Ioan Ratiu. The Un Scam

Chapter 6. "The UN Scam" from Ioan Ratiu's book "The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy" (2012). (Download in Word format. Watch the video summary.)

The UN's scam lies in the fact that, under the slogans of "Peace" and "Cooperation", a system of Global Governance was created designed to deprive peoples of the right to independently determine their own future.

Content

• Why the UN is a scam

• The origins of the UN

• The UN and Socialist Internationalism

• The UN and internationalist Capitalism

• The UN: a World Government in the making

• The UN and NATO

• The Institute of International Education

• Controlling Religion

• The UN as an instrument for Global Oppression

• The UN and the Politics of Race

• The UN and Immigration

• The UN and Multiculturalism

• The UN and lslamization

• References

WHY THE UN IS A SCAM

A scam is a trick, swindle or fraud (Oxford English Dictionary). It is a scheme that represents a thing as what it is not, particularly for the purpose of cheating others of things that rightfully belong to them, such as money, freedom, identity, etc.

The United Nations' precursor, the League of Nations (LON), was created in 1919 by certain business and political interests represented by the Milner Group and the Fabian Society (Quigley; Pugh; Winkler). The creation of the United Nations was instigated by the same vested interests as those behind the League. For example, the preamble to the UN Charter was written by General Jan Smuts (Mazower, p. 61), a member of the Milner Group (Quigley, p. 48) who had also been involved in the creation of the League of Nations.

In brief, here are some key points which help us understand the fraudulent nature of the UN:

1. As the international economic and political system was dominated by self-appointed elite groups which exploited it for their own ends, the organization they created was not one working for the common good of the human race, but one serving the interests of the elites who created and dominated or controlled it.

2. Like its predecessor, the UN was created as an instrument for world government.

3. The UN was not based on equality among nations. Germany, a major European nation, was excluded from the permanent members group even after the war. Indeed, like the League of Nations the UN was conceived as an anti-German organization, the phrase "United Nations" being first applied to Germany's Allied opponents in World War II. As a result, the UN became a new system of oppression in which Germany and Eastern Europe were subordinated to foreign interests and turned into virtual colonies of Communist Russia and its Western allies (the division of East and Central Europe into Russian and other "spheres of influence" was engineered at Yalta in 1945 along with the UN plan).

4. The UN's five permanent members, Britain, USA, Russia, China and France, are among the world's largest arms exporting countries (including to rogue states) - which severely undermines the UN's claim to being an organization working for "world peace".

THE ORIGINS OF THE UN

The idea of world organization originated in the left-wing internationalism of the late 1800s (in 1888, Karl Marx's collaborator Wilhelm Liebknecht spoke of a "United States of Europe and of the World") and began to take root in Liberal and, in particular, Labour circles (Winkler, p. 4). In the early 1900s, it was still regarded as radical and normally associated with Socialism or Fabianism (Mazower, p. 39). Indeed, as noted above, it was leftwing groups like the Milner Group and the Fabian Society who took it up and put it into practice with the creation of the League of Nations. While Milnerites stressed closer association with America, Fabians were particularly keen on closer ties with Soviet Russia.

Russia was a large country with important natural resources, which international business interests wanted to incorporate into their global economic system. Since the 1917 Communist Revolution, it was also a brutally oppressive society with a dysfunctional economy which only survived thanks to British and American cooperation in the form of financial aid, investments, trade agreements and technical assistance, instigated by the same Anglo-American Milner-Fabian groups (and their financial backers like Lazard Brothers & Co. and J. P. Morgan) which had been behind the revolution.

While Conservative attitudes to Russia had been generally hostile after the revolution, the British Left began to push for trade relations and diplomatic recognition of the Communist regime almost from the start, leading to the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement of 1921 (under Liberal Lloyd George) and diplomatic relations in 1924 (under Labour's Ramsay MacDonald).

Moreover, the Labour Party's Fabian founders looked on Communist Russia as a model Fabian State (Cole, p. 255). In 1931 and 1932, they visited Stalin and returned full of appreciation for his dictatorship which they praised as a "new civilization" to be emulated by the world (see Ch. 2, The Fabian Conspiracy). In 1932, leading pro-Communist Fabians like Sir Stafford Cripps (later president of the Fabian Society) set up the Socialist League to campaign for closer association of Britain with Communist Russia as a "front against fascism" and this became a central plank in the Labour Party's foreign policy (Cole, p. 291).

By 1940, Prime Minister Winston Churchill had also come to advocate an alliance between Britain and Russia, appointing Cripps ambassador to Moscow. In August 1941, Churchill and US President Franklin D. Roosevelt (who, following the British Fabian lead, had recognized the Soviet Union in 1933) resolved to create a new international organization to "secure peace" and establish a "system of general security" (Atlantic Charter). The US-British plan for an international organization was endorsed by Russia and China in October 1943 (Moscow Declaration). Together with France, which was included later, this group represented the five powers which were to dominate the new organization though, in reality, the true power-holders remained the "Big Three" (America, Britain and Russia). The US-British plan led to the founding of the United Nations (UN) at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference of August -October 1944. The UN Charter or Constitution was created at the San Francisco Conference of 25 April -26 June 1945 and ratified in London on 24 October 1945.

THE UN AND SOCIALIST INTERNATIONALISM

It is essential to note that the UN was a Socialist/Left-wing organization from inception, its main (permanent) founding members being

• Socialist-dominated Britain,

• Socialist (Marxist-Leninist) Russia,

• Liberal Democratic USA (under Democrat and New-Deal author Roosevelt),

• Socialist France (under Charles de Gaulle's coalition government of Communists, Socialists

• and Christian Democrats) and National Socialist China (under "Red General" Chiang Kai-shek).

The Socialist domination of the UN increased with the

• coming to power of Socialist Prime Minister Clement Attlee in Britain (1945),

• Socialist President Felix Gouin in France (1947)

• and the Moscow-appointed Socialist Chairman of the Central Executive Committee Mao Zedong in the People's Republic of China (which joined the UN in 1971, replacing the Republic of China).

Indeed, the UN was not only dominated by Socialists; it was entirely run by Socialists. From the outset, the post of UN President was occupied by Socialists, with the appointment in 1946 of leading Belgian Socialist Paul-Henri Spaak. The post of Secretary-General was also occupied by Socialists:

• Trygve Lie, a leading figure in the Norwegian Labour Party (1946-52);

• Dag Hammarskjold, former Foreign Secretary in Sweden's Socialist government, outspoken Socialist and supporter of Maoist China (1953-56);

• U Thant, former functionary in Burma's Socialist government and openly pro-Soviet and pro-Maoist China (1961-71), etc. (Griffin, pp. 110, 114, 117-8).

Other key posts in the UN were also given to Socialists. For example, the post of Under-Secretary-General for Political and Security Council Affairs (assistant to the Secretary-General) between 1946 and 1992 (almost half a century) was held by Soviet Russians -with the exception of 1954-57 when it was held by Socialist Yugoslavia (Griffin, pp. 85-6). This was no accident. The appointment of Soviet functionaries to the important post of Under-Secretary-General had in fact been agreed by the five powers in London in 1945 (Griffin, p. 86). As world power No. 1, America was particularly responsible for this arrangement. State Secretary Edward R. Stettinius Jr., a Democrat and Roosevelt collaborator, had agreed in this matter with the Soviets (Griffin, pp. 85-6).

The American Left was particularly involved in the UN project. In 1944-45, Alger Hiss, a FBI-certified Soviet agent, was the

• director of the US Office of Special Political Affairs which was involved in the creation of the United Nations;

• executive secretary of the UN's founding conference at Dumbarton Oaks (1944);

• acting secretary-general of the San Francisco conference (1945);

• member of the steering and executive committees in charge of writing the UN Charter (Griffin, pp. 88-9).

Even the UN flag was designed by the Communist Carl Aldo Marzani, using the emblem of the Soviet Union as a model (Griffin, p. 162).

Also from the American Left we can gather the true reasons behind the UN. Although the stated aim of the UN was the "prevention of war'', a pamphlet of the US Communist Party stated: "war cannot be abolished until imperialism [i.e., Capitalism] was abolished," adding that "The UN will eventually bring about the amalgamation of all nations into a single Soviet system" (Griffin, p. 71).

The position of the American communists was entirely consistent with the position of the European socialists. In its 1951 Declaration, the Socialist International (created by the Fabian Society in London in 1951) declared:

"Democratic Socialism regards the establishment of the United Nations as an important step towards an international community" ("Aims and Tasks of Democratic Socialism", Declaration of the Socialist International adopted at its First Congress held in Frankfort-on-Main on 30 June -3 July 1951).

At the Oslo Conference in 1962, the Socialist International made its position even clearer, stating that the ultimate goal of the parties within the SI was a World Government, to be established through the UN:

"The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government... As a first step towards it, they seek to strengthen the United Nations... Membership of the United Nations must be made universal..." ("The World Today: The Socialist Perspective", Declaration of the Socialist International endorsed at the Council Conference held in Oslo on 2-4 June 1962).

Denis Healey, former chairman of the Advisory Committee of the Fabian International Bureau (the body which controlled the Socialist International), wrote that the "main objective" of the 1945-51 Attlee Government had been "the conversion of the United Nations into some form of world government" (Healey, p. 3). Healey explained the reasoning behind the Fabian-Labour position by stating that only world government could guarantee peace and the only way to achieve world government was "by a steady strengthening in both the scope and the authority of the United Nations" (Healey, p. 1).

The Socialists' approval of the UN as an instrument for world government is also evident from the creation in 1992 of the Commission on Global Governance by Socialist International President Willy Brandt with the backing and financial assistance of UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali (an Arab Socialist). The Commission was chaired by Sweden's Socialist Prime Minister lngvar Carlsson and British Commonwealth Secretary-General Shridath Ramphal and campaigned for the expansion of UN powers.

These disturbing revelations demonstrate the ideological identity between Communism (Marxism-Leninism) and "Democratic" Socialism, including Fabianism. They also enable us to establish several well-defined ideological links between Socialist internationalism and internationalist, monopolistic Capitalism.

1. As war disrupts relations between Socialist states working for World Socialism as much as it disrupts international trade, ''world peace" served the interests of both Socialism and internationalist Capitalism.

2. As only a World State run by a World Government could guarantee "world peace", World Government was the aim of both Socialism and monopolistic international Capitalism.

3. These interests were also united in their aim to abolish Capitalism.

Counter-intuitive though it may sound, the notion of Capitalists wanting to abolish Capitalism becomes perfectly logical when we consider that

(a) the corporate interests under discussion were not true Capitalists but advocates of monopolism which (both in its statist and corporatist forms) seeks to abolish the plurality of business interests forming the foundation of authentic Capitalist society and

(b) these interests (both Socialist and Capitalist) aimed to abolish Capitalism for others.

Communist states like Soviet Russia and Maoist China abolished Capitalism, i.e., private trade (and even private property) for the common people, but not for themselves. The State and the elites representing it carried on with trade and finance as in pre-Communist times. Thus, Communism did not abolish Capitalism, it merely made it a monopoly of the state, that is, of the ruling clique. There was an identical parallel trend in the "free" Capitalist world to concentrate trade and finance in the hands of self-appointed elite groups.

In fact, Capitalism (trade and finance) is fundamental to any economy and cannot be abolished. However, it can be and has been monopolized by elite groups both in Socialism and Capitalism.

Clearly, the aim of creating a single, worldwide political and economic system or World State controlled by monopolistic elites was shared by Socialist politicians and "Capitalist" business interests alike and this explains their close collaboration. Thus, we find that leading among Western banks involved in trade and finance with the Communist world were:

Chase Manhattan, Citibank, Bank of America, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Manufacturers Hanover, as well as European banks like Barclays and Credit Lyonnais.

All of these banks were leading members or close associates of the Anglo-American establishment, a monopolistic group whose stated goal was world domination.

On their part, Communist regimes such as that of Soviet Russia sought the collaboration of monopolistic Capitalists from inception, establishing banks in Western Europe's financial centres, e.g., the Moscow Narodny Bank, of London (1919) and Banque Commerciale pour L'Europe du Nord, of Paris (1921), in order to facilitate access to Western capital, and these were followed by similar institutions in Frankfurt, Vienna, Zurich and Luxembourg.

Other key instruments of CommunistCapitalist collaboration were organizations like the USSR State Committee for Science and Technology (SCST) which was responsible for maintaining relations with Capitalist countries for the purpose of introducing and financing new technologies into the Soviet economy, and the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council (USTEC) whose members included top executives of above-named US banks.

This network of East-West organizations ensured close cooperation between the highest ranks of Soviet Communism and those of international finance and secured generous technical and financial assistance to the Soviet and other Communist regimes into the late 1980s, that is, until their final collapse, when their debt to Western banks amounted to many billions of dollars.

In his expose of Soviet-Capitalist collaboration, Antony Sutton wrote that financiers like the Morgans and the Rockefellers were "without ideology" and that they were simply "power-motivated" (Sutton, 1974, p. 173). However, being power-motivated does not automatically exclude ideological motivation. J. P. Morgan's personal political views are more difficult to document, but while the Morgans were widely regarded as Republicans, that is, conservatives, it is indisputable that they initiated or supported a number of projects that can only be described as left-wing.

At any rate, the matter is fairly clear in the case of Andrew Carnegie and the Rockefellers. As evident from writings like "Problems of To-day Wealth, Labor, Socialism" (1908), Carnegie was a supporter of Socialist causes, even winning the approval of Fabian Socialist masterminds like Bernard Shaw (Shaw, p. 2).

As for the Rockefellers, their political stand must be beyond dispute. Standard Oil director John Davidson Rockefeller, Jr., graduated from Brown University, Rhode Island, in 1897 after taking various Social Sciences courses, including a study of Karl Marx's Das Kapital required reading among early Fabian Socialists. As a committed internationalist, he also financed Fabian and other left-wing projects like the London School of Economics, the Lincoln School, the League of Nations and the Communist-influenced Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR).

As Sutton himself notes, J. D. Rockefeller Jr.'s eldest son, J. D. Rockefeller 3n1, was involved with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the IPR and authored The Second American Revolution (1973) in which he advocated collectivism under the guise of "cautious conservatism" and "the public good" (Sutton, 1974, pp. 176-7). This is not in the least surprising: J. D.R. 3^rd's brothers Nelson, Winthrop, Laurance and David all attended the Fabian Socialist Lincoln School of New York, which was founded by their father. Predictably enough, Nelson took to quoting from a copy of Das Kapital which he carried around (Morris, p. 340 in Collier, p. 262), while David wrote a senior thesis on Fabian Socialism at Harvard in 1936, studied at the Fabian LSE (Rockefeller, pp. 75, 81) and like his brother Nelson acquired a reputation for backing left-wing projects. David Rockefeller, therefore, may be safely identified as one of America's chief Fabian Socialists.

Like Marx, Lenin and Stalin, these luxury-loving financiers have kept Socialism out of their own private life while recommending it for the rest of the world.

In 1973, David Rockefeller founded the Trilateral Commission (TC), an international relations organization, with his friend Zbigniew Brzezinski as director (Rockefeller, p. 417). "Zbig", who later became US National Security Adviser, was the author of "Between the Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era" (1969), in which he described Marxism as a "vital creative stage in the maturing of man's universal vision" and as a "mechanism of human progress". Rockefeller himself, after a visit to China in the same year, praised the Chinese Revolution for producing "more efficient and dedicated administration" as well as fostering "high morale and community purpose" (Rockefeller, 1973).

The question that will arise in the reader's mind at this point is: if the Rockefellers are revolutionary Fabian Socialists, why do they pretend to be Republicans, i.e. (in US terms) "centre-right" or "conservative"?

The answer -as candidly put by Nelson Rockefeller himself -is that the Republican guise allows them to pursue liberal Democratic i.e., centre-left programmes without arousing the suspicion of (centre-right) business, the traditional supporter of Republican policies (Williams, p. 13 in Martin, p. 407). This tactic is, of course, wholly in line with established Fabian Socialist practice and enables the money power to pull the strings from both sides of the political spectrum.

Needless to say, this duplicity is facilitated by the money power's global empire of endowments and foundations which, due to their "philanthropic" status provide a false appearance of impartiality. On closer investigation, of course, they prove to be funding only such projects that are of tactical or strategic value to their Fabian Socialist agenda. Given their tactics and aims, it may not be inappropriate (paraphrasing Proudhon) to describe the Rockefellers as the tapeworms of American Republicanism and, more generally, of liberal Capitalism.

Nor are the Rockefellers the only financial group with Socialist connections. Lazard Bank appointed Lord Mandelson, a leading Fabian Socialist, as senior adviser and the Rothschilds are similarly involved with Socialist ideologists from Jacques Attali and Emmanuel Macron to Gerhard Schrader.

THE UN AND INTERNATIONALIST CAPITALISM

In addition to the ideological links between Socialist internationalism and internationalist Capitalism we can establish material links between the two groups. The UN headquarters was established in the United States at the insistence of the Soviet Union, apparently to facilitate Communist propaganda and espionage in the US (Griffin, pp, 73-4). However, New York City, where the UN headquarters is located, is America's financial capital (in addition to being the historical centre of American Socialism). Therefore, it is legitimate to suspect a possible link between the UN and New York's financial world. This suspicion is reinforced by the fact that the land on which the UN headquarters was built (on the East River in Manhattan) was purchased and donated to the UN in 1946 by David Rockefeller's father, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. (Rockefeller, p. 162).

Further investigation reveals that the Rockefeller dominated Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) played a key role in the creation of the UN. As related earlier, the original CFR was a Milner-Fabian outfit created in 1919 as a sister organization of the London Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) a.k.a. Chatham House.

It was re-launched in 1921 in collaboration with New York based international banking interests and its proceedings were "dominated by New York businessmen, bankers and lawyers" (Rockefeller, p. 407). In particular, J. P. Morgan & Co partners, associates and employees were officers and directors of the CFR (Quigley, p. 191). Among other prominent bankers and financiers involved with the CFR were the Rockefellers. The CFR headquarters was acquired with Rockefeller funds. The CFR, therefore, was basically a Morgan-Rockefeller organization.

As its name suggests, the CFR was concerned with international relations and aimed "to direct American intercourse with foreign nations" ("Vanderlip Plans a Super-Senate", New York Times, 23 Jan. 1921). To what extent CFR actually directed US foreign relations becomes evident from the fact that President Roosevelt was a virtual mouthpiece for CFR interests (Dall, p. 129) and that the State Department was dominated by CFR members.

However, even though these interests controlled the President and the State Department, a superficial appearance of "democratic" procedures had to be maintained. For this purpose, various instruments were set up through which the UN was created. These were:

• the War and Peace Studies (WPS) programme,

• the Informal Agenda Group (IAG),

• the Advisory Committee on Postwar Policy

• and particularly the Special Subcommittee on International Organization, a subcommittee of the former.

The WPS was headed by the editor of the CFR magazine Foreign Affairs, Hamilton Fish Armstrong; Secretary of State Cordell Hull was chairman of the IAG and the Advisory Committee; and Under-Secretary of State Sumner Welles (a relative of the Astors) was vice-chairman of the Advisory Committee and chairman of the Special Subcommittee.

As all were CFR members and their groups provided information and advice to the US President and the State Department, who then acted on that information and advice, it is obvious that the "democratic" appearance was a very thin veneer indeed. This clearly debunks the myth of America's political system as "democratic". To be sure, America, like Britain, has great democratic potential. In practice, however, as in Britain, while the electorate may vote for a particular leader, what the electorate does not know is that the elected leader, irrespective of political persuasion, will invariably do the bidding of the financial interests pulling the strings from behind the scenes.

Welles' Special Subcommittee created the blueprint for the UN and, in collaboration with the IAG, played an important role during the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks Conference, at which proposals were formulated and discussed for the creation of a "general international organization" that later became the United Nations.

Over 40 CFR members who were members of the above groups were delegates to the 1945 San Francisco Conference where the UN Charter was written. They included:

• editor of the CFR magazine Foreign Affairs, Hamilton Fish Armstrong;

• director of John Hopkins University and CFR vice-president Isaiah Bowman;

• president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) James T. Shotwell;

• Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius;

• CFR co-founder and future Secretary of State John Foster Dulles;

• future Governor of New York and US Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller;

• future President of the World Bank John Jay ("Jack") McCloy;

• Secretary-General of the UN Conference and Director of the US Office of Special Political Affairs (OSPA) Alger Hiss; etc. (O'Sullivan, pp. 68-70; Parmar, pp. 123-4; Smoot, p. 8).

The CFR groups involved in the creation of the UN were particularly close to other influential organizations and institutions such as banks and foundations which served as sources of financial support for their internationalist projects. Notable examples are the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) and leading banks like Chase National and National City, which were controlled by interlocking interests.

The CEIP's president was Alger Hiss who was exposed as a Soviet agent, followed by J. T. Shotwell, while J. F. Dulles was its chairman. David Rockefeller himself joined the Endowment in 1947, ostensibly thanks to his long-time friend Dulles but officially at the invitation of Hiss (Rockefeller, p. 151). In 1949 he joined the CFR board of directors. In 1969 he became chairman and chief executive of Chase Manhattan Bank (created through a merger of the Rockefeller National City Bank and the J. P. Morgan Chase National). In 1970 he was elected CFR chairman and subsequently head of the nominating committee for membership.

What becomes evident is that the same persons who controlled international banking and endowments were also controlling the CFR and US foreign policy. David Rockefeller has admitted that the CFR "continues to influence the formulation of American foreign policy" to this day (Rockefeller, p. 408). Rockefeller believed that a "new international architecture" had to be created and was determined to play a role in this through the CFR which he thought "the best place to pursue" that line (Rockefeller, p. 406).

In addition to his influence in the CFR, Rockefeller was also on friendly terms with UN officials like Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim and, of course, Henry Kissinger. Kissinger was director of foreign policy study at CFR and worked for the Rockefeller brothers (David and Nelson) since the mid-1950s (www.cfr.org). He was also adviser to J. F. Kennedy and other US presidents, being particularly influential in an official capacity as Secretary of State (responsible for foreign affairs). Significantly, Kissinger has been identified as a Soviet collaborator by American and French sources (de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 1, p. 34).

The Rockefellers also had ample means of influencing US and world affairs through numerous projects funded by organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation; through organizations like the Communist-controlled Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) and the Trilateral Commission; through donations to political parties; and through direct business negotiations between the Rockefellers and international leaders, particularly in the Communist Bloc, such as Nikita Khrushchev of Soviet Russia and Zhou Enlai of Maoist China.

In sum, while the UN was run by Socialist politicians, the money interests behind it carried on doing business as usual, including with Socialist dictatorships like Russia and China, enabling them to survive and thrive at the expense of democracy and freedom.

THE UN: A WORLD GOVERNMENT IN THE MAKING

The influence of business on world affairs has little to do with "conspiracy theory" and a lot to do with the facts on the ground. Nations establish relations with each other in order to foster international trade. Business interests have always played a major role in international relations. As Henry Kissinger put it, "If you don't understand the close links between the economy and politics, you cannot really be a true statesman" (de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 1, p. 38).

Unfortunately, those who profit most from international business are the established business groups behind multinational corporations. The economic power wielded by these groups enables them to influence and even dominate politics. When monopolistic business interests ally themselves with political interests, they can virtually rule a nation, a group of nations, or the whole world, as long as the nation or nations in question are part of an economic system dominated or controlled by those interests.

As the world is increasingly integrated into a single economic system which, as we have just seen, is dominated by certain business interests, it is coming close to a situation of domination by, and subservience to, those interests. The UN, in particular, has been in receipt of substantial Rockefeller funding (Ban, 2012), as was its predecessor the League of Nations and, like the latter, is becoming more and more an instrument through which the monopolistic business interests behind it are placing themselves in a position where they can virtually rule the world.

Indeed, the structure of the UN system is sufficiently similar to that of nation-states for it to be regarded as a World State. To begin with, like any state, the UN system performs specific legislative, executive, and judicial functions.

The General Assembly

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) is the legislative branch of the UN. It was established by the UN Charter in 1945. It has the power to appoint the UN President, the Secretary-General and members of other UN branches like the Security Council and Economic and Social Council. It also oversees the UN budget, receives reports and makes recommendations in the form of resolutions. As we saw earlier, the first UN President was the Belgian Socialist Paul-Henri Spaak and the first Secretary-General the Norwegian Socialist Trygve Lie. (Official website: www.un.org)

The Security Council

The UN Security Council (UNSC) is another key organ of the UN which operates in close cooperation with the General Assembly. It was created for the purpose of "peacekeeping" and authorizing international sanctions. It has its own President, a position first occupied by the Socialist Norman J. 0. Makin, a leading member of the Australian Labor Party. (Official website: www.un.org)

The Secretariat

The UN Secretariat is the executive branch of the UN. It carries out tasks on the orders of the above UN bodies and provides information and facilities for their meetings. It is headed by the UN Secretary-General who is assisted by an Under-Secretary-General. The first UN Under-Secretary-General in the Secretariat's Department of Political Affairs was the Soviet Communist Arkady Sobolev. (Official website: www.un.org)

The World Court

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) or "World Court" is the judicial branch of the UN. It was established in 1945 by the UN Charter to settle international legal disputes and as a replacement for the League of Nations' Permanent Court of International Justice. The court consists of 15 judges who are elected for nine years by the General Assembly and the Security Council.

From inception, most of its judges were known Communists and other left-wingers, like the Russian Sergei Krylov, who had also been involved in writing the UN Charter. On the US side, we may mention Philip Jessup (1961-70), chairman of the Communist-controlled Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) and close associate of Alger Hiss and other known Communists. Jessup was involved in the 1943 United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) Conference, the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, the 1945 San Francisco Conference and the drafting of the World Court statute(Griffin, p. 105). (Official website: www.icj-cij.org)

The Economic and Social Council

The UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) coordinates the economic, social and related work of the various UN agencies and commissions, and consults in its work with academics and business representatives. Its first President was the Indian Ramaswami Mudaliar, former General Secretary of the left-wing Indian Justice Party. The second ECOSOC President was the left-wing Yugoslav Andrija Stampar, a member of several international "expert committees" funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. (Official website: www.un.org)

Among the organizations operating through ECOSOC's coordinating machinery are the following specialized agencies (autonomous organizations):

The International Labour Organization

The International Labour Organization (ILO) was created as an agency of the League of Nations by the 1919 Treaty of Versailles and became a special agency of the UN in 1946. It deals with employment and social security issues and is run by a Governing Body headed by a Director-General.

From inception, ILO was a British Fabian-instigated outfit which was set up with the assistance of Professor James T. Shotwell, a member of the executive committee of President Woodrow Wilson's Inquiry Group and was linked with leading Fabians like William Stephen Sanders and Philip Noel-Baker (Martin, pp. 278-9).

The Fabian Frank Wallis Galton was Secretary-General of its Secretariat a.k.a. International Labour Office and it has had a string of Socialists and Fabian collaborators as Directors-General: the French Socialist Albert Thomas (1919-32), the Briton Harold Butler (1932-38), the American John G. Winant (1939-41) the Irishman Edward Phelan (1941-48), the American David A. Morse (1948-70), etc. (Official website: www.ilo.org)

The World Bank

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) or "World Bank" (WB) was established at the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference by the USA, Britain and Russia, the former two being the principal movers behind the project as well as the Bank's largest shareholders.

As noted by Catherine Gwin, the World Bank is dominated by the United States which sees the Bank as an instrument of foreign policy "to be used in support of specific U.S. aims and objectives" (Gwin, pp. 1, 59). Similarly, Mark Curtis, who describes the World Bank as "an instrument of control", states that US and British planners have "always regarded the World Bank as a vehicle for exerting influence over the international economy and as an instrument of their foreign policies" (M. Curtis 1998, p. 78).

This is, of course, true. But the picture only becomes complete if and when we have understood who the "US and British planners" were and whose "specific aims and objectives" the Bank is serving.

One of the key architects of the World Bank was Harry Dexter White of the US Treasury Department, who had close links to the Rockefeller-associated Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR). Among World Bank presidents, who are traditionally US nationals appointed by the US president on the advice of members of the international money power, have been

• Eugene Meyer, former chairman of Federal Reserve (the US central banking system);

• Eugene R. Black, Sr., vice-president of Chase National Bank, whose father served as Fed chairman;

• Robert McNamara, of Ford Motor Company;

• Lewis T. Preston, of J. P. Morgan;

• and James Wolfensohn, of J. Rothschild, Wolfensohn & Co.

All were also CFR directors or had close links to CFR interests.

Following the creation of the World Bank, the CFR-dominated US State Department noted the "important diplomatic weapon of loans" (M. Curtis 1998, p. 79). Indeed, as the World Bank provides loans to governments -for example, its first loans beginning in 1947 were to European countries for post-war reconstruction its influence on world affairs has been considerable. World Bank president John J. McCloy of the New York law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, a Rockefeller representative, became High Commissioner for Occupied Germany and was responsible for the creation of the German state after the war. McCloy also became chairman of Chase and CFR, as well as adviser to a string of US presidents.

As pointed out by the economist P. T. Bauer, foreign aid increases the power of recipient governments vis-a-vis the general population and makes them dependent on the foreign donors (Bauer, 1976, pp. 106-7; Bauer, 2000, p. 46). The vast amounts of money at its disposal mean that the World Bank remains one of the most powerful financial institutions in the world (in 2011, its loan portfolio reached $258 billion).

As all the above-named World Bank presidents were also CFR members, the influence of the CFR and the (Rockefeller-associated) business interests behind it is indisputable.

As for British planners' influence on the Bank, it is evident from the involvement of chief Fabian economist John M. Keynes in its formation, as well as in the large number of LSE graduates among its staff.

World Bank projects involving large-scale agricultural development, timber management and road and dam construction from India to the Philippines and from Africa to Brazil have resulted in the displacement of millions of citizens, as have its privatization programmes in Central and Eastern Europe, Russia and elsewhere, while enabling the banking and financial institutions behind it to take over entire economic sectors across the globe (see also Ch. 10). (Official website: www.worldbank.org/ext/en/home)

The International Monetary Fund

Another key organization associated with the UN is the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF was also created at Bretton Woods in 1944, ostensibly to promote international trade and economic cooperation. The interests behind IMF are the same as those behind the World Bank, as evidenced by the involvement of Harry Dexter White who was responsible for the groundwork for the creation of both the World Bank and the IMF.

Some authors insist that as White was not a member of the CFR, this means that institutions like the World Bank and the IMF were not created by the New York financial oligarchy but by "officials in Washington, DC" (Parmar, p. 122). The fact is that, as already noted, White had strong connections with the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) which in turn was strongly influenced by Morgan-Rockefeller interests and funded by the same interests which funded the CFR.

The chief figure in the IPR for many years was Boston banker Jerome D. Greene, a Milner Group member and close associate of Morgan-Rockefeller interests (Smoot, 34; Quigley, 1981, p. 192). On his part, White's collaborator and co-architect of the Breton Woods system, John Keynes, long-time Secretary-General of the Fabian Royal Economic Society (RES), had been the head of the Treasury division in charge of external finance during WWI and later became a director of the Bank of England and was therefore a trusted collaborator or agent of vested financial interests associated with the above.

As in the case of the World Bank, Anglo-American and, in particular, Eastern Establishment control of the IMF is evident from the identity of those who run it. The Fund's very first managing director was the Belgian Camille Gutt, a close collaborator of the international bankers who controlled Belgium and its colonial interests. He had been a member of a group in charge of Belgian purchases in London during World War I and, in the 1920s, became Assistant to the Treasury under Finance Minister Emile Francqui. In this capacity he was involved in a loan to the Belgian state by an Anglo-American banking syndicate.

With Francqui's assistance, he then secured a post with the Societe Generale de Belgique (SGB), Belgium's Rothschild-associated dominant bank, of which Francqui was a director and later governor. Francqui was also a managing director of Union Miniere du Haut Katanga, which was co-owned by the SBG and the British Tanganyika Concessions and represented the Anglo-American Establishment's mining interests in the Belgian Congo. Gutt himself joined various mining and industrial companies with links to Katanga, as well as Ford Motor Company (Belgium). During World War II, he became Minister of Finance in the London-based Belgian government-in-exile, was involved in the creation of the IMF and World Bank and, on retiring as IMF managing director in 1951, became a business associate of Baron Leon Lambert, a Rothschild relative and head of Banque Lambert, the Rothschilds' Belgian agents.

As the world's largest creditor as well as largest contributor to the Fund, America controlled the IMF from inception. This is reflected in the fact that while the Fund's managing director was a European, its deputy managing directors were American. In addition, CFR and Trilateral Commission members have held key posts in the IMF, for example, Denis Healey (TC), chairman of the Interim Committee of the IMF Board of Governors from 1977 to 1979 and, more recently, Antonio Borges (TC), director of the IMF European Department; Mihai Tanasescu (TC), senior adviser and member of the executive board; Shigemitsu Sugisaki (TC), deputy managing director; Anne Krueger (CFR), first deputy managing director; John Lipsky (CFR), first deputy managing director and acting managing director. Lipsky has also been vice-chairman of J. P. Morgan and (following the latter's 2000 merger with Chase) worked for JPMorgan Chase.

Significantly, the CFR was created "to direct American intercourse with foreign nations" (see above). The Trilateral Commission had a similar purpose. As its founder David Rockefeller relates, already in the first year of its existence, the commission published reports on political and monetary relations between America, Europe and Japan, in order to influence the behaviour of their governments (Rockefeller, p. 417). The intention of CFR and TC to influence governments is therefore beyond dispute. Moreover, as both organizations and their leading members, McCloy, Lipsky, etc., have been employees of the Morgan-Chase banking groups, it is reasonable to infer that they have been representing the interests of the said groups. Indeed, it would be absurd to believe otherwise.

In conjunction with the World Bank and other powerful bodies like the US Department of State (responsible for foreign affairs as well as international economic policy), the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US Export-Import Bank, the IMF forms a formidable lobby group for the multinational corporations which established it and whose interests the Fund clearly represents.

The group is assisted in this role by fifth columns operating in target countries and consisting of local bankers and industrialists, political leaders and technocrats such as Harvard-or LSE-educated and IMF-trained "economists" indoctrinated with the IMF ideology and employed as advisers to central banks and finance ministries.

Countries seeking financial assistance from the IMF are expected to allow the Fund to dictate their economic policies. Those who do not submit to the Fund's conditions will have their credit rating downgraded and can be denied access to international credit, the main sources of which (private lenders, governments or multilateral institutions like the World Bank) are closely connected to the interests represented by the Fund. The latter and associated organizations can also apply pressure on neighbouring countries to enforce cooperation or to impose financial and economic isolation, on reluctant governments (Payer, pp. x, 44-6, 71, 77 ff.).

Like the World Bank, the IMF has been, for most of its history, following Keynesian principles and represents a prime illustration of the close collaboration between international money interests and Fabian Socialism. Among the IMF's notable achievements has been the funding of Europe's and particularly Britain's, Socialist governments from the 1940s to the 70s (Martin, pp. 77, 109; p. 504, below).

Being designed with post-war European debt in mind, the IMF has remained an instrument for exerting pressure on European governments and for pushing them in a Fabian Socialist direction by imposing Keynesian policies of deficit spending, as evidenced since the 2007 financial crisis. (Official website: www.imf.org)

The International Financial Corporation

The International Financial Corporation (IFC) was established in 1956 at the suggestion of Nelson Rockefeller (who headed the International Development Advisory Board) and in collaboration with Eugene R. Black, Sr., president, and Robert L. Garner, former vice-president, of the World Bank.

Its task of financing private sector projects, e.g., lending to private companies, enabled the IFC to play a key role in privatization programmes around the world in collaboration with the World Bank, the IMF and banking consortia. For the most part, such programmes have been thinly-veiled takeovers of previously state-owned assets (from natural resources to industry and banks) by the Anglo-American Establishment -with disastrous consequences to the economies in question (see, for example, the case of former Communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe, described in Chapter 10, pp. 451 ff.). (Official website: www.ifc.org)

The World Trade Organization

The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995 to supervise (and control) international trade. It replaced the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GA TT) created at the 1947 UN Conference on Trade and Employment whose co-founder and first Director-General was LSE-lecturer Eric Wyndham White.

Out of WTO's six Directors-General to date, three have been Socialists: Renato Ruggiero of the Italian Socialist Party, Mike Moore of the New Zealand Labour Party and Pascal Lamy of the French Socialist Party. Lamy's predecessor, Supachai Panitchpakdi of Thailand, is a disciple of Dutch economist Jan Tinbergen who preached a synthesis of Capitalism and Socialism of the kind favoured by international financiers like those behind the UN. (Official website: www.wto.org)

UNESCO

The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is the cultural agency of the UN. It succeeded the Milner-Fabian League of Nations' International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation (CICI) and was created in 1945 to promote "international collaboration" through education, science and culture. Its first Director-General was the British Fabian Socialist Julian Huxley, a friend of leading Milnerites and world federalists Lionel Curtis and David Astor. (Official website: www.unesco.org)

Also associated with the UN are:

• the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAQ),

• the World Health Organization (WHO)

• and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF),

all of which have similar histories, compositions and aims to those of the organizations already discussed.

It becomes evident from the above that, from the start, the UN has been a left-wing organization, with leaders ranging from outright Communists and Fabian Socialists to pro-Socialist Democrats and Rockefeller "Republicans" representing international business interests.

It should be noted in this connection that the US Republican Party has its roots in the Whig movement (which was, by definition, left-wing) and only came to be seen as "centre-right" or "conservative" because the whole political system shifted to the left, especially with the appearance of Socialists and Communists.

THE UN AND NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was a creation of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in collaboration with Britain's Fabian Socialist Prime Minister Clement Attlee, whose main objective, as admitted by Labour Defence Secretary, Denis Healey, was "the conversion of the United Nations into some form of world government" (Healey, p. 3).

In 1948, Attlee's Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, former chairman of the Society for Socialist Information and Propaganda (SSIP), founded by the Fabians, engineered the Treaty of Brussels which established the Western Union Defence Organization (WUDO), a military alliance between Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, which obliged its members to cooperate with the United Nations Security Council. In 1949, WUDO was expanded to include the US, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland, giving birth to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

A number of NATO Secretaries-General have been Socialists, notably, Paul-Henri Spaak (1957-61), Willy Claes (1994-95) and Javier Solana (1995-99). NATO's first Secretary-General was Lord Ismay, who infamously declared that its aim was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down", a preposterous claim given that after World War II Germany had no military (or anything else) for nuclear-armed NATO to "keep down".

The shocking truth was that in 1949 Germany was under Allied Socialist occupation, namely, by

• Communist Russia (under Stalin);

• Britain (under Socialist PM Clement Attlee);

• France (under Socialist President Vincent Auriol);

• and the US (under Democratic and pro-Socialist President Harry Truman).

In fact, far from the Russians being "kept out", half of Germany was under Russian occupation and most of Central and Eastern Europe -including Poland and Ukraine -was under Russian-controlled Communist puppet regimes as agreed by the "Big Three" in 1944-45 (Radzinsky, pp. 481-2; www.randomhouse.com).

NATO's true agenda was revealed by Britain's new Socialist bosses. Richard Crossman, leading member of the Fabian Society and Labour Party executives, stated: "We are members of the Atlantic Alliance (NATO); but this does not mean that we are enemies of every Communist revolution" (Griffin, p. 173). Moreover, Crossman explained, Communist movements were often the most effective way of introducing Socialism (Martin, p. 82). Similarly, leading Fabian and Labour Defence Secretary, Denis Healey, urged international cooperation, particularly with Communist Russia and China (Pugh, p. 242; Martin, p. 105).

As with other UN-linked bodies, the main mover behind NATO apart from Socialist politicians was a certain elite group of pro-Socialist international financiers. In 1973, US Secretary of State and Rockefeller front man Henry Kissinger was openly pushing for "dialogue" with Communist Russia (de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 2, p. 75). By 1975, NATO had been transformed from an alleged "shield against Communism" into an instrument of Communist collaboration. As implicitly stated by CFR member and US Ambassador to NATO, Robert Hunter, NATO was doing the bidding of the CFR (Wall Street Journal, 10 Dec. 1993 quoted by de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 2, p. 119). (Official website: www.nato.int)

THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION

Another key component of the international money power's system of global control is the Institute of International Education (IIE). The IIE was established in 1919 in New York, at the instigation of Elihu Root and Stephen P. Duggan of City College (City University of New York). Professor Duggan, who was a founding member of the CFR, a supporter of the League of Nations and an advocate of international student exchange, was the institute's first director. In addition, the IIE has been funded by Carnegie, Rockefeller and Ford interests. As pointed out by Smoot, the IIE is "wholly a CFR operation", its officials being members of the CFR (Smoot, p. 125; Harley, pp. 395, 399).

Unsurprisingly, the IIE aims to "increase the capacity of people to think and work on a global and intercultural basis" and has been working to extend the money power's global reach through higher education activities, lectureships, scholarships and related projects around the world. Its closeness to Rockefeller-UN interests is indicated by the location of its New York headquarters at United Nations Plaza and use of Chase Bank accounts. (Official website: www.iie.org)

CONTROLLING RELIGION

In addition to finance, trade, politics, culture and education, the international money power is able to influence, manipulate and control religion for subversive purposes through an extensive network of organizations operating both nationally and globally. This has been facilitated by the fact that many religious organizations were already headquartered in New York, one of the money power's main bases.

This network currently comprises dozens of organizations which interlock or are otherwise connected with hundreds of others. While it would be outside the scope of the present study to investigate or even list them all, we may briefly note some representative examples (a more comprehensive list of such organizations may be obtained from the works of Dan Smoot, Antony Sutton and other researchers).

Among these, religious organizations are particularly important. As this type of organizations is not commonly regarded as connected with politics, the general public is particularly susceptible to their propaganda, indoctrination and manipulation. In the midst of a world which, due to certain economic, social and cultural developments, is progressively disoriented and overwhelmed by rapid and drastic changes, the Church appears for many as an oasis of tradition, tranquility and psychological and spiritual support. Unfortunately, we find that, like mosques in the Muslim world, most churches belong to organizations created by the international money power as instruments for influencing, manipulating and controlling religion for purposes of subversion and world domination.

The Riverside Church

The Riverside Church is a key element in the Rockefellers' Kremlin of New York, a complex of academic and religious institutions located in the Morningside Heights neighbourhood of Manhattan. Dominated by the Rockefeller-funded Columbia University, the neighbourhood includes various Rockefeller associated entities such as

• Union Theological Seminary,

• National Council of Churches,

• Teachers College,

• Barnard College,

• International House.

Riverside Church was established in 1841 as the Norfolk Street Baptist Church. It was joined by prominent New York families in the 1890s when John D. Rockefeller, Jr., was elected to the board of trustees. One of its leaders from the 1920s to the 40s was Harry E. Fosdick, a leading leftist theologian and Rockefeller front man, whose brother Raymond was president of the Rockefeller Foundation and the General Education Board. The massive church building was erected at its current location on Riverside Drive with funds provided by the Rockefellers and was inaugurated in 1930.

Riverside is officially an interdenominational, interracial and international church. Devotees are daily remembered of this fact by its very architecture: the main portal contains figures of various religious leaders including prophet Mohammed (Collier, p. 154). This is an important detail that will contribute to a better understanding of the money power's attitude towards multiracialism, multiculturalism, multireligionism and Islamization.

True to the political aspirations of its financial backers, the Church follows the "Social Gospel" tradition which preaches a form of Christian Socialism typically promoted by Anglo-American Fabian groups. Accordingly, the Church lobbies for immigrants rights, prison reform and "humane legislation". In addition, Riverside Church has been involved in projects like "Occupy Faith", which supported the left-wing protest movement Occupy Wall Street (OWS). (Official website: www.trcnyc.org)

The Union Theological Seminary

Union Theological Seminary (UTS) was founded in New York in 1836 and is one of America's leading theological schools. It has been funded by the Rockefellers and has been closely associated with other key New York outfits from the Riverside Church to Columbia University since the early 1900s.

Riverside leader H. E. Fosdick served as professor at Union and among its graduates have been prominent Fabian Socialists like Reinhold Niebuhr, Walter Rauschenbusch and Steven Rockefeller, a trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Union has been closely associated with the Black Liberation Movement and its students were among the financial sponsors of the 1969 Black Economic Development Conference of Detroit, which produced the infamous "Black Manifesto" declaring war on the white Christian churches (Collier, p. 155; Findlay, p. 130; here, p. 377).

Union Theological is located across Claremont A venue from Riverside Church and, like the latter, it has been a supporter of subversive projects such as OWS. What becomes apparent is that the money power controls not only the Establishment but also opposition to the Establishment.

This role has been played particularly well by the Soros-associated Tides Foundation, Tides Center, and interlocking organizations which have been identified as a "nerve center of radical Shadow Party activity". The "Shadow Party" has been accurately described as "a network of private organizations [led by George Soros and associates] that exercises a powerful and hidden influence over the Democratic Party, and through it, over American politics in general" (Horowitz & Poe, pp. xi, 125). Soros' Tides operations have been funded by Rockefeller-associated outfits like the Rockefeller Foundation, Rockefeller Family Fund, Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation (Horowitz & Laksin, p. 10). (Official website: www.utsnyc.edu)

The National Council of Churches

The National Council of Churches (NCC) is another key element in the cluster of Rockefeller institutions located around Riverside Drive. The Council was founded in 1908 as the Federal Council of Churches (FCC), at the instigation of Fabian Socialists Walter Rauschenbusch and Harry F. Ward (see Ch. 2, The Fabian Conspiracy). Unsurprisingly, it was an organization belonging to the same Social Gospel/Christian Socialist movement as the above two outfits.

From inception, the Council was closely associated with well-known members of the Eastern Establishment like Andrew Carnegie and CFR co-founder John Foster Dulles. Its founding conference (1905) was held at Carnegie Hall and the Council itself received funding from Andrew Carnegie. In 1958, the NCC had its permanent New York headquarters built on land donated by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., across the street from Riverside Church.

The fifteen-story Interchurch Center is the headquarters of the principal Protestant denominations in America (Collier, p. 155) and as such is the Protestant equivalent of the Vatican. Already in 1921, the Council established a department of race relations and, from the 1960s, assumed a leading role in national race policies (Findlay, pp. 6, 11, 12). (Official website: nationalcouncilofchurches.us)

The National Conference for Community and Justice

The National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ) originally National Conference of Christians and Jews was established in 1928 by CFR member Charles Evans Hughes and former president of the Rockefeller-associated National Council of Churches, S. Parkes Cadman. In 1950, the NCCJ founded World Brotherhood at UNESCO House in Paris. Among the Brotherhood's officers were well-known architects and builders of the New World Order like CFR members John J. McCloy and Herbert H. Lehman, who was also an official of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), as well as Europeanists like Paul-Henri Spaak and Conrad Adenauer (Smoot, p. 118). Official website: nccj.org

The World Council of Churches

Another organization created by the international money power as an instrument for influencing, manipulating and controlling religion is the World Council of Churches (WCC). The WCC is an international organization established in 1948 and funded by the Rockefeller Group both directly, through personal donations by members of the Group and indirectly, through outfits like the National Council of Churches (Duff, pp. 39, 184).

WCC's first secretary-general was the Dutch Willem ("Wim") Visser't Hooft, who belonged to the Social Gospel movement and, like NCC leaders, preached a form of Christian Socialism promoted by Anglo-American Fabian groups. In addition, Visser't Hooft maintained close links to the international money power's secret services (MI6, OSS et al.) operating from Geneva in the 1940s and to the KGB.

Ostensibly aiming to promote unity of faith and practice among Christian churches, in reality, the Council aims to create a "new society" on Socialist lines and has funded anti-Christian, Marxist revolutionary groups like Rhodesia's (later Zimbabwe) anti-white Patriotic Front (PF), whose leader Robert Mugabe became President (Feuer, p. 239).

WCC is headquartered at the Ecumenical Center, 150 route de Perney, Geneva, in the vicinity of various UN outfits and has declared itself "committed to the principles and purposes of the UN". The two entities have been officially engaged in "strong and close collaboration" ("United Nations and World Council of Churches reaffirm cooperation'', 30 Oct. 2007; www.ekklesia.co.uk).

The Milner-Fabian-dominated Church of England was a founding member of the WCC and many other churches around the world have been members from 1948. Other key members are various Anglican, Protestant and, from the early 1960s, Eastern Orthodox (Bulgarian, Romanian, Russian, Serbian) churches. While not a member, the Catholic Church has "worked closely with the Council for decades", according to the latter. (Official website: oikoumene.org) (See also pp. 361-6).

THE UN AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR GLOBAL OPPRESSION

As noted earlier, the UN was based on inequality among nations. Many nations which had been sovereign before World War II, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe -Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic countries -found themselves divided into "zones of occupation" and "spheres of influence" over which they had no control, becoming virtual colonies of Communist Russia and its Western allies, with UN approval.

Even outside Europe, there were countries like India which, in spite of becoming independent in 1947, found itself under the repressive Fabian Socialist regime of Jawaharlal Nehru, a staunch supporter of the UN. Maoist China, too, despite its being a murderous Communist dictatorship, became a leading UN member along with its fellow-Communist dictatorship, Stalinist Russia.

The UN has actively supported dictatorships and corrupt regimes in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Some notorious early examples exposing the true nature of the UN are its interventions on the side of Soviet-backed Communists in Korea in the 1950s and in the Belgian Congo in the 1960s (Griffin, 1964).

The United Nations Foundation

The United Nations Foundation (UNF) is one of the organizations through which the Anglo-American Establishment funds and controls the UN. The UNF was established in 1998 by Robert Edward ("Ted") Turner and is run by a "small and cohesive board of directors" which includes UNF founder and chairman Ted Turner himself, Emma Rothschild and Kofi Annan.

Ted Turner is the founder and chairman of Turner Enterprises and CNN, and former vice-chairman as well as major shareholder of Rockefeller dominated global media group Time Warner. He is also a major financial supporter of the UNF.

Emma Rothschild is Harvard University Professor of History, Cambridge University Honorary Professor of History and Economics, former member of the British government's Council for Science and Technology, former chairman of the Kennedy Memorial Trust and the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development and former member of the Carnegie/MacArthur Committee on International Security.

She is the daughter of Fabian Socialist and Labour peer Lord Victor Rothschild (of Shell), sister of Amschel Rothschild (of N. M. Rothschild), half-sister of Lord Jacob Rothschild (of Rothschild Investment Trust Capital Partners) and a relative, through her maternal grandmother, of leading Fabian ideologue Beatrice Webb.

In addition, Emma is married to left-wing Harvard economist Amartya Sen, an alumnus of the Delhi School of Economics (a clone of the Fabian LSE), a trustee of Economists for Peace and Security and member of Oxford Martin School's advisory council.

Kofi Annan was UN Secretary-General from 1997 to 2006 and is one of the money power's key global agents, being a long-time lieutenant of David Rockefeller (and member of J.P. Morgan International Council).

Rockefeller's relationship to his agents is indicated by the back cover of his Memoirs listing "advance praise" for the book from Rockefeller apostles Henry Kissinger, Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan and Prof. John Kenneth Galbraith (Rockefeller's long-time Harvard friend and collaborator). The list identifies Rockefeller's main preoccupations in life as well as spheres of influence, namely, international relations, Africa/black causes, the UN/World Government and the teaching of leftist economics.

Accordingly, the UNF which works closely with the Rockefeller Foundation and other organizations of associated interests funding the UN, concerns itself with "humanitarian", socioeconomic and environmental issues and has funded UN programmes like the Better World Campaign which aims to tie the United States closer to the UN. (Official website: www.unfoundation.org)

The Millennium Project

The Millennium Project is a typical Fabian Socialist initiative launched by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2000. Ostensibly aiming to cut poverty, it has been described as "the largest global wealth redistribution programme ever conceived" (see also the UN's "North-South Dialogue", p. 441).

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the Millennium Project identified poverty as the "cause" of terrorism, in effect hijacking the war on terrorism and making it into a "war on poverty" for its own subversive purposes.

From inception, the Project was headed by Professor Jeffrey Sachs, former director of the Harvard Institute for International Development and close collaborator of George Soros (Horowitz & Poe, pp. 224-8). (Official website: www.millennium-project.org)

The Global Forum on Migration and Development

The Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) was established in 2006 by Peter Sutherland, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Migration at the Secretary Generals' (Kofi Annan) request.

Sutherland is a leading member of the Anglo-American Establishment, having served as vicechairman of the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT), chairman of Goldman Sachs International, chairman of the Trilateral Commission (Europe) and chairman of the LSE.

The Forum meets in Geneva about once a month to make proposals for the annual meetings which take place in member states. It is backed in its work by the European Commission and is funded by the MacArthur Foundation (Lords Select Committee, pp. 3-4).

The latter is run by CFR member Barry Lowen Kron; Marjorie M. Scardino, CEO of Pearson and former CEO of the Economist Group; and Jamie Gorelick, director of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace and CFR member.

The MacArthur Foundation is also notorious for financing left-wing organizations and, significantly, pro-immigration groups (Lengell, 2007). (Official website: www.gfmd.org)

THE UN AND THE POLITICS OF RACE

From the very start, the UN has shown a strange yet, given its origins, understandable obsession with race. It first began by suggesting that the word "race" should not even be mentioned. A statement issued by UNESCO on 18 July 1950, declared: "it would be better when speaking of human races to drop the term 'race' altogether and speak of ethnic groups" (unesdoc.unesco.org).

