~ Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, l950.
THE INTERNATIONAL "POLITICAL/ECONOMIC CABAL" , THOSE WHO OWN THE BANKS, THE MEDIA, INDUSTRY, OUR 'PUBLIC EDUCATION' , OUR FARMS AND RANCHES, OUR POLITICIANS AND WORLD LEADERS, WHO EVEN CONTROL WATER SUPPLIES OF MANY NATIONS, INCESSANTLY PRODS, PUSHES, AND DICTATES, SANCTIONS AND CONDEMNS, LABELS AND THREATENS CAUSING CONSTANT ANTAGONISM AMONGST THE NATIONS OF EARTH.
THESE ARE INTERNATIONAL TYRANNICAL DICTATORS WHO KNOW HOW TO POLARIZE ONE GROUP OF NATIONS AGAINST ANOTHER, CREATING, UNRAVELLING AND RECREATING "BLOCS" TO SUIT THEM.
THEY'VE HAD SOME POWERFUL HELP IN GETTING TO WHERE THEY ARE TODAY.
THEY WOULD BE NOTHING WITHOUT THE U.N.
BELOW ARE THREE DOCUMENTS, ONE PREVIOUSLY CLASSIFIED, THE THIRD INITIALLY REMOVED FROM PUBLIC ACCESS.
MOST AMERICANS, THE VAST MAJORITY, ARE NOT AWARE THESE EXIST AND HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM.
ALL ARE ACCESSIBLE ON GOVERNMENT WEBSITES NOW AND SHOULD BE REQUIRED READING FOR ANYONE WHO REMOTELY CARES IF THE UNITED STATES IS COMPLETELY GOVERNED BY A "SUPREME ENTITY" AND ALL IN AMERICA ARE DISARMED, INCLUDING OUR POLICE, OR IF WE, THE PEOPLE WILL STILL CHOOSE WHO GOVERNS US AND WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AS A NATION AND AS INDIVIDUALS.
THE FIRST DOCUMENT WAS ONCE CLASSIFIED, AS I SAID, BUT CAN BE ACCESSED AT http://www.dtic.mil/docs/
FOR EASE OF ACCESS FOR ALL MY INTERNATIONAL READERS, FIND THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT AT http://www.un-freezone.org/
Study Memorandum No. 7
A WORLD EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED NATIONS
A Preliminary Survey of One Form of a Stable Military Environment
Lincoln P. Bloomfield
Prepared for IDA in support of a study submitted to the Department of State under contract No. SCC 28270, dated February 24, 1961
Special Studies Group
INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES
1710 H Street, N. W.
Washington 6, D.C.
March 10, 1962
This paper was prepared for project VULCAN, a study of Arms Control and a Stable Military Environment, which was made by the Special Studies Group of IDA for the Department of State under contract No. SCC 28270, dated 24 February 1961. Dr. J. I. Coffey was the Project Leader.
The author, Dr. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, a consultant to the Special Studies Group, has written extensively on the role of the United Nations in international politics. He is Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Arms Control Project at the Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Judgments expressed are of course those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute for Defense Analyses or of any agency of the United States Government.
JAMES E. KING, JR.
Associate Director of Research
SUMMARY
A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which "world government" would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force.
Effective control would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the hands of a supranational organization rather than in individual national units, and would assume the effective operation of a general disarmament agreement.
While this supranational organization — the United Nations — would not necessarily be the organization as it now exists, the present UN Charter could theoretically be revised in order to erect such an organization equal to the task envisaged, thereby codifying a radical rearrangement of power in the world.
The principal features of a model system would include the following:
(1) powers sufficient to monitor and enforce disarmament, settle disputes, and keep the peace —including taxing powers — with all other powers reserved to the nations;
(2) an international force, balanced appropriately among ground, sea, air, and space elements, consisting of 500,000 men, recruited individually, wearing a UN uniform, and controlling a nuclear force composed of 50-100 mixed land-based mobile and undersea-based missiles, averaging one megaton per weapon;
(3) governmental powers distributed among three branches so that primary functions would exist in some recognizable form in a bicameral legislative organ, an executive organ, and an expanded international judicial network;
(4) compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court for both legal disputes and legal aspects of political disputes;
(5) approximately 130 political subunits, all nominally independent states, within the system;
(6) continued jurisdiction over cosmetic affairs by the national governments; and
(7) unrestricted international inspection of all states against violation of the disarmament agreement, with permament (sic) inspection of nuclear research and power equipment, strategic areas and industries, administrative policies and operations, and other key and strategic points in the national economy.
FRAMEWORK OF STUDY
This paper is part of a larger study of Arms Control and a Stable Military Environment.
We sketch out one particular form of a stable military environment — "a world effectively controlled by the United Nations," that is to say, by supranational institutions instead of primarily by national governments...
POLICY BACKGROUND
The notion of a "UN-controlled world" is today a fantastic one. That it is even thought of as a hypothetical framework for politico-military planning grows, curiously enough, out of contemporary doctrines on arms control. Political scientists have generally come to despair of quantum jumps to world order as utopian and unmindful of political realities.
But fresh minds from military, scientific, and industrial life, as they focus on the increasingly irrational arms race, have sometimes found the logic of world government — and it is world government we are discussing here — inescapable.
The details of international political control have rarely been made explicit in American disarmament positions.
The 1946 United States plan for the international control of atomic energy assigned the international agency managerial control or ownership of "all atomic energy activities potentially dangerous to world security," plus "power to control, inspect and license all other atomic activities."
To carry this out would have required extraordinary powers at the center.
But it was still a distance from that to the political control of the world as a whole implied in the present topic.
Throughout the sixteen-year negotiating period, even when programs were advanced for drastic reduction and limitation of armaments, there is no record of any concrete suggestion or even mention of a supranational political organization which would "effectively control" the world.
Here, then, is the basis in recent American policy for the notion of a world "effectively controlled by the United Nations."
It was not made explicit, but the United States position carried the unmistakable meaning, by whatever name, of world government, sufficiently powerful in any event to keep the peace and enforce its judgments.
This paper is an attempt to sketch out the possible contours of such a system, followed by a discussion of the difficulties attending an enterprise of this nature.
The model described below is obviously but one of many possible forms. Equally obviously, it is susceptible to almost infinite variation.
But in general, this is what "a world effectively controlled by the United Nations" might look like.
It is by no means certain that the American people, for example, are presently ready to vote the national military establishment out of existence in favor of an international agency controlled by a combination of nations.
The international north-south conflict, characterized by bitter racial resentments and vast economic disparities, is an equally obstructive roadblock to the denationalization of power, unless those at the short end of the social or economic scale become convinced that they would come into what they regard as their birthright more quickly or more surely under a would government.
Possibly this could be demonstrated on the basis that the voice of the presently power-lacking states would increase in the uses of world power. But power could not be simply transferred from those who now hold it to those who do not, under the guise of a world government.
The safeguards and weightings cited earlier would indeed be designed to see that this did not happen. Only significant reduction in the tensions growing out of recent colonial relationships and the economic disparities could overcome this barrier to achievement of the model.
DISARMAMENT
The appropriate degree of relative force would, we conclude, involve total disarmament down to police and internal security levels for the constituent units, as against a significant conventional capability at the center backed by a marginally significant nuclear capability."
I have suggested that an alternative road may bypass the main path of history, short-circuiting the organic stages of consensus, value formation, and the experiences of common enterprise generally believed to underlie political community.
This relies on a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose.
According to this version, the order we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks.
But does this sufficiently lay the basis for genuine community, adequate to create a durable world order?
The transforming experience, whether evolutionary or revolutionary, must, to achieve the foundation of consensus requisite for community, be enough to reach and move great masses of people, many of whom are not now touched by governmental processes, or a fortiori by international relations.
In the end, the question of feasibility can only be answered with a prediction: once critical mass had taken place, however tentatively or suspiciously, a new and essentially unpredictable dynamic would have been set in motion, sufficient to confound predictions made from this side of the line.
National disarmament is a condition sine qua non for effective UN control.
