Two UN Summits, One Millennium Goal: Conforming Humanity to Socialist Solidarity
The Millennium World Peace Summit (August 28-31) sought a spiritual foundation for a global ethic of socialist rights and duties
The UN Millennium Summit (September 6-8) sought approval for a world government that would manage natural, human, and social resources around the world by consensus
by Berit Kjos
“For the first time in history religious and spiritual leaders from the major religious traditions and from all regions of the world met at the United Nations to pledge themselves to work for peace. They signed this ‘Commitment to Global Peace’ and resolved to join together to address the pressing problems of conflict, poverty and the environment.” Commitment to Global Peace
“…there have been well meaning and sometimes eloquent calls for world government; calls which pointed to the unfairness, inequality and injustice of the present distributions of wealth, power and policy making…. If only we could work as one world, then we could solve the world’s problems together.” Introduction to The Charter for Global Democracy signed at the Millennium Summit.
“We pledge to move expeditiously to endow the UN with resources — both operational and financial — commensurate to the tasks it faces in its peacekeeping activities worldwide…. As Permanent Members of the Security Council, we will continue to fulfill our obligations under the Charter and commit to making UN organization stronger and more effective.” Presidents Clinton (USA), Putin (Russia), Zeming (China) and Chirac (France) and Prime Minister Blair (UK), September 7, 2000. Statement by the P-5 on the Millennium Summit.
The two UN summits fit together. As in Nazi Germany, political success calls for cooperating churches and compromising spiritual leaders.[1]
Both Summits agreed to build a more “efficient” United Nations. They wanted a standing UN army and a “reformed” Security Council — one unencumbered by the “gridlock” of a veto. Canadian master-strategist Maurice Strong, who led the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, serves their joint goal well.
Mr. Strong, who now heads the UN’s University of Peace — a vital partner to the World Peace Summit — is also in charge of UN “reforms”. His view of the needed reforms is no secret, for his leadership on the strategic Commission on Global Governance exposed some sobering plans. Its 1995 report, Our Global Neighborhood, outlined the agenda:
“Governments are understandably reluctant to commit troops rapidly for UN action, particularly in civil wars and internal conflicts….
“This underlines the need for a highly trained UN Volunteer Force that is willing, if necessary, to take combat risks…. Such an international Volunteer Force would be under the exclusive authority of the Security Council….” (page 110)
What if the US Congress disagrees with UN decisions. Could it simply press for a US veto on the Security Council? Not if Strong implements his vision of reform. The United States, which has been billed 25% of the huge UN budget, would be dismissed from the Security Council:
“We recommend that a new class of ‘standing ‘ members be established…. Of these new members, two should be drawn from industrial countries and three from among the larger developing countries. Of the two from industrial countries, presumably one will be from Asia and one from Europe. Of the three from developing countries, we would expect one each to be drawn from Asia, Africa, and Latin America….
“The new standing members will not possess a veto, and we believe the aim should be for the power of the veto to be phased out.” (240-241)
Many Americans refuse to believe this could happen. Others — who like my family in Norway, saw nations shift from freedom to Nazi tyranny overnight during World War II — know well that massive social changes always have and will be part of history.
It’s tempting to think that the United Nations would save us from such devastations in the future. Instead, we need to realize that the same human quest for power that drove Lenin and Hitler to unthinkable ends, is now being centralized in a single government ruled by ambitious, compromising national leaders — some in virtual bondage to the World Bank and IMF.
Granting such powers to the UN would mean that countless decisions affecting our lives and families will be made for us by leaders who are not accountable to voters and cannot be removed from office.
So don’t be deceived by the noble sentiments. In spite of the grand promises, local control and “decentralization” are outright lies! Everyone — throughout the world — would have to live, think, participate and work according UN rules and standards or face a potential intrusion by the UN-controlled forces. And when that happens, you would have no place to hide. (See Local Agenda 21)
To skip down to The UN Millennium Summit, click on Part 2
Part 1: The World Peace Summit
Sheiks and swamis, priests and patriarchs, moguls and medicine men…. From around the world, they had gathered in New York on August 28 to join a four-day dialogue on “unity among religions.” This Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual leaders would supposedly thrust humanity toward a utopian oneness and peace on earth. But for those who doubt the noble rhetoric, this meeting of minds raised some sobering questions:
What kind of unity did these religious leaders envision?
What would the UN require of its spiritual leaders?
What did they have in common?
What kind of unity?
Not all spiritual leaders were welcome. The new global “democracy” calls for worldwide representation — but only by those who conform to the UN vision of solidarity. Dissenting voices could cause conflict and expose the lack of consensus. As Rabbi Arthur Schneier, president of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, said,
“We have to marginalize religious leaders who are peace spoilers and are inciting hatred and nationalistic passions, which destroys life…. We have a lot of those who are out there who are not in sync, and who are seeking to undermine our peacemaking, bridge-building efforts.”[2]
“Peace spoilers” include those who refuse to conform to the UN vision of “Religion in a Culture of Peace.” Biblical Christianity would fit the label well, for the true followers of Christ cannot be “in sync” with the world. They will not compromise their faith in order to please the global village.
Since Ted Turner’s Better World Fund paid most of the Summit expenses, one would expect intolerance for God’s truth. It’s no secret that the Summit’s Honorary Chairman Turner has little love for Christianity. In his Summit message, he described his spiritual search:
“The thing that disturbed me is that my religious Christian sect was very intolerant… because it taught we were the only ones going to heaven. It just confused the devil out of me because I said heaven is going to be a might empty place with nobody else there.
“Now I believe there may be one God who manifests himself in different ways to different people … And I can’t believe God wants us to blow ourselves to kingdom come. He wants us to love each other and live in peace.” [3] Ted Turner Attacks Christianity At U.N. “Peace Summit”
The Dalai Lama didn’t fit either. China would tolerate no public support for the exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader. Its leaders had voiced their disapproval, and the UN chose to violate its own principles rather than offend the Communist giant.
What does the UN require of its spiritual leaders?
The UN’s readiness to bow to Chinese demands caused both concern and consternation. “While religion should not dictate politics, neither should politics dictate faith,” said Mustafa Ceric, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia and Herzegovina. “We have a very sorry experience from the Communist period, as well as the most recent past, where politics has manipulated religion.”
It makes sense that history would repeat itself. In spite of the tempting lies about human and spiritual evolution, human nature doesn’t change from century to century. June Griffin, who attended the Summit with support from Congress, described the hypocrisy of those who proclaim lofty ideals but pursue self-interest, power and prestige:
“Past agendas have failed, thus religion is to be reintroduced into politics as the ultimate pressure. Over a thousand religious leaders and spiritual heads of the poor nations came to the UN Religious Peace Summit in their humblest limousines, SUV’s and other means of western accommodation, after having flown through the air on Yankee-invented airplanes. One Hindu said he spent $20,000 to attend and still he couldn’t get a place to speak. Not all is well. …
“The solemn ceremony was delayed 45 minutes because the emcee was unable to clear the first three rows for the speakers. Either they didn’t understand his “please empty the first three rows so that we can get on with this historic event,” or used it as a good excuse to retain the best seats. He pleaded patiently for 45 minutes, I said, and in vain called an interpreter, but alas, none moved. “Please turn off cell phones,” but they rang on. Seems Mother Earth’s children don’t mind very well.”[4] A personal report from a reporter who was present at the conference.
What did count was a public demonstration of “unity in diversity.” This “diversity” called for showy but shallow distinctions between their various religions. Drums, feathers and other outward symbols helped hide the genuine ideological differences which had yielded to UN standards for the new global “unity.” In other words, peace pipes and distinguishing robes were welcome. Unlike the Biblical cross, they didn’t threaten the blueprint for solidarity.
What did they have in common?
At the close of the World Summit, the spiritual guides signed a “Commitment to Global Peace.” Together they would support the UN’s quest for answers to “the pressing problems of conflict, poverty and the environment.” As in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Communist China, compliant religious leaders would consent to a common UN-defined duty: to be used by political strategists to persuade and manage the masses.
Ponder some of the suggestions in this Commitment to Global Peace. As in most UN documents, it highlights the crisis needed to justify the loss of freedom and the planned control. Notice how it commits religious leaders (1) to accept its dubious presumptions, and (2) to use their influence to serve the UN agenda for “sustainable development” — establishing a socialist welfare system and economic equality around the world under the banner of “saving the environment.”
“Whereas our world is plagued by violence, war and destruction, which are sometimes perpetrated in the name of religion….
“Whereas no individual, group or nation can any longer live as an isolated microcosm in our interdependent world….
“Whereas there can be no real peace until all groups and communities acknowledge the cultural and religious diversity of the human family in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding….
“In light of the above, and with a view to discharging our duty to the human family, we declare our commitment and determination:
1. To collaborate with the United Nations and all men and women of goodwill locally, regionally and globally in the pursuit of peace…..
2. To lead humanity by word and deed in a renewed commitment to ethical and spiritual values…
5. To awaken in all individuals and communities a sense of shared responsibility for the well-being of the human family….
7. To educate our communities about the urgent need to care for the earth’s ecological systems….
The second point — “no individual… can any longer live as an isolated microcosm in our interdependent world” — is already being used in communities across the USA to justify pressuring people of all ages to participate in the consensus process. The Columbine massacre and the new quest to identify “loners” as potential criminals have intensified this pressure.
Remember, the United Nations demands solidarity. Only a new set of shared beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors can complete its utopian vision of the global community. To succeed, it needs the cooperation of spiritual leaders who will persuade their followers.
Absolute truth and political dissent are unacceptable. Uncompromising positions could bring conflict and gridlock. Our Global Neighborhood suggests a threefold approach to establishing “an ethical dimension to global governance.†Do they sound familiar?
Encourage commitment to core values… and strengthen the sense of common responsibility for the global neighborhood.
Express these values through a global ethic of specific rights and responsibilities….
Embody this ethic in the evolving system of international norms, adapting, where necessary existing norms of sovereignty…. (See Our Global Neighood)
This “sense of common responsibility” was as vital to totalitarianism in Nazi Germany and the Communist block as it is to the United Nations today. While the responsibilities (or duties) were adapted to both real and artificial needs of the times, they served to focus the masses on common quests.
Part 2: The UN Millennium Summit
Like today’s leading politicians, the Summit promised all kinds of rewards to those who would bow to its reign. But its seductive promises hide unthinkable threats to personal freedom and national sovereignty. Their purpose is socialist control, not compassion. Hard to believe? Then look at the roots of the United Nations.
Founded in 1945, the United Nations chose the communist spy Alger Hiss as its first, though temporary, Secretary-General.[5] A Harvard law-school graduate, he served as an advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt at the end of World War II. While secretly functioning as a Soviet agent, Hiss worked with the forerunner to the National Council of Churches to establish a world government that fit the Communist vision for socialist control. (See Conforming the Church to the New Millennium) He didn’t stay long at the helm of the organization he had helped found. In 1946 he was elected president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and was replaced by Trygve Lie, a Norwegian labor leader.
Trygve Lie had earlier first been nominated to preside over the General Assembly by Andrey A. Gromyko of the Soviet Union. As Secretary-General in 1950, he urged that the UN admit the Communist People’s Republic of China. But he offended the Soviet Union by supporting military intervention in the Korean War. From then on, he faced its “official hindrance and personal insult.” Meanwhile, as a result of the McCarthy investigations against suspected Communists in the UN, Lie’s “secretariat was accused of giving jobs to disloyal U.S. citizens.” None of the charges were proven, but his authority suffered and he resigned in 1952.[6]
In the article, The Un-American United Nations, Steve Farrell wrote:
“Of the 17 individuals identified by the US State Department as having helped shape US policy leading to the creation of the United Nations, all but one were later identified as secret members of the Communist Party USA….
“… the ideological makeup of the UN’s leadership has been constant. In its 54 year history all eight Secretary Generals of the UN have been either dedicated socialists or communists, all 15 of the UN Under-Secretary-Generals for Political and Security Council Affairs (the UN’s military boss) have been communists (all but one from the Soviet Union/Russian Federation), and two thirds of the membership in the General Assembly, the Security Council, and in the World Court have always been representatives of socialist and communist nations….
“Besides the scandal of having American communists Alger Hiss and company as the creators of the UN, a 1952 official Senate investigation into the then 6 year old United Nations revealed, ‘extensive evidence indicating that there is today in the UN among the American employees there, the greatest concentration of Communists that this committee has ever encountered.’ And these were high officials.” [7]
Words that, to many, bring a sense of security such as peace, ethics, compassion, rights, democracy, security, and sovereignty become meaningless in this context. Like Gorbachev’s “Council of the Wise,” the minds behind the UN agenda are masters at deception. Having rejected Biblical and moral absolutes, they are free to believe that the end they envision justifies any unconscionable means.
Consider some of the main points in the “working draft” of the United Nations Millennium Declaration “unanimously adopted” by the delegates:
I. Values and Principles
1. We, the Heads of State and Government of the Member States of the United Nations, have gathered… to reaffirm our faith in the Organization and its Charter as indispensable foundations of a more peaceful, prosperous and just world.
Fact: It cancels every Constitutional right we treasure in America. The UN offers no balance of powers, no jury trial when accused….. (See Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules)
2. We recognize that… we have a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of equality and equity at the global level….
Fact: If your lifestyle fails to meet the UN’s socialist standard for equality and equity you will face the consequences.
3. We reaffirm our commitment to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, which have proved timeless and universal….
Fact: The UN Charter, as an international treaty, could cancel our freedoms under the U.S. Constitution.
4. We believe that the central challenge we face today is to ensure that globalization becomes a positive force for all the world’s people…. To be inclusive and equitable, globalization requires broad and sustained effort to create a shared future, based upon our common humanity in all its diversity….
Fact: This requires totalitarian training, management and monitoring of human resources around the world. Today’s teaching and surveillance technology makes it possible to monitor compliance with the UN’s politically correct “mental health” (including community participation and willingness to compromise) of each person and community.
The UN claims the right to define the rules, manage the action, and monitor compliance on each of the points below. The nice-sounding terms help win public consensus, but they hide an agenda that opposes the freedom we treasure in America.
For example, “Equality” would end your family’s right to choose traditional gender roles for your home. “Tolerance” carries the duty to participate in the (dialectic) consensus process, put aside contrary facts and absolutes, and join the unbiblical quest for “common ground.”
5. We consider certain fundamental values to be essential to international relations in the 21st Century. These include:
Freedom: Men and women have the right to live their lives and raise their children in dignity, free from hunger and from the fear of violence, oppression or injustice. …
Equality: No individual and no nation must be denied the opportunity to benefit from development. The equal rights and opportunities of women and men must be assured.
Solidarity: Global challenges must be managed multilaterally, and in a way that shares the costs and burdens fairly in accordance with the most basic principles of equity and social justice. …
Tolerance: Human beings must respect each other, in all their diversity…. Differences… should neither be feared nor repressed, but cherished as a precious asset…. Dialogue among all civilizations should be actively promoted.
Respect for nature: Prudence must be shown in the management of all living species and natural resources, in accordance with the precepts of sustainable development. … The current unsustainable patterns of production and consumption must be seriously addressed in the interest of our future….
The next section is introduced in Article 6 as “the key objectives to which we assign particular significance.” It includes surrendering legal rights such as a jury trial to the whims and inefficiencies of a UN Criminal Court and to UN officials who often despise everything America once valued.
II. Peace, Security and Disarmament
7. We will spare no effort to free our peoples from the scourge of war…
8. We resolve therefore:
To strengthen respect for the rule of law…. [i.e. the UN’s international laws]
To enhance the effectiveness of the United Nations in the maintenance of peace and security, by giving it the resources and the tools required to promote conflict prevention, the peaceful resolution of disputes, post-conflict peace building and reconstruction, and by strengthening the capacity of the Organization to conduct peace keeping operations.
To take concerted action against the menaces of terrorism and drug trafficking….
To take concerted action to prevent the illegal traffic in small arms and light weapons, especially by creating greater transparency in arms transfers….
To strive towards the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons…
National sovereignty isn’t mentioned here. However, the Security Council Declaration signed on September 7 “reaffirms its commitment to the principles of… national sovereignty… and respect for human rights and the rule of law.” But, as in most UN treaties, there is a catch. (See Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules)
If, in the eyes of the UN, a nation violates the rules and principles of these treaties, they would face UN disciplines. If, under the planned UN monitoring system, a person or nation fails to carry out its UN-defined duties, it loses its rights. In this context, national sovereignty becomes meaningless. The U.S. Constitution would no longer guard the nation against UN legal or military interference.
For example, the Declaration “Affirms its determination to strengthen United Nations peacekeeping operations by:
“taking steps to assist the United Nations to obtain trained and properly equipped personnel for peacekeeping operations;”
“strengthening consultations with troop contributing countries when deciding on such operations;”
President Clinton and other national representatives have promised to provide the resources needed to establish a UN militia capable of “rapid deployment” that could interfere in civil matters within nations. In effect, they are handing the UN the very tools it needs to destroy the freedom God once gave us.
In his Summit speech on September 6, Bill Clinton gave the kind of ambiguous message we have learned to expect from our president. You may want to compare his Executive Order on The Implementation of Human Rights treaties with these nice-sounding words. They take on a different meaning in the overall context:
“We find today fewer wars between nations, but more wars within them. Such international conflicts, often driven by ethnic and religious differences, took five million lives into the last decade…. These conflicts present us with a stark challenge. Are they part of the scourge the UN was established to prevent? If so, we must respect sovereignty…. but still find a way to protect people….
“We must provide those tools– with peacekeepers that can be rapidly deployed with the right training ad equipment, missions well defined and well led, with the necessary civilian police.”[8]
This UN militia may well be necessary to quell the anger of the masses when they awaken to the true UN agenda. The next section gives another glimpse of the plan. It would establish a socialist welfare system for the people of the world — funded primarily by U.S. taxpayers. Free enterprise, as we have known it, would no longer exist:
III. Development and Poverty Eradication
9. We will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty… fully realizing the right to development and freedom from want.
10. We resolve, therefore, to create an enabling environment….
11. … Internationally, success depends on the existence of an open, equitable, rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system, which guarantees special and differential treatment of developing countries….
12. We … call on the industrialized countries to: adopt… a policy of duty-free and quota-free access for essentially all exports from the least developed countries; to implement the enhanced program of debt relief….
14. We resolve further: To halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of the world’s people (currently 22 per cent) whose income is less than one dollar a day….
15. We also resolve:
To ensure that the benefits of new technologies, especially information technology, are available to all.
To develop strong partnerships with the private sector and civil society organizations in pursuit of development and poverty eradication.
The Summit called for ratification of several treaties:
IV. Protecting our Common Environment
16. We must spare no effort to free all of humanity… from the threat of living on a planet irredeemably spoilt by human activities….
17.We resolve, therefore, to adopt in all our environmental actions a new ethic of conservation and stewardship and, as first steps agree:
To adopt and ratify the Kyoto Protocol, so that it can enter into force no later than 2002- 10 years after the Rio Conference, and 20 years after the first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and to begin the required reduction of emissions of greenhouse gasses, especially in developed countries.
To press for the full implementation of the Convention of Biological Diversity and the Convention to Combat Desertification.
To arrest the unsustainable exploitation of water resources….
To ensure free access to the information on the genetic code, since this belongs to all humanity.
To better understand the practical ramifications of the above treaties, click on these sites:
Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO)
Environmental Perspectives, Inc. (EPI)
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
V. Good Governance, Democracy and Human Rights
18. We will spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as the respect for all internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development.
19. We resolve, therefore:
To fully observe and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
To press for more inclusive and participatory political processes in all of countries.
To ensure the right of the media to perform its essential role of informing the public, and the right of the public to receive ideas and information provided by the media.
At the first glance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sounds good, as do all the intrusive UN human rights treaties. Article 18 upholds “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…” Article 19 affirms “the right to freedom of opinion and expression… and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” (Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules)
But this basic end, Article 29 states that “these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” In other words, these “rights” or “freedoms” don’t apply to those who would criticize the UN or its policies. Your rights would be conditioned on your compliance. Only if your message supports official ideology are you free to speak it. As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet State, “There can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism.”
VI. Protecting the Vulnerable
20. We will spare no effort to ensure that women and children and all civilian populations who suffer disproportionately the consequences of natural disasters and armed conflicts, are given every assistance and protection to regain normal life.
We resolve, therefore:
To combat violence against women in all its forms,
To encourage the ratification and full implementation of the Convention of the Rights on the Child….
Few would disagree that we should “combat violence.” But the word violence, like countless others, has been redefined by the feminist movement. At the 1995 UN Conference for Women in Beijing, it wasn’t limited to the dictionary definition: “the use of physical force so as to damage or injure.”[9] Diane Knippers, President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, gave some examples to show the new usage:
Economic violence included ‘unequal distribution of wealth. . . as evidence by world debt’ and ‘no wages for women’s work.’
Political violence ranged from genuine examples of violence [such as rape] . . . to ‘women’s exclusion in decision-making.’
Religious violence was ‘intolerance and persecution of women who will not conform’ and ‘exclusion of women from religious leadership.'[10]
Sexual violence [included] ‘compulsory heterosexuality.'[11]
VIII. Strengthening the United Nations
23. We will spare no effort to make the United Nations a more effective instrument for pursuing all of these priorities; the fight against poverty, ignorance and disease; the fight against injustice; the fight against violence, terror and crime; and the fight against the degradation and destruction of our common home.
24. We resolve, therefore:
To restore the centrality and enhance the effectiveness of the General Assembly as the chief deliberative and representative organ of the United Nations.
To call for the speedy reform and enlargement of the Security Council, making it more representative, effective and legitimate in the eyes of all the world’s people.
To further strengthen the Economic and Social Council….
To give full opportunities to civil society, parliamentarians, the private sector and other non-state actors to contribute to the achievement of the Organization’s goals and programs….
26. We solemnly reaffirm on this historic occasion that the United Nations in the indispensable common house of the entire human family, and through which it will be able to realize its universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development. We will therefore pledge our unstinting support for the attainment of these common objectives.
The last part would ensure that every nation bows to UN duties and demands. It establishes the power of the world government to enforce and punish those who refuse to conform. According to key UN reports, the planned “reform and enlargement of the Security Council, making it more representative, effective and legitimate…” would end the Security Council veto. In other words, the USA, a Permanent Member, would lose the authority to block unwanted UN projects. On the vital issues of sovereignty and UN control, the USA, as a minority member, would be forced to yield to a majority of socialist and communist leaders.
Are you ready for this new world order? Are your children ready? Whatever your answer, please pray for God’s mercy on America, for a change of heart in her leaders, for an awakening of its people and churches, for humble and watchful hearts in her children. Then equip your family with His armor and Truths. Don’t forget, if you belong to Him, this promise is for you:
“Be strong and courageous, do not be afraid or tremble at them,
for the Lord our God is the One who goes with you.
He will not fail you or forsake you.” (Deut. 31:6)
Endnotes:
Maurice Strong. This powerful Canadian multi-billionaire founded both the World Economic Council and Planetary Citizens. He has served as director of the World Future Society, trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Aspen Institute, and is a member of the Club of Rome. As head of the Earth Council, he began to prepare an Earth Charter—a global code of conduct based on global values and radical environmental guidelines.
Strong led the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). It produced the controversial Biodiversity Treaty and Agenda 21 — the monstrous plan for reorganizing the world along environmental guidelines. One of his offices is only two blocks away from the White House.
Officially, Strong was “hired” by Annan to “reform” the massive, inefficient, and corrupt UN bureaucracy so that the US Congress would pay its dues. But his leadership brings little comfort to those who remember Strong’s occult and environmental ties, globalist ambitions, and corrupt business practices.
[1] The World Peace Summit’s list of “strategic partnerships” starts with the UN University for Peace, “an international institution created by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1980.” It helps infuse the global education system with psycho-social strategies for conforming minds to the UN agenda. Started by Robert Muller, former assistant Secretary General of the UN, the University of Peace is now led by Maurice Strong.
[2] Gustav Niebuhr, “Religion’s Many Faces Meet in New York for Peace,” The New York Times, 31 August 2000. Rabbi Arthur Schneier’s Appeal of Conscience Foundation “has worked on behalf of religious freedom, human rights and peace throughout the world. This inter-religious coalition of business and religious leaders promotes mutual understanding, tolerance and pluralism in many regions, including the former Soviet Union, Central Europe, China, Cuba and the former Yugoslavia.” (See
[3]
[4]June Griffin, who attended the Summit with help from Jesse Helms, emailed this information in the form of an article. For more information, contact Berit Kjos through this website.
[5]
[6]
[7] The points made in this quote are documented in the original article by Steve Farrell at http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2000/9/6/092459
[8] UN transcript posted here:
The Law of the Soviet State, “There can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism….
[9]The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary (New York: Lexicon Publications, 1989).
[10]Diane Knippers, “Power!” (November/December 1995); 10.
[11]Ibid. (Knippers, “Power!”)
Our Global Neighborhood, the official report of The Commission Global Governance (Oxford University Press, 1995), calls for (as does Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability for the UN) a more effective UN police force and an end to veto on Security Council.
But this more “efficient” world government would operate by a consensus based on ethical solidarity — everyone must conform to the new global values and duties:
“The quality of global governance will be determined by several factors. High among them is the broad acceptance of a global civic ethic to guide action within the global neighborhood, and courageous leadership infused with that ethic at all levels of society. Without a global ethic, the fractions and tensions of living in the global neighborhood will multiply…
“The most important change that people can make is to change their way of looking at the world. We can change studies, jobs, neighborhoods, even countries… and still remain much as we always were. But change our fundamental angle of vision and everything changes—our priorities, our values, our judgments, our pursuits. Again and again, in the history of religion this total upheaval in the imagination has marked the beginning of a new life, a turning of the heat… by which men see with new eyes and understand with new minds and turn their energies to new ways of living…
“In our rapidly changing world, the standards and restrains provided by commonly accepted values and norms become ever more essential. Without them, it will be hard—if not impossible—to establish more effective and legitimate forms of global governance.” pages 46-47)
For more information, see: