From Carroll Quigley to the UN Millennium Summit: Thoughts on the New World Order

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Shortly
after the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the former
Soviet Union, President George Bush Sr. proclaimed us as on the
verge of a New World Order. Bush did not coin the phrase, of course;
nor did he introduce it into political discourse. Exactly what is
its intended referent? Either of two things, apparently. (1) A would-be
global government trumping national governments, meaning the de
facto end of national sovereignty; or (2) the efforts some believe
are currently underway, operating through the United Nations in
particular but through other groups as well (the Council on Foreign
Relations is a frequent target) to create such a global order. The
agenda itself is sometimes called the New World Order conspiracy.

Does
such an agenda really exist, or are statements about conspiracies
to create world government nothing more than “right wing” paranoia?
To my mind, this question is surprisingly easy to answer, though
the best way to approach it has changed in recent years. The results
ought to give all believers in freedom and genuine self-determination
more than a few sleepless nights. Yes, Virginia, there is a proposed
New World Order, whether we call it that or not. Let us consider
two separate pieces of evidence that point to this conclusion. The
first is contained in the writings of an historian; the second took
place right under our noses this past week in New York City. The
word conspiracy is, however, a misnomer. Conspiracies, by definition,
operate in secret. In that case, efforts to build a New World Order
may have begun in secret, but now all the evidence one needs is
on the UN's own website.

Washington,
D.C., the 1960s: Carroll Quigley and Tragedy and Hope.

Back
in the early 1960s, historian Carroll Quigley did extensive research
for his encyclopedic Tragedy
and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time.
Tragedy and
Hope recounted, in over 1,300 tightly-written pages of small print,
the gradual rise to power of a small cadre of extremely wealthy
and powerful individuals. Many were products of wealthy bloodlines.
Some were bankers; others began in other industries but got into
banking because that was where the real power was. They operated
mostly behind the scenes, not as national political elites but as
an international elite — or superelite. For them, natural borders
and loyalties were increasingly meaningless. Much has been written
about the Rothschilds who discovered in the late 1700s that it was
possible for bankers to get rich by loaning money to governments,
extending the loans encouraging government to become dependent on
them, attaching provisions to the extensions calling for specific
policies, and then tallying up the interest. Other such bloodlines
would soon follow (the Rockefellers and Morgans here in the US).

Shortly
before the turn of the last century, Cecil Rhodes, the British diamond
tycoon who had operated for years in South Africa, willed a significant
portion of his huge fortune to the establishment of a secret society
in England. Its purpose was to lay the foundations for world government,
under the theory that world government alone could bring about world
peace and security for all. The Rhodes Scholarship program at Oxford
University was drawn from this fortune as an effort to bring the
"best and the brightest" under the influence of a certain
body of ideas. Bill Clinton, of course, was a Rhodes Scholar for
a while (although he didn't complete the program). Many other influential
politicians, journalists, and writers in the English-speaking world
have been Rhodes Scholars.

So-called
conspiracy theorists have written extensively of organizations such
as the Council on Foreign
Relations
, founded in 1921, the Trilateral
Commission
, founded in 1973, and the European Bilderberg Group
(which, interestingly, has no home page of its own) as having the
same goal: the creation of a world government with themselves at
the helm. These groups have been accused of having done everything
from financing the rise of both Communism and Nazism to bankrolling
both sides in World Wars I and II. Allegations abound that they
set about to gain control over both major political parties in the
US, the US legal system, the US media (including all major newspapers
and television networks as well as the Hollywood entertainment culture),
and finally — and especially — so-called public education at all
levels from kindergarten to public universities. They would operate
by seeing to it that programs and projects that would help advance
the agenda of centralization were well funded, while others were
left to fend for themselves — not knowing why.

How
much truth there is to these allegations is, of course, not easy
to determine. It is unlikely that the perpetrators would leave a
paper trail that just anyone could follow. On the other hand, the
existence of such operatives offers an elegant explanation, satisfying
Ockham's Razor in its appeal to simplicity, for why so much of twentieth
century history has been a one-way street, with all traffic flowing
left. It also answers: Why does the U.S. federal government continue
to grow larger and more centralized no matter which major political
party controls the White House or Congress? Why do independent political
movements (one thinks of the Libertarians and the Reform Party)
founder despite having produced some very worthwhile ideas and having
gained the support of a segment of the public? Why are efforts to
achieve political, economic and educational independence systematically
assaulted by pundits, by the media and by well-funded liberal groups
as soon as they threaten to become influential in the body politic?

