The Unseen Hand - Ralph Epperson

World Government

One of the most glaring differences between the so-called "conservative" and the so-called "liberal" is how each views the issues of man's relationship to the world.

Basically, this difference can be described as follows:

"The conservative position: The conservative appeals to the spiritual nature of man, believing that man's problems arise because of the nature of man himself. The solution to the problems of the world lies in the changing of man himself.

"The liberal position: The liberal appeals to the materialistic nature of man, believing that man's problems arise because of the environment The liberal's solution is to change the environment so that man will be happy.

The ultimate device to completely control man's environment is a one-world government, and the current organization of the world into nations becomes the obvious obstacle to such a change.

This has been the program and the goal of each of the various individuals and organizations discussed in this study since the early formation of the Illuminati.

Various indicators have presented themselves to indicate that the goal of these planners, world government, is about to reach fruition.

On May 18, 1972, Roy M. Ash, from the Office of Management and Budget during the Nixon administration, laid down the time frame, as far as he could see it, for the world government:

"Within two decades [sometime before 1992] the institutional framework fora World Economic Community will be in place. . . " when "aspects of individual sovereignty will be given over to supernational authority."

James P. Warburg in his book The West in Crisis, also went on record of supporting the need for a world government:

"A world order without world law is an anachronism; and that, since war now means the extinction of civilization, a world which fails to establish the rule of law over the nation-states cannot long continue to exist. We are living in a perilous period of transition from the era of the fully sovereign nation-state to the era of world government."

Warburg once told a Senate Committee, on February 17, 1950, how the peoples of the world would receive this world-government:

"We shall have world government whether you like it or not, if not by consent by conquest."

The world government envisioned by these seers includes plans for a world police force. One who has described the need for such a constabulary is historian Arnold Toynbee:

"We are approaching the point at which the only effective scale for operations of any importance will be the global scale. The local states ought to be deprived of their sovereignty and subordinated to the sovereignty of a global world government. I think the world state will still need an armed police [and the] world government will have to command sufficient force to be able to impose peace."

To convince the people of the world to give up their national sovereignty and turn it over to a world government is a monumental task. However, the planners do not feel it is insurmountable. One of those who foresaw the problem has also offered the 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 . . . .

"We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school teachers, our politicians, our priests, our newspapers and others with vested interests in controlling us.

"The reinterpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of the old people, these are the belated objectives . . . for charting the changes in human behavior."

In addition to destroying man's basic loyalties to family, nation and religion, the nation must be conditioned to the belief that less is better than more. The standard of living of those in the affluent nations must be reduced. This will be done by a slow, gradual process of conditioning the citizens of the rich nations to survive on less than they produce.

This position was made clear by John Knowles, the President of the Rockefeller Foundation, in its annual report for 1975:

"I am sure of only one thing—more is not necessarily better. The web of interdependence is tightening. We are one world and there will be one future—for better or for worse—for us all. Central to a new ethic of making less more is controlled economic growth which conserves scarce resources, provides more equitable distribution of income and wealth "

In addition to controlling the supply of goods, Mr. Knowles also urges the control of the demand for goods:

"It is also necessary to control fertility rates at the replacement level and to achieve zero population growth as rapidly as possible."

Once the people in the more productive nations have been conditioned to live with less, they can be conditioned to share their excess wealth with the less productive nations. This sharing of the wealth is called the New International Economic Order, a phrase that was defined by Senator Charles Percy, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations:

"The philosophy behind the new international economic order is based on the fact that the developed wealthier nations use a substantially greater share of the earth's resources . . . than do the less developed poor nations.

"The new order calls for a more equitable distribution of the earth's resources among the earth's people and redistribution of wealth among rich and poor nations."

In keeping with this program, on March 30, 1979, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, (also a member of the CFR), promised that the United States would step up its economic aid to the developing nations of the world in order to hasten "progress toward a more equitable and healthy new international economic order."

The progress towards this world government has been steady, not because the people of the richer countries have freely chosen it after hearing the arguments on both sides, but because they have been lied to. A good case in point is the article written by Richard Gardner, a top advisor to President Jimmy Carter, who was also Ambassador to Italy, in the April, 1974, issue of Foreign Affairs, the monthly journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. He wrote that "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 more than the old fashioned frontal assault."

The United States government has presented its blueprint for the transfer of America's military forces to the one-world government, in this case, the fledgling world government, the United Nations, in a document published in 1961.

This document, entitled Freedom From War—State Department Publication 7277, was strangely removed from publication a couple of years after the American people had had a chance to read it for themselves. It proposed the gradual surrender of all of the American forces to a world police force in a three-phase program:

"The first stage would significantly reduce the capabilities of nations to wage war by reducing the armed forces of the nations; the nuclear capabilities would be reduced by treaties; and U.N. "peace-keeping" powers would be strengthened.

"The second stage would provide further substantial reductions in the armed forces; and the establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations.

"The third stage would have the nations retaining only those forces required for maintaining internal order, but the United States would provide manpower for the United Nations Peace Force."

This transfer would mean that the Secretary General of the United Nations would become the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces of the United States, completely in violation of the Constitution of the United States. The Secretary General would, in turn, place the command of this new peace-keeping force over to the Under-Secretary in charge of all military affairs, the Under-Secretary in charge of the Department of Political and Security Council Affairs. This key position has been held by a Communist from either the Soviet Union or a Soviet controlled Communist state since the inception of the United Nations. (This position is the same one that General MacArthur had to report to during the Korean War.)

Since the American people were not completely ready to surrender to the United Nations, this report, as indicated above, was pulled out of circulation and declared to be out of print But those in charge of having the United States become part of a one-world government have not rested. The next step in this program occurred on January 30, 1976, when the World Affairs Council announced the Declaration of Interdependence. This document was signed by 126 American Senators and Representatives, eight of whom later announced that they had either renounced their participation or admitted that their names had been used without their knowledge.

Former Senator Joseph P. Clark, a member of the sponsoring World Affairs Council, attempted to explain why this new Declaration of Interdependence was necessary:

"The size, range and complexity of government increases—and will continue to do so.

"I would defend the proposition that this expansion is good—not bad. Surely, we have reached the point where we can say. . . that Jefferson was wrong: that government is not best which governs least [Jefferson had written: that government is best which governs least].

"The fallacy in Jefferson's argument is the assumption that the expansion of government leads to the curtailment of individual freedoms.

"That just is not true."

The Declaration supported by Senator Clark read, in part:

"Two centuries ago, our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a new world order.

"To establish a new world order . . . it is essential that mankind free itself from limitations of national prejudice . . . .

"We affirm that the economy of all nations is a seamless web, and that no one nation can any longer effectively maintain its processes of production and monetary systems without recognizing the necessity of collaborative regulation by international authorities.

"We call upon all nations to strengthen the United Nations . . . and other institutions of world order . . . "

One of those Representatives who chose not to sign the Declaration was Congresswoman Marjorie Holt, who said this: "It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a 'new world order' that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people ."

World government is getting closer.

The New International Order is at hand.