textfiles-politics/pythonCode/personTestingOutput/inthenam.xml

<xml><p>Global Tyranny...Step By Step
by William F. Jasper</p>

<p>
In the Name of Peace</p>

<p> The U.N. jets next turned their attention to the center of the
city. Screaming in at treetop level ... they blasted the post office
and the radio station, severing <ent type='GPE'>Katanga</ent>'s communications with the
outside world... One came to the conclusion that the U.N.'s action was
intended to make it more difficult for correspondents to let the world
know what was going on in <ent type='GPE'>Katanga</ent>...(1)
-- <ent type='PERSON'>Smith Hempstone</ent>
Rebels, <ent type='ORG'>Mercenaries</ent>, and Dividends, 1962</p>

<p>Early in 1987, millions of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> television viewers tuned in to
watch the dramatic <ent type='ORG'>ABC</ent> mini-series, <ent type='ORG'>AMERIKA</ent>. What they saw was a grim,
menacing portrayal of life in our nation after it had been taken over
by a <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent>-controlled <ent type='ORG'>United Nations</ent> force. Their TV sets showed a
foreboding picture of <ent type='GPE'>America</ent> as an occupied police-state, complete
with concentration camps, brainwashing, neighborhood spies, and
<ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent>-UN troops, tanks and helicopter gunships enforcing "the rule of
law."</p>

<p><ent type='NORP'>Liberals</ent> angrily denounced the mini-series, claiming it demonized both
the <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent>s and the UN and insisting that it would rekindle
anti-<ent type='NORP'>communist</ent> hysteria at a time when <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent>-<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> relations were
at their best point since the end of <ent type='EVENT'>World War</ent> II. The fact that
<ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> troops were at that very time committing real atrocities
against the peoples of <ent type='GPE'>Afghanistan</ent> didn't matter. UN officials,
furious about the way their organization was being portrayed, even
tried to have the program cancelled.(2)</p>

<p>Why all the furor? Is the UN's image so sacrosanct or the goal of
US-<ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> rapprochement so sacred that even fictional tarnishing is
akin to blasphemy? After all, it was just a television program.
<ent type='GPE'>Haven</ent>'t there been scores of highly acclaimed <ent type='GPE'>Hollywood</ent> productions
depicting the U.S. military and <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> patriots in similarly bad or
even far worse light? Besides, the totalitarianism depicted in <ent type='ORG'>AMERIKA</ent>
could never happen here. Could it?</p>

<p>Dress Rehearsal?</p>

<p>You may be surprised to learn that it HAS ALREADY HAPPENED HERE. NO,
not in the same manner and on the same scale as viewers saw in the
television series, but in an alarming real-life parallel of that
dramatic production What follows is the true, but little-known story
of the "invasion" of about a dozen <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> cities by "UN forces," as
told by economist/author Dr. V. Orval Watts in his 1955 book, THE
UNITED NATIONS: PLANNED TYRANNY.</p>

<p>At Fort MacArthur, <ent type='GPE'>California</ent>, and in other centers,
considerable numbers of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> military forces went
into training in 1951 as "Military Government Reserve
Units." What they were for may appear from their practice
maneuvers during the two years, 1951-1952.</p>

<p>Their first sally took place on July 31, 1951, when they
simulated an invasion and seizure of nine <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> cities:
<ent type='ORG'>Compton</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Culver City</ent>, Inglewood, <ent type='GPE'>Hawthorne</ent>, Huntington
Park, <ent type='GPE'>Long Beach</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Redondo Beach</ent>, South Gate and
Torrance. The invading forces, however, did not fly the
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> flag. They came in under the flag of the United
Nations, and their officers stated that they represented the
<ent type='ORG'>United Nations</ent>.</p>

<p>These forces arrested the mayors and police chiefs, and
pictures later appeared in the newspapers showing these
men in jail. The officers issued manifestoes reading "by
virtue of the authority vested in me by the <ent type='ORG'>United Nations</ent>
Security Council." At Huntington Park they held a flag-raising ceremony, taking down the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> flag and
running up in its place the <ent type='ORG'>United Nations</ent> banner.</p>

<p>On April 31952, other units did the same thing at
<ent type='GPE'>Lampasas</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Texas</ent>. They took over the town, closed
churches, strutted their authority over the teachers and
posted guards in classrooms, set up concentration camps,
and interned businessmen after holding brief one-sided
trials without HABEAS CORPUS.</p>

<p>Said a newspaper report of that <ent type='GPE'>Texas</ent> invasion: "But the
staged action almost became actual drama when one
student and two troopers forgot it was only make-believe.
'<ent type='GPE'>Ain</ent>'t nobody going to make me get up,' cried <ent type='PERSON'>John Snell</ent>,
17, his face beet-red. One of the paratroopers shoved the
butt of his rifle within inches of <ent type='ORG'>Snell</ent>'s face and snarled,
'You want this butt placed in your teeth? Get up.'"</p>

<p>The invaders put up posters listing many offenses for which
citizens would be punished. One of them read:"25. Publishing
or circulating or having in his possession with intent to publish
or circulate, any printed or written matter ... hostile,
detrimental, or disrespectful ... to the Government of any other
of the <ent type='ORG'>United Nations</ent>."</p>

<p>Think back to the freedom-of-speech clause of the United
<ent type='ORG'>State</ent>s Constitution which every <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> officer and
official is sworn to support and defend. What was in the
minds of those who prepared, approved and posted these
UN proclamations?</p>

<p>The third practice seizure under the <ent type='ORG'>United Nations</ent> flag
occurred at <ent type='GPE'>Watertown</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent>, August 20, 1952, more
than a year later than the first ones. It followed the same
pattern set in the earlier seizures in <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> and <ent type='GPE'>Texas</ent>.</p>

<p>Is this a foretaste of <ent type='ORG'>World Government</ent>, which so many
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s seem to want?(3)</p>

<p>Who ordered these "mock" UN invasions? And to what purpose were they
carried out? Do answers to these questions really matter? Or are these
merely idle concerns about curious but irrelevant events that happened
decades ago and have no bearing on our lives today? Events,
developments, and official policies in the succeeding years, under
both <ent type='NORP'>Republican</ent> and <ent type='NORP'>Democratic</ent> administrations, indicate that the mock
invasions of the early 1950s do matter and that they do have a bearing
on our lives today. The dress-rehearsal takeovers of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> cities
described above occurred just six years after the founding of the
<ent type='ORG'>United Nations</ent>, while the organization was still enjoying widespread
public support. <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> military personnel were at that very time
fighting and dying under the UN flag in <ent type='GPE'>Korea</ent>. But as recounted in our
previous chapter, a decade later in September of 1961, the President
of <ent type='GPE'>the United States</ent> would propose a phased transfer of <ent type='GPE'>America</ent>'s
military forces to the UN. Under such a plan, our <ent type='ORG'>Army</ent>, Navy, Air
Force, Marine Corps, even our nuclear arsenal, would be given over to
UN command, making it possible for our nation's military forces to be
used in a REAL U.N. invasion at some future date anywhere in the
world.</p>

<p>Interestingly, the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> FREEDOM FROM WAR plan differed little from
one proposed earlier that same month by the <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent>-dominated
"nonaligned" nations at a conference held in <ent type='GPE'>Belgrade</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Yugoslavia</ent>.(4)
And it was merely an expansion of the policy enunciated by Secretary
of <ent type='ORG'>State</ent> <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Herter</ent></ent> (<ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent>) during the latter days of the
<ent type='PERSON'>Eisenhower</ent> Administration. But few <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s even saw, and fewer still
ever read and understood the incredible disarmament document. For
those who did see, read and understand it, however, there could be no
doubt that it created a path leading to global dictatorship.</p>

<p>If the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> public had been aware of FREEDOM FROM WAR
and a number of then-classified government studies being prepared at
that time -- each of which spelled out even more explicitly the intent
of government and Establishment elitists to surrender <ent type='GPE'>America</ent> to an
all-powerful <ent type='ORG'>United Nations</ent> -- there may well have been a popular
uprising that would have swept all of the internationalist schemers
from public office and public trust.</p>

<p>In February 1961, seven months before the President released the
FREEDOM FROM WAR plan to the public, his <ent type='ORG'>State</ent> Department, led by
Secretary of <ent type='ORG'>State</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Dean Rusk</ent> (<ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent>), hired the private Institute for
<ent type='ORG'>Defense</ent> Analyses (contract No. <ent type='ORG'>SCC</ent> 28270) to prepare a study showing
how disarmament could be employed to lead to world government. On
March 10, 1962, <ent type='ORG'>the Institute delivered Study Memorandum</ent> No. 7, A
WORLD EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED NATIONS,
written by <ent type='ORG'>Lincoln</ent> P. <ent type='GPE'>Bloomfield</ent> (<ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent>).(5) Dr. <ent type='GPE'>Bloomfield</ent> had himself
recently served with the <ent type='ORG'>State</ent> Department's disarmament staff, and
while writing his important work was serving as an associate professor
of political science and director of <ent type='ORG'>the Arms Control Project</ent> at the
Center for International Studies, <ent type='ORG'>Massachusetts Institute</ent> of
Technology.</p>

<p>This <ent type='GPE'>Bloomfield</ent>/<ent type='ORG'>IDA</ent> report is especially significant because the
author is uncharacteristically candid, eschewing the usual euphemisms,
code words, and double-talk found in typical "world order"
pronouncements meant for public consumption. The author believed he
was addressing fellow internationalists in a classified memorandum
that would never be made available for public scrutiny. So he felt he
could speak plainly.</p>

<p>Here is the document's opening passage, labeled SUMMARY:</p>

<p>A world effectively controlled by the <ent type='ORG'>United Nations</ent> is one
in which "world government" would come about through
the establishment of supranational institutions,
characterized by mandatory universal membership and
some ability to employ physical force. Effective control
would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the
hands of a supranational organization... [T]he present UN
Charter could theoretically be revised in order to erect such
an organization equal to the task envisaged, thereby
codifying a radical rearrangement of power in the world.</p>

<p>Dr. <ent type='GPE'>Bloomfield</ent> was still fudging a little as he began. The phrase
"some ability to employ physical force" was more than a slight
understatement, as the bulk of the report makes abundantly clear. He
continued:</p>

<p>The principal features of a model system would include the
following: (1) powers sufficient to monitor and enforce
disarmament, settle disputes, and keep the peace --
including taxing powers -- with all other powers reserved to
the nations; (2) an international force, balanced
appropriately among ground, sea, air, and space elements,
consisting of 500000 men, recruited individually, wearing
a UN uniform, and controlling a nuclear force composed of
60-100 mixed land-based mobile and undersea-based
missiles, averaging one megaton per weapon; (3)
governmental powers distributed among three branches...;
(4) compulsory jurisdiction of <ent type='ORG'>the International Court</ent>...(6)</p>

<p>"The notion of a 'UN-controlled world' is today a fantastic one," the
professor wrote. "... Political scientists have generally come to
despair of quantum jumps to world order as utopian and unmindful of
political realities. But fresh minds from military, scientific, and
industrial life ... have sometimes found the logic of world government
-- and it is world government we are discussing here --
inescapable."(7)</p>

<p>Dr. <ent type='GPE'>Bloomfield</ent> then cited <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Herter</ent></ent>'s speech of February 18,
1960, in which the Secretary of <ent type='ORG'>State</ent> called for disarmament "to the
point where no single nation or group of nations could effectively
oppose this enforcement of international law by international
machinery."(8) To this <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent>-affiliated academic, who had recently
worked for the disarmament agency where <ent type='ORG'>Herter</ent>'s speech had most
likely been written, there was no question about the meaning of the
Secretary of <ent type='ORG'>State</ent>'s words.</p>

<p>"Here, then," said <ent type='GPE'>Bloomfield</ent>, "is the basis in recent <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> policy
for the notion of a world 'effectively controlled by the United
Nations.' It was not made explicit, but <ent type='GPE'>the United States</ent> position
carried the unmistakable meaning, by whatever name, of world
government, sufficiently powerful in any event to keep the peace and
enforce its judgments."9</p>

<p>Then, to be absolutely certain that there would be no confusion or
misunderstanding about his meaning, he carefully defined his terms:</p>

<p>"World" means that the system is global, with no
exceptions to its fiat: universal membership. "Effectively
controlled" connotes ... a relative monopoly of physical
force at the center of the system, and thus a preponderance
of political power in the hands of a supranational
organization..."
"The <ent type='ORG'>United Nations</ent>" is not necessarily precisely the
organization as it now exists... FINALLY, TO AVOID
ENDLESS EUPHEMISM AND EVASIVE VERBAGE, THE
CONTEMPLATED REGIME WILL OCCASIONALLY BE
REFERRED TO UNBLUSHINGLY AS A "WORLD
GOVERNMENT." (10) [Emphasis added]</p>

<p>If government is "force" -- as <ent type='PERSON'>George Washington</ent> so simply and
accurately defined it -- then world government is "world force." Which
means that <ent type='GPE'>Bloomfield</ent> and those who commissioned his report and agreed
with its overall recommendations wanted to create a global entity with
a monopoly of force -- a political, even military power undisputedly
superior to any single nation-state or any possible alliance of
national or regional forces. It is as simple as that.</p>

<p>"The appropriate degree of relative force," the <ent type='GPE'>Bloomfield</ent>/<ent type='ORG'>IDA</ent> study
concluded, "would ... involve total disarmament down to police and
internal security levels for the constituent units, as against a
significant conventional capability at the center backed by a
marginally significant nuclear capability."(11) Again and again as the
following excerpts demonstrate, the study drives its essential points
home:</p>

<p>* "National disarmament is a condition SINE QUA NON
for effective UN control... [W]ithout it, effective UN control
is not possible."(12)</p>

<p>* "The essential point is the transfer of the most vital
element of sovereign power from the states to a
supranational government."(13)</p>

<p>* "The overwhelming central fact would still be the loss of
control of their military power by individual nations."(14)</p>

<p>Putting Theory Into Practice</p>

<p>While Dr. <ent type='GPE'>Bloomfield</ent> was still writing his treatise for global rule,
the hapless residents of a small corner of <ent type='LOC'>Africa</ent> were experiencing
the terrible reality of "a world effectively controlled by the United
Nations." The site chosen for the debut of the UN's version of "
peacekeeping" was <ent type='GPE'>Katanga</ent>, a province in what was then known as the
<ent type='NORP'>Belgian</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Congo</ent>. The center of world attention 30 years ago, the name
<ent type='GPE'>Katanga</ent> draws a complete blank from most people today.</p>

<p><ent type='GPE'>Katanga</ent> and its tragic experience have been expunged from history,
consigned to the memory hole. The region appears on today's maps as
<ent type='GPE'>the Province</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Shaba</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Zaire</ent>. But for one brief, shining moment, the
courageous people in this infant nation stood as the singular
testament to the capability of the newly independent <ent type='LOC'>Africa</ent>ns to
govern themselves as free people with a sense of peace, order, and
justice.</p>

<p>While all around them swirled a maelstrom of violent, <ent type='NORP'>communist</ent>
inspired revolution and bloody tribal warfare, the <ent type='NORP'>Katangese</ent>
distinguished themselves as a paradigm of racial, tribal, and class
harmony.(15) What they stood for could not be tolerated by the forces
of "anti-colonialism" in the <ent type='ORG'>Kremlin</ent>, the U.S. <ent type='ORG'>State</ent> Department, the
<ent type='NORP'>Western</ent> news media, and especially the <ent type='ORG'>United Nations</ent>.(16)</p>

<p>The stage was already set for the horrible drama that would soon
unfold when <ent type='GPE'>Belgium</ent>'s King Baudouin announced independence for the
<ent type='NORP'>Belgian</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Congo</ent> on June 301960. The <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent>s, who had been agitating and
organizing in the <ent type='GPE'>Congo</ent> for years, were ready. <ent type='PERSON'>Patrice Lumumba</ent> was
their man, bought and paid for with cash, arms, luxuries, and all the
women, gin, and hashish he wanted. With his <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> and <ent type='NORP'>Czech</ent>
"diplomats" and "technicians" who swarmed all over the <ent type='GPE'>Congo</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Lumumba</ent>
was able to control the <ent type='GPE'>Congo</ent> elections.(17)</p>

<p>With <ent type='PERSON'>Lumumba</ent> as premier and <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph Kasavubu</ent> as president, peaceful
independence lasted one week. Then <ent type='PERSON'>Lumumba</ent> unleashed a <ent type='NORP'>communist</ent> reign
of terror against the populace, murdering and torturing men, women,
and children. Amidst this sea of carnage and terror, the province of
<ent type='GPE'>Katanga</ent> remained, by comparison, an island of peace, order, and
stability. Under the able leadership of the courageous Moise Kapenda
<ent type='PERSON'>Tshombe</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Katanga</ent> declared its independence from the central <ent type='GPE'>Congo</ent>lese
regime. "I am seceding from chaos," declared President <ent type='PERSON'>Tshombe</ent>, a
devout <ent type='NORP'>Christian</ent> and an ardent anti-<ent type='NORP'>communist</ent>.(18)</p>

<p>These were the days when the whole world witnessed the cry and the
reality of "self determination" as it swept through the <ent type='LOC'>Africa</ent>n
continent. Anyone should have expected that <ent type='GPE'>Katanga</ent>'s declaration of
independence would have been greeted with the same huzzahs at the UN
and elsewhere that similar declarations from dozens of <ent type='NORP'>communist</ent>
revolutionary movements and pip-squeak dictatorships had evoked.</p>

<p>But it was <ent type='PERSON'>Tshombe</ent>'s misfortune to be pro-<ent type='NORP'>Western</ent>, pro-free
enterprise, and pro-constitutionally limited government at a time when
the governments of both the U.S. and the <ent type='GPE'>USSR</ent> were supporting <ent type='NORP'>Marxist</ent>
"liberators" throughout the world. <ent type='PERSON'>Nikita Khrushchev</ent> declared <ent type='PERSON'>Tshombe</ent>
to be "a turncoat, a traitor to the interests of the <ent type='GPE'>Congo</ent>lese
people."(19) <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> liberals and the rabble at the UN dutifully
echoed the hue and cry.</p>

<p>To our nation's everlasting shame, on July 14, 1960, the U.S. joined
with the <ent type='GPE'>USSR</ent> in support of a UN resolution authorizing the world body
to send troops to the <ent type='GPE'>Congo</ent>.(20) These troops were used, NOT to stop
the bloody reign of terror being visited on the rest of the <ent type='GPE'>Congo</ent>, but
to assist <ent type='PERSON'>Lumumba</ent>, the chief terrorist, in his efforts to subjugate
<ent type='GPE'>Katanga</ent>. Within four days of the passage of that resolution, thousands
of UN troops were flown on U.S. transports into the <ent type='GPE'>Congo</ent>, where they
joined in the campaign against the only island of sanity in all of
black <ent type='LOC'>Africa</ent>.</p>

<p><ent type='PERSON'>Smith Hempstone</ent>, <ent type='LOC'>Africa</ent>n correspondent for <ent type='ORG'>the Chicago Daily News</ent>,
gave this firsthand account of the December 1961 UN attack on
<ent type='GPE'>Elisabethville</ent>, the capital of <ent type='GPE'>Katanga</ent>:</p>

<p>The U.N. jets next turned their attention to the center of the
city. Screaming in at treetop level ... they blasted the post
office and the radio station, severing <ent type='GPE'>Katanga</ent>'s
communications with the outside world... One came to the
conclusion that the U.N.'s action was intended to make it
more difficult for correspondents to let the world know
what was going on in <ent type='GPE'>Katanga</ent>...</p>

<p>A car pulled up in front of the Grand Hotel Leopold II
where all of us were staying. "Look at the work of the
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> criminals," sobbed the <ent type='NORP'>Belgian</ent> driver. "Take a
picture and send it to <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>!" In the backseat, his eyes
glazed with shock, sat a wounded <ent type='LOC'>Africa</ent>n man cradling in
his arms the body of his ten-year-old son. The child's face
and belly had been smashed to jelly by mortar
fragments.(21)</p>

<p>The 46 doctors of <ent type='GPE'>Elisabethville</ent> -- <ent type='NORP'>Belgian</ent>, <ent type='NORP'>Swiss</ent>, <ent type='NORP'>Hungarian</ent>,
<ent type='NORP'>Brazilian</ent>, and Spanish -- unanimously issued a joint report indicting
the <ent type='ORG'>United Nations</ent> atrocities against innocent civilians. This is part
of their account of a UN attack on a hospital:</p>

<p>The <ent type='LOC'>Shinkolobwe</ent> hospital is visibly marked with an
enormous red cross on the roof... In the maternity, roof,
ceilings, walls, beds, tables and chairs are riddled with
bullets... 4 <ent type='GPE'>Katanga</ent>n women who had just been delivered
and one new-born child are wounded, a visiting child of 4
years old is killed; two men and one child are killed...(22)</p>

<p>The UN atrocities escalated. Unfortunately, we do not have space here
to devote to relating more of the details of this incredibly vicious
chapter of UN history -- even though the progress toward establishing
a permanent UN army makes full knowledge of every part of it more
vital than ever. Among the considerable body of additional testimony
about the atrocities, we highly recommend THE FEARFUL MASTER by G.
<ent type='PERSON'>Edward Griffin</ent>; WHO KILLED THE <ent type='GPE'>CONGO</ent>? by <ent type='PERSON'>Philippa Schuyler</ent>; REBELS,
<ent type='ORG'>MERCENARIES</ent>, AND DIVIDENDS by <ent type='PERSON'>Smith Hempstone</ent>; and 46 <ent type='ORG'>Angry Men</ent> by the
46 doctors of <ent type='GPE'>Elisabethville</ent>.</p>