Carroll
Quigley wrote, in Tragedy and Hope: "There does exist,
and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network
which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes
the Communists act…. I know of the operations of this network because
I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years,
in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I
have no aversion to it or to most of its instruments. I have objected,
both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in
general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain
unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough
to be known."

Who
was Quigley? Not a “right winger” in the John
Birch Society
but a highly respected senior-level professor
of political history at the Foreign Service School at Georgetown
University. He specialized in macrohistory, or the study of large-scale,
global developments and trends. In this one passage, he not only
puts his finger on both conceptions of the New World Order as presented
above, he positions himself as one of the insiders. While one may,
if one is so inclined, discount the writers of self-published tracts
with PO Box addresses in small towns hardly anyone has heard of
before, Carroll Quigley is impossible to dismiss. He was, after
all, one of Bill Clinton's chief mentors, personal heroes, and the
one person Clinton thanked by name in his first inaugural address.
Quigley had had Clinton as an undergraduate years before at Georgetown.
As a youth Clinton already had his eyes set on the Presidency. Seeing
that even as a teenager, Clinton was one of those people who was
fascinated by power and would compromise any principle to obtain
it, Quigley saw him as having the “right stuff.” It was Quigley's
powerful connections that obtained for Clinton the Rhodes Scholarship.

The
publishing history of Tragedy and Hope is worth considering,
in light of what we have seen so far. There is circumstantial evidence
that efforts were made to suppress the book. When it appeared, published
by Macmillan, it became the academic equivalent of a bestseller.
And then, mysteriously, available copies suddenly disappeared. It
became almost unobtainable. Inquirers were told that the book had
gone out of print, which was very unusual since there were thousands
of backorders. (First editions are now collector's items fetching
hundreds of dollars.) Representatives of Macmillan seemed afraid
to talk about the book. Quigley himself struggled to get Macmillan
to issue a second edition, as pirated copies were beginning to circulate.
It received a legitimate reprint, of course, but by a far smaller
publisher with far less prestige, and the book was very hard to
find for years (today, with the advent of online companies such
as Amazon.com, the book is easier to obtain). Near the end of his
life, a despondent Quigley observed that Tragedy and Hope
"has brought me many headaches as it apparently says something
that powerful people don't want known."

New
York City, 2000: The United Nations Millennium Summit, Sept 6-9.

It
has remained easy, despite Quigley's impressive credentials, to
dismiss the thought of a relative handful of behind-the-scenes operatives
controlling the direction of history as the product of kooks. Journalists
and pundits routinely and contemptuously dismiss "conspiracy
theories" almost by reflex. However, some of the major players
in the "conspiracy" do little to hide their aims. Maurice
Strong, co-chairman of a United Nations affiliated organization
called the UN Commission on Global Governance, said, "It is
simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally
by individual nation-states, however powerful." Shridath Ramphal,
another co-chairman of the same organization, added, "The bedrock
of every country's international relations must be the mission of
using the United Nations system as the machinery for working and
acting together." Strobe Talbott, US Deputy Secretary of State
in the Clinton Regime, was considerably more blunt: "Nationhood
as we know it will be obsolete, all states will recognize a single,
global authority… National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea
after all." None of these people want to end the nation-state
in favor of freely acting and trading individuals; individualism
is an anathema to this mindset. They are talking openly of global
government, doing everything except calling it that.

So
as already noted, we no longer need to approach the topic in conspiratorial
terms. The evidence is available on the World Wide Web where anyone
with a computer and a modem can read it. The United Nations website
currently contains a gold mine of information about the push for
global government. To be sure, none of the writers call it that;
the closest they come is global governance, which its defenders
claim is not the same thing. Moreover, what is presented is presented
in language that is very attractive by today's standards. It makes
full use of all the politically correct buzzwords about democracy,
sustainability, inclusion and diversity. This website makes liberal
use of the We
The Peoples Millennium Forum Declaration and Agenda for Action

which was adopted last May. This past week, the Millennium Summit
convened in New York City and has been called the largest assemblage
of heads of state under one roof in all of human history.

What
is this Summit all about? Where does the New World Order vision
stand today? From above document and others on the website we can
glean that the following are on the agenda:

  1. A
    global "peacekeeping force," publicly endorsed Wednesday
    by Bill Clinton. He told the gathered dignitaries that the UN
    needs "a rapid deployment force of well-trained and well-equipped
    solders capable of projecting u2018credible force' into trouble
    spots." Along these lines, a Republican, Constance Morella
    (R-MD), has introduced a bill calling for a United Nations Rapid
    Deployment Force, which would turn 6,000 American soldiers over
    to the UN, which would mean that Americans would be taking orders
    from non-Americans. Seven other countries have already signed
    aboard with similar pledges. The UN is ready to create its own
    "standing army" of the sort the U.S. Constitution
    forbids.
  2. An
    International Criminal Court – ostensibly to hold national
    governments accountable for human rights abuses; an international
    treaty "would provide for compulsory referral of unresolved
    disputes to [an] International Court of Justice." U.S.
    citizens could, in principle, be tried before tribunals of non-Americans.
  3. A
    global system of taxation: [the Forum urges the United Nations]
    "to introduce binding codes of conduct for transnational
    companies, and effective tax regulation on the international
    financial markets, investing this money in programmes for poverty
    eradication."
  4. Global
    coerced redistribution of wealth and income, combined with global
    affirmative action: [Governments should] "focus their efforts
    and policies on addressing the root causes of poverty and providing
    for the basic needs of all, giving special priority to the needs
    and rights of disadvantaged and underrepresented."
  5. A
    global approach to AIDS, already the most politicized disease
    in human history: [Governments should] "address the incidence,
    impact and continuing human costs of HIV/AIDS. To increase spending
    for health research and to ensure that the fruits of this research
    reach the people."
  6. The
    international equivalent of the Americans With Disabilities
    Act: [Governments should] "recognize the special potential
    of people with disabilities and ensure their full participation
    and equal role in political, economic, social and cultural fields.
    To further recognize and meet their special needs, introduce
    inclusive policies and programmes for their empowerment, and
    ensure that they take a leading role in poverty eradication."
  7. International
    radical-feminization: the UN is called upon "to ensure
    that gender mainstreaming effectively brings women into leadership
    positions throughout the system and a gender perspective into
    all its programmes and policies; to provide gender training;
    … [governments are called upon] "to allocate more recourses
    and create an enabling environment for implementation of their
    commitments to women's and girl's human rights, including promotion
    of women into decision-making positions… " This is one
    of many such remarks, calling for the "gender perspective"
    invented by the radical feminists of American colleges and universities.
  8. International
    public education: "provide universal access to u2018education
    for all,' prioritizing free basic education and skills training….
    We call on governments…to reduce the technology gap, and to
    restructure educational policy to ensure that all children (girls
    and boys) receive moral, spiritual, peace and human rights education….
    Special attention must be paid to the girl child…."
  9. International
    equivalents of affirmative action and minimum wage laws: [Governments
    should] "move toward economic reforms aimed at equity:
    in particular, to construct macro economic policies that combine
    growth with the goal of human development and social justice;
    to prevent the impoverishment of groups that emerged from poverty
    but are still vulnerable to social risks and exclusion; to improve
    legislation on labor standards including the provision of a
    minimum legal wage…."
  10. Complete
    absolution of past debts: [Governments should] "cancel
    the debts of developing countries, including odious debts, the
    repayment of which diverts funds from basic needs…."
  11. Universal
    gun registration: the UN should "expand the UN Arms register
    in order to show production and sale of small arms and light
    weapons. It should include specific names of their producers
    and traders." Of course, those implementing this call for
    arms registration could define "small arms and light weapons"
    in any way they saw fit.
  12. Strengthening
    UN power generally: "A major task of the world community
    in the twenty-first century will be to strengthen and greatly
    enhance the role of the United Nations in the global context.
    Governments must recommit themselves to the realization of the
    goals and mandates of the United Nations Charter. A challenging
    task is to firmly protect the integrity of the United Naitons,
    counter the erosion of its role and to further strengthen and
    augment international institutions capable of implementing and
    enforcing international standards, norms, and law, leading
    toward the formation of a new political and economic order.
    [Emphasis mine.]
  13. Elimination
    of veto power: [the Forum urges the UN] "to limit and move
    toward eliminating the use of the veto. The UN must move towards
    veto restriction. First could be an enlargement of the area
    of "procedural votes" for which the Charter excludes
    the veto…. Complete veto abolition should be sought as a step
    towards the elimination of permanency." In others words,
    a major internal check on the power of the superelite is to
    be eliminated, by incremental steps.

There
is, of course, more – much, much more. This is just
a sampling; it is impossible, in an article of this length, to do
more than scratch the surface. However, what is here should suffice
as evidence that we are looking at a potential power grab of unprecedented
proportions. There are, we should note, a few table scraps tossed
toward such notions as national sovereignty and self-determination.
At one point the call is made for the UN "to respect national
sovereignty and the prohibition of the use of force, which are fundamental
in the UN Charter." But in the next breath, it is made clear
that the use of force is not ruled out. And "The UN General
Assembly should set up a broad commission to analyze standards for
forceful action in cases where crimes against humanity, war crimes,
or genocide are committed." As in Kosovo, where allegations
of such crimes were absurdly exaggerated, international "peacekeeping"
troops moved in, and the result was the decimation and dislocation
of entire populations which continues to this day?

Clearly,
whether we label the kind of system proposed by the Millennium Forum
the New World Order or not, we are seeing here the recipe
for social engineering on a global scale. And just as in individual
nations, it could not be implemented without thought control on
an equally massive scale – which would explain the preoccupation
with education permeating all the web pages; see (7) above again.
Or, as one Charles Mercieca, PhD, writes, representing the International
Association of Educators for World Peace, "We may begin to
realize the great challenge our schools face in trying to create
a new generation that will be influenced merely by high moral standards
based on the universal welfare of all people without exception.
We need to create a generation which acts on principles of high
moral order, a new generation which views money and wealth as occupying
the bottom of all major world priorities, a new generation which
views happiness, serenity and peace as spiritual elements which
are the key to true and genuine success in life." Perhaps Dr.
Mercieca can tell us how this "true and genuine success in
life" can be had without free producers whose preoccupations
are likely to be "money and wealth" and whose actions
alone can create jobs and advance the quality of economic life worldwide.

The
socialist overtones of the entire Millennium Forum and its attending
documents are unmistakable. The much-touted UN
Charter for Global Democracy
is in fact a call for global socialism.
This holds true whether the speakers talk about Third World poverty
and the need to redistribute wealth without any attention to the
means by which wealth is produced, or whether they appeal to “sustainability”
and proceed to the need for political and bureaucratic controls
on business in the name of radical environmentalism. In the final
analysis, the Forum vision would concentrate the capacity to use
force in a network of highly centralized global-governmental organizations.
It should be clear that “national sovereignty” and the “self-determination”
rights of indigenous peoples and societies would be respected if
they conformed to the internationalist vision, and receive short
shrift if they did not. The calls for “a sustainable environment”
which permeate the various documents on the UN website would in
fact strangle the very independent economic developments which alone
could lift peoples out of poverty, given sufficient time and effort.

Finally,
there is the question of who would foot the bill for all these ventures,
e.g., free education for all, universal health care, etc. That should
be clear. It would be U.S. taxpayers, through the new system of
global taxation. Protest, and the International Criminal Court will
come after you. I suspect that this outfit, if it was actually put
in place, would make the IRS look like choirboys by comparison.

Opposing
the New World Order.

Can
an agenda this vast, backed up by the quantity of resources available
to the superelite, be effectively countered? It would not be surprising
if some simply despaired of putting a stop to the process of centralization
of power in the hands of these very few.

The
beginnings of an answer may be found in the writings of the eighteenth
century Scottish philosopher David Hume, if we are willing and able
to take them to heart. Hume observed that in the final analysis,
political authorities derive their legitimacy from those they have
authority over: no group of tyrants, no matter how great their resources,
can maintain themselves in power by sheer political might indefinitely.
We, the people (not the "peoples"), after all, vastly,
vastly outnumber the superelite who – as the New York City
summit has proven – can fit into a large auditorium. Those
in power remain in power by maintaining credibility, and also by
keeping everyone else as ignorant as possible about what they are
up to. Once they lose both, their fall is assured.

One
of the chief reasons the Soviet Empire collapsed was that its leaders
lost credibility in the face of the obvious fact that, given the
opportunity, peoples would undertake a mass exodus out from under
Communist domination. This had happened in Eastern Europe, culminating
in the dramatic fall of the Berlin Wall in late 1989. It could very
well happen in the United States, as evidenced by the steadily awakening
interest in the idea of secession and the appearance of secession
movements all over the country, including in state legislatures.
These are animated by the idea that the Washington government has
gotten too big, too expensive, too unresponsive, and suffering from
collective amnesia regarding its founding principles.

Given
the failures of the Washington empire, motivated by welfare-state
ideology, why would anyone regard as credible any effort to expand
this ideology to create a global empire? It is clear that the UN
superelite is trying.

The
latter realization has motivated Ron
Paul (R-TX)
, one of the few freedom-believing Congressmen, to
introduce, or reintroduce, the
(HR 1146). This Act, in its second incarnation (the first was in
1997), after languishing in committee, has garnered attention this
past week for obvious reasons. It has become the basis for over
300,000 signed petitions collected by the American
Policy Center
, whose president, Tom DeWeese, organized the effort.
These petitions call for the U.S. to pull out of the UN. Paul's
bill would give a pullout the sanction of law by repealing the United
Nations Participation Act of 1945; moreover, by also repealing the
United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act, it effectively orders
the UN off American soil. Moreover, it disallows the appropriation
of funds collected in the US for any UN purposes, and repeals Acts
instituting U.S. involvement in the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and US participation
in the United Nations Environmental Program. Meanwhile, there were
protesters in New York City this past week. Americans may not be
satisfied with the Washington government, but they would be even
more horrified if they woke up one day and found themselves ruled
by an international body, even more remote from their interests
and concerns.

For
all the actual diversity that exists on planet Earth, peoples seem
to have one thing in common: they resent intrusions into their way
of life at the hands of outsiders. Most peoples will countenance
at least being ruled by their own, even if the rule is less than
perfect. I predict that the particular vision of a New World Order
animating the Millennium Forum will not to pass without the very
bloodshed the 150-plus dignitaries say they want to avoid. After
all, around the world the leading tendency is toward decentralization
and secession (Tibet from China, Chechnya from Russia, Azerbaijan
from Armenia, the Kurds from Iraq, Quebec from Canada: the list
goes on and on). It goes without saying that there are people right
here on U.S. soil who are ready to take up arms to protect their
natural right to live as they see fit if they are not coercing anyone
else, and to protect their regional identities and values from the
hypothetical multiculturalist empire being advocated by the very
powerful. (Come to think of it, small wonder that the elites and
superelites all favor "gun control"!)

It
is worth realizing that there are unlikely to be any sudden, earthshaking
moves made to dissolve what little is left of individual freedom
in the U.S., subjecting us all at once to a global tax, an international
standing army, international courts, etc. The means by which America's
masses have been stripped of their freedoms to date have all been
very gradual, often by stealth; there is enough in the above-cited
documents to indicate that this will not change. Why should it?
To date it has been an effective methodology of increasing control.
It has already led to a level of state power over individuals that
would have horrified the Framers. All we are likely to see is continued
encroachments of a new layer of controls, a new bevy of bureaucrats
to satisfy, new limitations on what we are able to do (and say)
legally, and an increasingly UN-friendly educational system. Already,
one can attend school board meetings or faculty meetings on the
campuses of technical colleges and hear appeals that we should all
be educating the young to become "global citizens."

However,
are we up to the task? We live in a unique period in history, because
of the ready availability of information on the World Wide Web and
over the Internet. Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope can be ordered
online. The literature of liberty is readily available through a
multitude of forums ranging from the Ludwig
von Mises Institute
to Laissez-Faire
Books
. Bona fide censorship today is very, very difficult. Moreover,
it makes little sense to speak of “conspiracies” when what is being
done, is being done right out in the open where everyone can see
it. One is tempted again and again of the arrogance of power. The
real question, then, is: do we have the will to make use of our
own resources?

Whether
we are up to avoiding further centralization here in the US is still
open to debate. The effects of decades of "public education"
have taken their toll: Americans, by and large, are far more fascinated
with Survivor, World Championship Wrestling and the
fall football season than they are the affairs of state that determine
the long-term destinies of nations. Our educational system now stresses
vocational training, not the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution, even at so-called liberal arts colleges. Consequently,
though the UN Summit has been given at least some publicity by major
media and on the World Wide Web, most people have no idea what it
is all about – or, in many cases, that the event is even happening.

So
for us this question is still up for grabs: New World Order, United
Nations Millennium Summit style, or freedom? If we do not educate
ourselves about the superelite is up to – or if we continue
to dismiss whistleblowers as kooky "conspiracy theorists"
– we will deserve the consequences.

September
9, 2000

Steven
Yates
has a PhD in philosophy and is the author of Civil
Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action
(San Francisco:
ICS Press, 1994). A frequent contributor to LewRockwell.com and
The Edgefield Journal,
he lives and freelance writes in Columbia, South Carolina. He is
at work on a new book entitled The Paradox of Liberty.

Steven
Yates Archives

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts