Tag Archives: United Nations

Hugh Fitzgerald: The Israeli Air Force “Mows the Lawn” in Gaza

by Hugh Fitzgerald

In Gaza, on November 11, having endured many attacks on its civilians by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Israel struck at the terror group with pinpoint accuracy, firing a missile at a particular room on the third floor of a residential building, which turned out to be the very bedroom of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad commander in northern Gaza, Baha Abu al-Ata, killing only him and his wife. Confirming his death, a PIJ spokesman said he was just about to undertake “a heroic jihadist action.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Abu al-Ata an “arch-terrorist” and said he was “the main instigator of terrorism from the Gaza Strip. He initiated, planned and carried out many terrorist attacks. He fired hundreds of rockets at communities in the area adjacent to the Gaza Strip, whose suffering we have seen,” he told a news conference in Tel Aviv. “He was in the midst of planning additional attacks in the immediate short term. He was a ticking bomb.”

The PIJ is the second-largest terrorist group in Gaza, and also has offices abroad  in Damascus, Tehran, and Khartoum. It is even more extreme than its rival Hamas, in that – unlike Hamas — it refuses even to consider a ceasefire, and it has recently been firing hundreds of rockets into southern Israel, always into civilian areas, in its determination to prevent a shaky ceasefire between Hamas and Israel from taking hold. Israel has previously held Hamas accountable for attacks by the PIJ, and would attack Hamas targets in retaliation for PIJ rocket attacks on Israeli towns and cities. The idea was to inflict so much pain on Hamas that it would then target PIJ in Gaza itself, to prevent its attacking Israel. But now, with the killing of Baba Anu al-Ata, Israel appears to have concluded that Hamas has been not unwilling but, rather, unable to halt PIJ attacks on Israel, so the IDF will have to do the job itself. The Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Lt Gen Aviv Kochavi, said that Abu al-Ata had undermined recent efforts to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, which runs Gaza and is considered a rival to PIJ.

An hour after the Israelis announced the attack on Abu al-Ata in northern Gaza, an Israeli plane fired two rockets at the house of Akram al-Ajouri, a senior member of the terror group PIJ, in the Mezzeh area of Damascus. Al-Ajouri managed to survive, but his son and Ajouri’s bodyguard were killed.

What do these attacks signify? First, that Israel wants to do its utmost to ensure that no innocents are harmed. In both cases, the rockets struck with pinpoint accuracy. In Gaza, not only did the IDF manage to limit the attack to Abu al-Ata’s apartment on the third floor, but, with even greater accuracy, to the very bedroom where he and his wife were sleeping. In Damascus, a similar surgical strike on the home of Al-Ajouri killed only his son and his bodyguard. Many hours later, the Syrians claimed that Al-Ajouri’s granddaughter had also been killed; it’s unclear if this is true, or if it was fabricated in an attempt to elicit more anger against Israel.

Compare these Israeli strikes to how the PIJ struck back. In just the six hours after the killing of Abu al-Ata, PIJ fired more than 170 rockets into civilian areas of Israel. Workplaces and schools were shut down as far north as Tel Aviv. There was no attempt by PIJ to hit a particular target, no “pinpoint accuracy” to these attacks; every Israeli in southern and central Israel was a potential target, including those in the country’s hub, Tel Aviv. Half the country closed down, including schools and workplaces from Tel Aviv south; with sirens intermittently sounding, and people taking cover on the streets or in one of the many bomb shelters that Israelis have built everywhere in their permanently imperiled country

Israel has now retaliated, in turn, for those PIJ rocket attacks. It did not do so right away, holding its fire for six hours, possibly in the hope that after the targeted killings, and having vented its anger with its volley of rockets, the PIJ might rethink its strategy. But it was not to be: and so, with 160 rockets having been fired at Israel, the IAF finally struck back, only at strictly military targets of the PIJ. The IAF hit arms warehouses, a training center for Islamic Jihad’s naval force, a shaft of a PIJ terror tunnel in northern Gaza, and a digging site of another PIJ terror tunnel in the central Strip. Only five people have been reported killed in those attacks, all of them PIJ terrorists. Here, again, in Gaza, the IAF has shown itself to be exceedingly accurate, with no civilian deaths among the Palestinians reported so far.

Israel, meanwhile, has also been careful not to hit a single target belonging to Hamas. Israelis have rethought their previous strategy of holding Hamas responsible for attacks by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and attacking it after enduring attacks by PIJ. Israeli commanders have become convinced that Hamas is trying, but not succeeding, in preventing PIJ from launching its rockets. So Israel briefly decided to return – but has made clear it is doing so only temporarily — to its former policy of “targeted assassinations,” that it used to employ with such effect against Hamas. The IDF is trying to deal forcefully and quickly with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, by cutting off the “head of the snake” – that is, killing its military commander in Gaza, Baha Abu al-Ata, and, in Damascus, the head of its political wing, Akram Al-Ajouri. It wants to weaken Palestinian Jihad, perhaps enough to encourage Hamas to finish the job the IAF has begun, and to return to trying to keep alive the tentative ceasefire that Egypt has been brokering between Israel and Hamas.

As the battle goes on, and both sides have already been “urged to exercise restraint” by the U.N., note that “restraint” is exactly what Israel has always been exercising, in these surgical strikes against PIJ leaders and military targets. It is the PIJ that has never exercised “restraint” in its attacks on Israelis, consistently shooting its rockets into Israeli civilian areas. If it has not caused more civilian casualties, it’s not for want of trying.

The remaining leadership of PIJ remains defiant, and issued a statement promising that “Our inevitable retaliation will rock the Zionist entity.” So far that “inevitable retaliation” has not led to any Israeli deaths, but only to fewer than a dozen wounded. This low number testifies to the efficacy of the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system, the country’s excellent warning system, and the shelters that are found  everywhere in Israel.

Hamas, the Palestinian organization that administers the Gaza Strip, said Israel “bears full responsibility for all consequences of this escalation,” and promised Abu al-Ata’s death “will not go unpunished.” This is the minimum that could be expected from Hamas, which though secretly pleased at the damage done to its rival, must pretend to be outraged by Israel’s attacks. It is noticeable that Hamas did not fire any retaliatory rockets itself, nor did it state that it would participate in “punishing” Israel. If Abu al-Ata’s death “will not go unpunished,” apparently Hamas will not be among those doing the punishing. Hamas could have said that “we will help punish Israel for its murder of Abu al-Ata,” but did not. That’s a significant public breach between Hamas and PIJ. How long Hamas will wait, until itself taking on the much-weakened PIJ, in order to assure itself that the ceasefire with Israel will hold, is anyone’s guess. The Israelis hope it is soon. They would themselves re-enter Gaza, to crush all the terrorists, what they call “mowing the lawn,” only most reluctantly. Hamas cannot afford to behave like PIJ, oblivious to the consequences of its acts, and willing to endlessly attack Israel even if the IDF’s retaliation is always more punishing than anything the PIJ can inflict. For Hamas is now more than a terrorist group; it bears all the responsibilities of rule in Gaza. And that includes trying to maintain the ceasefire with Israel, brokered by Egypt, for as long as it serves its interests.

Why do Israelis call these actions taken against the terrorists “mowing the lawn”? It’s because they know it is only a temporary solution to a permanent problem. The terrorists may be cut down, but will always reappear, like a lawn that regrows after being mowed. The Jihad, the Israelis know, is permanent. It’s been going on, somewhere in the world, for the past 1,400 years. If only the people in the chanceries of the West, so quick to round on Israel for daring to defend itself, could grasp that simple fact.

JW: https://www.jihadwatch.org/category/hugh-fitzgerald


Hugh Fitzgerald is a student of history and literature, primarily of America and Europe. He admires Jacques Barzun, J. D. Salinger, and Alan Bennett, reads dictionaries for profit and pleasure, and finds particularly appealing the words “recompense,” “quondam,” “magari,” and “degringolade.”

By far the best way to reach Hughun is through the offices at Jihad Watch. Fitzgerald has an email account, the address of which is hughfitz123@msn.com.

Tom DeWeese: STAND FOR SOVEREIGNTY – RON PAUL AND TOM DEWEESE

by Tom DeWeese

In September of 2000 the UN held its Millennium Summit in New York City to announce its 8 goals to impose the transformation of the world under Sustainable Development.

In response, on September 7, 2000, as nearly every head of state and world leader gathered at the United Nations headquarters, the American Policy Center (APC) held a news conference on Capital Hill calling for an end to the United States membership in the UN. To back up its demands, APC delivered more than 500,000 petitions in support of Rep. Ron Paul’s National Sovereignty Restoration Act (HR 1146).

The petitions, weighing more than 1.5 tons, served as the backdrop for the news conference as Rep. Paul and the late Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage spoke to reporters about the threat of the UN to the United States. More leaders who spoke at the event, Hosted by APC president Tom DeWeese, included the late Henry Lamb of Sovereignty International, Constitutional expert Herb Titus, the late Kent Snyder of the Liberty Study Committee and Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival.

The News Conference was aired to millions over the CSPAN cable network and helped APC launch a renewed war against the UN’s relentless drive for global governance.

This video of that 2000 news conference is especially significant as Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Ala) has now introduced his bill, called the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 204), to again call for the United States to Exit the United Nations. It’s time to renew the fight to stop the UN’s drive for global governance.


APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/10/24/stand-for-sovereignty-ron-paul-and-tom-deweese/

Alex Newman: China Seeks to Run UN “Crime” Agency

by Alex Newman

Not content with its agents running about a third of United Nations agencies already, the Communist Party of China is now pushing one of its minions to lead the powerful UN “crime” agency as well. The bid comes amid surging influence for the mass-murdering dictatorship within the “global governance” system. But unlike during the Obama administration, this time, critics from Capitol Hill to the White House are paying attention — and speaking out.

Beijing’s move to install Andy Tsang-Wai-hung as chief of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) comes just after Communist Chinese agent Qu Dongyu secured the top spot at the massive UN Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO). Whistle blowers and diplomats accused the regime of using bribery and threats to secure enough votes from UN member governments to have Qu take over the influential post.

The effort to have Tsang run the UN “crime” agency also comes shortly after the Communist Chinese agent running Interpol, the self-styled global “law-enforcement” agency, was arrested by authorities in China. Among other charges, communist officials in Beijing publicly accused former Interpol boss Meng Hongwei of failing to obey Communist Party orders while running the France-based international organization.

Headquartered in Vienna with a biannual budget of around $700 million, the UNODC that Beijing has its eyes on claims to be a leader in the fight against crime, terrorism, and more. It is currently led by a former diplomat for the mass-murdering Soviet regime, Yury Fedotov, who regularly blasted the United States for obeying the U.S. Constitution by failing to enforce blatanly unconstitutional UN agreements. The brutal Iranian dictatorship, by contrast, was regularly praised and celebrated by Fedotov’s administration.

Tsang’s history suggests he will be just as bad — if not worse — than Fedotov when it comes to advancing globalism, whitewashing savage tyranny, and threatening national sovereignty across a broad range of policy areas. Among other roles, Tsang serves as deputy director of the regime’s “National Narcotics Control Commission.” The outfit has developed a global reputation for barbarism and horrifying human-rights violations, including beating and torturing prisoners and using them for slave labor, as documented by Human Rights Watch.

Before that, while serving as police chief, Tsang was instrumental in violently suppressing the peaceful “umbrella movement” protests in Hong Kong. As The New American reported at the time, authorities used tear gas and brute force to smash popular dissent against Beijing’s growing authoritarianism in the once-semi-autonomous city. Protesters sought expanded voting rights, less interference from Beijing, the preservation of a free press, and the safeguarding of basic individual liberties. Tsang and his minions responded with an iron fist and bloodshed.

Now, finally, after the Deep State helped the murderous Communist Chinese regime take control of about one third of all the UN’s so-called “specialized” agencies, officials in Washington, D.C., are starting to take notice. Indeed, within the upper echelons of the U.S. State Department, meetings and memos have been discussing the issue and seeking solutions to rein in Beijing’s growing role within the UN system.

In response to the latest candidate offered by Beijing to run a key UN agency and the broader context of Communist China’s ongoing takeover of the UN, officials within the Trump administration are working on a strategy to counter those moves. However, from public statements made by officials, it is clear that — at least in the bureaucracy — there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the problem.

“China’s concerted push has more to do with advancing its self-serving interests and authoritarian model than demonstrating genuine leadership consistent with the principles and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the U.N Charter,” an unnamed official was quoted as saying by Fox News. Of course, it is true that Beijing is interesting in advancing its authoritarian model. But the idea that the dictator-dominated UN is based on principles of freedom is beyond ludicrous.

In reality, the UN charter does not enshrine any freedoms, fundamental or otherwise. The official quoted in the media may have been referring to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But even allowing for that possibility, the statement is absurd. Unlike the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, which protect God-given rights that pre-exist government, the UN’s “human rights” instruments purport to endow people with revocable privileges that cannot be used against the UN and can be abolished at any time under virtually any pretext. In short, it is a giant fraud.

On Capitol Hill, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has been a leader in speaking out about the effort to have Tsang run the UNODC, even urging the Trump administration to do something about it. “The UN has no business putting yet another Communist Party cutout in a leadership position, especially one with a direct history of advancing China’s abuses in Hong Kong,” Cruz was quoted as saying media reports. “The Trump administration should use its voice and vote to block this appointment.”

Senator Cruz, who has also spoken out against Beijing’s espionage and influence operations in the United States, blasted the penetration of the leadership of global outfits such as the UN. “The Chinese Communist Party has systematically pursued a policy of joining and exploiting international organizations to advance their agenda,” said Cruz, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “The pattern is the same across issues as varied as the WTO, Internet governance, Interpol, and human rights bodies.”

A number of experts on China and international relations have also spoken out against Tsang’s candidacy. Author and analyst Gordon Chang, who wrote the book The Coming Collapse of China, said Tsang would be a “hideous” appointment in comments made to Fox News. “Any candidate proposed for a drug enforcement post by a one-party state behind some of the world’s most dangerous drug networks should be rejected out of hand,” he said, noting that Tsang has failed to stop Chinese fentanyl rings despite having virtually unlimited power and tools to do it.

The Communist regime ruling China, however, which has murdered more people than any government in human history, defended the nomination amid escalating global criticism. Tsang’s nomination, Beijing “Foreign Ministry” spokesman Geng Shuang said, shows “China’s concrete action in support of multilateralism and work of the UN.” He also vowed that the communist regime would “devote more efforts to fighting transnational organized crime and strengthening international counter-narcotic cooperation.”

Other UN agencies under China’s control include the UN International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which is pushing global taxes on air travel. Also run by a Communist Chinese agent is the UN Industrial Development Organization, a disgraced entity helping to build up hostile Third World regimes such as the murderous dictatorships in North Korea and Cuba with Western money and technology. Another key UN entity run by a Communist Chinese agent is the UN International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which is seeking global censorship and controls of the Internet. Also under Communist Chinese control is the powerful UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). Beijing has agents serving as deputy leaders of multiple UN organizations as well, not to mention the IMF, the World Bank, and beyond.

In short, Beijing is set to play a starring role in what globalists call the “New World Order” — at least if the Deep State gets its way.

Foreign-policy wonks in and around Washington, D.C., are increasingly taking notice of Communist China’s rapidly increasing control over the architecture of global governance. The influential Heritage Foundation, for instance, recently released a report outlining the problem and recommending ways for the U.S. government to deal with it. Unfortunately, however, none of those solutions involve abandoning the increasingly totalitarian UN system that was designed from the start to become more and more oppressive and powerful. Without the United States, the whole ediface would collapse.

The decision on who will lead the UNODC will be made by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, former leader of the Socialist International, sometime in the coming months. Considering Guterres’ personal involvement in the spread of socialist and communist totalitarianism around the world and throughout the UN system, it remains unclear whether he will resist Beijing’s demands for ever more power and control over global policy.

The Trump administration has withdrawn from a broad range of UN agencies and agreements, ranging from a UN deal promoting mass-migration to the UN’s “education” agency. The American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 204), however, would go further, ending all U.S. government involvement and funding for the “dictators club” that is the UN. With Communist China openly taking the reins at the globalist outfit, critics of the UN say it is past time for American taxpayers to stop subsidizing it all.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/33401-china-seeks-to-run-un-crime-agency


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Kathleen Marquardt: WORLD RELIGION, THE LAST PIECE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH A WORLD ORDER

by Kathleen Marquardt

America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.” Joseph Stalin

Why a world religion?

“The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future.” Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, New Age theologian and Jesuit priest

Marx understood that the state must control the children from infancy in order to instill the values and beliefs that would most benefit a totalitarian state. He also held the mistaken belief that he needed to destroy the churches. That was a mistake. Today, those who are trying to wrest control of the world realize they must control the religions of the world if they are to succeed. To that end, their scheme is to merge all religions together and, using the Hegelian Dialectic, bring them to an all-new world religion. Their journey to this end has taken an enormous amount of work and time, but it seems to be close to paying off.

Who dreams up a one-world religion?

Over the ages many have tried to conquer the world. Today, they are on course to achieving this Machiavellian plot. The Fabians[1], Bilderbergers[2], George Soros, United Nations, US Deep State, and various other nefarious people, groups, and NGOs (non-governmental organizations affiliated with the UN), have learned from Marx and others what is needed to accomplish the control of the world. They have learned from Helena Blavatsky, Annie Besant, Alice Bailey, Mikhail Gorbachev, Robert Muller, Aleister Crowley, and many more (including the ‘enlightened others’ through telepathic means) the teaching of the modern occult movement in the West. I will call them Globalists, because ‘all of the above’ are (or were when they lived) working to bring about a world government backed by a world religion.

As the New Age movement has spread around much of the globe, the easing of social mores, and a ‘let it all hang out’ attitude in movies and songs, a melding stew pot of churches seems to be a natural outcome. Yet it is unfolding, not by any symbiotic interaction, but by great scheming, planning, and seduction.

Those who have been leading us to a world government understand that the beliefs of the people must be erased and replaced in order to exchange the old religions with one that will allow the world leaders to control the worshippers. Bishop William Swing, founder of the United Religions Initiative (URI), decided that, “Since the purpose of religion is the service and worship of God, all religions and spiritual movements need to have a common language and common purpose – for all to worship a shared god.”[3] (emphasis mine)

There are hundreds of religions that have jumped into this pot of religious stew. Here in the United States Bible believing Christians have dwindled in number while many sects are joining the Babel of worshipping, not a god, but a goddess – Gaia, Mother Earth.

Why do they need to erase traditional religious beliefs? In order for Globalists to succeed in their quest for a world government they must accomplish several goals. They label them the 3 Es of Sustainable Development. These three Es are: economy, ecology, and equality. The first, economy, utilizes the redistribution of wealth and destruction of private property rights to annihilate the middle class; the second, ecology, is using the development of the Wildlands Project plus the fake fear of ecological disaster via Global Warming/Climate Change to take away property rights, thus also the liberty of individuals; and the third, equality, is supposed to make all people equal. Not with equal rights under the law, but equal in all other ways — income, status, and religion. In fact, they’d like to make everyone equal in intelligence if that were possible.

“For more than 100 years, visionaries have been dreaming of a day when the world’s religions could work together for peace. That day is coming -soon!” Bishop William E. Swing, United Religions Initiative (URI)

PierreTeilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), a high priest of New Age political and religious leaders, believed that “every aspect of existence, from the earth itself to human beings, as moving in a purposeful forward motion to the Omega Point. For him, Christogenesis, the process by which the universe turns completely into Christ, is simply the last phase of evolution. He presented to the people of his day a new world religion he still considered Christian. But it was merely a vehicle for moving humanity into a new theological mindset, one that embraces a false view of a coming golden age. Man’s own divine efforts, of course, would usher in this new age.

“Teilhard believed he was giving the world a better Christianity, a religion that blended faith in God with faith in the world.. . . Chardin openly referred to this as the birth of a new faith. In an essay entitled ‘The Stuff of the Universe,’ he makes his view very clear:

“One could say that a hitherto unknown form of religion . . . is gradually germinating in the heart of modern man, in the furrow opened up by the idea of evolution. . . . Far from feeling my faith perturbed by such a profound change, it is with hope overflowing that I welcome the rise of this new mystique and foresee its inevitable triumph.”[4]

To achieve a religion that fits all people, one of the key strategies will be to dumb down enough of society to have critical mass; that is the only way Americans will be willing to having their values, attitudes, and beliefs transformed from free-thinking individualists who put their beliefs in the Constitution and the Rule of Law to preserve Western culture, and become useful idiots to the UN. How do they go about this? Our values, attitudes, and beliefs must be “removed from our minds”. In simple language, brainwashing and programming.

“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas.” [5]

Now we have a UN globalist, Brock Chisholm, admitting that all things we still-reasoning patriotic Americans believe in and hold dear are in need of eradication. Individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas are holding back the New World Order. They must go. But before that, stop and think about those four things. If I were to list the things I feel are most important to me as an individual, those would definitely be in the top five. Yet here is a top UN official saying these must be wiped out of our minds and hearts.

Religious dogmas.

Which religious dogmas did former State Senator Hoagland think need to be ‘removed from the minds of men’?

“Fundamental Bible-believing people do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs because we, the state, are preparing them for the year 2000, when America will be part of a one-world global society and their children will not fit in.”[6]

In order to wipe out Western Culture and the Age of Reason, truth had to become whatever one wanted it to be. Moral relativism became the meme of the day/year/decade/century. If you look back to the 1990s, you can see that, while our country had been on the road of moral decline for 100 years, it was now in the fast lane going downhill at such a steep grade a crash could hardly be averted. Just watching the political scene: remember Tom DeLay? What he was convicted of is now considered standard operating procedure on Capitol Hill, it would be overlooked; today his actions would be seen as not worth noticing. Now, our kindergarten children are being taught about how to pleasure themselves sexually and are being read to in story-hour by transvestites in flamboyant drag. Christians have joined Jews in being persecuted; in fact, they have become the biggest targeted group for being slaughtered around the world.

Moral relativism was needed to make all people, cultures, and religions of equal value. Social Justice was needed to then make certain people and cultures more equal than others; to prop up ‘lesser’ religions to be equal or better than others; and to denigrate anyone who would want to be a sovereign individual, to stand out from the group.

“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”.[7]

But only if you believe in social justice.

If you look around you, you have to see a deeply degraded society.

Social Justice doesn’t just allow/promote this kind of despicable, sickening behavior, it lauds it, so we see it on campuses of so-called higher learning; we see it in our schools, and we see it on the streets and in movies.

How did we get to this point? Easy — via moral relativism: whatever you believe is right, is right for you and can be changed even more often than you change your underwear. There is no line too degraded to cross; there is nothing that shouldn’t be done if it feels good to you. Many people have become like feral animals. The FBI said MS-13 gang members have been known to use machetes to carry out violence. “The MS-13 motto is kill, rape and control,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said during an April 2017 visit to Suffolk County.

MS-13 members engage in a wide range of criminal activity, including drug distribution, murder, rape, prostitution, robbery, home invasions, immigration offenses, kidnapping, carjackings/auto thefts, and vandalism. Most of these crimes, you’ll notice, have one thing in common—they are exceedingly violent.

Social Justice is needed to gut historical religions to the point where they are empty of any value, and replace them with an amalgamated religion of Gaia worship, pantheism, New Age mysticism, Theosophy, Universalism. And Social Justice is needed to rid our schools, libraries, and stores of politically incorrect history, our town squares of statues celebrating our great forebears.

“There will be no new world order without a new world ethic, a global or planetary ethic despite all dogmatic differences.”[8]

Who is behind the new world ethic, the new world religion besides those noted at the beginning of this article?

Today’s Pope is doing the work to transform Catholicism into part of the new world religion, and Christianity is being vilified, disparaged, and described as the evil force behind everything from school shootings to anti-Muslim attacks, to destroying the minds of our children.

Episcopal Bishop William Swing, the President and Founder of the United Religions Initiative, came up with the original vision of URI in 1993, in response to an invitation from the United Nations, which asked him to host an interfaith service honoring the 50th anniversary of the signing of the UN Charter.

“The United Nations telephoned me in 1993 asking if the UN could come back to Grace Cathedral for its 50th Anniversary. Of course!  But…the stated vision was that the UN wanted all of the nations and all of the religions at that big service. An absurd request.  But…some of us spent two years trying to figure out how to get all of the religions shoehorned into that tiny boot. This absurd exercise changed our souls.  When the UN 50th was over, we were intoxicated by a vision.  If there was a United Nations, what about creating a United Religions?”[9]

In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle four years later, Swing decided that there was a need to rewrite the “scriptures and theology of all the world’s religions.”[10]

“Maybe we have to take a deeper look at theology. I think that religions are based on assumptions of truth being mediated from the creator to the created. These truths are divinely inspired and sacred for the people who hold them. I think all religions of the world have a blind spot. If there’s a United Religions pursuing a dialog in depth, it begins to ask larger questions and force religions to make larger statements.”[11]

One has to wonder how man can make larger statements than God.

How do the globalists plan on achieving a world religion? I have written about the mind-altering program BSTEP here. This is the modern version of John Dewey’s and the Frankfurt School’s work here. All of this is being carried out in our schools in order to wipe out our children’s values, attitudes, and beliefs, and replace those with the morally relative, political correctness of human animals.

“Global education must prepare our children for the coming of an interdependent, safe, prosperous, friendly, loving, happy planetary age as has been heralded by all great prophets. The real, the great period of human fulfillment on planet Earth is only now about to begin.” [12]

Dennis Cuddy also elaborates on the mind-altering programs of the globalists: “The term ‘groupthink’ used by William Whyte, Jr, in Is Anybody Listening?, in which he described the ‘social engineering movement’ as ‘a machine for the engineering of mediocrity. It is profoundly authoritarian in its implications, for it subordinated the individual to the group.’”

“The year after Whyte’s book was published Bertrand Russell’s The Impact of Science on Society was published and described how, through education, government ‘could control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.’ The next year (1952), the National Training Laboratories (NTL) became part of the National Education Association (NEA), and in 1962, the NTL published Issues in (Human Relations) Training, in which the editors wrote that human relations or sensitivity training ‘fits into a context of institutional influence procedures which includes coercive persuasion in the form of thought reform or brainwashing.’ (emphasis mine) . . . In 1964, Roderick Seidenberg’s Anatomy of the Future describes how the masses of people could be controlled ‘by the ever increasing techniques and refined arts of mental coercion/ to the level of mindless guinea pigs.”

Now that we have the what, why, who and how, Whenwill the globalists achieve this world religion?

“The time for glorifying the Almighty (male) God who supposedly rules is now over. Some future generation may well be moved to discard the Christian calendar entirely, and rename the year 2000 AD as 1 GE, the first year of the global era. Soon the Lord’s Supper will only signify human fellowship, and Christmas will be a holiday for the celebration of family.”[13]Lloyd Geering, Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies at Victoria University, Doctor of Divinity, “Protestant heretic”

Once the powers-that-be wipe out our culture by making a world religion that supersedes all others, we will no longer have the moral fiber to resist world tyranny. We will become human animals fighting for scraps and lacking humanity.

They are very close but, hopefully, have not achieved critical mass. I believe that there are a few signs that freedom-loving people are starting to say NO. Brexit and the Gilets Jaunes are two examples. Even in the US we are seeing some push back against the Deep State. Will it be enough?

How do we fight this? Preachers/Pastors/Priests need to be standing in the pulpit condemning this and every other evil going on. No, they do not need to worry about their 501c3 status. They can preach fire and brimstone, they can preach against the sins that are being committed every minute, especially by our political leaders. The only thing they have to be careful of in order to protect their tax-exempt status is they cannot speak out for or against specific legislation/bills or promote individuals running for office. But they’d better start standing up and promoting their Lord and Savior. Christianity is on the auction block. Men of God are you going to stand by and watch it die?

“It matters how you stand.” LaVoy Finicum

[1] https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/george-bernard-shaw-1856-1950-and-the-fabian-society

[2] https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/05/29/a-chart-exposing-how-the-bilderberg-group-controls-the-entire-world/?fbclid=IwAR2-N1l-bugQW0BfYG5xLqsen66EKO7c74gilrie5d_J8sbxSu98GyTtEDA

[3] Swing, William, Bishop, The Coming United Religions, p 63

[4] Kah, Gary H., The New World Religion, p. 68

[5] [5] https://upclosed.com/people/brock-chisholm/

[6] Nebraska State Sen. Peter Hoagland, radio interview, 1983.

[7] George Orwell, Animal Farm

[8] Hans Kung, A Global Ethic for Global Politics and Economics, explanatory remarks.

[9] Bishop Swing’s Speech at the UN 70th Anniversary and URI 15th Anniversary Celebration, 30 June 2015

[10] Penn, Lee, False Dawn, p. 190

[11] Lattin, Don, interview with William Swing,  “Bishop’s Idea for a Leap of Faiths”, San Francisco Chronicle, June 22, 19997

[12] Muller, Robert, New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality, p. 8

[13] Lloyd Geering, Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies at Victoria University, Doctor of Divinity, “Protestant heretic,”


APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/07/03/world-religion-the-last-piece-needed-to-establish-a-world-order/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

To President Trump: The United Nations was Designed to Destroy Freedom

To President Trump: The United Nations was Designed to Destroy Freedom “Americans have been slowly indoctrinated toward Global Government…

by Bill Lockwood

President Trump’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly this week had much to commend it. Emphasizing national sovereignty and independence, he also rightly criticized the unfair cost burden to the United States. The American taxpayer shoulders 22 percent of the entire UN budget, more than double the next leading contributor, Japan. Yet, in spite of Trump’s defense of “national sovereignty” he praised the United Nations by urging that the world body live up to its “potential” by continuing to provide a world “forum” for peace which he called its “true vision.”  In these remarks, however, he is mistaken, for the United Nations is flawed by design.

Why is it that almost every American leader since Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt have worked toward the lessening of our sovereignty and towards a World Government, working to erode it “piece by piece” in the words of more than one global leader?

For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security advisor, a longtime CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) member, and a founder of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, explained to world leaders at the 1995 State of the World Forum:

We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. [It] requires a process of gradually expanding the range of democratic cooperation as well as the range of personal and national security, a widening, step by step, stone by stone, [of] existing relatively narrow zones of stability in the world of security and cooperation. In brief, the precondition for eventual globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.

Almost the same words were used by Richard N. Gardner (CFR) in his April 1974 essay in Foreign Affairs, entitled “The Hard Road to World Order.”

Gardner opined that a “case-by-case approach can produce some remarkable concessions of ‘sovereignty’ that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis.” Rather than pursuing “instant world government,” Gardner explained to the world that “the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down”—by means of “and end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.…”

Former President Bush, Sr. offered this about the original vision of the UN: “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for the future generations a new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.”

His son, President George W. Bush signed the Declaration of Quebec in 2001 in which he gave “commitment to hemispheric integration and nation and collective responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of our people.” By “our people” Bush meant people of the Western Hemisphere, not the people of the United States. He pledged that the United States will build a hemispheric family on the basis of a more just and democratic international order, such as the world is witnessing in the EU and now the African Union (AU).

These statements are not unlike former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s “The time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty … has passed.” Or, like former President Obama’s speech to the UN in which he urged nations to surrender some of its sovereignty.

Again, the UN’s goals of world government by gradually eroding United States sovereignty could not be plainer than David Rockefeller’s (founder of the CFR) praise to the major media in 1991 for its complicity in this stealth design.

We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years …it would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national determination practiced in past centuries.

According to these major players, as well as dozens of others who have been coming out of the closet as Americans have been slowly indoctrinated toward Global Government, what is now occurring via the UN has been planned from its inception. This means that UN programs, including global wealth distribution, government control of production, government control of consumption (Sustainable Development), international taxes, world currency, globalized education for children, family planning, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), which already siphons wealth of hard-working taxpayers in America–are all by design.

So, who is right on this? President Trump, who calls upon the UN to live up to its “true vision” which emphasizes national sovereignty; or, the long list of globalists who praise the UN for its gradual implementation of eroding national sovereignty? Obviously, not Trump.

Almost 15 years ago, Michael Hirsch wrote a piece in Newsweek in which he frankly confessed that transforming America into a global policeman and moving toward Global Government is not accidental. Entitled Death of a Founding Myth, he stated,

While the isolationists … tempted millions with their siren’s appeal to nativism—the internationalists were always hard at work in quiet places making plans for a more perfect global community. In the end the internationalists have always dominated national policy. Even so, they haven’t bragged about their globe-building for fear of reawakening the other half of the American psyche, our berserker nativism. And so they have always done it in the most out-of-the-way places and with little ado.

In December 1917 the Inquiry, a group of eager reformers who included a young Walter Lippmann, secretly met in New York to draw up Wilson’s Fourteen Points. In 1941, FDR concocted the Atlantic Charter in the mists off Newfoundland. The dense woods of New Hampshire gave birth to the Bretton Woods institutions—the IMF and the World Bank—in 1944.

And a year later the United Nations came to life at the secluded Georgetown estate of Dumbarton Oaks….So what emerged took us more or less by surprise. We had built a global order without quite realizing it, bit by bit, era by era, with our usual schizoid approach: alternating engagement and withdrawal….Like it or not—and clearly large numbers of Americans still don’t—we Americans are now part of an organic whole with the world that George Washington wanted to keep distant.

Americans have been stealthily and semi-secretly maneuvered into globalism. Why this has occurred is seen in simply glancing at some of the original founders of the UN. The first secretary-general of the UN was America’s own Alger Hiss, later convicted in court of being a Soviet spy.

Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin played a key role in it early years, as did our own John Foster Dulles, who wrote the following in 1950: “The United Nations represents not the final stage in the development of the world order, but only a primitive stage. Therefore, its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.”

Later, Dulles had this to say, “I have never seen any proposal made for collective security with teeth in it, or for world government or for world federation, which could not be carried out by either the United Nations or under the United Nations Charter.”

Like most programs to control free people by socialistic programs, the UN is following the totalitarian path laid out by its founders. It is on track. President Trump needs to realize that the UN is indeed living up to its potential. Global Government. This is why national “sovereignty” and “independence” of nations, particularly America, is anathema to the world body. It is all about transferring the wealth of America to socialist nations. It also explains why the major media globalist elites spin out of control at the mention of such concepts by Trump.

If America is to survive we must get out of the United Nations and the United Nations must get out of the United States. There is currently legislation in Congress called the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017 (H.R. 193), which proposes to do exactly that. It is sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL). Americans need demand its Congressional leaders support it.

Patrick Wood: The Real Reason Why The UN Wants Control Over The Internet

The Real Reason Why The UN Wants Control Over The Internet – “To achieve its Utopia goals, the UN must have ICANN’s steering wheel and throttle. ”

by Patrick Wood

By its very nature, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a non-profit organization exclusively run by Technocrats. As such, it is an apolitical body that is happy to serve whatever form of governance exists as long as funding is received and salaries are paid. To a Technocrat, a world run by science and technology is better than any other form of governance.
That Technocrats have played a supporting role in world history is unquestioned. Scientists, engineers and technicians played a huge role in the Communist dictatorship in the former Soviet Union (For instance, see Science and the Soviet Social Order). Technocrats likewise played a central role in support of Adolph Hitler and National Socialism (See Scientists, Engineers and National Socialism). In both cases, the Technocrat goal was not necessarily Communism or Nazism, but rather the methodical exercise of science according to its Scientific Method. In other words, the process was more important than the outcome – and in both cases, the outcome was not questioned or resisted, but simply accepted.
The reason that ICANN formerly served the interests of the United States was simply that it answered to our government’s judicial, legislative and executive branches. In other words, the U.S. held the umbrella over ICANN and that was enough to keep it working for our national interests and not for someone else’s interests.
Obama changed that when he cut ICANN loose on September 30, 2016 by letting the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) contract expire without being renewed. After expiration, we forever lost the right to renew the contract again. So, ICANN is now a “free-agent” looking for shelter in the same way that a boll weevil looks for a cotton plant: it needs a host organization in order to practice its craft, and, I dare say, it doesn’t care one whit who that host is.
It is no secret that the United Nations is making a play to become host to ICANN. In particular, the UN’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU), run by the Peoples Republic of China, is expected to play the central role in this effort. However, whether it is the ITU or some other UN agency is immaterial because it will still be the UN in the end.
But, why the UN? Because it is the fountainhead of the plans and operations to establish Technocracy as the sole global economic system while destroying capitalism and free enterprise. Technocracy is the issue here. Others know it as Sustainable Development or Green Economy, but the correct historical term is Technocracy.
In February 2015, the head of climate change at the UN, Christiana Figures, stated, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”[emphasis added]
What is unclear about this? Sustainable Development, or Technocracy, is a resource-driven economic model regulated by energy rather than by supply and demand plus monetary currencies. In 1938, the original Technocrats defined Technocracy as “the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.”
To achieve its Utopia goals, the UN must have ICANN’s steering wheel and throttle. But while everyone is stressing over Internet censorship of web sites and the suppression of free speech, the real prize is completely overlooked: The Internet of Things (IoT). In terms of “follow the money”, IoT is expected to generate upwards of $3 trillion by 2025 and is growing at a rate of at least 30 percent per year. In other words, it is a huge market and money is flying everywhere. If the UN can figure out a way to tax this market, and they will, it will provide a windfall of income and perhaps enough to make it self-perpetuating. Currently, the UN is financed by contributions from member states. Read More
Patrick M. Wood, Editor-in-Chief of Technocracy.News
Patrick is also the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation. He is a frequent guest on radio programs around the world, and is the leading spokesman for resistance against the implementation of Technocracy.

Tom DeWeese: The Equator Principles and Sustainable Poverty

The Equator Principles and Sustainable Poverty “The people who just want to improve their lives and have simple things like running water and heated homes…”

by Tom DeWeese

This article was first published in The DeWeese Report in January of 2013. Nothing has changed since then except taxes are higher, government is more powerful and there are more poor in the world as the attack on free market capitalism increases. Corporations that play the Sustainability game are not free enterprise. They are its enemy. The assault continues.  -Tom DeWeese

The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” Michael Oppenheimer (Environmental Defense Fund)

The reminders are put in front of us everyday. Poverty in the world. How horrible. Starving children. Unimaginable hardships. Hopelessness. SOMEONE MUST DO SOMETHING!

Of course, the answer for the world leadership is to throw money at the problem, either through volunteer charity programs or mandatory taxation. The problem is, after subjecting us all to this redistribution of wealth in order to sentence the poor to a lifetime of breadlines, the only thing that changes is that we have more and more poor.

What other way is there? How do we eliminate these horrible conditions and create jobs in these very poor countries? Well, in a recent article I argued that “Private Property Ownership is the Only Way to Eradicate Poverty.” It is. But there must also be a workable infrastructure of electricity, clean water, commerce and transportation in place as well. One must have these things to provide jobs, health, and an upgraded standard of living for the means to purchase private property, after all.

Read 
Tom DeWeese’s book, “Erase: A Political Thriller”

So, it seems that a good place to start the process of eradicating world poverty and ending the bread lines would be for international companies to begin to invest in such an infrastructure. Building power plants and water treatment plants would lead to the development of housing, schools, shopping malls. Better roads would spring up as people would need to get to the newly created jobs. Farmers would need to employ new ways to increase their output to feed new mouths as people from other regions would arrive seeking the much needed jobs.

Prosperity and hope would overtake poverty and hopelessness. It’s the very system that helped to make the United States the richest nation on earth with the highest standard of living. Finally, instead of depending on us for their daily ration of bread, these people would be able to help, not only themselves, but others in need as well. The entire world could begin to move toward a global prosperity, which our leaders say is their goal.

There’s only one problem. Poverty is unacceptable only as long as it doesn’t hurt the environment! What? Say that again? Yes, you heard me. If such action to end poverty and improve people’s lives is somehow a threat to the world-wide plan for Sustainable Development, then such development is not to be considered. Read More

Read Tom Deweese’s Bio

Back to Homepage

The Failure of the Green State Religion

The Failure of the Green State Religion

by Bill Lockwood

America does indeed have an official state church. It is the Green Environmental Sect which preaches the Gospel of Sustainability. Effectively, for all practical purposes, it has become the endorsed “religion” of the state and has supplanted Christian precepts in the minds of our indoctrinated youth. The ideals of the Sustainability Movement with a socialist-style utopia has displaced academic freedom and transformed students into firebrands for Global Governance.

It might be well here to remind ourselves that our nation repudiated the concept of a state-sponsored religion. The idea that tax monies would be confiscated to support a particular doctrine whether or not the citizens believed that doctrine was to fall into the same European trap from which the founders of this nation fled. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, if Christianity be true, allow it to compete in the free-marketplace of ideas. “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God,” he advised Peter Carr. Christian welcome this test.

Free-Marketplace of Ideas

It is precisely this test, the “free-marketplace of ideas,” where the Environmental Movement of the Green Gospel fails most miserably. Led by the powers-that-be in Washington, D.C. and the Academy of Professorships from Maine to California to the U.N., sustainability activists work through government force to impose their own version of a carbon-free economy.

What exactly is “Sustainability?” It is not simply care for the “environment,” though it includes that. The word “marks out a new and larger ideological territory in which it is claimed curtailing economic, political, and intellectual liberty is the price that must be paid to ensure the welfare of future generations” (Sustainability: Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism; An Executive Summary of a Report by the National Association of Scholars, 2015).

Jeffrey Sachs, one of the original analysts of “global development,” served for twelve years as director of Earth Institute at Columbia University and has spent thirteen years advising the United Nations secretary-general on the Millennium Development Goals, recently wrote a textbook calling for “global justice” entitled The Age of Sustainable Development. Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon writes the forward. Sachs explains very clearly what is involved in Sustainability.

It is “governance” (read, “government”) that will “motivate” (p. 486) member-states to “End extreme poverty, including hunger” by “giving support for developing countries.” “Giving,” according to socialists, really means “forcibly extracting monies from citizens” to apply to projects in which they believe. This is how the Democratic Party has used the word “investment.” A cloaked concept meaning forced taxation. When you are forcibly taxed for their projects you are “investing!”

Involved in Sachs’ plan is the goal to “achieve gender equality…and human rights for all.” ObamaCare and Nationalized Health Care are small measures. He calls for “Universal health coverage” (p. 487) and implementation of global policies to “help individuals make healthy and sustainable decisions regarding diet, physical activity, and other individual or social dimensions of health.”

But all of that does not really spell out in one bottom line the question, “What is Sustainability?” Sachs unveils much of it with this: “Curb human-induced climate change and ensure sustainable energy” (p. 488). To accomplish this he finalizes plans to “transform governance for sustainable development” (p. 489). In other words, Sustainability means forcibly rationing resources and controlling human activity. And Sachs tells us what this requires: “GOOD GOVERNANCE” (p. 502). A clarion call for World Government.

Another founding father’s words come to mind here: George Washington. “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master.” World mastery over all human activity is what the global environmental movement is about.

The Brundtland Report

In 1987 a United Nations report was issued entitled Our Common Future. It is better known as the Brundtland Report. “It united environmentalism with hostility to free markets and demands for ‘social justice’” (NAS Report). The Brundtland Report defined Sustainable Development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

This means, of course, that a “global governing body” must “watch over” the amount of energy and resources that we use and forcibly limit those nations (America) that seem to splurge by utilizing too many natural resources. Freedom causes “splurging,” therefore the “splurgers” must be “mastered.” Those societies must be transformed from the top down. “Development involves a progressive transformation of economy and society.”

That transformation has been underway for a long period. There are over 1,400 degree programs at 475 colleges and universities in 65 states and provinces focused on or relating to sustainability studies. The number of institutions which are “signatories” of the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, obliging them to eliminate or offset 100% of all greenhouse gases emissions and to integrate sustainability into the curriculum is 697.

Middelbury College offers 422 courses in sustainability—about 25% of all course offerings. Cornell University offers 290 sustainability courses, 13% of all course offerings. More than 400 student-led fossil fuel divestment campaigns are active on campuses across the United States. These figures are just the tip of the iceberg.

A Religion

At root level, Sustainability is the primary doctrine of a failed Green Environmental Religion. It includes the preaching of virtue: “Thrift and forethought.” “Sin” is the selfish usage of resources. America is the chief sinner. “Places like the United States are causing far more damage and risk than other parts of the world” (Sachs, 394). “The United States, … needs to learn to live sustainably” (p. 485).

Not only is Environmentalism a religion, but it is a weak and failed religion that can only rely on government force to “sustain” itself. Its “sustainability doctrine” cannot depend upon mere persuasion and preaching in an open market-place of ideas but, like the Roman Church of the Middle Ages, depends upon government-enforced edicts.  Academic freedom is lost. “[On] matters such as global warming, the campus version of sustainability replaces debate with doctrinaire declaration and enforces the party line” (NAS Report, 3). No open discussion. No debate. No reasoning. No examining upon what evidence the pretensions of the ideas are founded. Only government edicts that “the debate is closed.” Collegiate indoctrination is all about the transfer of governing power: Global Governance.

Back to Homepage