William F. Jasper - Global Tyranny ... Step by Step (1992).pdf - En - antonif

Global Tyranny ... Step by Step

Published by

Western Islands

Post Office Box 8040

Appleton, Wisconsin 54913

(414) 749–3786

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 92–081764

ISBN: 0–88279–135–4

To Carmen,

Jonathan and Christopher,

and my father and mother,

with love and gratitude

Contents

Introduction

1. The New World Army

2. In the Name of Peace

3. The UN Founders

4. Reds

5. The Drive for World Government

6. Treaties and Treason

7. The Global Green Regime

8. The UN Grab for Your Child

9. The UN War on Population

10. The New World Money System

11. The Compassion Con

12. The New World Religion

13. UN Regionalism — The European Community

14. Get US out!

Bibliography

Personal Acknowledgments

About the Author

Introduction

America and the world stand on the brink of one of the most perilous epochs in this planet’s history.

According to the purveyors of conventional wisdom, communism is dead, the Cold War is over, and the

greatest threats to world peace and security are rampant nationalism, inequitable wealth distribution,

overpopulation, and environmental degradation. Yet the threat to a just world peace and comity among

nations and peoples comes not from political fragmentation, ozone holes, greenhouse gases, an over-

abundance of people, a shortage of natural resources, or even from the frequently offered scenarios of

"rogue" elements in the former USSR acquiring control of nuclear weapons.

The true, imminent danger to America and to all nations seeking peace and good will stems from

widespread acceptance of the monstrous falsehood that in order to live in an "interdependent" world, all

nation-states must yield their sovereignty to the United Nations. This lie is given dignity by other lies,

chief of which is that Soviet totalitarianism has been buried forever.1 A too wide acceptance of these

dangerous falsehoods is resulting in: 1) a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers in the West to

the still-socialist governments of the East that remain under the control of "former" communists; 2) the

gradual but accelerating merger or "convergence" of the U.S. and Russia through increasing economic,

political, social, and military agreements and arrangements; and 3) the rapidly escalating transfer of

power — military, regulatory, and taxing — to the UN. Unless the fiction underlying these

developments is exposed, national suicide and global rule by an all-powerful world government are

inevitable.

"The Bush Administration," Time magazine noted on September 17, 1990, "would like to make the U.N.

a cornerstone of its plans to construct a New World Order."2 That observation merely stated the

obvious. In his speech to the nation and the world on September 11, 1990, Mr. Bush stated: "Out of

these troubled times, our fifth objective — a new world order — can emerge...." He proceeded to

announce his hopes for "a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders."3 It became

abundantly clear to veteran students of "world order" politics that a major new push for world

government had begun. Only a few years ago, any such attempt would have flopped miserably. During

the 1970s and 80s, the UN’s record as an enclave of spies, a sinkhole of corrupt spendthrifts, and an

anti-American propaganda forum for terrorists, Third World dictators, and Communist totalitarians, had

thoroughly tarnished its carefully manufactured image as mankind’s "last best hope for peace."

From 1959, when the UN could boast an 87 percent approval rating, the annual Gallup Poll showed a

continuous decline in popularity for the organization. By 1971, a Gallup survey reported that only 35

percent of the American people thought the UN was doing a good job. By 1976, Gallup claimed that the

support had dropped to 33 percent. In 1980, it declined further to an all-time low of 31 percent. "At no

point since [1945]," said Dr. Gallup referring to his latest figures, "has satisfaction with the overall

performance of the world organization been as low as it is today."4 The John Birch Society’s long and

frequently lonely billboard, bumper sticker, petition, letter-writing, and pamphleteering educational

campaigns to "Get US out! of the United Nations" had made good sense to many Americans.

In the early years of the Reagan Administration, UN-bashing became positively respectable, even

fashionable. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick could be seen and heard almost daily

denouncing the world body’s anti-Americanism, tyranny promotion, and fiscal profligacy. Editorials

opposing UN actions and the organization itself began appearing with frequency in local and regional

newspapers, and occasionally even in major national news organs.

Anti-UN sentiment had already reached the point in 1981 that veteran UN-watcher Robert W. Lee could

report in his book, The United Nations Conspiracy : "Today the UN is increasingly regarded not as a

sacred cow, but rather as a troika composed of a white elephant, a Trojan horse, and a Judas goat."5 The

supermarket tabloid Star , while not exactly a consistently reliable heavyweight in the news and analysis

category, expressed the sentiments of a large and growing segment of the American people with a

November 3, 1981 article by Steve Dunleavy entitled, "Rip Down This Shocking Tower of Shame."

In March of 1982, syndicated columnist Andrew Tully authored a piece headlined: "[Mayor] Koch

Should Chase UN Out of Town."6 Many similar articles and editorials could be cited, but perhaps one of

the most surprising was the August 24, 1987 cover story by Charles Krauthammer for The New

Republic , entitled "Let It Sink: The Overdue Demise of the United Nations."

But the advent of Mikhail Gorbachev’s "new thinking" in the late 1980s coincided with the beginning of

a remarkable rehabilitation in the public’s image of the UN. First Gorbachev, and then Boris Yeltsin,

won plaudits for reversing the traditional Soviet (or Soviet surrogate) practice of using the UN as a

venue for strident anti-American diatribes. Yassir Arafat and his PLO terrorists dropped their regular

anti-Israel philippics. And the UN’s "peacekeepers" won a Nobel Prize and worldwide praise for their

roles as mediators in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Central America, Southern Africa, and the Middle East.

Then came Operation Desert Storm, the holy war against the aggression of Saddam Hussein. And

mirabile dictu , the United Nations was once again the world’s "last best hope for peace." Suddenly UN

"peacekeepers" began to appear almost everywhere — with more than 40,000 troops in the field in

Africa, Asia, Europe, Central America, and the Middle East7 — and every new day now brings new

appeals for the world body’s intervention and "expertise."

On United Nations Day 1990, a new Gallup Poll indicated that "American support for the United

Nations ... is higher than it has been in over 20 years." According to the national polling organization,

"Fifty-four percent of Americans now think the United Nations has done a good job of solving the

problems it has had to face...." The poll cited the "rapprochement between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.,

and the dissolution of the Iron Curtain," as well as the developing Persian Gulf situation, as major

factors contributing to the enhancement of the UN’s image.8

Gallup reported that "almost six out of ten Americans think that the U.N. has been effective in helping

deal with the current [Iraq-Kuwait] crisis, with only 8% saying that the U.N. has not been at all

effective." Even more disturbing, if accurate, is the poll finding that 61 percent of those surveyed

thought it a good idea to build up the United Nations emergency force to "a size great enough to deal

with ‘brush fire’ or small wars throughout the world."9

The euphoria following the Persian Gulf hostilities temporarily boosted George Bush’s approval rating

to an all-time high for any president. Rude economic realities and an accumulating number of political

problems then caused his star to plummet just as rapidly as it had risen. The UN’s gains, however,

appear to have been more durable. As reported by Richard Morin ("U.N. Real Winner After Gulf War,"

Salt Lake Tribune , January 24, 1992), a survey by the Americans Talk Issues Foundation "found that

approval for the United Nations actually increased from 66 percent in June to 78 percent in November

[1991], a period when other measures of war-induced euphoria were sinking fast."

The Tribune reported:

[H]alf of those questioned — 51 percent — agreed that "the U.S. should abide by all World

Court decisions, even when they go against us, because this sets an example for all nations

to follow." That was up from 42 percent in May.

More than half also would support increasing the amount of dues that the United States pays

to the U.N. to "help pay for a U.N. space satellite system to detect and monitor such

problems as arms movements, crop failures, refugee settlements and global pollution."

And, remarkably, 38 percent of those questioned said United Nations resolutions "should

rule over the actions and laws of individual countries, where necessary to fulfill essential

United Nations functions, including ruling over U.S. laws even when our laws are

different."

While we recognize that pollsters often structure their polling questions to achieve results that will

influence rather than accurately reflect public opinion, and these surveys may be exaggerating the rise of

pro-UN sentiments, there is little doubt that the world organization is experiencing a dramatic

turnaround in citizen acceptance. In large measure, this has resulted from the enormously effective UN

drum-beating campaigns of the Establishment news media.

The New York Times , Los Angeles Times , and Washington Post have led the way, with an avalanche of

fawning editorials, news stories, and op-ed columns glorifying the alleged accomplishments and yet-to-

be-realized potential of the UN. These pro-UN public relations pieces have been reprinted in thousands

of newspapers and have also found their way into the mainstream of broadcast journalism.

Unfortunately, the religious media have followed along with their secular brethren in promoting this

unquestioning faith in the salvific capability of the United Nations. One of the more egregious examples

of this misplaced fervor appeared in a lengthy January 19, 1992 editorial in Our Sunday Visitor , the

nation’s largest Catholic publication. Headlined "UNsurpassed," the piece declared: "If the John Birch

Society had its way and the United Nations had ceased to exist back in the 1950s, 1991 would have been

a far more dismal year." The editorialist then proceeded to praise the UN’s latest "accomplishments":

It is unlikely that international support for the liberation of Kuwait and the dismantling of

the Iraqi war machine would have been so easily marshaled by the United States.

Cambodia’s warring factions would most likely still be warring. Terry Anderson and his

fellow hostages would still be languishing in Lebanon. Croats and Serbs would still be

locked in their death grip with no international organization pressing for a cease-fire. And

El Salvador would still be a vast cemetery slowly filling up with the victims of its fratricidal

opponents....

Now in its fifth decade of existence, the U.N. is finally coming into its own, thanks in part

to the demise of the superpower standoff that hobbled the international organization for

much of its existence. Nations are finding the mediation efforts of U.N. negotiators

preferable to either unilateral actions or a bloody status quo of unwinnable conflicts.

Similar paeans of praise can be found in leading Protestant periodicals. New Age publications which

have multiplied in number and influence in the past decade virtually worship the UN.

Readers of this book will be in a far better position to benefit from our presentation in the pages that

follow, and to understand unfolding world events, if they keep in mind the two major principles

underlying virtually all of our federal government’s foreign and domestic policies: "convergence" and

"interdependence." The plan to bring about a convergence or merger of the U.S. and the USSR is not a

recent policy response to the supposed reforms of Gorbachev and Yeltsin. It first came to light officially

in 1953 when public concern over large tax-exempt foundation grants to communists and communist

causes prompted Congress to investigate. Of particular concern were the funding activities of the

William F. Jasper - Global Tyranny ... Step by Step (1992).pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: