All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 2, 1999 - Bill Cooper
01:01:28
Norman Grigg #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm not sure what I was doing there. I'm just going to go ahead and play it.
Yeah, I'm a faggot.
Easy isle as it are.
Once upon a good old isle.
the the
the Good evening.
You're listening once again to the Hour of the Time.
I'm William Cooper.
Well, we have a special presentation for you tonight, folks.
It sure isn't that.
We have a special presentation for you tonight, folks, as Norman Griggs is the senior editor of the New American magazine.
And what you're going to hear from him tonight is all of the plans That the United Nations has for us, in the near future, terrifying plans.
I mean, they're just absolutely terrifying, and he's going to quote you from their own writings, their own documents, their own treatises, resolutions, and conventions, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
If you love freedom, if you love the family, if you love children, if you love being a parent, if you love America, if you love the principles and ideals upon which this nation was based, If you like our traditional way of life, then you better pay very close attention tonight.
Especially if you're one of those people who thinks that for some reason the United Nations is really good and that we really need the United Nations.
I've got to tell you, you lost it a long time ago and you're one of the walking dead.
You don't know it yet.
What these people are planning to do makes Hitler look like a nice guy.
Like a nice guy.
He's also going to verify every single thing that I have been telling you was going to happen and that the U.N.
stood for and that the U.N.
had planned for us for the last 12 years.
See, I've been telling you all of these things for the last 12 years.
Now he's put it all together and he's going to tell you in one speech.
Okay?
So, listen.
Pay attention.
Pay very, very close attention.
And by golly, don't forget it either.
This is just absolutely amazing what you're going to hear.
Terrifying, literally.
William Norman Drick, our speaker tonight, was born in Idaho and educated at Ricks College
and Utah State University.
While studying at the National Journalism Center in Washington, D.C., he worked as a research assistant to Fred Barnes, the White House correspondent for the New Republic Magazine.
He has also worked on the staff of the National Right to Life Committee.
From 1989 to 1993, Mr. Grigg wrote an award-winning column for the Provo Daily Herald newspaper in Provo, Utah.
His first book, The Gospel of Revolt, Feminism vs. the Family, was published in 1993.
Mr. Greig has reported from five foreign countries and covered the 1994 UN International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt, for the New American Magazine.
He is presently a senior editor at the New American Magazine.
Thank you very much.
I am honored and gratified to be with you this evening in Virginia.
It's a beautiful place, and I see a room full of people who are very concerned about our nation.
I'm grateful to you for being here, and I'm also grateful for the presence of the C-SPAN crew to present our message to the country at large, unfiltered by the custodians of acceptable opinion.
There's much about the John Birch Society and much about the Americanist cause which the John Birch Society represents which is considered to be less than acceptable.
The John Birch Society has on occasion been referred to as a hate group.
Now this I will explain.
A hate group is any group of people whom liberals hate.
And I think that no group better exemplifies that than the John Birch Society in that sense and in that sense alone.
Something that should be understood is that we are also referred to as right-wing extremists.
Have you ever noticed that there are no left-wing extremists in the world?
There are left-wing idealists.
There are left-wing activists.
There are right-wing extremists and right-wing ideologues.
Often we are led to believe that a left-wing extremist is somebody whose idealism has temporarily overcome his judgment, but he's doing the right thing.
He's taking us in the right direction.
Whereas a right-winger, of course, is always trying to turn back the clock.
Well, in some ways, turning back the clock would be a good alternative, given what has happened in this bloody century, this bloodiest of all centuries.
Perhaps the definitive left-wing idealists, if you will, would be the communists of the former Soviet Union and Maoist China.
They were often referred to in the establishment press as liberals in a hurry.
And of course, in their intemperate haste, they managed to rack up historically high body counts.
And that is something which is still going on today.
I want to talk with you briefly about the case of Army Specialist Michael New.
Many of you are acquainted with the name of Michael New, a young man who enlisted in the U.S.
Army.
He's only 22 years old.
He has received numerous commendations for his work as an Army medic.
He is a man of exemplary character.
Now, since most of you already know about Michael New, for our international audience, which has just come online, you're listening to the Hour of the Time.
I'm William Cooper.
Tonight, we are giving you, or presenting, a special presentation of a speech by Norman Grigg, who is the Senior Editor for New American Magazine.
And he's going to be talking about the United Nations.
In specific, what they have planned for us in the near future.
And he's going to verify to you, in this short speech, everything that I've been warning you about, and telling you, and teaching you, and documenting, and doing like he's going to do tonight, reading from their own papers, their own resolutions, their own documents, their own writings, and he's going to verify that it's all true.
Not only true, but terrifying.
Absolutely terrifying.
Makes Hitler look like a nice guy.
They were there to be a trip wire.
They were there for the purpose of making the U.N.
presence known, according to their orders.
Michael New said, I have a problem with that, because I am not U.N.
I am not a U.N.
soldier.
I have not sworn an oath of allegiance to the United Nations.
I have sworn an exclusive oath of allegiance to the United States Constitution.
For that reason, I can no more wear the insignia of the United Nations than I could wear the insignia of Russia or some other country.
About a week ago, a little more than a week ago, Michael New's unit mustered out in formation.
All of them, except Michael New, were wearing the colors of the United Nations.
That is to say, a United States flag on one shoulder, the United Nations and Sydney on the other.
Michael New did not participate in this burlesque.
And now he finds himself in a position in which he may lose not only his career, but quite possibly his freedom, because it is entirely possible that patriotism of that sort has been redefined as a crime in the New World Order.
Contemplate the implications of this development.
In a fashion similar to that which Michael New is experiencing, all of us are finding our allegiance being transferred without our consent.
And we'll talk about that a little bit this evening.
And the implications that has for that which makes us most distinctive among all nations.
Our institutions of order and liberty and limited government.
And our concept that rights come from God and that they are inalienable.
They are bestowed upon individuals by God.
And that people combine to create a government for the exclusive purpose of securing our rights.
And that government is to be the servant of the rights.
of people who obey God's law.
This is the American concept.
The United Nations concept is rather different.
Some of you might be acquainted with a publication called Foreign Affairs.
Time magazine has referred to this as the most influential journal in print.
It is the flagship journal of a very influential group called the Council on Foreign Relations.
In my book, particularly chapter one of my book, Freedom on the Altar, I talk a little bit about the background of the Council on Foreign Relations, its ancestry, its objectives.
Suffice it to say that the custodians of acceptable opinion take their cues to a remarkable extent from the Council on Foreign Relations and its publications, particularly foreign affairs.
Contrary to the fulminations of a Large and rather ill-informed conservative talk show host, the Council on Foreign Relations does have influence in modern American politics.
Furthermore, the Council on Foreign Relations does seek to create a global system, unified politically, economically, philosophically, and, in a certain fashion, ecclesiastically, through the United Nations.
One of the latest examples of this objective is found in the July-August 1995 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine in an essay by Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
entitled, Back to the Womb, Isolationism's Renewed Threat.
What is an isolationist?
I am indebted to Joseph Sobrin for the following definition.
An isolationist is somebody who wants neither to slaughter nor to subsidize foreigners.
In other words, if you believe that America should conduct itself on the world stage as a principled of its own interests in a way which is honorable and lawful, in a way in which we deal with equity and honor with other nations, then you're an isolationist.
You don't believe in collective security or multilateralism or any of the other nostrums of the establishment.
Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
is alarmed that isolationism, as it's referred to, is rearing its ugly head once again in the American political landscape.
Perhaps non-interventionism would be a more appropriate expression.
Those of us who do not lust to rearrange the affairs of other nations for them are to be considered non-interventionists, not isolationists.
A few months ago, here in Washington, D.C., I had occasion to speak with a man who was sort of the definitive internationalist, Barbara Conable, former chairman of the World Bank.
I pointed out to Barbara Conable that the Constitution does not authorize foreign aid.
He said, that strikes me as specious.
It's specious to say that the Constitution doesn't authorize foreign aid, because the Constitution authorizes the military, and the military is simply a way in which we can exercise our influence in the world, and so we have two choices.
We can either use foreign aid in order to persuade people to do what we want, or we can use the military to impose our will on the world.
So, apparently, it is a question of either bribing them or bombing them.
If you seek a third alternative, you're an extremist.
And that third alternative, of course, was described by some of our noblest founding fathers, including George Washington, as two entangling alliances.
We try to exercise and exhibit goodwill towards all people on principled policy matters.
When occasion arises, we may enter into multilateral, temporary alliances, but we are to eschew entangling alliances.
We are to retain our freedom of movement on the world stage.
We're to retain the independence that was purchased for us by some of the finest blood of the 18th century.
This is the traditional American perspective.
It's called isolationism.
However, Mr. Schlesinger says that isolationism is a more dangerous phenomenon than Stalinism.
Contemplate this for a second.
This bloody century has produced some of the most remarkable tyrants and despots in all of human history.
Indeed, this century leads the roll call in that respect.
The bloodiest of all those tyrants, arguably, is Joseph Stalin.
Joseph Stalin was one of those liberals in a hurry, remember.
According to Arthur Schlesinger, and I quote, it is to Joseph Stalin that Americans owe the 40-year suppression of the isolationist impulse.
The collapse of the Soviet threat faces us today with the prospect that haunted Franklin Delano Roosevelt half a century ago, the return to the womb in American foreign policy.
In other words, isolationism, arguably, is a greater threat than Stalinism, which is an interesting calculation, and it's typical of the dubious wisdom that we receive from the members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the leadership of that organization.
Furthermore, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
points out That this concept of the New World Order is one which will be very costly.
In other words, it's not simply a new state of affairs that has taken shape, unbidden, in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse.
According to Schlesinger, quote, we are not going to achieve a New World Order without paying for it in blood, as well as in words and money.
In other words, we're going to pay for it with our blood, and perhaps the blood of others.
Perhaps those that Kipling referred to as lesser breeds without the law.
We can either bribe them or bomb them in order to make them do the will of the New World Order.
There are those of us who seek a third alternative.
Those of us who seek a third alternative once again want to restore America's constitutional independence and recover America's constitutional institutions.
And to have peace and freedom prevail in our country and by the strength of our moral example inspire others to subscribe to the principles of Americanism as adapted It would be a wonderful thing and an unparalleled blessing to the entire world if there were a sudden epidemic of limited government, would it not?
That is something we are seeking to propagate.
We are the bearers of this contagion of limited government.
Unfortunately, the United Nations is the instrument through which exactly the opposite philosophy is being propagated in the world.
And this is something that we need to understand.
We need to understand the implications This is a rather interesting book, which may or may not be available in wide release at the present time.
It's called Managing Globalization in the Age of Interdependence.
Interdependence is the opposite of independence.
We had a Declaration of Independence that inaugurated our existence as a nation.
It was a unique document.
It asserted the basic American premise that governments are instituted by men to defend the inalienable rights of individuals.
Interdependence, on the other hand, is a doctrine of collectivism, which is to say that our rights are a function of our membership in a group, and that when individual rights run afoul of the means of the collective, then individual rights can be taken away.
This book was written by a man named George C. Lodge.
Let me read a little bit about his biography from the back of this book.
He is a current member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
There is that supposedly insignificant group again.
He's also a trustee for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
He used to be an associate at the United Nations International Labor Organization.
What Mr. Lodge tells us in this book is that we have to surrender America's doctrine of individualism in the New World Order, in this new interdependent global society that is taking shape due to the ministrations of a group of people that Lodge describes As highly influential individuals who meet outside the glare of publicity and beyond the scrutiny of the press and beyond the accountability of political systems so as to create these new mechanisms of the global order.
A group of people that we refer to as the insiders.
This new world is to be predicated upon a doctrine called communitarianism.
And this is the new philosophy that we must embrace in order to be part of this new interdependent world.
What is communitarianism?
Well, writes Mr. Lodge, and I quote, there is nothing inherently good or bad about communitarianism.
No ideology has a monopoly on sin or virtue.
Stalin and Hitler were communitarians, as are Lee Kuan Yew and the leaders of Japan and Israel, even, it seems to me, Bill Clinton.
I would also be inclined to put the name Bill Clinton in a paragraph containing the names Stalin and Hitler.
I am surprised to see that somebody who is considered to be respectable has made that connection.
Whereas, I am lamenting those facts.
Lodges remarking upon them as if they're simply part of the received wisdom that we're going to have to accept.
This is part of the new consensus.
A word which I have heard bandied about with great fluency in the UN conferences that I have attended.
They're always talking about a consensus.
What is a consensus?
Well, according to Mr. Lodge, individualism argues for a voluntary consensus.
Now, I would have thought that a consensus was voluntary by definition.
The communitarian believes that coercion, prisons and the like, may be necessary to secure it.
As a matter of fact, he goes on to state, and I quote, In the communitarian order, a strong leader takes charge and defines the community and its needs.
The new community harvests public funds from wherever they are available.
Harvesting public funds.
He's talking about taxation.
Harvests public funds from wherever they are available, creates subsidized housing, secures police protection, screens members for admission, establishes standards of rights and duties for all community members, enforces those standards vigorously, expelling those who do not obey, and imposes discipline.
Sounds a little to me like the leader principle, as realized, for instance, in Nazi Germany.
He goes on to say, in another part of this book, that in order to help people understand this new communitarian consensus, we will have to see nothing less than the re-education of mankind, including, of course, the United States.
That which makes us most distinctive, once again, is our constitutional doctrine of individual liberty and limited government.
Our Constitution specifies The powers that government may exercise.
It can do only those things which the Constitution authorizes it to do.
Whereas our rights are inalienable and they are not enumerated.
Our rights belong to us.
They are given to us by Almighty God.
We confer limited powers upon the state.
The collectivist perspective holds, once again, that your rights are a function of the state's generosity.
The state gives you certain rights, tells you how you may use those rights, This is a document available from the United Nations called the International Bill of Human Rights.
rights are interfering with its designs.
Does the United Nations subscribe to the latter proposition, the latter concept of rights?
Indeed it does.
This is a document available from the United Nations called the International Bill of Human
Rights.
This is supposed to be an embellishment or an elaboration upon America's doctrine of
individual rights.
It is the antithesis of the American doctrine of individual rights.
Recall with me briefly what the Bill of Rights does.
The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because the Anti-Federalists in our country were concerned that the federal government might take away individual rights.
That it might grow and absorb functions that were not its property, constitutionally speaking.
And so a Bill of Rights was added in part to assuage the concerns of the right-wing extremists who were the Anti-Federalists at the time.
But the Bill of Rights specifies in Amendments 9 and 10 that the Bill of Rights does not contain a comprehensive listing of our rights.
It reserves rights to the people, reserves powers to the state.
And it says, in effect, to the federal government, if we have forgotten to tell you something you cannot do, you cannot do that thing either.
That's the essence of the Bill of Rights.
Now, the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations A primary author of which, by the way, was Eleanor Roosevelt.
For those of you who have some esteem for Eleanor Roosevelt, you may be interested to know something of her handiwork.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in a detailed fashion, enumerates what our rights consist of.
It tells us what our rights are, defines them very carefully, and then presents us with a grand nullification clause.
Article 29, Section 1.
I quote, Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
Remember when we learned about communitarianism?
How you have to be brought into the consensus by coercion, if necessary?
And by re-education, if necessary?
Article 29, Section 2, I quote in part, In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law.
Suddenly we learn that our rights can be taken away.
by the state which supposedly gave us our rights.
You remember what Job said?
The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.
The UN philosophy of human rights is the state giveth, the state taketh away, blessed be the name of the state.
Article 29, Section 3.
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
So if the United Nations decides, for instance, that your right of freedom of assembly, which we are exercising this evening, collides with its purposes and principles, you no longer have the right of freedom of assembly.
That's how that works.
What happens when the state becomes unaccountable in the exercise of its powers, or decides that it can take away individual rights because it bestows individual rights upon people?
What happens is bloodshed on an unprecedented scale.
This has been the century of collectivism.
Actually, the collectivist era arguably began in July of 1789 with the onset of the French Revolution.
But in this century, collectivism was wedded with technological sophistication in a way that made genocide and what is called democide possible.
Government is a dangerous enterprise.
When it is harnessed to secure the rights of individuals, it can be useful in protecting the rights of individuals.
However, when it begins to treat itself as the master rather than the servant, what happens is tyranny.
And what happens in the modern world, of course, is tyrannical genocide.
Some of you might be acquainted with this book, Death by Government, by R.J.
Rummel, who is a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii.
Dr. Rummel is recognized by experts across the political spectrum as the world's leading authority on political mass murder, what is called democide.
Democide includes genocide and politicide and other acts of mass murder committed by governments.
In this book, Death by Government, Dr. Rummel meticulously documents the fact that in this century, nearly 170 million people have been killed in time of so-called peace by their own governments.
Contemplate that for a second.
This easily eclipses the total of war debt in two world wars, in many lesser wars, and in various ancillary conflicts in this century.
We're told that peace under tyranny is more lethal than war.
The United Nations says we need to achieve perpetual peace.
We need to achieve perpetual peace by centralizing political authority in one global institution.
What have we learned about peace under a centralized and unaccountable government?
The United Nations, of course, is completely unaccountable.
The United Nations, of course, seeks to centralize political power.
And it seeks to exercise political power in a fashion that assumes that the state gives us our relicable rights.
That is a recipe Some might contend that the United Nations was never intended to be a global government.
Mr. Schlesinger's article of course dispels this allusion.
He said that's exactly what it was meant to be.
It was meant to be collective security using military force in order to enforce a global peace regime.
This is an attribute, or description rather, of a certain type of government.
This report Our Global Neighborhood, the final report of the Commission on Global Governance, further shoves aside the argument that the United Nations was not intended to be a world government.
The Commission on Global Governance.
That is a neologism, really, that makes little sense.
Governance is what government does.
So they're talking about a global institution that would exercise the powers of governance.
This report calls for the empowerment of the United Nations with direct taxing authority, beginning with taxes on international financial transactions, fees on the use of the electromagnetic telecommunications spectrum, and various fees on other activities, including parking fees on geosynchronous communication satellites and the like, establishing the precedent that the United Nations would have the power to tax directly.
We're told that the United Nations is a discussion group, if you will.
Or that it is a catalyst.
It is some kind of benign global copyclash.
Well, none of those institutions can exercise the power of taxation.
Only a government can exercise the power of taxation.
Furthermore, our global neighborhood once again reiterates the long-standing objective of comprehensive disarmament, not only of nations, but of individuals, in order to create a culture of peace on a global scale, as it's referred to.
Comprehensive disarmament.
In order to create perpetual peace, what happens in peacetime under a tyrannical regime?
One person who will not dissimulate with respect to the United Nations as a global government is an individual by the name of Richard Hudson, who is the executive director of the non-profit Center for War and Peace Studies in New York City.
I had the opportunity to listen to a presentation by Richard Hudson at the recently concluded National Assembly on the United States and the United Nations, which was held in Washington, D.C.
in August.
He has written a letter to the Commission on Global Governance, and he has said that they should dispense with the pretense that the United Nations was not intended to be a global government.
Let me read to you a little bit from that letter.
Quote, the UN already is a world government.
How can a world organization that can send 500,000 troops into Kuwait not be a world government?
I understand why you want to avoid the term world government.
It scares people.
But still, in my dictionary, the Webster's Unabridged Third New International Dictionary in 1965, the word governance is defined as the act or process of governing or government.
The United Nations already is a world government.
We are seeing today and this week a series of hearings being held on Capitol Hill to examine the Clinton administration's proposal The 20,000 American troops be sent to Bosnia to serve on a NATO mission to serve as peacekeepers or peace enforcers.
There's another interesting location, peace enforcement under United Nations authority.
Once again, this is something that a government does.
A government wields military force.
A government collects taxes.
A government creates legislation.
At the Cairo conference, which I attended last August, I attended many briefings Presided over by Secretary Timothy Worth, who is the Deputy Secretary of State, or Assistant Secretary of State, for Global Affairs in the Clinton Administration, and also a member of this insignificant group called the Council on Foreign Relations.
He referred to the process of creating a global platform of action to regulate population.
He referred to this as legislation at the global level.
Legislation is something government does.
These are all attributes of government.
We've talked a little bit about the kind of government that the United Nations would be if we were allowed to proceed unchecked in the accumulation of these powers and the advancement of its agenda.
Blood must be shed for the New World Order, Arthur Schlesinger wrote.
Blood is being shed.
We know that blood is being shed in Bosnia, where the United Nations, through its NATO affiliate, has been bombing for peace.
Which is something that we have seen in many headlines.
Without a whisper of irony, people will talk about bombing for peace in Bosnia.
In China, blood is being shed for the New World Order.
China has the world's most notorious population control program.
It was spoken about briefly at the recently concluded Beijing Summit on Women.
China's population control program includes a regime in which parents are allowed to have one child.
China's population control program includes a regime in which parents are allowed to have one child.
Allowed by their government to have one child because the government grants them this right to have a child.
This results, of course, in policies of forced abortion and sterilization, forced female infanticide, all manner of hideous sanctions being deployed against those who do not cooperate with this policy.
And this policy has received numerous awards from the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, and financial support from the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, and technical assistance from that organization and allied multilateral organizations.
The same policies are being imposed upon occupied Tibet, which was overrun by communist China very early in the life of that malignant regime.
Tibet is one of the most peaceful places on earth.
It is inhabited by some of the most unassuming and meek and non-violent people on earth, and that culture is being eradicated from the face of the earth, from one of the means whereby the communist occupation forces are pursuing their
final solution to the problem of the Tibetan culture is through Chinese-style population
control, once again, with the assistance of these multilateral agencies from the
UN, including the UN Development Program.
In Rwanda, just a few years ago, actually just less than a few years ago,
we saw bloodshed on a scale that beggars comprehension, even in the era such as ours,
in which a casualty figure has to have six zeros behind it before it gets our attention.
This is not something in which we can implicate the United Nations, but it is interesting to note that when I was in Cairo, there was a press conference that I was able to attend Featuring a man named Patrik Mazumuka, who was the Rwandan Minister for Youth and Cooperation, and he pointed out that in spite of the fact that they had lost 1.5 million people in a matter of months, that's one-fifth of the total population of that country, that Rwanda was going to have to embark on a program of what he called, I'm quoting, post-genocide population management.
1.5 million souls had been consumed by this fratricidal bloodletting.
And yet, according to Mazzamuca, quote, the government will have to try to keep the family on track because we cannot afford a big population.
This is in pursuit of something the United Nations calls sustainable development.
Remember that phrase well.
Sustainable development.
Simply put, sustainable development is an environmental philosophy which holds that the human population is a resource to be managed by a global elite.
Now, of course, those of us in the biblical tradition believe that the human population consists of individuals who have received their rights from God.
But from the United Nations perspective, the human population is just one factor that must be kept in equilibrium in this democratic biosphere.
Man has no ascendancy in nature.
Humankind is just another species with rights that are no more significant than those of plants or other animals.
Sustainable development.
In order to achieve sustainable development, according to the United Nations, China has been doing a good job in maintaining the equilibrium of its population.
And now in order to preserve sustainable development, Rwanda, after its genocidal bloodletting of just a few months ago, will have to keep the family under control by the state in order to keep its population down.
Cambodia is a country whose name is synonymous with genocide.
The Khmer Rouge and the Pol Pot did in a few short months to Cambodia what the Black Death took decades to do in medieval Europe in terms of the per capita bloodletting.
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge experienced the worst genocide in history.
Yet what we learned last week is that the United Nations, which is exercising political control over Cambodia, is going to embark upon a door-to-door census in Cambodia.
For the purpose of population control.
They have to know how many people manage to survive this plague of power in Cambodia, and how best to keep their population down and sustainable.
In the former Soviet Georgia, interestingly enough, one of the champions of the New World Order, a man by the name of Edward Shevardnadze, who has received support from the United States in the form of protection by United States Special Forces personnel.
The regime under Edward Shevardnadze According to Christopher Story, a British Sovietologist, citing a report in the Swiss press, that regime has managed somehow to misplace hundreds of thousands of people just in the last four years.
Blood is being shed for the New World Order in Soviet Georgia.
It gets even worse, however.
Jacques Cousteau, the venerated oceanographer, Looked upon by many as the avuncular embodiment of the quest for human knowledge and the pursuit of natural exploration.
Gave an interview in 1991 to the French-language edition of the UNESCO Courier.
UNESCO is the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization.
Jacques Cousteau is one of the major apostles of sustainable development.
And at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, he was received by UN officials and by the people who attended that meeting as something just this side of the divinity.
Jacques Cousteau in this interview in November of 1991 said the following things.
He said that in order to stabilize the human population, that is on a global scale, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.
That's the way the mathematics is played out.
350,000 people per day to achieve sustainable development.
But that is not the high-end estimate as to the expendability of the human population.
A new record was just set in that regard a couple of weeks ago at Mikhail Gorbachev's State of the World Forum in San Francisco.
Mikhail Gorbachev, who If there were any justice in the world, would have received the same treatment the Mussolini did outside of Milan at the end of World War II, convened this forum for the purpose of inaugurating what he calls the creation of a United Nations Council of Elders, a group of enlightened souls like himself, who would assemble from time to time so as to plot our future for us.
Very thoughtful and generous of them, indeed.
Mikhail Gorbachev was introduced at that meeting by Ted Turner, Ted Turner said that Mikhail Gorbachev's tenure as Chief Commissar of the Gulag State was the most important event in human history, which puts the New Testament in sort of an interesting light, I guess.
But at this meeting convened by Mikhail Gorbachev, a.k.a.
the Prince of Peace and Savior of the World, from Ted Turner's perspective, one of the final speeches, rather, was given by a New Age philosopher named Sam Kean, Sam Keane was addressing the question of sustainability.
What he said is that in order to achieve sustainability, population must be considered the primary problem.
That is to say, people are the primary impediment to sustainability.
And he said that we must reduce the human population by 90%.
90.
9-0.
That was not a misprint.
That was not a mispronunciation.
90%.
9 out of every 10 of us in this room is expendable.
Has anybody else noticed that those who concern themselves about surplus population never consider themselves to be among the surplus?
For some reason, we're an encumbrance, but they're indispensable.
And of course, Sam Keane is an example of exactly that type of philosophy.
Mikhail Gorbachev has become the leading example of what might be called the watermelon Marxist.
Which is to say, he is green on the outside now, but he's deep red in the middle.
And Mikhail Gorbachev, along with Maurice Strong, who was the Secretary General of the United Nations Earth Summit in 1992, is composing an Earth Charter.
Mikhail Gorbachev last year in Hollywood suffered a sudden fit of piety and started talking about the sacred Earth.
And he started quoting the wisdom, that is the potted, prefabricated, papier-mâché caricature of the wisdom of the Native Americans.
Of course, Mikhail Gorbachev's sudden reverence for indigenous peoples is a curiosity.
He showed no such inclinations when he was wiping them out by the tens of thousands in his dominion.
In his domain, rather.
But Mikhail Gorbachev, last year in Hollywood, talked about an Earth Charter that he would compose, what he called a Ten Commandments for the Environment that no one would be allowed to violate.
No one would be allowed to violate.
Two problems, of course, present themselves.
First of all, there is a Ten Commandments Mikhail Gorbachev cannot improve upon the original.
Secondly, the original Ten Commandments was not something that would be enforced by prior restraint.
This, once again, is one of the differences that we see between the UN's concepts and the concepts of Western biblical culture.
There is a religious vision that undergirds the United Nations.
Once again, to refer to the conference that was convened here in Washington just a few months ago, The closing speech was delivered by Reverend Joan Brown Campbell, who was the chairman of the National Council of Churches.
Now, she was a pinch hitter.
That speech was originally supposed to be given by Vice President Al Gore, but as the Clinton administration's resident druid was occupied with other duties, they got Reverend Campbell to come in as a pinch hitter, and she conveyed to them Al Gore's respect and his appreciation for the United Nations, and she reflected upon something she had seen in his office.
In his office, she had seen something she referred to as a religious icon.
Now, some of us might know what a religious icon is.
It is a depiction of an individual that is considered sacred.
For instance, a religious icon might be a depiction of Jesus Christ.
This particular icon, Reverend Campbell reminisced, was an orbital photograph of the Earth.
This is the religious icon that captures the spirituality of Al Gore, who has written about the pan-religious perspective that we must embrace in order to achieve sustainable development on a world scale.
And the achievement of sustainability, according to Al Gore, must be the central organizing principle of this new society.
It's rooted in a religious perspective.
The UN, of course, pursues sustainability, regards the Earth to be, if you will, sort
of a self-sustaining deity whom we must propitiate through the ministrations of a certain elite
that is sensitive to the needs of our sacred Earth goddess mother.
And the spiritual aspect of the United Nations objectives and agenda sometimes seeps into
some of the more candid declarations of some of the people of great influence in the United
Nations system.
One such was a man by the name of Robert Mueller, who is a former assistant secretary general.
He has said that the UN represents the body of Christ.
That is, His blasphemy, not mine.
Please do not hold it against me for repeating it to you.
And he has suggested that all houses of worship, for instance, the one in which we find ourselves this evening, should display the United Nations flag as a gesture of loyalty and fidelity to this new religious vision.
And he has said that if Christ were to return to Earth, his first visit would be to the United Nations.
to see if his vision of human oneness and brotherhood had come true.
Now, I believe that indeed, when Christ returns, he might make a point of visiting the United Nations, perhaps armed with the same whip he used to evict the money changers from the temple.
Now, another example of this religious vision can be captured in a declaration by Shri Chimoy, who is the director of the UN Meditation Group.
As I was driving through Washington, D.C.
today, I saw that there were a number of placards up advertising an evening of music and meditation featuring Shri Chinmoy.
I was not aware that he was a musician.
In his official capacity, he is the director of the UN Meditation Group, and this is what he has said about the spiritual aspect of the United Nations.
Quote, No human force will ever be able to destroy the United Nations, for the United Nations is not a mere building or a mere idea.
It is not a man-made creation.
The United Nations is the vision light of the Absolute Supreme, which is slowly, steadily, and unerringly illuminating the ignorance the night of our human life.
The divine success and supreme progress of the United Nations is bound to become a reality.
At His choice hour, the Absolute Supreme will ring His own victory bell here on Earth through the loving and serving heart of the United Nations.
That does not sound to me like a mere discussion group.
And people of his religious inclinations, of course, are free to pursue them.
They're free to pursue their religious vision.
They're free to indulge in whatever variety of mysticism, or to worship how, where, or what they may.
That is their sovereign right, given to them by God.
But inasmuch as they seek to use the power of a developing global state to pursue that vision, and to conscript our participation in that vision, we are dealing with a real problem.
One which, of course, will impose upon the religious liberty of those of us who subscribe to traditional biblical faith.
I've often considered the United Nations to be the society for the repeal of the Book of Genesis.
And the reason why I say that is because, in every particular, their social agenda defies the order described in the Book of Genesis.