Yet the known difficulties of general disarmament are overwhelming.
This is not the place to argue its desirability or undesirability.
What we have assumed is that perhaps as a consequence of a massive crisis it is neither inherently nor technically impossible to design a program whereby all nations scrap their armaments down to the police level, with a reasonable probability of detecting significant evasion of violation through inspection arrangements.
Security for the United States, as well as for other nations, could — again in theory — be assured by phasing out national forces only as international forces were satisfactorily in position and under the effective control of a "responsible" agency (although it should be clear that the notions of even a weighted majority as to what is "responsible" will not coincide every time with those of the United States).
Technology may contribute to making the inspection task less onerous and less intrusive than at present, through robot mechanisms even now foreseeable.
The political hurdle attending penetration of the Soviet Union may be further mitigated by such a move as unilateral American creation of an open world, so to speak, by making available to the United Nations all pictures taken by SAMOS and other observation satellites, of both the Soviet Union and the United States.
None of this implies that total disarmament is a political possibility in the foreseeable future even though it is technically possible, and even though it is not unthinkable strategically given adequate supranational surrogates for national arms.
It is to say that, without it, effective UN control is not possible.
ON WEAPONS AND TECHNOLOGY
To make the problem manageable, it is assumed that at the time the new regime comes into being there has been no technical breakthrough such as would make meaningless the centralization of effective power.
This assumption rules out devices that would enable a single individual or small group to terrorize the world, i.e., such potentially unbalancing developments as the controlled use of antimatter, the creation of a Kahn-type Doomsday machine, or the achievement of universally effective magical powers through psychological or biochemical means.
But it must also be assumed that direction of modern science and technology is essentially irreversible.
It can perhaps be slowed down or even stopped, either by some universal catastrophe or under a disarmament agreement that curtails the intensive allocation to armaments of economic and human resources.
But the processes of fission and fusion, the cultivation of viruses of high toxicity, and the design of engines of delivery cannot be unlearned.
Under the first of our alternative roads — the pacific evolution of the Communist world, including China — it is difficult to foresee a limited world government within twenty-five years at the earliest, fifty years more conservatively.
If, however, it came about as a result of a series of unnerving trips to or over the brink, it could come about at any time. The assumption here, chiefly for logical convenience, is a time period of five to fifteen years from now."
CHAPTER V
PRINCIPAL PROBLEMS IN ACHIEVING A WORLD ORDER
<END QUOTE>
A WORLD EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED NATIONS
A Preliminary Survey of One Form of a Stable Military Environment
Lincoln P. Bloomfield
Prepared for IDA in support of a study submitted to the Department of State under contract No. SCC 28270, dated February 24, 1961
Special Studies Group
INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES
1710 H Street, N. W.
Washington 6, D.C.
March 10, 1962
This paper was prepared for project VULCAN, a study of Arms Control and a Stable Military Environment, which was made by the Special Studies Group of IDA for the Department of State under contract No. SCC 28270, dated 24 February 1961. Dr. J. I. Coffey was the Project Leader.
The author, Dr. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, a consultant to the Special Studies Group, has written extensively on the role of the United Nations in international politics. He is Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Arms Control Project at the Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Judgments expressed are of course those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute for Defense Analyses or of any agency of the United States Government.
JAMES E. KING, JR.
Associate Director of Research
SUMMARY
A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which "world government" would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force.
Effective control would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the hands of a supranational organization rather than in individual national units, and would assume the effective operation of a general disarmament agreement.
While this supranational organization — the United Nations — would not necessarily be the organization as it now exists, the present UN Charter could theoretically be revised in order to erect such an organization equal to the task envisaged, thereby codifying a radical rearrangement of power in the world.
The principal features of a model system would include the following:
(1) powers sufficient to monitor and enforce disarmament, settle disputes, and keep the peace —including taxing powers — with all other powers reserved to the nations;
(2) an international force, balanced appropriately among ground, sea, air, and space elements, consisting of 500,000 men, recruited individually, wearing a UN uniform, and controlling a nuclear force composed of 50-100 mixed land-based mobile and undersea-based missiles, averaging one megaton per weapon;
(3) governmental powers distributed among three branches so that primary functions would exist in some recognizable form in a bicameral legislative organ, an executive organ, and an expanded international judicial network;
(4) compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court for both legal disputes and legal aspects of political disputes;
(5) approximately 130 political subunits, all nominally independent states, within the system;
(6) continued jurisdiction over cosmetic affairs by the national governments; and
(7) unrestricted international inspection of all states against violation of the disarmament agreement, with permament (sic) inspection of nuclear research and power equipment, strategic areas and industries, administrative policies and operations, and other key and strategic points in the national economy.
FRAMEWORK OF STUDY
This paper is part of a larger study of Arms Control and a Stable Military Environment.
We sketch out one particular form of a stable military environment — "a world effectively controlled by the United Nations," that is to say, by supranational institutions instead of primarily by national governments...
POLICY BACKGROUND
The notion of a "UN-controlled world" is today a fantastic one. That it is even thought of as a hypothetical framework for politico-military planning grows, curiously enough, out of contemporary doctrines on arms control. Political scientists have generally come to despair of quantum jumps to world order as utopian and unmindful of political realities.
But fresh minds from military, scientific, and industrial life, as they focus on the increasingly irrational arms race, have sometimes found the logic of world government — and it is world government we are discussing here — inescapable.
The details of international political control have rarely been made explicit in American disarmament positions.
The 1946 United States plan for the international control of atomic energy assigned the international agency managerial control or ownership of "all atomic energy activities potentially dangerous to world security," plus "power to control, inspect and license all other atomic activities."
To carry this out would have required extraordinary powers at the center.
But it was still a distance from that to the political control of the world as a whole implied in the present topic.
Throughout the sixteen-year negotiating period, even when programs were advanced for drastic reduction and limitation of armaments, there is no record of any concrete suggestion or even mention of a supranational political organization which would "effectively control" the world.
Here, then, is the basis in recent American policy for the notion of a world "effectively controlled by the United Nations."
It was not made explicit, but the United States position carried the unmistakable meaning, by whatever name, of world government, sufficiently powerful in any event to keep the peace and enforce its judgments.
This paper is an attempt to sketch out the possible contours of such a system, followed by a discussion of the difficulties attending an enterprise of this nature.
The model described below is obviously but one of many possible forms. Equally obviously, it is susceptible to almost infinite variation.
But in general, this is what "a world effectively controlled by the United Nations" might look like.
It is by no means certain that the American people, for example, are presently ready to vote the national military establishment out of existence in favor of an international agency controlled by a combination of nations.
The international north-south conflict, characterized by bitter racial resentments and vast economic disparities, is an equally obstructive roadblock to the denationalization of power, unless those at the short end of the social or economic scale become convinced that they would come into what they regard as their birthright more quickly or more surely under a would government.
Possibly this could be demonstrated on the basis that the voice of the presently power-lacking states would increase in the uses of world power. But power could not be simply transferred from those who now hold it to those who do not, under the guise of a world government.
The safeguards and weightings cited earlier would indeed be designed to see that this did not happen. Only significant reduction in the tensions growing out of recent colonial relationships and the economic disparities could overcome this barrier to achievement of the model.
DISARMAMENT
The appropriate degree of relative force would, we conclude, involve total disarmament down to police and internal security levels for the constituent units, as against a significant conventional capability at the center backed by a marginally significant nuclear capability."
I have suggested that an alternative road may bypass the main path of history, short-circuiting the organic stages of consensus, value formation, and the experiences of common enterprise generally believed to underlie political community.
This relies on a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose.
According to this version, the order we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks.
But does this sufficiently lay the basis for genuine community, adequate to create a durable world order?
The transforming experience, whether evolutionary or revolutionary, must, to achieve the foundation of consensus requisite for community, be enough to reach and move great masses of people, many of whom are not now touched by governmental processes, or a fortiori by international relations.
In the end, the question of feasibility can only be answered with a prediction: once critical mass had taken place, however tentatively or suspiciously, a new and essentially unpredictable dynamic would have been set in motion, sufficient to confound predictions made from this side of the line.
National disarmament is a condition sine qua non for effective UN control.
Yet the known difficulties of general disarmament are overwhelming.
This is not the place to argue its desirability or undesirability.
What we have assumed is that perhaps as a consequence of a massive crisis it is neither inherently nor technically impossible to design a program whereby all nations scrap their armaments down to the police level, with a reasonable probability of detecting significant evasion of violation through inspection arrangements.
Security for the United States, as well as for other nations, could — again in theory — be assured by phasing out national forces only as international forces were satisfactorily in position and under the effective control of a "responsible" agency (although it should be clear that the notions of even a weighted majority as to what is "responsible" will not coincide every time with those of the United States).
Technology may contribute to making the inspection task less onerous and less intrusive than at present, through robot mechanisms even now foreseeable.
The political hurdle attending penetration of the Soviet Union may be further mitigated by such a move as unilateral American creation of an open world, so to speak, by making available to the United Nations all pictures taken by SAMOS and other observation satellites, of both the Soviet Union and the United States.
None of this implies that total disarmament is a political possibility in the foreseeable future even though it is technically possible, and even though it is not unthinkable strategically given adequate supranational surrogates for national arms.
It is to say that, without it, effective UN control is not possible.
ON WEAPONS AND TECHNOLOGY
To make the problem manageable, it is assumed that at the time the new regime comes into being there has been no technical breakthrough such as would make meaningless the centralization of effective power.
This assumption rules out devices that would enable a single individual or small group to terrorize the world, i.e., such potentially unbalancing developments as the controlled use of antimatter, the creation of a Kahn-type Doomsday machine, or the achievement of universally effective magical powers through psychological or biochemical means.
But it must also be assumed that direction of modern science and technology is essentially irreversible.
It can perhaps be slowed down or even stopped, either by some universal catastrophe or under a disarmament agreement that curtails the intensive allocation to armaments of economic and human resources.
But the processes of fission and fusion, the cultivation of viruses of high toxicity, and the design of engines of delivery cannot be unlearned.
Under the first of our alternative roads — the pacific evolution of the Communist world, including China — it is difficult to foresee a limited world government within twenty-five years at the earliest, fifty years more conservatively.
If, however, it came about as a result of a series of unnerving trips to or over the brink, it could come about at any time. The assumption here, chiefly for logical convenience, is a time period of five to fifteen years from now."
CHAPTER V
PRINCIPAL PROBLEMS IN ACHIEVING A WORLD ORDER
<END QUOTE>
We will stop there and just think about this small part of what was written, perhaps try to understand why our own government would consider this "world government", consider being ruled for all time by the United Nations, being completely disarmed while the vast army of the UN was well-armed and while ONLY the UN had nuclear capability.
The recent terrorist attacks across the globe have given our nation's leaders the type of crisis the globalist elite wanted in order to complete the sellout of America to a world government.
NEXT, a speech that John F. Kennedy gave before the UN General Assembly on September 25, 1961, perhaps armed with the above report as to how to accomplish total disarmament.
It was removed from public access for years, but is now displayed on the U.S. Department of State website at http://www.state.gov/p/io/potusunga/207241.htm .
I will post here just what I consider the "highlights" of that speech.
It was removed from public access for years, but is now displayed on the U.S. Department of State website at http://www.state.gov/p/io/potusunga/207241.htm .
I will post here just what I consider the "highlights" of that speech.
Address to the UN General Assembly
"Mr. President, honored delegates, ladies and gentlemen,
... in the development of this organization rests the only true alternative to war--and war appeals no longer as a rational alternative.
Unconditional war can no longer lead to unconditional victory. It can no longer serve to settle disputes. It can no longer concern the great powers alone.
For a nuclear disaster, spread by wind and water and fear, could well engulf the great and the small, the rich and the poor, the committed and the uncommitted alike.
Mankind must put an end to war--or war will put an end to mankind.
Let us call a truce to terror. Let us invoke the blessings of peace.
And, as we build an international capacity to keep peace, let us join in dismantling the national capacity to wage war.This will require new strength and new roles for the United Nations.
For disarmament without checks is but a shadow-and a community without law is but a shell. Already the United Nations has become both the measure and the vehicle of man's most generous impulses. Already it has provided--in the Middle East, in Asia, in Africa this year in the Congo--a means of holding man's violence within bounds.
Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness.
The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.
The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.
Men no longer debate whether armaments are a symptom or a cause of tension.
The mere existence of modern weapons--ten million times more powerful than any that the world has ever seen, and only minutes away from any target on earth--is a source of horror, and discord and distrust.
Men no longer maintain that disarmament must await the settlement of all disputes--for disarmament must be a part of any permanent settlement.
And men may no longer pretend that the quest for disarmament is a sign of weakness--for in a spiraling arms race, a nation's security may well be shrinking even as its arms increase.
The mere existence of modern weapons--ten million times more powerful than any that the world has ever seen, and only minutes away from any target on earth--is a source of horror, and discord and distrust.
Men no longer maintain that disarmament must await the settlement of all disputes--for disarmament must be a part of any permanent settlement.
And men may no longer pretend that the quest for disarmament is a sign of weakness--for in a spiraling arms race, a nation's security may well be shrinking even as its arms increase.
For 15 years this organization has sought the reduction and destruction of arms. Now that goal is no longer a dream--it is a practical matter of life or death. The risks inherent in disarmament pale in comparison to the risks inherent in an unlimited arms race.
It is in this spirit that the recent Belgrade Conference--recognizing that this is no longer a Soviet problem or an American problem, but a human problem--endorsed a program of "general, complete and strictly an internationally controlled disarmament."
It is in this same spirit that we in the United States have labored this year, with a new urgency, and with a new, now statutory agency fully endorsed by the Congress, to find an approach to disarmament which would be so far-reaching yet realistic, so mutually balanced and beneficial, that it could be accepted by every nation. And it is in this spirit that we have presented with the agreement of the Soviet Union--under the label both nations now accept of "general and complete disarmament"--
The program to be presented to this assembly--for general and complete disarmament under effective international control-moves to bridge the gap between those who insist on a gradual approach and those who talk only of the final and total achievement. It would create machinery to keep the peace as it destroys the machinery of war.
In short, general and complete disarmament must no longer be a slogan, used to resist the first steps.
I therefore propose, on the basis of this Plan, that disarmament negotiations resume promptly, and continue without interruption until an entire program for general and complete disarmament has not only been agreed but has been actually achieved.
We also proposed a mutual ban on atmospheric testing, without inspection or controls, in order to save the human race from the poison of radioactive fallout.
DESTROY ARMS BUT ARM THE UN
Therefore, the United States recommends the Presidents that all member nations earmark special peace-keeping units in their armed forces-to be on call of the United Nations, to be specially trained and quickly available, and with advance provision for financial and logistic support.
For peace is not solely a matter of military or technical problems--it is primarily a problem of politics and people. And unless man can match his strides in weaponry and technology with equal strides in social and political development, our great strength, like that of the dinosaur, will become incapable of proper control--and like the dinosaur vanish from the earth.
As we extend the rule of law on earth, so must we also extend it to man's new domain--outer space.
We shall propose further cooperative efforts between all nations in weather prediction and eventually in weather control. We shall propose, finally, a global system of communications satellites linking the whole world in telegraph and telephone and radio and television.
Political sovereignty is but a mockery without the means of meeting poverty and literacy and disease. Self-determination is but a slogan if the future holds no hope.
My Country favors a world of free and equal states. "
BUT KENNEDY DID NOT STOP THERE.
HE WASN'T JUST FOR THE UN CONTROLLING THE WORLD, NOT JUST FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT...HE WANTED TO DISARM U.S. CITIZENS.
Entitled "Freedom From War," the Kennedy three-stage plan was designed to be implemented over many years.
It called for all nations to give up their military power while arming the United Nations. The final step stated: "progressive controlled disarmament ... would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force."
IT ALARMED A LOT OF PEOPLE, SO IT WAS TUCKED AWAY, OUT OF SIGHT, AND FEW WHO READ IT NOW WANT TO BELIEVE JFK WAS WILLING TO DO THIS.
HE WAS.
READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT AT http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html
First, there must be immediate disarmament action:
A strenuous and uninterrupted effort must be made toward the goal of general and complete disarmament; at the same time, it is important that specific measures be put into effect as soon as possible.Second, all disarmament obligations must be subject to effective international controls:
The control organization must have the manpower, facilities, and effectiveness to assure that limitations or reductions take place as agreed. It must also be able to certify to all states that retained forces and armaments do not exceed those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process.Third, adequate peace-keeping machinery must be established:
There is an inseparable relationship between the scaling down of national armaments on the one hand and the building up of international peace-keeping machinery and institutions on the other. Nations are unlikely to shed their means of self-protection in the absence of alternative ways to safeguard their legitimate interests. This can only be achieved through the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.
In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:
- The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
- The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
- The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
- The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.
The second stage contains a series of measures which would bring within sight a world in which there would be freedom from war. Implementation of all measures in the second stage would mean:
- Further substantial reductions in the armed forces, armaments, and military establishments of states, including strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and countering weapons;
- Further development of methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes under the United Nations;
- Establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations;
- Depending on the findings of an Experts Commission, a halt in the production of chemical, bacteriological and radiological weapons and a reduction of existing stocks or their conversion to peaceful uses;
- On the basis of the findings of an Experts Commission, a reduction of stocks of nuclear weapons;
- The dismantling or the conversion to peaceful uses of certain military bases and facilities wherever located; and
THE U.N. GIVETH AND THE U.N. TAKETH AWAY...AS IT PLEASES!
The UN's 1948 "Universal Declaration of Human Rights "states that rights are "granted ... by the constitution or by law."
THINK ABOUT THAT!
If a law grants rights, another law can cancel them.
THINK ABOUT THAT!
If a law grants rights, another law can cancel them.
And this is precisely what the UN intends.
It even says so in this same Universal Declaration where it states: "In the exercise of his rights and responsibilities, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law."
In other words, a UN law, or a law approved by the UN, can be enacted to cancel whatever rights are granted by the UN.
This totalitarian attitude is then amplified in Article 29 of the UN's Declaration of Human Rights where one can read the following: "These rights and freedoms may IN NO CASE be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
No one will have any rights if they conflict with the UN's idea of "rights and freedoms" which, again, they do NOT define..
Then in 1966, the UN produced its International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. Again, various rights are mentioned but the power of the UN to cancel or modify them appears as each is mentioned.
This is the UN's blueprint for tyranny.
AND, LOOK!
IT WORKED JUST FINE!
EVERY NATION IN THE UN AGREED THIS PAST SUMMER TO SIGN ONTO THE UN's "NEW COVENANT", ITS "AGENDA 2015/2030", AND, BEGINNING IN THE SPRING OF 2016, THE UN OWNS YOU, OWNS US ALL, FOLKS.
PREPARE YOUR MINDS FOR MANDATORY "GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY", FOR BECOMING JUST PART OF THE UNARMED, DEFENSELESS FLOCK.
This is the UN's blueprint for tyranny.
AND, LOOK!
IT WORKED JUST FINE!
EVERY NATION IN THE UN AGREED THIS PAST SUMMER TO SIGN ONTO THE UN's "NEW COVENANT", ITS "AGENDA 2015/2030", AND, BEGINNING IN THE SPRING OF 2016, THE UN OWNS YOU, OWNS US ALL, FOLKS.
PREPARE YOUR MINDS FOR MANDATORY "GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY", FOR BECOMING JUST PART OF THE UNARMED, DEFENSELESS FLOCK.
PREPARE TO KISS THE SHINY A** OF THE UN FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVES...AS UNARMED SERVANTS.
LET'S HEAR IT FOR PEACE, PEACE, RIGHT?
LET'S HEAR IT FOR PEACE, PEACE, RIGHT?
No comments:
Post a Comment