law that infringes on the basic, natural rights of mankind would render it unjust. In determining such laws, Bastiat advises: “See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong.”

The unjust socialist program of “sharing the wealth” in practice is a program of “controlling the wealth, wealth created by humans working.” Wealth must first be confiscated before it can be redistributed. Let us understand, a state that has become powerful enough to confiscate wealth by the tyranny of taxation, cannot be forced to redistribute that which it has confiscated.

The enforcement by a UN world government of unjust law would require the use of a substantial international police force, equipped with the ability to suppress any opposition that could arise. Upon succeeding in globalization, the UN would be free to use its standing global army as a tool of oppression. The disarmament of nations, citizen disarmament included, would indeed eliminate the ability of nations to war against each other but would replace such wars between nations with a new type of war – war made against an all but defenseless population by the UN. The UN standing army would then be used as a “peacekeeping” force. Supreme in firepower and numbers, the UN army would be unstoppable, making it impossible for former nations and individual citizens to defend themselves from aggression. The global state, in eliminating international wars, would inevitably replace them with a singular war fought by the global nation. Soldiers would be, by necessity, “quartered among us” in the endless battle against revolt. The end result is the establishment of totalitarian rule under the UN.

Financial Deception
From “Inside the United Nations” by Steve Bonta

A month before the Dumbarton Oaks conference in 1944, a secretive gathering took place at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The gathering was formally called the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference. Its purpose was to create an international system to control world finances complementing the United Nations’ framework for political and military control.

Much of what took place at Bretton Woods is still unknown. Records and transcripts of the meetings are spotty, and participants were tightlipped about many of the proceedings. Representing the United States was a delegation by Harry Dexter White, Roosevelt’s Assistant Treasury Secretary (later unmasked as a Communist agent), and Raymond Mikesell, who wrote a short memoir about the goings-on at the conference. Harry Dexter White did not consider himself accountable to any higher authority within the U.S. Government.

At Bretton Woods, White presented a grand scheme: He wanted to create an organization to control international finance, destroy the financial independence of nations of the world, and distribute wealth from the rich to the poor countries. He called his scheme the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF was promoted as an instrument for international peace rather than international socialism. By tying Bretton Woods to the peace movement, the U.S. Treasury Department, with the rest of the administration, was able to get the American public to support the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF was sold to Congress and the American people as “stabilizing” international trade and currency exchange rates. The people assumed that stability would be a blessing in those chaotic times. But, in reality, the IMF was intended to create instability, by sucking the world’s poorer nations into total dependence on IMF loans, and by financially weakening the wealthy countries, especially the United States. The chaos created by such destabilization would allow the insiders to integrate all countries, both rich and poor, into a single global economic and financial system. These loans, however, come with strings attached: The IMF often imposes harsh conditions on debtor nations, requiring them to increase their tax rates, heap more regulations on private enterprise, revise the educational system, etc.

Government-administered foreign aid is morally reprehensible, whatever its defendants say. Foreign aid is not charity, even though it is often portrayed that way. Charity is given voluntarily to those genuinely in need. Foreign aid, by contrast, is taken forcibly from American taxpayers of every income level and given to those in poor countries who need it least – the corrupt elites who occupy the halls of their government. It therefore strengthens only those entrenched interests and individuals who are most responsible for their countries’ hardships in the first place. It encourages corruption and dependency – and dependency on the emerging global welfare state is exactly what the architects intended.

Although the IMF and World Bank were created separately from the United Nations itself, both have since been merged into the United Nations’ system as affiliates. The creation of a single world financial system, including a world central bank and a single world currency, was the exact goal of the insiders at Bretton Woods. The financial insiders have developed a long-term strategy to organize the world into regional economic blocs, with regional currencies and regional central banks that could later be consolidated into a single global entity. The insiders have already made considerable progress towards this goal. They began in Europe with the creation of the Common Market in the 1950s. Though many European countries were worried that the Common Market might endanger their sovereignty, they were assured by suave insiders that the Common Market was nothing more than a “free trade” organization. But as the years passed and more countries joined the Common Market, the organization began to look and act more like a regional government. It changed its name first to European Economic Community (EEC), then to the European Community (EC) and finally the European Union (EU), and agitated continuously for new powers. A European Central Bank was established in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1998, and on January 1, 2002 a new currency, the Euro.

