A "BOLD NEW WORLD" AND "FORCES TOO POWERFUL" By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D. [Note: On September 14, 2011, World Bank Group president Robert Zoellick delivered a speech in which he advocated a "new world economy" including "modernized multilateralism" which is "beyond dependence." In this system, he said there would be a "New Normal" that "will be fluid and at times volatile---with more shocks and crises...." And relevant to the Power Elite's timetable for a world currency in 2018 and later fulfillment of their plan for world government, he indicated there should be "fiscal union" instead of just "monetary union." He said, "It is not responsible for the Eurozone to pledge fealty to a monetary union without facing up to...a fiscal union that would make monetary union workable...." To see the strategically important positions Zoellick previously has held, look toward the end of my October 20, 2008 NewsWithViews column, "The People's Republic of America."] William Knoke is founder and president of the Harvard Capital Group, which advises “global corporations.” And in his book, Bold New World: The Essential Road Map to the Twenty-First Century (1996), Knoke projects that “in the twenty-first century, we will each retain our ‘indigenous’ cultures, our unique blend of tribal affiliations,… yet our passion for the large nation state, for which our ancestors fought with their blood, will dwindle to the same emotional consequences of county or province today. A new spirit of global citizenship will evolve in its place, and with it the ascendancy of global governance.” Knoke’s vision is not new, as noted Fabian and historian Arnold Toynbee in a paper presented in early June 1931 remarked: “A local state may lose its sovereignty without losing those familiar features which endear it to the local patriot—such features, I mean, as the local vernacular language and folk-lore and costume, and the local monuments of the historical past…. [But] if we are frank with ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and the independence of the… sovereign independent States…. The dragon of local sovereignty can still use its teeth and claws when it is brought to bay. Nevertheless, I believe that the monster is doomed to perish by our sword. The fifty or sixty local states of the world will no doubt survive as administrative conveniences. But sooner or later sovereignty will depart from them.” Toynbee was one of those individuals pursuing Cecil Rhodes’ “scheme to take the government of the whole world!” His paper (quoted from above) was reprinted in the November 1931 edition of International Affairs, the journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, an outgrowth of the semi-secret Round Table Groups, formed between 1908 and 1913 to further Rhodes’ plan for an elite to dominate the world. According to Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, Professor Carroll Quigley, in Tragedy and Hope (1966), the elite who formed the Round Table Groups “in 1919 founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs…. Similar Institutes of International Affairs were established in the chief British dominions and in the United States (where it is known as the Council on Foreign Relations.)” Whenever someone asks for evidence of a secret plan to undermine national sovereignty, the question invariably arises as to who are the elite behind the plan. In that regard, the Toynbee paper quoted above was read at the 4th Annual Conference of Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Relations. Twelve countries were represented along with delegates from 4 international organizations, and the Conferences were initiated by the League of Nations Institute for Intellectual Cooperation. National Coordinating Committees were also formed, with one of their purposes being the execution of resolutions passed by the Conferences. In the Toynbee paper quoted above, he stated (and note especially the word, we): “I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of the world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local nation states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be—perhaps not quite burnt at the stake, but certainly can be ostracized and discredited.” Concerning the preparation of an elite to dominate the world, Paul Mantoux wrote in the Foreword of International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World (1931) by John Eugene Harley: “How can a well-prepared elite be raised throughout the world to spread its influence over the masses, who can then support them in their turn? …Plainly the first step, in the case of each country, is to train an elite to think, feel, and act internationally.” In order to do this in the U.S., though, our nationalistic Constitution would first have to be undermined. And in that regard, the next year (1932) William Kay Wallace’s Our Obsolete Constitution was published. Wallace had accompanied President Wilson to Paris after World War I and was attached to the American Commission to Negotiate Peace. In his book, Wallace wrote: “The age of individualism is past…. The Constitution is no longer adequate to meet the requirements of our age…. [The individual] must adopt the one best way or plan which has been scientifically determined by experts…. The absurdity of such doctrines as those of national rights and a social contract has long been recognized…. As we have gone beyond the stage of believing in an avenging God, so we are coming to realize that ideas of political sovereignty are borrowings from ignorant notions about the source of power in the state…. Sovereignty in its narrow territorial aspects must be abandoned…. We must be prepared to integrate Scientific Capitalism with the principle of Scientific Socialism…. It is admitted on all sides that national directive control of industry… must be undertaken in the immediate future…. The state will control the means of production….” The same year (1932), Rhodes scholar Clyde Eagleton’sInternational Government was published, and in the Preface of the 1948 revised edition, he stated: “I am… concerned with… the slowly evolving constitutional law and organization of the community of nations developing toward international, or world, government.” In the text of the book, he noted that “the following arguments have been offered in favor of regionalism: (1) Development should be attempted gradually, rather than in one jump toward world government. Such a world system could be better built upon the solid foundation of regional systems.” Concerning the pursuit of world government via regionalism, Graeme Howard in America and the New World Order (1940) argued regarding “the framework for support of the new world order” that “promising both a more ethical and a more realistic solution is the formation of regional economic entities…. Cooperative regionalism [will] bring about a better world order through internationally balanced economic and political regional blocs.” Similarly, M.J. Bonn in The Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science (July 1941) wrote that “national planning means deliberate international anarchy…. But we are not yet going to have a world state…. The formation of regional federations by hitherto autonomous groups of countries is much easier…. With every move a step toward a new world order is taken.” And the next year, in Post-War Worlds, P.E. Corbett (also a member of the Group furthering Rhodes’ plan) wrote: “A world association binding together and coordinating regional groupings of states may evolve toward one universal federal government, as in the past loose confederations have grown into federal unions…. World government is the ultimate aim, but there is more chance of attaining it by gradual development.” The same year (1942), the Federal Council of Churches convened a “Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace” (in June 1996 Bishop William Swing convened an interfaith forum, “United Religions,” as a prelude to Mikhail Gorbachev’s second “State of the World” forum in October 1996). The 1942 Commission published a series of lectures titled A Basis for the Peace to Come, and in John Foster Dulles’ lecture, “Toward World Order,” he declared: “We have found that regional integration… is not alone adequate…. We must find a system of government which can exercise jurisdiction which is world-wide…. Let us first consider the solution of ‘world government.’ …It involves an organization dedicated to the general welfare—the peace and order of mankind—and the assuming of an allegiance to this goal superior to that of any national allegiance…. By these… initial steps we will have begun that dilution of sovereignty which all enlightened thinkers agree to be indispensable.” Just think, President Eisenhower would choose this man to be his Secretary of State, even though Dulles had these views regarding our national sovereignty. In September 1942 Free World published “Round Table No. 10” (remember Cecil Rhodes and the Round Table Groups), titled “The Coming World Order.” In addition to Frank Aydelotte (American Secretary to the Rhodes Trustees), participants included Clyde Eagleton (mentioned above) and William Allan Neilson, who was presiding. In the Round Table discussion, Neilson stated: “The question as to whether humanity is ready for world order, whether there are certain changes in public opinion that must be brought about first and what forces must be put to work for it, really follows very closely from this question of whether we should plan for it now while we are still at war.” Remember, this is in 1942, long before the end of the Second World War. Eagleton in the discussion proposed: “What I had in mind was my hope that the United Nations, when they are victorious after this war, and assuming that they will be, would simply take over and run the world for a period of time, for a transitional period, and that they would compel other states to obey and that they would ultimately change this United Nations system to a permanent world order in which every state must be a member and must submit to the regulations laid down by the international government…. But probably it will not be necessary to use coercion against them, because in such a world order, they would practically be compelled to fit in.” Nielson then interjected, “The economic pressure would be enough.” One might remember this statement in terms of GATT and the World Trade Organization. Free Worldlater published “Round Table NO. 11” titled “Prospects for 1942” with one of the “Essential Findings” given as the following: “The creation of the machinery of a world government in which the present United Nations will serve as a nucleus is a necessary task of the present in order to prepare in time the foundation for a future world order.” And in the November 1942 Free World, T.V. Soong (Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Chinese Republic) wrote “The Coming International Order,” in which he declared: “The new world order, like the Chinese Republic, and all like human institutions, will never be realized until we start it. And we shall never be more ready for starting it than now…. We are seeing more clearly than ever before… the crying necessity for a new world order…. We must give to our young men, who are called on to sacrifice, a flaming mission of a new world order, and we must begin to make that mission come true now.” In 1946, the World Movement for World Federal Government was formed, and in 1947 the movement’s philosophy was expressed in its Montreax declaration. According to Alfred Lilienthal in Which Way to World Government? (Foreign Policy Association “Headline Series” number 83, Sept.-Oct. 1950), “At Montreaux the formation of regional federations, in so far as they did not become an end in themselves, was favorably regarded as a step toward the effective functioning of world government.” In September 1946, Winston Churchill advocated a European Union and on May 13, 1947 stated: “Unless some effective world supergovernment, for the purposes of preventing war, can be set up and begin to reign, the prospects for peace and human progress are dark and doubtful…. But let there be no mistake upon one point. Without a United Europe there is no prospect of world government. It is the urgent and indispensable step toward the realization of that goal.” In that same year (1947), Cord Meyer, Jr. (who was a member of Scroll & Key at Yale University, as was Dean Acheson) became the first president of United World Federalists, and in Peace or Anarchy (1947), he advocated “the transformation of the U.N. into a limited world government,” and further stated: “The U.N. must be given the constitutional authority to maintain security through laws which call for obedience from the individual inhabitants of the world as their first duty and which no national government can override…. They will not have the right to appeal to their national governments for protection because in its limited sphere the world law will be supreme…. Disarmament must be enforced by law and the possession of war-making power by national governments prohibited. They can be allowed to retain only the weapons needed for the maintenance of domestic order…. Similarly a limit must be set on the number of troops that any government can be allowed to retain. The abolition of mass armies is as essential as the outlawry of heavy armament…. The U.N. must have its own police and military forces to uphold its laws. A revised Charter must empower the U.N. to raise, train and support under its own command individuals owing exclusive allegiance to it…. The amended Charter should deny the right to secede. If it is to guarantee protection, the U.N. cannot allow the member nations the right to withdraw when they see fit…. So long as the present sovereign state system exists, each government will continue to distort the education of its youth with nationalistic propaganda. The tribal religion of nationalism is kept alive by the continuous menace of war…. Many of these proposals may appear unpatriotic or even treasonous to those who identify patriotism with the worship of American military power…. The tribal nationalists continue to believe that the support of a heavily armed and sovereign United States is the first duty of a citizen…. The final stage in the transference of power to the U.N. will be completed when the outlawed armaments have been removed from all national arsenals and national armies have been reduced to the size required for internal policing.” In March of the next year (1948), Meyer told the New York Herald Tribune Forum: “It is not a question of whether some kind of world government will be established in the next 10 years. Within a decade the world will be organized as one political unit. It is only a question as to what kind of world government will be established, and how.” Meyer will be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and will work for the CIA from 1951 to 1977. © 2011 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education. Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch. E-Mail: Not Available
PART 1
September 19, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
Posts
