Limitless Nexus
Search site

exhibition Info
New World Order - Ancient Plan of Secret Societies

Type: Literature (pdf)

Submitter: [anonymous]

Category: Essays - Government / Politics

Exhibition Date: 2018-08-08 17:57:18 MST

Views: 9

Score: 5.00 / 5.00
(Based on 1 votes.)

Rate this exhibition

Actions

Sponsor
 


Exhibition

Submitter's Comment
Disturbing Plans the Illuminati, CFR & their other fronts are trying.

stillwilliamtR
172
Did the secret societies lose th~ inside tr:~ek <1ftcr the death t)f
Roosevelt? Hardlv. His well kno\vn th.1t his successor, 1-l<~rrv Truman.
was a Mason. A beautiful portrait of Truman dressed in fuil Masonic
garb is still displayed in Masonic lodges throughout the United States.
When Roosevelt died unexpect~dly, former Missouri senator and
vice-president Harry S. Trum.1n w,1:; thrust into the limelight. In the
eyesoftheCFR, Truman was more than a bit unprcparl:~l fort he job, but
under its watchhtl tutelege, he blossomed quickly ar.d dependably.
Within six months, in !at•~ 1945, President Truman Jispatchcd General
Marshall to ·China on <ln emergency mission. T!l:! Nationalist
regime of Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek had been a f;-~ithful .1lly oi the
United States. Chiang had been fighting a biti:er war with Chinc::;c
Communists, led by Mao Tse-tung, for four years. Stalin had secretly
agreed with Roosevelt to redirect some of the Lend-Lease supplies sent
by the United States to Mao, tohelptheCommunistcausethere. Despite
this, Chiang had fought well and was about to deliver the Communists
a crushing debacle.~1
Marshall's job was to literally snatch victory from the jaws of dcfcilt.
Marshall, like Eisenhower, was an obscure colonel until FOR's presidency,
when he rose past dozens of senior officers to become Chief of
Staff.
Threatening to withdraw U.S. support, Marshall negotiated truces
with the Communists against Chiang's wilL He was then forced to
accept Communists into his government. Finally, after Mao had time to
regroup and began to seize more territory, Marshc.ll slapped a weilpons
embMgo on the faithful ilnd bewildered Chiang.~'
From that point on, the CFR propaganda line repeated ad-nauseum
in the American press was that Chiang was a corrupt dictator, while
Mao was an "agrariiln reformer." This propaganda w~s disseminated
by the CFR affiliate for Far 'Eastern affairs, the Institute of Pacific
Relations {[PR).~!
In 1952, the FBI raided the offices of their journal Amerasia, and later
reported to the Senate Ju<:liciary Committee:
The Institute of Pacific Relations was a vehicle used by the
Communists to orient American Far Eastern policies toward
Communist ob-jectives. Members-of the small core of officials and staff
members who contr-ol-led IPR were either Communist or proCommunistY

ln t948,Congress voted $125miUioninmilitaryaid.toChiang,but the
Truman administi'ation managed -to .bog it down in "fed -tape until
Chi.1ng'-s defeat. He fled to Taiwan where he made it a bastion -of
fn~edom that outJproduced .the-entire Chinese mainland. Mao, on .the
othe~hand,instituted a Communist .dictatorship and slaughtered tens
of miHions of victims in countless, bloody purges.
---------------
TH!RT££!\- W\VII AND T H £ O\ ~tUKIST A FTERMATH 173
On January 25, 1949,Congressma nJohn F. Kennedy made an impassioned
speech on the floor of the House. He said the responsibility for
the China debacle rested "squarely with the Vv'hite House and the
Department of State. The continued insistence that aid \·'>'ould not be
fo rthcoming, unless a coalition government,vith theCon•munists were
formed, was a crippling blov: to the Nationa l Government."'4
James Perloff stated in Shadows of Power tha t there would never have
been a Korea n \:Var \'-'ere it not for the machina tions of Roosevelt a nd his
CFR political ideologues that brought Russia into the Pacific theater.
When North Korea troops a ttacked across the thirty-eighth parallel,
Tru man and Ma rshall did wha tever thev could to aid their advance.
Believe it or not, a f.ter General MacArtl{u r drove the North Koreans
back to the Ya lu River, Truman actua lly ordered the U.S. Navy to
prevent Chaing's military from attacking mai nland China. This allowed
China to send all its forces into ba ttle across the Yalu River.
As if that weren't enough, to halt the Chinese advance, l\1ac.Art.hur
ordered the Yalu's bridges bombed. \Vithin hours, General Marshall
cou ntem1anded that order! MacArthu r was furious:
I realized fo r the first time that I had actually been den ied the use of
my fu ll military power to safeguard the lives of my soldiers and the safety of my anny ... it...left me w ith a sense of inexpressible shock.'"
According to MacArthur's memoirs, General Lin Piao, comma nder
of Chinese forces in Korea, would later comment:
I never \'>'ould have made the attack and risked my men and my
military reputation if I had not been assured that \Vashington \\'Ould
restrain General MacArthur from taking adequate retaliatory measures
against m y lines of supply and communication.'"
THE UNITED NATIONS
On April25, 1945, just thirteen days after the dea th of Roosevelt, and
twelve days before the surrender of Germany; fifty nations-met in San
Francisco to consider the new United Nations Charter. In attendance
\·vere at least forty-sev.en CFR members among the American delegates,
including Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, both of v,rhom would
later be uncovered as Soviet spies. Also included in the entourage v-.'ere
such notables as Nelson Rockefeller and John Foster Dulles:"
TI1eCommunist Party USA strongly supported the United Nations
idea. In the April 1945 edition of their official theoretical journal,
Political Affairs, the marching·or.ders were given:
-Great popular support and enthusiasm for the United Nations
policies should be built up, well organized and fully articulate. But it
is a lso necessary to do more than -that. The opposition must be
·rendered so impotent that it will be unable to gather any significant
-support in -the Senate against the United N ations Charter and the treaties which will follow.
4
s
174 NEW WORLD ORDER
On June 26, 1945, President Harry Truman signed the new United
Nations Charter. On December 14,1946, the U.N. accepted a gift of$8.6
million from John D. Rockef-eller, Jr., to buy the eighteen acres of land
along the East River in New York City upon which their current
building sits. The next year, the U.S. Congress approved a $65 million
interest-free loan to finance the construction of the U.N. buildings.
As banker James Warburg, the son of Council on Foreign Relations'
founder Paul Warburg, confidently told the United States Senate on
February 17, 1950: "We sha 11 have world government whether or not we
like it. The only question is, whether world government will be achieved
by conquest or consent.-~9
FOURTEEN
THE PRESENT
Although \'\1orld War II ended in 1945 with the American public
thoroughly tired of hostilities, conquest by force of arms did not. The
Soviet Communists not only swept up half of Europe, b~1t went after a
substantia l part of the rest of the world as well, many times under the
banner of their newly created United Nations. VVith Roosevelt's stamp
of approval, and Truman's tacit approval, Communism made great
strides on many fronts. Obviously, Communists thought their New
World Order \·vas within relatively easy grasp if only they could move
qu ickly enough before America '"'oke up to the deception.
Few Americans had the political sophistication to see through the
sham. Foremost among those who did was the brilliant American
general GeorgeS. Patton, who at one pointannounc-ed that he was fully
prepared to drive his Third Army straight totheheartofMoscow to rout
out the Bolsheviks. Unfortunately, General Patton died prematurely in
1945 in a freak automobile accident in Germany.
In 1950, a Republican Senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy,
made allegations that the State Department was harboring Communists.
President Truman, a Democrat, and Secretary of State Dean
Acheson denied McCarthy's charges, but many Americans believed
they were true. ·
By 1953, when General Dwight D. Eisenhmver became president,
McCarthy accused his administration of treason. By 1954, nationally
televised hearings were underway to air the accusations. During these
hearings, McCarthy, also claimed that there was a deep-penetration
Sovi~t spv nehvork at work in America.
178 :'\t:w \VoKI.Il ()Ktlt:K
employment in the State Department. hJd corKcJ led information <tbou t
his past, including an unresolved illlegation th,lt he hild been connected
with the Cuban Communist Pilrty many yeilrs beiore. Otepka <1lso
discovered that Wieland h<1d concealed evidence that Castro was a
Communist. Otepka described the attitudes of some at the State Departmcnt:

Ther~ was just a prepondt.'rilrKe oi evidence showing th,lt fid:!l
Castro was a Communist. Yet, WiJJiJm Wieland was ad\·ising his
~upe iors ... tha~ there was no evidence thil~ Ca~tro was a Communi~t.
Jnd that we !ihould seL'k ''" .xcomr1wdil~iou with CJstro, anc..i gt.:t rid
ui ... Uatista.
When all of this was brought out in my l'Valuiltit>n report. I iound
out thilt Wiel<~nd had his supporters upst.1irs who immt.•diatcly .:arne
to his rescue, who didn't want these iacts to come out."
Otto Otepka was immediately reassigned, and the State Department
tried to force his resignation. He was moved to a small office and given
the tedious task of indexing the Congressional Rt:cord. In the end, Otepka
was vindicated, but conditions at the Stilte Department did not change.
Williilm Wielilnd was promoted, <tnd Otto Otcpka never <lg(lin served
as Security Evalu<1tor and in fact, the job itself w<1s abolished.w
Allowing Fidel Castro to transform Cub,, into thefirstSoviet military
foothold in the Western Hemisphere w,1s the greatest outrage of the
Eisenhower administration.
In 1957, when Castro was fighting il guerrilla \Vilr against military
di~tato:- Fulgencio Batista, he promised the Cuban people freedom. New
York Times journalist Herbert L. Matthews, a CFR member, depicted
Castro as the George Washington of Cub<1 in a series of articles. The
media portrait painters repeated the S<tme rd.rains they had used less
than a decade earlier on Chiang Kai-shek. Batist<t was depicted as a
corrupt tyrant, while Castro, accor-ding to Matthews, was "a man of
ideals" with Vstrong ideas of liberty, democmcy, social justice." 11
Howev.er, to the newspaper's credit, it also pub(,ished, in-1979, a letter
from former U.S. Ambassador to Cuba Ear-_1 E.T. Smith in which Smith
stated:
Castro could not have seized power in Cuba without the aid of t·he
United States. American government agencies and the United States
press played a major role in bringing Castro to power ... .The State
Department consistently intervened ... to bring about the downfall
of ... Batista, therebv making it possible.forFide!Castro t<> take-over the
Governmen t of Cuba.
1
z
After being asked to abdicate by President Eisenhower, Batista left
office on December 31, 1958. The next year, Castro, the new leader of
.Cuba, spoke to the CFR members in New Y-ork at their headquarters at
Pra-tt House. Within three years, he had Soviet missiles pointed at the
USA. 13
FouRT££:--;-T HE PR£st::;-;T 179
AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL SYST.EM
As important and sensational as these political revela tions are, the
nd vocntes of the New \Vorld Order have also been busy fighting equally
importa nt battles within the borders of the United States. Key to their
long-range plans is the remaking of the Americau educational system.
Since religion, especially Christianity, is anathema to their plans,
references to it have been removed from American public education on
the g round s that religion must not be forced upon children. In the place
o i Christia nity, howe\'er, the time-\,·orn "religion of reason" of the
secret societies, now known generally as "humanism," has been
inserted . Piece by piece, the nation's educators are being convinced to
teach n system that grows e\'er closer to the agend a set forth by
Weishaupt and Marx.
Why highlight the religious aspect? Because that is the crux of the
issue.lf a man can be brought to accept atheism- thc:t thE!re is no Godthen
the need fo r m.orality totally d isa ppeCirs. Why should we be moral
if there is no God to bring us to accoun t for our actions in this life or the
nP.xt?
Once this philosophica l underpinning for morality is broken dovm,
men can be convinced to justify any action because to them, the ends do
justify any means. Th is is w hy the most effective opposition to Communism
has been the Church. Certainlv, that is the wav :vfarxists view it.
Karl Marx wrote, "We make war aga'inst all prevailiri'g ideas of religion,
of the sta te, of country, of patriotism. The idea of God is the keynote of
a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed."14 Lenin also proclaimed
Atheism to be an integral part of Communism. 15
Professor Paul Vitz of New York University has studied hO\'v
traditional American values have been eliminated from American
textbooks:
Studies make it abundantly clea; that public school textbooks
commonly exclude the l>istory, heritage, beliefs, and values of millions
o f Americans. Those who believe in the traditional familv are not
represented. Those who believe in free enterprise are not rep'resented.
Those whose politics are conservative are almost unrepresented.
Above all, those who are committed to their religious tradition-at the
very least as an important part of the historical record- are not
represented. 1
b
HO\·vever, such was certainly not the case in years past. In eighteenth
century America, The New E11gland Primer and McGuffey's Eclectic Reader
\-\'ere the backbone of grammar school education. Even in that day, the
la tter sold 120 m illion copies. The Christian orientation of both these
volumes \•vas clear. McGuffey said in his Eclectic Reader, "The Ten
Commandments and the teachings of Jesus Christ are not onlybasicbut
plenary." 17
180
Dr. W.P.Shofst<~lLst<~t~superint~nd~nt iorpuolicschoob in r\rizonil
in 1973 said, 'The Atheists hilve, for all practic.1l purposes, t,lken over
public education in this country.! C<tnnot help but remember th~ words
of the Scripture which says: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no
God."'"
~izing {he education,\ I system of,, n.1tion is nothins nt:\, .. ~l.ls<.mry
beg<m simibr work a century ago in !tilly. On April 20, I SK-i. i>ope Leo
XIJI sent out an E:-~cvcJical Letter on Freemasonrv to all "brethren, all
PatriMches, Primate~, Archbishops. ;md Bishops of the Catholic world."
A portion of the letter read:
\l.lsonry .1lso Jttl·mpts to control thl· eJu,·.:~tion oi youth, ,\nJ nh>ld
it to its own g~less pnttern. So the Church is allowed nn sh<~rt..' in
Nucntion, ilnd in milny plnces Milsonry has succeeded in pl<~cing it
entirely in the hnndsoflnymen,and hil:; bilnished fro:n mor;:~l teach ins
all mention of man's duties to God.'~
REWRITING U.S. HISTORY
In America, the task of Masonrv to redefine the ve~lues which would
be t<~ught to the next generation.\\'<IS prodigious indeed, requiring i1
huge investment. The plan operated for milny ye<~rs, however, before
being discovered.
In 195-l, a speci<1l Congressional Committee investigated the interlocking
web of tax-exempt foundations to see what imp<~ct their grants
were having on the Amef'iC<In psyche. "T:he Committee stumbled onto
the fact that some of these groups had embarked upon a gigantic project
to rewrite American history and incorpor<~te it into new school textbooks.

Norman Dodd, the Committee's Rese<~rc h Director, found in the
archives of theCa rnegie Endowment for I nterna tiona I Pe<~ce the follo,.;-
ing remarkable statement of purpose:
The only way to maintain control of the popula tion was to obtain
control of education in the U.S. They re<Jiized ti1is was a prodigious
task so they approached the Rockefeller Foundation with the suggestion
that they go in tandum an"tl that portion of education which could
be considered ns domestically oriented be t;:~ken over by the Rockefeller
Foundation and that portion which was oriented to Intemation.1l
matters be taken over be the Carnegie Endowment.:<)
The Rockefeller Found<1tion agreed to take on the domestic portion
of the task. The purpose of all this interest .in history, wns.of-course, to
re\vri.te it. D~d.explained:
Th.ey.cfecided that the suc-cess of this progr.1m l.1y in an altt:riltion in
the manner in which American history was to be pres.:-nted. They then
approached four of the then most-prominent histori:Jns - such ils
Mary and Charles Benrd - with the suggestion thilt they alter the
manner in which they were accustomed to presentir.g the subject.
They {were! turned down flat, so ... they decicie they [ h.1d I to build a
FOL'RTE£:-\- THE PR£SEI'\T 181
coterie of historia ns of their own selection.
21
The Guggenheim Foundation agreed to av,rard fellowships to historians
recommended by the Carnegie Endovm1en t. Gradually, through
the 1920s, they assembled a group of twenty promising young academics,
and took them to London. There they briefed them on what was
expected of them when they became professors of American history.
That twen tv were the nucleus of what \·vas eventualiv to become the
American I~is orica l Associa tion.
22 ·
In 1928, the American Historica l Association \vas s ranted 5400,000
by the Carnegie Endowment to write a seven-vol ume study on the
direction the r.atiQn \·vas to take. The thrust of these books, according to
Dodd, was that "the future of this coun try belongs to collectivism and
humanism." 2
'
Dodd concl uded from his study tha t these tax-exempt foundations
- by virtue of the fac t that they pay for tl}ese studies -lay at the heart
of a group determined to destroy the United States.
2
'
These educational cha nges \·'>'ere applied very gradually, so as not to
alarm the &eneral American populace, but they have been documented.
This, in tandum '"'ith state and federal court decisions in the later half
of the twentieth century, has proven very effective at achieving this
goal. Masonry is still very active in the area of education. An excell ent
book on the subject is Paul A. Fisher's Bchi11d the Lodge Door.
Perhaps the greatest advantage the forces of the New World Order
possess is that they knov,• they a reatwar. America, a t best, only suspects
it. How the Nev.; VVorld Order will be manifested in the next century
c?. nno t be predicted, but one thing is clear: secret societies ,:.,rill continue
to masquerade as benign, humanitarian organizations and to attack
critics who penetrate their disguise.
Although Freemasonry has been red uced. to a level ofless importance
in the twentieth century than it held in the sevenfef?nth, eighteenth, and
nineteenth centuries, it is·still far from benign.
Anglo-American Masons are outraged by the implication that there
is anything nefarious about their modern-day organization. Theydaim
that Anglo-American Freemasonry, as currently constituted, \·vas not
founded until 1717, when four lodges united under the Grand Lodge of
England. This may well be the case, and the British were merely trying
to divest themselves of the debaucheries of Continental Masonry.
But why then, if they were trying to divest themselves of their past,
did they keep the blood oaths, secret handshakes, passwords, symbolism,
and even the name of their parent craft? In fact, it is difficult for the
student to see just v,•hat was changed, other than the half-hearted
inclusion of the Bible a nd a few references to God who they prefer tocaU
the "Great Architect of the Universe." It strains credibility to believe
...
182 NEW WORLD ORDER
that-their ultimate goals have changed when little else has.
Those of us who criticize, however, must remember to never paint
the members of these organizations with too broad a brush. Fortunately,
there are very few completely evil men in this world. The vast
majority of members in these groups are merely deceived. Their minds
can be changed when presented with the truth. It's important to
remember that the people best able of helping defeat the machination:;
of the secret societies are its members.
NIXON REVISITED
The theory that President Nixon did not deserve the imag~ of th~
conservative anti-Communist he so carefully cultivated in th·~ me..iia
has been outlined in-chapter one. In light of the preceding material, this
may not be as implausible a theory as it may have initially appeared to
be.
Nixon, like Truman, was <otpartoftheCFRinsidercrowd at the start
of his political life. But like Eisenhower and Marshall before him, he too
enjoyed a meteoric rise to power. He went from small-town lawyer in
1946 to vice-president-elect of the United States in 1952.
Nixon was propelled into a California congressional sea t when the
ten-year Democratic incumbent, Jerry Voorhis, had the courage to
introduce a bill calling for the elimination of the Federal Reserve
System, and then denounced deficit spending in his book, Out of 0 1:'/lt.
Out of Danger. According to Voorhis, in October 1945, a representative
for a large New York financial house flew to California to help assemble
support for Nixon. Voorhis was vilified by this emissary as "one of the
most dangerous men in Washington" thanks· to his stand on the Federal
Reserve and deficit spending.D
Nixon won the congressional seat in 1946. In 1947, he introduced a
remarkable piece of legislation which called for the United Nations to
be able to enact, interpret, and enforce world law to prevent war.:~
In 1950, in a campaign so dirty that it gave him his nickname "Tricky
Dick," Nixon won a seat in the U.S. Senate. Once there, he did play a
minor role·in exposing Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy, but exnggerated his
ro)e·significantly, thereby creating an anti-Communist image which he
later parlayed into the vice-president-ial nomination on the Eisenhower
ticket in 1952.
Many traditional Republicans were looking to support Sen<~ tor Robert
Taft of Ohio, :;on of thcformer'Prcsidcnt, who was considering running
with ·General MacArthur in the V.P. slot. General MacArthur hild
f'ocke~cd to stardom due to his cri-ticism of Trum<~n's conduct of the
Kor-ean WM, and had subsequently been .fired by Tn1man. Thi:;,)ction,
howevc.r, -.vas so unpopular that Truman did not seek reelection.
Democratic contender 'Senator Ad~ai E. Stevenson was easily defcilted
FouRTEE:-.-TH~:: PRESE:-.'T 183
by Eisenhower and 0!ixon, '"'ho then served as vice-president for eight
years.
In 1961, after losing the presiden tial race to John Kennedy, Nixon
joined the Council on Foreign Relations. He dropped his membership
in 1965 to run fo r governor of California against Pat Brown, w hen that
membership became a hot political issue in the race. After losing this
race, most observers mistakenly thought Richard Nixon was washed
up.
But not so. He moved in next c!oor to Nelson Rockefeller in his
apartment building at 310 Fifth A\·enue in New York. Nixon took a
prestigious job in a Jaw firm working under Rockefdler's personal
attorney, John Mitchell. In 1967, the CFR signaled that Nixon had its
support in the upcoming 196S elections by allowing hi:n to publish an
article in the October 1967 edition of its journal Forei~n Affairs. Nixon
wrote that after Vietnam, Asia needed "to evolve regional approaches ... to
the evolution of a new world order:·=~
Syndica ted columinist Roscoe Drummond noted in 1969: "The most
significan t political fact of the hour is now so evident it ca n't be seriously
disputed: President Richard M. Nixon is a 'secret liberal."' 25
Onceelected,Nixon seta new record; he appointed 110CFRmembers
to government posts. In addition, he appointed Henry Kissinger, "the
Council's most influential member," as his national s~cu rity ?.dvisor
because Nelson Rockefeller said he \ViiS "the smartest suy available." 29
By 1970, Kissinger stood accused of having been a Soviet agent by the
highest-ra nki ng Polish agent ever to defect to the \Nest, Michal
Goleniewski. The CIA was made aware of these· charges by British
cou nterintelligence, but CIA counterintelligence chi.ef James Jesus
Angleton never pursued the accusa tions, and even tried to discredit
Goleniewski as not being a genuine defector.30 Angleton later died
mysteriously in a boating accident. Some believe, ho.wever, that he
merely faked his death and actually defected to the Soviet Union. In
their 1989 book Widows, \Nilliam R. Corson, Susan B. Trento, and Joseph
]. Trento claimed :
No fo llow-up im·estigation of Kissinger was done. Angleton
d iscredited the Goleniewski report with the FBI. No one seemed willing to order an investigation into the President's National Security
Adviser at a time when Kissinger seemed to be gaining N ixon's total
confidence.>1
In 1977, the most important American "mole" insid e the Soviet
government had been compromised, and CIA counterintelligence expert
Leonard V. McCoy was assigned the task of investigating it by CIA
d irector Admiral Stansfield Turner. During this investigation, McCoy,
the number-two man in CIA counterintelligence, d iscovered that Henry
Kissinger, then out of government, had been advising Soviet Ambassa-
184
dor Anatoly Dobrynin on how to deal with the new Carter administrJtion
in the ongoing SALT ii negotiations.~2
McCoy was shocked. "The idea that a former Secretary of State and
National Security Adviser would meet alone, as a private citizen, with
the Soviet Ambassador to discuss negotiating techniques seemed ill most
beyond belief to McCoy." 33 He later revealed to CIA analyst David S.
Sullivan that "the only way to describe Kissinger's actions ... w,ls tr~<'­
son."l-1 McCoy's report to Admiral Turner was sent on to the While
House.
For h!s efforts, McCoy was dragged in fr0nt of Admiral"lurn~r and
his deputy, Frank Carlucci. He was summarily reduced one civil :;en· ice
grade, effectively putting an end to his CIA career:'' lncidL>ntally,
Admiral Turner was widely considered by both McCoy i\nd other
intelligence professionals to be a pompous i\matcur. Carlucci, who was
later to become Secretary of Defense under Presid ent Reagan, is widely
considered by professio~tals in the field to be nothing more than "
consummate bureaucrat, and therefore a poor clioice for any ddense/
intelligence role. McCoy, on the other hand is still widely respected in
intelligence circles . .)(,
FIFTEEN
THE CoNSTITUTIONAL AssAULT
Though surprisingly fev·.' people are aware of it, one of the greatest
dangers to American freedoms is the threat of a consti :ution<d com•ention,
and tax-exempt foundations have sponsored the attempt several
times this century.
There are only two \·vays of changing the U.S. Constitution: (1) By a
two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, or (2) If t·.vo-thirds of the
state legislatures pass resolutions for a constitutional convention.
After the resignation of President Nixon in August, 1974, the push
began to have two-thirds of the state legislatures pass resolutions
asking Congress to call a constitutional convention, as stipulated in
Article Five of the U.S. Constitution. In 1975 the first six states did so.1
Only four years later, a total of thirty of the necessary thirty-four
states passed resolutions calling for a constitutional convention, but
getting the last four states proved to be difficult. By 1983, the total stood
at thirty-two of the needed thirty-four. Since then, three states have
rescinded their calls for a {;Onvention, but there is confusion over
whether t-hese withdrawals will be ignored or considered legally valid .
Legal scholars differ over ~~hether there is a time limit restricting
these ·resolutions. Some say the resolutions of the first six states to
appr-ove a ·Con-Con call will run out in 1991. Others say they are
operative in perpetuity unless rescinded. Opponents fear that it is just
a maUer-ohime-before the overwhelming financial, organiza tiona!, a nd
political power·of the Con-Con proponents convinces the additional
states to pass Con-Con resolutions.
186 NEW WORLI) ORI>ER
Although the battle rages every year in the remaining eighteen state
kgisbtures \.,;hich have yet to issue, calls, details of the Con-Con battle
rarely appeilr in the media.
Even the legislators are frequently confused. Proponents of the ConCon
always fraudulently claim that the convention will be limited to a
sin~lc issue. Of the thirtv-two states which h;we passed Con-Con
"b~dget" resolutio:1s, ho~ever, twenty of them have also issued calls
for a convention to consider a Right-To-Life amendment. You certainly
c<1n't have it both ways. Whatever the issue, all the legislators are
incorrecdv told that the entire Constitution would not be opened for
m<lssive change.
Former Chid Justice of the U:S. Supreme Court, Warren Burger, is
outspoken in his criticism of the Con-Con. In a January 30,1987 speech
in Detroit, he said, "There is no way to put a muzzle on a constitutional
convention "~
Less than nine months after the thirty-second state called for a -ConCon,
former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird was concerned enough
to write an ilrticle in the Washington Post in which he outlined the
dnngers of a constitutional convention:
There is no certainty that our nation would survive a modern-day
convention with its basic structures intact and its citizen's traditional
rights retained. The convening of a federal constitutional convention
would be an act .fraught with danger and recklessness .... there is little
or no historical or constitutional guidance as to its proper powers and
scope.'
Those who think a Con-Con could be r-estricted to just one issue, ·
would do well to consider Secretary Laird's analysis:
The only precedent we have for a constitutional convention took
place in Philadelphia in 1787. That convention, it must be remembered,
broke every legal restraint designed to limit its power an<~ ageAda.•
The Dean of the Wiiliam and Mary Law School, former U.S. Senalor
William B. Spong, Jr. wrote in 1987:
It is doubtful that a modem convention could be limited.to a single is~ue. There is no .guarantee that, once the de1egates are conv.ened,
Pandora's box would not be opened by groups concerned with a
sing.le inter.est, placing at ,risk all of the language of our Constitution,
including the Bill of Rights.5
It must be pointed out tha tmost state legislatures who have voted for
a Con-Con have done so with the best intentions, but with little thought
for the larger issues at hand. A'Ccording to Laird: .
lronkally, while a con·stitutionaloconven.tion-could tot«lly alter our
way oHife,the petitions·for a-convention ... ha.ve often been «ctcd upon
hastily at..thestate leg.jslature level in a cavalier.manner:Overone-half
of the states calling for a 'Convention have<ione'so without theben.e!it
of public hearings, debate{)r recorded vote. This momentous decision,
FH·TEES-Tu£ Col'STITCTIONAL ASSAULT
in ofher words, is being mad e surreptitiously, as if it cannot withstand
the scru tiny and discussion oi a concerned and intelligen t citizenry .
6
187
Why a Con-Con? The idea is not new. President Vlood rov.; V•/ilson's
closest advisor, Colonel House, thought the U.S. Constitution was the
product of eighteenth-century minds, and was so thoroughly outdated
that it should be "scrapped and rewritten."'
In 1947, two prominent CFR members, Norman Cousins and James
P. \Varburg, formed something called the United World Federalists to
try to merge the U.S. into the United Nations. Ronald Reagan v:a s
c.ssociated with the United World Federalists before he becam.:? a
conservative in the ea rly 1960s.s This group actually got twenty-seven
stt~ te legislatures to pass resolutions demand ing a Con-Con to "exped
ite and insure" U.S. participa tion in a world government. By the end
of 1950, however, most sta tes had repealed the resolutions once the
consequences of a Con-Con became clear.
In 1954, Senator William Jenner 1,·arned tht~t the Con-Con idea 1v<1 s
not dead, but only sleeping:
We have operating within our government and politicill system,
ilnother body representing another form of go,·ernment, a bureaucratic
elite which belie1·es our Constitution is outmoded and is sure that it is
the winning side ... All the strange developments in foreign policy
agreements may be traced to this group who are going to make us over
to suit their pleasure.9
In 1974, the same year that President Nixon resigned his Presidency,
Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the "academic liberals" from the old FOR
"brain trust" of the 1930s published a book called The Emerging
Constitution. It claimed that our old Constitution was too cumbersome
and needed drastic change. It proposed something called a "Constitution
for the Newstates of America." The Newstates Constitution proposed
to replace the fifty states with between ten and twenty regional Newsta tes
"which \·vould not be sta.tes at all but rather subser_yient departments of
the national governme.i1t. The government would be empov-.'ered to
abridge freedom of expression, communication, movement and assembly
in a 'declared emergency.' "10
In other words, the Bill of Rights would be discarded. In addition,
private m·vnership-of guns would be prohibited and "the bearing of
arms or the possession of lethal weapons shall be confined to the police,
members of the armed forces, and those licensed under law." Freedom
of religiOn would no longer be considered a "right," but a revokable
"privilege."
In addition, the Newstates Constitution would have given the president
of the Nevvstates of America a nine-year term, and allow him to
appoint most of the lOO Senat.ors to lifetime terms. The House of
Repres~.ntatives would have 100 members elected at-large as a single
188 Nr..w W01u.u OROF.R
ti(kd with the president and vice-president (for nine-year terms). 11
In the 1970s the Ford Foundation spent 525 million over ten years to
produce n nd promote the Newsta tes Constitution. In late 197~, something
called the World Affairs Council sponsored the preparation of a ne\v
foundina document which was called "A Declaration Of n INTERdept.'nJen(~·-" Written byC~ member HenrySteel:C~msma~e,r,
it was meant to replace the DeclaratiOn of Independence m time for 1t s
200th birthdav at a ceremony in Philadelphia in 1976. The declaration
inclt.ides the following:
Tw(n:enturies <~go our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now
we mu5t j0in with others ~o bring forth a new world order ... To
establish<~ new world order of compassion, peace, justice and security,
it is essentiJI that mankind free itself from the limitations of national
prejudice and acknowledge that. .. all people are part of one global
community.
We call upon all nations to strengthen and to sustain the United
Nations and its specialized agencies, and other institutions of world
order...that we may preside over a reign of law that will not only end
wnrs but end as well that mindless violence which terrorizes our society
even in times of peace. 11
This was signed by more than 100 U.S. Senators .and Congressmen,
including Senator Charles Mathias, also a memberofbothCCSand the
CFR; Senator Alan Cranston, "CFR; and Senator Clairbome Pel!, CFR
Also signing were House members Paul Simon, Patricia Schroeder,
Louis Stokes, Edward Boland, and Les Aspin.U
After the Declaration of INTERdependence became a subject of
controversy, many withdrew their support. But we shouldn't be too
hard on those who did support it. The world is emerging as a global
electronic community, and as the years go by the pressure to.blurr all
national distinctions will grow increasingly great in response to worldwide
environmental concerns, such as the destruction of the ozone Ia yer
of the earth's atmosphere.
The error in logic, though, is subtle and worth repeating. As predicted
in biblical prophesy, once the power vested in nations is transferred to
a single worldly authority, we can besur.e that the r.eignofthe Antichrist
will begin. Without a system of.checksandbalances, no earthly authority
is "corruption-proof."
Since 1975, as many as forty draft versivns of the revised constitution
have been prepared. ~ By 1984, a more toned-down version was
presented by. a group known as-theC-ommittee on the Gonsti.tutionill
System KCS). This has been ~he group antidpnting the results o.f th~
Con-Con drive, spearheaded by with th.e National T,1x_payc-r's
Association since 1980. TheCCS proposal includes the foHow·ing:
• Permi{ the President to dissolveCongress {when he thin·ks Congress
is intractable')
F!FT££1\-THE C O:\STITI.JTIOI\AL ASSAULT
• Eliminate the 22nd Amendment which limits a President to two
tenns.
• Reduce the cost of Presidential and Congressional elections by
holding them at irregular intervals so that the date would not be
known Yery far in advanceY
189
The true intentions of this group, however may be revealed by one of
its board members, James MacGregor Burns, a professor and historian
who in 1984 wrote the following analysis of the situation for CCS
members:
Let us face reality. The framers (of the Constitution] have simply
been too shre\,·d for us. They have outwitted us. They designed
separate institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages,
frail bridges, (or] tinkering. If we are to turn the founders upside
down ... we must d irectly confront the Constitutional stn.1cture they
erected }"
What are they after? Basically, they want power centralized. They
would like to see the concept of the separation of powers as manifested
in the current Constitution eliminated in the future. Certainly, once
power was centralized, the federal government would b~ more streamlined,
justasv·.'ould world affairsunderanempov.•ered United Nations,
bu t the result would be dictatorship in either scenario.
Regardless of the level at which it exists- from personal relations, to
the realm of the international-unchecked power leads inevitably to
tyranny. According to professor Alexander DeConde, this was the
feeling of second U.S. President John Adams, v,•ho asserted that "the
idea of government by a single legislative assembly ... was the framework
of despotism.'' 1; ·
The separation of powers.concept is that the judicial, the executive,
and the legislative branches of the federal government are separate yet
equal, and therefore it is difficult to bring to a state of dictatorship. The
U.S. Constitution even separates the Congress·into h-vo bodies. The
debate over the utility of the-separation of powers is, of course, nothing
new. lt has raged throughout the history of the United States. To John
Ad ams, a government without checks and balances was unworkable_
and, according to professor DeConde, "the first step toward anarchy."
On the other hand, to Thomas Jefferson, the concept of separation of
powers was like having "a red rag waved before an enraged bull."18
-Realizing that the separation of powers concept wiil be difficult to
eliminate, the planners of the New World Order have only two options:
A Con•Gon, where -the changes can be done in '"'holesale fashion; or a
gradual approach where changes are made slowly enough so that no
effective opposition to them .can form. Henry Hazlitt, a chief Con-Con
proponent and advisor to the National Taxpayer's Union, addressed
this vexing pr-oblem in his 1974 book A New Constitution Now:
~e yery minimum change necessary, if ourC<mstitution is to have
190
any real flexibility ... is a chan~e irom our present method oi
constitutional amendment itselt.. .. Concciv.tbl y Congres~cou lc..i ira me
a lengthy amendment prm:idin~ ior a parlinmentary iorm oi
gov.emment and submit it to the sta-te lcgislatu res or to "convent·ions"
in the present prescribed manner. But the ac..iv<1ntages of approaching
this goal by two or more steps, rather than by one, seem to me of
determining importance.'"
Of course, under the pa.rfiamentary form of government, once in
power the party can reign suprem.e. Though it has worked well in Great
Britain, it certainly didn't work so \veil in 1930s Cermilny where it
allowed Hitler to create one of the most evil dictatorships the world h,,~
ever known. ·
Who is behind all this? The CCS has a prestigious mcm bershi p roster,
with about one-third of their directors also being CFR members. The
group is chaired by C. Douglas Dillon, former Secretary of the Treasury
and a powerful Wall Street figure; Lloyd N. Cutler, former counsel to
President Jimmy Carter; and Senator Nancy Kassebaum. Other members
include former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, Seniltor
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senator Chorles Milthiils, Senator J. Williilm
Fullbright, representatives from-the Brookings Institu te, the Rockddkr
Foundation, and the Woodrow Wilson Center.:.•
Why these powerful men and women w<~nt to rildically <~Iter our wily
of government is for them alone to answer.lt is clear, however, thCI t the
forces of radical Constil'.Jtional change certainly il ppcM to be w<~iting in
the wings as s0on as the doors of the constitutional convention swing
open.
Melvin Laird wrote in a Washington Post Mtide in 1984:
The concept that a constitutional convention \~ould be hc1rmless i::;
not conservative, moderate or liberal philosophy. That concept is
profoundly radical, borneitherof naivete or theopportu nistk thl1ught
that the ends justifies the m.eans.
States still to ratify a call·for a Constitutional Convention as of early
1990 are California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.
All others have already done so. Every year that these state legislatures
mee.t, the well-paid, pro-Con-Con lobbyists are there. And every yeCI r,
ordinary citi;zens are there to oppose them, and they have been remarkably
successful.
In 1989,.the State of N.evada also <r..escinded its<aU for a Con ..Con, but
went much fur-ther-than Aorida or Alabama. Nevada actuallv 'had its
1979 call "expunged" fmm ·the r.ecord of proceedings as i(it never
existed, saying the legislature was initially led to vote for the Con~Con
·On the basis of a fraudulent r.epresenta-tion that the convention would
FIFIEE:\-THE Co~sTITLTIONAL A ssAULT 191
be limited to a single issue.21 The vote by the Nevada Assembly to
rescind its call for a constitutional convention was unanimous.
E\·en though no state has passed a Con-Con resolution since 1983, the
issuedoesn'tseem to goa,.,•ay. According to Con-Con observer Marshall
Peters:
You would think something as damning as the Nevad:J expungemen!
would stop the Con-Con movement right in its traci.;s, but they
just keep marching straight ahead. Some of the!'e people :\Te making
a living tryinb to get Con-Con p<~ssed, and as long as thl!y are being
paid by whoe,·er is paying them, the fight wilt continue. ~
If your state has already passed a resolution calling for a Con-Con,
st;ut a petition to have your state legislator introduce r. resolution to
have it withdrawn. You will be surprised that most st;1te legislators
ha,·e little or no knowledge of the resolution, and will, in most cases, be
quite e~n>:ious to jump on the issue once the simple facts are explained
to them.
If your state has not passed a Con-Con resolution, find out who is
heading up the organization to stop it in your state. If th·.? org?.niza tion
h<ts not been started, start it yourself. If your state has passed a Con-Con
resolution, work to have your state legislature rescind its ca II, as Florida
did in the spring of 1988. Basic information packets a re antilable by
writing to: Joan Collins, Coordinator, 5737 Corporate V''<~y, \!\'est Palm
Beach, FL 33407.
IN CONCLUSION
So what has been accomplished? We started out with the Nixon Coup
of 1973. It is not yet known exactly what the scope of cou p-planning was
a t that time. Surely those brazen enough to consider such a plot were
surprised and embarrassed by the swift and negative reaction by the
military officers and government officials who helped expose it a t the
time. Memoirs of several of the principals, such as Al~xander Haig, are
due out in the near future. EventUally the whole"tiuth will be knov·m,
and hopefully,·this book will have helped to. stimulate it.
Regardless, this book has offered a highly probable hypothesis -:-
that the coup-planning was merely one option being explored in the
century-old· plans of secret societies to \vrench the Constitution from the
citizens of the United States. As long as this Constitution is in place as
is, their plans· for their New World Order are much more difficult to
achieve.
Until the dawn.of..the twentieth century, this plan for a New World
Order was centered in Masonry, then Illuminated Masonry, but with
the advent of the Round Table Groups (which still exist today), and their
American brethren, the Council on Foreign Relations, the torch has
been passed from century to century.23
192
This book has shown the inii\H-..·in~:
1. There has bL'L'Il .tn L·litc ~n •u p hiddL'n within secret socidil'S fur
thousands of ye.1rs whose prim.t r;.· g(>,tl is to create a world ~overnment
which they call the ~t:w World Order. This group tries to
convince m.1nkind th,lt \\'(Hid ~overnment is necessary for \vt•rld
peace, but in reality,,, single Lq>rk! g(•\·L-r:HlWnt c.1n only lt'.td to
world d ict,ltorshi.p. This group w,tS prob,1bly n:spunsible fur cuu pplanning
Juring the :\;ixon cldtninis~r.ttion.
2. The e!ite of the secret sociL·tit:s fin,, nn:d Communism .ltld h.1s
used it ever sinCt~ tu help further their ;:u,tb. Their intllll·nce i:1
world events hils been very sign iiic,t nL n·t pr~·\·iously I itlk-known.
3. By keeping the Soviet Union str,,·nc;. t!tis group hils cost America
trillions of dollars and tens of mi!lions of I i ves. just as President
Roosevelt did in th~ 1940s with Lend-Le,lse, this group will again
try to persuade the American taxpilyer to pump billions of dollars
into the ailing Soviet economy. The United States would be wise to
consider its e0urse of action very cardu!ly.
-!. This group operates on a number of fronts. They not only try
to control international events but the dL1mestic policies of nations,
inc I ud i ng their economic, ed uca tiona!. and religious policies. Their
power is multiplied be.:-ause they have,lt least substantial influence
on the news media.
5. In order to function, this group has Lkveloped methods to
deceive normally good men. Don't be too quick to condemn these
good men. Ju st bec<luse your neighbor is a Mason, or even a
member of the prestigious CFR, that doesn't mean he is evil. Yes,
most, if not all the time, a CFR member has bought the concept of
the New World Order, but mos·t of them just don't understand that
world government by definition must culminate in world dict<ltorship.
To lump them all together, however, and ·call them all conspirators
only alienates potential friends, and ;nagnifies the strength
of the enemy.
6. This group thrives under an illusion of invincibility. Although
they are rich and power·ful, they constantly make mistakes. They
a1e not invulnerable. They do not control everything. After all, we
<tre still able to debate these questions openly. The average person
can have an effect.
7. Finally, be prepared. to deal with tl~is -issue pem1anently. The
New World Order is not going mvay. Until Jesus returns, we will
have to face it, and we will have to teac.fl our-children how to do so.
The future will be a minefield of .political trickery and spiritual deception.
We have to resign ou1selves as i nd i vid uals, and as a nation,
to oppose the New World Order as long as we can.
FwrE~:s THE Co,sTJTLTJO:>:AL Ass .. HJLT 193
Merely knO\·ving ilbout this "Great Plan" of the secret societies:-
wha t it is, who is behind it, and what thev are after in todav's worldempov.•ers
us and v-.'eakens the enemy. Like all creatu res ~£-darkness ,
they do not function well in the light of public scrutiny:
Fon,·e 1,·restlenotagainst flesh ilnd bl0od , bu t against principalities,
against p01,·ers, agil inst the ru lers of the darkness of this world,
ag<~inst spiritual 1,·ickedness in high plc.ces.
Thereiore, take up the fl:ll armor 0f God, tha t you may be able to
resist in the e1·il day, and ha vinr; done everything, to stil nd firm .
Stand fi rm therefore, having girded our loins with truth, and
hnving put on the breastplrtte of righteousness,
and ha,·ing shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of
peilce;
in ilddition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will
be able to ex tinguish ill! the ilaming missiles of the evil one.
And take the helmet of s;l]vation, and the sword of the Spirit, ,,·hich
is the word o f God.
Eph. 6:12-17

Keywords: stillwilliamt council on foreign relations, cfr, obama, romney, clinton, mccain, Illuminati

Most Recent User Comments
There are no comments for this exhibition yet.

Leave a comment
Please log in or create an account to post a comment.
Related sponsor

Related Literature

Other related exhibitions

Related links