<p>In 1962, a private group of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s, outraged at our government's
actions against the freedom-seeking <ent type='NORP'>Katangese</ent>, attempted to capture on
film the truth about what was happening in the <ent type='GPE'>Congo</ent>. They produced
<ent type='ORG'>KATANGA</ent>: THE UNTOLD STORY, an hour-long documentary narrated by
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>man <ent type='PERSON'>Donald</ent> L. <ent type='PERSON'>Jackson</ent>. With newsreel footage and testimony
from eyewitnesses, including a compelling interview with <ent type='PERSON'>Tshombe</ent>
himself, the program exposed the criminal activities and brutal
betrayal perpetrated on a peaceful people by the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>
Administration, other <ent type='NORP'>Western</ent> leaders, and top UN officials. It
documents the fact that UN (including U.S.) planes deliberately bombed
<ent type='GPE'>Katanga</ent>'s schools, hospitals, and churches, while UN troops
machine-gunned and bayoneted civilians, school children, and <ent type='ORG'>Red Cross</ent>
workers who tried to help the wounded. This film is now available on
videotape,(23) and is "must-viewing" for <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s who are determined
that this land or any other land shall never experience similar UN
atrocities.</p>

<p>After waging three major offensive campaigns against the fledgling
state, the UN "peace" forces overwhelmed <ent type='GPE'>Katanga</ent> and forced it back
under <ent type='NORP'>communist</ent> rule. Even though numerous international observers
witnessed and publicly protested the many atrocities committed by the
UN'S forces, the world body has never apologized for or admitted to
its wrongdoing. In fact, the UN and its internationalist cheering
section continue to refer to this shameful episode as a resounding
success.(24) Which indeed it was, if one keeps in mind the true goal
of the organization.</p>

<p>Following <ent type='ORG'>the Policy</ent> Line</p>

<p>Why did the government of <ent type='GPE'>the United States</ent> side with the <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> Union
and the <ent type='ORG'>United Nations</ent> in their support of <ent type='NORP'>communist</ent>s <ent type='PERSON'>Lumumba</ent> and
<ent type='PERSON'>Kasavubu</ent> and their denunciation of <ent type='PERSON'>Tshombe</ent>? Why did our nation supply
military assistance to and an official endorsement of the UN's
military action against <ent type='GPE'>Katanga</ent>? The answer to both questions is that
our government was guided by the same "world order" policy line laid
out by the <ent type='GPE'>New York</ent> Times in its hard-to-believe editorial of August
16, 1961:</p>

<p>[W]e must seek to discourage anti-<ent type='NORP'>Communist</ent> revolts in
order to avert bloodshed and war. We must, under our own
principles, live with evil even if by doing so we help to
stabilize tottering <ent type='NORP'>Communist</ent> regimes, as in <ent type='GPE'>East Germany</ent>,
and perhaps even expose citadel of freedom, like <ent type='LOC'>West</ent>
Berlin, to slow death by strangulation.(25)</p>

<p>Further elaboration on this theme is revealed in a 1963 study
conducted for <ent type='GPE'>the United States</ent> Arms Control and Disarmament Agency by
<ent type='ORG'>the Peace Research Institute</ent>. Published in April of that year, here's
what our tax dollars produced:</p>

<p>Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, we benefit
enormously from the capability of the <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> police system
to keep law and order over the 200 million odd <ent type='NORP'>Russians</ent>
and the many additional millions in the satellite states. The
break-up of the <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Communist</ent> empire today would
doubtless be conducive to freedom, but would be a good
deal more catastrophic for world order...(26)</p>

<p>"We benefit enormously?" Who is this "we"? Certainly not the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
taxpayer, who carried the tax burden for the enormous military
expenditures needed to "contain" <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> expansionism.</p>

<p>And who determined that freedom must be sacrificed in the name of
"world order"?</p>

<p>Dr. <ent type='GPE'>Bloomfield</ent>, in the same classified <ent type='ORG'>IDA</ent> study cited earlier, again
let the world-government cat out of the bag. If the <ent type='NORP'>communist</ent>s
remained too militant and threatening, he observed, "the subordination
of states to a true world government appears impossible; BUT IF THE
COMMUNIST DYNAMIC WERE GREATLY ABATED, <ent type='GPE'>THE WEST</ent> MIGHT WELL LOSE
WHATEVER INCENTIVE IT HAS FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT." (27) ( Emphasis
added)</p>

<p>In other words, the world order <ent type='ORG'>Insiders</ent> were faced with the following
conundrum: How do we make the <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent>s menacing enough to convince
<ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s that world government is the only answer because
confrontation is untenable; but, at the same time, not make the
<ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent>s so menacing that <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s would decide to fight rather than
become subject to <ent type='NORP'>communist</ent> tyrants?</p>

<p>Are we unfairly stretching these admissions? Not at all. Keep in mind
that from the end of <ent type='EVENT'>World War</ent> II, up to the very time these
statements were being written, the <ent type='NORP'>communist</ent>s had brutally added
<ent type='GPE'>Albania</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Bulgaria</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Yugoslavia</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Poland</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Romania</ent>, <ent type='NORP'>Czech</ent>oslovakia, <ent type='PERSON'>North</ent>
<ent type='GPE'>Korea</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Hungary</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>East Germany</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>China</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Tibet</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>North</ent> <ent type='GPE'>Vietnam</ent>, and <ent type='GPE'>Cuba</ent> to
their satellite empire and were aggressively instigating revolutions
throughout <ent type='LOC'>Africa</ent>, <ent type='LOC'>Asia</ent>, Latin <ent type='GPE'>America</ent>, and <ent type='LOC'>the Middle East</ent>.</p>

<p>And, as was later demonstrated by the historical research of Dr.
<ent type='PERSON'>Antony Sutton</ent> and other scholars, all of these <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> conquests had
been immeasurably helped by massive and continuous transfusions from
the <ent type='LOC'>West</ent> to the <ent type='ORG'>Kremlin</ent> of money, credit, technology, and scientific
knowledge(28) It was arranged for and provided by the same
<ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent>-affiliated policy elitists who recognized in the "<ent type='NORP'>communist</ent>
dynamic" they created an "incentive" for the people in the <ent type='LOC'>West</ent> to
accept "world government."</p>

<p><ent type='ORG'>Project Phoenix</ent></p>

<p>The U.S. Departments of <ent type='ORG'>State</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>Defense</ent> funded numerous other
studies about US-<ent type='GPE'>USSR</ent> convergence and world order under UN control. In
1964, the surfacing of the <ent type='ORG'>Project Phoenix</ent> reports generated
sufficient constituent concern to prompt several members of <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>
to protest the funding of such studies.(29) But there was not enough
pressure to force <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> to launch full investigations that could
have led to putting an end to taxpayer funding of these serious
attacks on <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> security and our constitutional system of
government.</p>

<p>Produced by the <ent type='ORG'>Institute for Defense Analyses</ent> for the U.S. Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency, the <ent type='GPE'>Phoenix</ent> studies openly advocated
"unification" of the U.S. and <ent type='GPE'>USSR</ent>.(30) The following passages taken
from Study <ent type='GPE'>Phoenix</ent> Paper dated June 4, 1963 leaves no doubt about this
goal:</p>

<p>Unification -- ... At present the approach ... may appear so
radical that it will be dismissed out of hand; nevertheless,
its logical simplicity... is so compelling that it seems to
warrant more systematic investigation...</p>

<p>Today, <ent type='GPE'>the United States</ent> and the <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> Union combined
have for all practical purposes a near monopoly of force in
the world. If the use and direction of this power could
somehow be synchronized, stability and, indeed even unity
might be within reach.(31)</p>

<p>The <ent type='GPE'>Phoenix</ent> studies, like many other government reports before and
after, urged increased U.S. economic, scientific, and agricultural
assistance to the <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> Union. These recommendations are totally
consistent with the long-range "merger" plans admitted to a decade
before by <ent type='ORG'>Ford Foundation</ent> President <ent type='PERSON'>Rowan Gaither</ent>. And both <ent type='NORP'>Republican</ent>
and <ent type='NORP'>Democratic</ent> administrations have followed the same overall policy
ever since. But world order think-tank specialists like <ent type='GPE'>Bloomfield</ent>
realized that the incremental progress made through these programs was
too slow. He even lamented that reaching the final goal "could take up
to two hundred years."(32)</p>

<p><ent type='GPE'>Bloomfield</ent> then noted that there was "an alternate road" to merger and
eventual world government, one that "relies on a grave crisis or war
to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes
sufficient for the purpose."(33) The taxpayer-funded academic
explained that "the order we examine may be brought into existence as
a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks."(34)</p>

<p>Incredible? Impossible? Couldn't happen here? Many <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>s thought
so 30 years ago -- before "perestroika," <ent type='EVENT'>the Persian Gulf War</ent>,
propaganda about global warming, and other highly publicized
developments. But by the fall of 1990, <ent type='ORG'>Newsweek</ent> magazine would be
reporting on the emerging reality of "<ent type='ORG'>Superpowers</ent> as <ent type='ORG'>Superpartners</ent>"
and "a new order... <ent type='GPE'>the United States</ent> and the <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> Union, united for
crisis management around the globe."(35) [Emphasis added]</p>

<p>In a seeming tipping of his hat to <ent type='GPE'>Bloomfield</ent>, President <ent type='PERSON'>Bush</ent> would
state in his official August 1991 report, <ent type='ORG'>NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY</ent>
OF <ent type='GPE'>THE UNITED STATES</ent>: "I hope history will record that the <ent type='LOC'>Gulf</ent> crisis
was the crucible of the new world order."(36)</p>

<p>The <ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent>'s house academics were already beating the convergence drums.
Writing in the Winter 1990 issue of Foreign Policy ( published by the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Thomas G. <ent type='ORG'>Weiss</ent> (<ent type='ORG'>CFR</ent>) and
<ent type='PERSON'>Meryl</ent> A. <ent type='ORG'>Kessler</ent> exhorted: "If <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> is to seize the full
potential of this opportunity, it will have to ... begin to treat the
<ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> Union as a real partner."</p>

<p>The long-planned partnership began to take form officially with the
signing of "A Charter for <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>-<ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> Partnership and Friendship"
by Presidents <ent type='PERSON'>Bush</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Yeltsin</ent> on June 17, 1992.</p>

<p>Among the many commitments for joint action in this agreement, we find
the following:</p>

<p>* "... Summit meetings will be held on a regular basis";</p>

<p>* "The United <ent type='ORG'>State</ent>s of <ent type='GPE'>America</ent> and the <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent>
Federation recognize the importance of the United
Nations Security Council" and support "the strengthening
of UN peace-keeping";</p>

<p>* The parties are determined "to cooperate in the
development of ballistic missile defense capabilities and
technologies," and work toward creation of a joint "Ballistic
Missile Early Warning Center";</p>

<p>* "In view of the potential for building a strategic
partnership between <ent type='GPE'>the United States</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>America</ent> and the
<ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> Federation the parties intend to accelerate defense
cooperation between their military establishments ..."; and</p>

<p>* "The parties will also pursue cooperation in
peacekeeping counter-terrorism, and counter-narcotics
missions."(37)</p>

<p>Before this charter had even been signed, however, our new " partners"
were already landing their bombers on <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> soil. <ent type='ORG'>AIRMAN</ent>, a
magazine for the U.S. <ent type='ORG'>Air Force</ent>, reported in large headlines for the
cover story of its July 1992 issue: "The <ent type='NORP'>Russians</ent> Have Landed." The
cover also featured a photo of the two <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> Tu-95 Bear bombers and
an An-124 transport which had landed on May 9th at Barksdale <ent type='ORG'>Air Force</ent>
Base in <ent type='GPE'>Louisiana</ent>. An accompanying article noted that the <ent type='NORP'>Russians</ent>
were given "a rousing salute from a brass band and a thrilled
gathering of <ent type='ORG'>Air Force</ent> people and civilians who waved U.S. and
<ent type='ORG'>Commonwealth</ent> of Independent <ent type='ORG'>State</ent>s flags."</p>

<p>The long-standing plan of the <ent type='ORG'>Insiders</ent> calls for a merger of the U.S.
and the <ent type='GPE'>USSR</ent> (or <ent type='ORG'>Commonwealth</ent> of Independent <ent type='ORG'>State</ent>s as it has become)
and then world government under the <ent type='ORG'>United Nations</ent> (see Chapter 5).
Details leading to completion of the plan are unfolding week after
week, month after month, before an almost totally unaware <ent type='GPE'>America</ent>.

</p></xml>