Genesis describes how man was created by God, a special creation.
We were created in His image.
We were endowed with rights from God.
We were given stewardship over creation.
We were given dominion over creation to be exercised responsibly and in a fashion in which we would be accountable to God.
God created mankind in two complementary sexes and joined them together in a family which was meant to perpetuate itself.
And the family was instructed to multiply and replenish the earth.
The United Nations, on the other hand, proceeds from the assumption that the earth itself is divine, that man is, at very best, a product of the machinations of an impersonal and indifferent process of evolution, that we have not received rights from God, that our rights are social artifacts to be granted to us by the state, that mankind was not given dominion over nature, but rather is simply an unassuming part of nature, That we were not created in two definitive sexes, but rather the undifferentiated mass of humanity can occupy any number of socially constructed gender roles.
That the family itself is a social artifact which can be manipulated and changed at will.
And of course, the worst thing we can do from the United Nations perspective is to multiply and replenish the earth.
So, in other words, I think that there's a case to be made for the proposition, once again, that the United Nations should be called, in the social realm, the Society for the Repeal of the Book of Genesis.
Those of us who believe in the Book of Genesis, that includes, of course, Christians, as well as Jews and Muslims, have a problem with this.
Because we want to preserve that order, the order in which our liberties can take root and flourish.
However, there is a new religious order.
which is being created ostensibly for our benefit.
It's part of this consensus that we will have to accept in this interdependent world.
That consensus is enshrined in a document called the Declaration of a Global Ethic.
Some of you might have heard of this.
It was created by a globalist theologian by the name of Hans Kuhn who began his work at a 1991 Paris symposium sponsored by the United Nations Educational, Social, and Cultural Organization.
This is what Hans Kuhn has to say about those of us who are so-called fundamentalists.
Quote, any form of church conservatism is to be rejected, to put it bluntly, no regressive or repressive religion, whether Christian, Islamic, Jewish, or whatever provenance has a long-term future.
In other words, history is decreed the immediate abolition of so-called regressive or repressive religion, or fundamentalist religion.
What have we learned about liberals in a hurry?
They're not at all shy about giving history a little push.
Now, the Declaration of a Global Ethics was presented to the 1993 Parliament of World Religions in Chicago.
That meeting attracted thousands of religious leaders from around the world, representing every denomination in this country and just about every religious tradition in the world.
One of the chief organizers of that event was a man by the name of Gerald Barney, who is the director of the Millennium Institute.
He is a former Program Director for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The Rockefeller institutions are not without influence in the world.
I think I do not exaggerate by describing them in those terms.
Mr. Barney has been in the company of some of the most powerful and ambitious people in the world.
He has been privy to some of their otherwise unexpressed thoughts and ambitions.
And in his keynote address to the Parliament of World Religions, Gerald Barney said the following thing, quote, An internationally famous, highly influential author on sustainable development told me bluntly, religion must die.
It is the fundamental cause of virtually all social, economic, and ecological problems, and much of the violence in the world.
So the alternative, according to Mr. Barney, the alternative to the extinction of religion, and of course this would be something that would be assisted by history's servants, of course, The alternative to the extinction of religion would be the creation of a sustainable faith tradition to which we can all subscribe.
And that faith tradition, of course, is outlined in the Declaration of a Global Ethic.
What is truly foreboding about the Declaration of a Global Ethic is that it says, in the text of the document, that acceptance of the global ethic is the minimum standard that must be met in order to be recognized as authentically human.
Now, what have we learned in this century about the common fate of those who are considered to be something other than authentically human?
There are 170 million casualties killed by their own governments that testify of what happens to those who are considered to be something other than authentically human.
From a very early stage of its development, the United Nations was urging people to think the unthinkable with respect to questions of eugenics.
That was a phrase Written by Julian Huxley, who was the founding director general of UNESCO.
UNESCO, the institution that facilitated the creation of the Declaration of a Global Ethic.
Way back in 1948, he said, we're going to have to help people think the unthinkable with respect to eugenics, which is to say population control.
Selective population control.
Control of reproduction by the state, and so forth.
We've talked about unaccountable power.
When the unthinkable is wed with unaccountable power, what results is tyranny and genocide.
The 170 million casualties a century indicate and illustrate the dangers of what we see in that respect.
Julian Huxley, incidentally, helped create the United Nations' vision of education for a global society.
What would have to take place in order for children to be educated to become world citizens?
According to Julian Huxley, quote, it would mean an extension of education backwards from the nursery school to the nursery itself.
As early as possible, the state, that is to say the global state, would have to start exercising certain types of authority within the home.
Parental authority would have to be subverted or circumvented or abolished outright.
I want to talk just briefly about one part of the message that I convey in my book, Freedom on the Altar, the UN's crusade against God and family.
This title is considered by some to be quite inflammatory.
I certainly hope so.
It was meant to provoke a certain reaction.
It was meant to provoke a certain response.
We've talked a little bit about the crusade against God, as God is understood by those of us who believe in the Bible, those of us who believe in biblical faith.
Let's talk a little bit about the family.
The family was the first human institution.
It was created by God to be the primary human institution.
It was created to serve the function of instilling in children the attributes and attitudes necessary for responsible life as moral agents in freedom.
Because God created us to be free.
The human institution, which we call government, is the agency of coercion.
This is what government does.
That's all we have time for tonight, folks.
We'll finish it tomorrow night.
And I'm going to finish it tonight for the people in the Round Valley.
So if you're in the Round Valley and you're listening, I'm going to go ahead as soon as we sign off WBCQ and finish the tape for those of you in the Round Valley so that you'll have some sense of continuity.
For those of you listening international, we will finish this tomorrow night.
Of course, as I always do, I will back it up some so that the continuity is maintained as closely as we can.
I hope you all agree that what you've heard, or what I've heard anyway, is exactly what I've been warning you against for the last twelve years.
I have documented it.
I have given you the quotations right out of their own publications.
I have given you all of the same information, and what you're going to hear tomorrow night, and much, much, much, much more.
And the reason I'm doing this tonight is so that you can hear it from somebody else's mouth.
So that you know it's not just me.
I didn't make it up.
It didn't fall out of the sky, you know, in my bed, and I just picked it up and ran with it.
That's not what happened, folks.
It's the truth.
Who is this Great Supreme that's going to come down and sit on the throne of the United Nations?
Well, if you're a Christian, you should know the answer to that.
The Great Supreme.
Remember, he said the United Nations wasn't created by human hands.
It was created by the Great Supreme.
And when it's all ready and prepared, the Great Supreme will come down and sit on the throne of the world and reign from there.
Now, this is not conjecture.
This is what these people really believe.
Now, whether you believe it will happen or not, It doesn't make any difference whether I believe it's going to happen or not.
It doesn't make any difference.
If they believe it, whatever they believe, and if they have the power, it's going to affect us and we had better damn well understand what it is that they believe and why.
I've been telling you for years.
It's not the Jews.
You heard what he said.
You heard their plans for all of the existing fundamentalist religions.
And I named them also.
Christian, Islamic, scheduled for extinction!
And any other religion that they consider to be regressive.
Whatever the hell that means.
So you'd better wake up!
I mean you'd better wake up because we don't have too much time.
We don't have too much time.
I've been telling you for years there's going to be a civil war in this country.
And you'd better be prepared for it.
If you're not prepared for it, and if you're not fighting on our side, you're going to be a victim.
You're going to be a victim.
Because if you're not on our side, you're on their side.
And they don't want you on their side.
And if they don't kill you, we will.
There's going to be a war in this country.
We're going to restore constitutional Republican government.
Blood is going to run in the streets of America.
Not because I say so, but because they have They have dictated that it's going to happen because they are going to eliminate billions of people and establish their world socialist utopian government on this earth with the quote great supreme end quote sitting on the throne of the world.
These are all things that I've told you in the past.
I've documented it.
I've read you right out of the United Nations.
Resolutions, documents, pamphlets, publications.
I've explained to you the entire layout and the meaning of the symbology in the meditation room of the United Nations.
I have read to you the dictates and the writings and the resolutions and the conventions all spelled out by the heads of the globalist organizations that literally control the United Nations.
And you're not listening.
Form or seek out and join a militia.
Get ready to fight for your freedom.
I mean it.
You don't have much time.
And we're going to have to do it.
And if you're not ready, when it starts, it's too late to get ready.
If you're a Christian, they're going to kill you.
You haven't got a prayer in hell of living on this earth.
Not you, not your family, not your children, not any, any bit of you.
If you're a Jew, same thing.
Now you see all these so-called Jews in government who are socialists who are out bringing about the destruction of this country?
They're not Jews.
They're not Jews.
They don't believe in Judaism.
If they go to synagogue, it's for show.
Just like when George Bush goes to church, it's for show.
George Bush is not a Christian.
Bill Clinton is not a Christian.
When he goes to church, it's for show.
He's a communist.
Communalism is the new word for communism.
Communalist is just the new word for communist.
I've been telling you all along, these people are communists.
The new world order will be a world utopian socialist totalitarian state which will ultimately proceed to its ultimate goal as declared by Karl Marx and V. I. Lenin Communism.
What is peace that he was talking about through all this talk?
What is the definition of peace by Marxist, Leninist and Socialist Communists?
The definition of peace is the elimination of all opposition to Socialism.
Now that should put it in a better perspective for all of you.
Good night, folks.
God bless you.
Hope you sleep tonight.
I don't see how you can.
And don't forget to tune in tomorrow night.
Good night, Annie, Pooh, and Allison.
I love you with all my heart.
I'll get it right here somehow.
Okay, here we go.
Good night, folks.
I told you the fall of the Soviet Union was a scam.
Everything that he described in his talk tonight is communism.
Everything he described in his speech tonight that the United Nations wants to do is exactly what the Soviets did in the Soviet Union.
You better wake up, you stupid, ignorant, apathetic sheeple, or you're going to get what you deserve.
I won't.
I'll fight and die first.
Then I'll really be free.
Here in the Round Valley, stay tuned.
We're going to finish this tape for those of you listening in the Round Valley as soon as we sign off WBCQ.
Thank you.
I'd be ready for shaking, stay out the window, everything, I love you.
I am a diver, I watch them grow, they'll learn much more than I'll ever know.
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.
What a wonderful world we live in.
I think to myself, what a wonderful world we live in.
I think to myself, what a wonderful world we live in.
Government compels or forbids.
Government exercises power.
That is what government is.
Government is force.
▲
Export Selection