EU dignitaries are now planning the next stage of what they call “integration” – that is, the destruction of the remnants of the sovereignty of Europe’s once independent nations. They are now considering a European Constitution to give the force of law to the already existing European parliament council, and courts. Their plan is to replicate the European model elsewhere, using regional economic blocs as the foundation for regional governments, and then the final region, the world.

America’s 60-year-long involvement with the United Nations’ system, the entire military, legal, financial, and social international octopus, has brought us nothing but trouble. The UN has involved us in wars, sapped our financial and economic resources, worked to change our laws, and gradually undermined our national sovereignty. Instead of peace, we have gotten almost incessant war. Instead of international financial stability, we have gotten chaos. And instead of independence, we have gotten the false promises of what internationalists like to call “interdependence.”

But the UN system itself is not yet independent either. It relies for sustenance on the one source of health and vigor that can keep it alive: the United States of America, with all of its military, political, and economic clout. Like a biological parasite, the United Nations has fastened itself onto a larger, more powerful organism, relying for its continued survival on tapping the vitality of its host. The UN parasite depends for its military power on American weaponry, technology, military intelligence, and personnel, especially in places like the Balkans and the Middle East. The UN’s international financial system is heavily supported by money extracted from U.S. taxpayers. The UN’s headquarters are located on the U.S. soil. And the United Nations derives much of its operating funds, the money with which it pays for its lavish East River headquarters and numerous regional offices, as well as the inflated salaries of its thousands of employees.

Civilian Disarmament

The goal of UN disarmament programs is to take weapons away from private citizens as well as national militaries, giving the world body a monopoly of power. The 1995 report “Our Global Neighborhood” of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance (CGG) called for global measures to crack down on “the rampant acquisition and use of increasingly lethal weapons by civilians seeking a means of defense against street gangs, criminals, political opposition groups, or terrorist organizations. When it comes to disarming civilians, the UN does not accept “No!” to mean “No,” but rather “not yet.” This was clear to retired U.S. Congressman, Charles Pashayan, who attended the Small Arms Conference as a delegate. “This is the opening skirmish of a war,” warned Pashayan. “All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over domestic and national laws.”

Throughout history, would-be tyrants have sought to disarm their subjects. Literally tens of millions of human beings have learned, too late, that civilian disarmament is often a prelude to genocide.

World Taxation

Advocates of global government are pushing schemes for global taxation, one step at a time, as part of the plan to mold the United Nations into a world government.

The first and most concrete proposal for worldwide taxation was advanced by Yale University economist, James Tobin, in the 1970’s. Tobin proposed a uniform worldwide levy on international currency exchanges. It was intended to throw some sand in the wheels of excessively efficient international money markets and to pave the way for an eventual common currency, common monetary fiscal policy, and economic integration.

In his original proposal, Tobin suggested that the role of tax collector be played by either the IMF or the World Bank. Modern versions of the plan call for the erection of an entirely new tax collection bureaucracy. In either case, the final beneficiary will be the embryonic UN-centered world government.

The radical environmental movement has recently thrown its weight behind various global taxation schemes. The so-called carbon tax is a prominent example. Exploiting concerns over global warming, the carbon tax would punish alleged nations to global warming by increasing the price of fossil fuels proportionate to their carbon content. The aim of such a tax would not only be to raise revenues for globalist projects, but also to coerce industrialized nations to knuckle under to the megalomaniacal objectives of the radical environmental lobby. In other words, no level of taxation on human activity will satisfy those who regard the human race as a blemish on the surface of Mother Earth. And of course Harvard professor, Richard Cooper, recommends that the international community (embodied in the UN) be the recipient of any such environmental taxation proceeds.

If we think that the air we breathe is free, think again. Kevin Baumert of the UN-Affiliated Global Policy Forum outlines the deceptive strategies used by proponents of global taxation, which makes it clear that the globalist cartel hopes to tax every conceivable human activity; by definition, the “global commons” belongs to and must be administered by them.

By slow, incremental steps, the “patient gradualism” of which the architects of world order are so fond is to be shackled to a regime of heavy, arbitrarily defined international taxation, for which the sky is literally no limit. By exploiting radical initiatives at local levels and using carefully coordinated talking points and devious words, globalists intend to foist upon us a brave new world of tax-and-spend on a grand scale.
The United Nations is a war organization, not a peace organization. Perpetual wars for perpetual peace.

The United Nations is the enemy of all freedom-loving peoples.

Compiled by Ardavast Avakian
Boca Raton, FL USA
December 26, 2004