It later attempted to ban even the use of "ethnic groups" as incompatible with the new UN World Order: "Any distinction ... or preference based on race, colour, ethnic or national origin ... is incompatible with the requirements of an international order which is just ... " ("Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice'', Article 3, 27 Nov. 1978; portal.unesco.org).

Interestingly, UNESCO also admitted the existence of entities controlling the mass media: "The mass media and those who control or serve them ... are urged ... to contribute to the eradication of racism, racial discrimination and racial prejudice" ("Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice'', Article 5, Paragraph 3, 27 Nov. 1978; portal.unesco.org).

The question is, who controls whom? Clearly, the UN makes the rules, based on its own Charter and Declaration of Human Rights: "Confirming its [UNESCO's] attachment to the principles proclaimed in the United Nations Charter..." ("Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice", Preamble, 27 Nov. 1978; portal.unesco.org).

The UN also demands that its rules be made law (!) in all countries: "States should adopt such legislation as is appropriate to this end and see that it is given effect and applied by all their services, with due regard to, the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" ("Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice", Article 7, 27 Nov. 1978; portal.unesco.org).

The ultimate goal of all this, of course, is the establishment of a New World Order: "Confirming its [UNESCO's] determination to promote the implementation of ... the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order" ("Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice", Preamble, 27 Nov. 1978; portal. unesco. org).

There we have it, black on white. THIS is what it is all about. This is why the UN has been created by Socialists in collaboration with international financiers: to establish a New Economic World Order that serves the interests of monopolistic international Capitalism! Needless to say, this New Economic World Order has been the central plank in Marxism, Fabian Socialism and related left-wing ideologies including Rockefeller "Republicanism".

Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever that the UN has eradicated racism. On the contrary, racism, racial discrimination and racial prejudice are even more widespread than ever, the only difference being that it is now directed at the white race, as can be seen from the way white people are treated in Africa, America, Asia, Europe and elsewhere (see also Ch. 8, Immigration).

As pointed out by the watchdog group Eye on the UN, "The UN's idea of combating racism and xenophobia is to encourage more of it" ("UN racism event highlights divisions", BBC News, 24 Apr. 2009).

UN race politics as an instrument for Genocide

At the World Conference at Durban, 2001, the UN stated: "Any doctrine of racial superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and must be rejected along with theories which attempt to determine the existence of separate human races" (Durban Declaration, World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Durban, South Africa, 31 Aug. -8 Sept. 2001).

While doctrines of racial superiority may or may not be "scientifically false" (the Declaration provides no evidence in support of its claim), it is a patent fact that human races do exist. The UN denies this.

Under the pretext of "combating racism", it denies the existence of different human races and, by implication, their right to life! No wonder that white communities trying to assert their right to life against stateimposed mass immigration from non-white areas are invariably branded "racist" and "xenophobic"!

The shocking truth behind the UN's "anti-racism" policies is that the white populations of Africa are already close to extinction, having been reduced to 0.65 per cent of Africa's total population. This includes South Africa which has traditionally had the largest white population ("White population in decline", News24, 20 Sept. 2004; www.news24.com; Simpson, 2013). This trend is being repeated on other continents, including Europe, where population growth is very low and mostly driven by immigration from nonwhite areas like Africa and Asia ("Population and social conditions", Eurostat, 81, 2008; epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu).

Once making up 25 per cent of the world population (in 1900), Europeans have now been reduced to 11 per cent and on current trends their numbers are expected to fall to 7 per cent by 2050 ("The last days of a white world", Observer, 3 Sept. 2000). Europe is the only region in the world to see its indigenous population decline by the end of the century ("World population by country: UN guesses the shape of the world by 2100", Guardian DataBlog, 26 Oct. 2011).

Similar trends can be observed in other white majority areas like the USA. This clearly makes white people the only race on the planet with a declining population and exposes the UN's "anti-racism" policies as an anti-white scam.

THE UN AND IMMIGRATION

Immigration has been one of the principal tools employed by the international money power to achieve its financial, political and socio-demographic goals. Large-scale immigration has provided economies dominated by the money power with cheap labour, maximizing its profits and those of its collaborators in business and industry.

Immigration has also benefited the money power politically, serving as a growing pool of support for left-wing regimes (the money power's traditional allies), while enabling it and its political allies to use support for immigrant causes as a propaganda tool for claiming undeserved respectability and moral "superiority" over their political opponents.

In social and demographic terms, mass immigration has been an instrument for the systematic replacement of large sections of European, North American and other Western societies with nonEuropean populations. The UN has been a chief architect of this process which it has encouraged and facilitated through its various agencies and associated organizations like

• the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),

• the International Labour Organization (ILO)

• and, in particular, the International Organization for Migration (IMO).

The UN Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) works closely with the above organizations, in particular with the IMO, which is "dedicated to promoting humane and orderly migration for the benefit of all" and operates in collaboration with established agencies of the money power such as the LSE and Brookings Institution.

The Global Forum, which consists of LSE chairman Peter Sutherland and "two collaborators", has spoken against immigration restriction and has called for the EU to "do its best to undermine national homogeneity and sense of difference from others" (Lords Select Committee, p. 25).

In combination with calls by the Global Forum and other UN outfits for European nations to become more open to immigration from outside Europe, this is clear evidence of the UN's intention to use immigration as a tool for the deconstruction of Western society and its replacement with non-Western populations.

THE UN AND MULTICULTURALISM

Another strange obsession of the UN's has been "cultural diversity". The UN's insistence that there must be cultural diversity in the world sounds reasonable enough. In fact, cultural diversity already exists in the world. The problem is that the UN also insists on cultural diversity within individual societies.

In official UN reports, the media are urged to enhance the "plurality of perspectives", while it is claimed that cultural diversity is "the very definition of quality media" (UNESCO Report Investing in Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue, 2009; http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000184755).

In other words, irrespective of other essential factors like the objective reporting of facts (or lack of it), the media automatically become "quality media" just by being culturally diverse. By that logic, all the media which have been in existence prior to the rise of mandatory cultural pluralism are pure rubbish and ought to be discarded or even declared illegal and be suppressed by the police forces of UN-controlled puppet governments!

Incredibly, the UN also insists that all citizens of a country have an intimate understanding of other cultures, urging an "increased awareness of the importance of understanding other cultures from within" (UNESCO Report, Investing in Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue, 2009; unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000184755).

To enforce its diversitist policies the UN, through its cultural agency UNESCO, has been campaigning for the creation of a "World Observatory on Cultural Diversity" and a "national mechanism for monitoring public policies as they relate to cultural diversity" (UNESCO Report, Investing in Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue, 2009; unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000184755).

It goes almost without saying that state-enforced cultural diversity amounts to Multiculturalism. The UN ideology of cultural diversity is the true origin and driving force behind multiculturalism. The reason behind these policies emerges from the same UN publications. On its official website, UNESCO describes cultural diversity as a "driving force for economic growth"! (unesco.org, last accessed 1 Sept. 2015).

This once again exposes the UN as an instrument for advancing the interests of monopolistic international financiers and other elitist groups seeking to control the world's economy and increase their profits from "economic growth". The UN's multiculturalist agenda is confirmed by the statements of Peter Sutherland of the UN Forum on Migration to the effect that "the world towards which we are increasingly moving is multicultural" (Lords Select Committee, p. 23).

The truth of the matter, of course, is that we are not moving towards a multicultural world of our own free will, but are being pushed in that direction by the international money power and its representatives like Mr. Sutherland himself.

THE UN AND LSLAMIZATION

The UN's pro-Islamic policies are closely linked with three key elements in the UN System:

(1) the Socialist aim to create a world government,

(2) the Socialist aim to destroy traditional Western civilization and

(3) the oil interests of the UN's financial backers, many of whom (e.g. the Rockefeller Group) are Socialists.

Socialism sees traditional Wes tern culture, such as Christian values, as ''undesirable" (Wollheim, p. 12). In its effort to transform Western culture and make it comply with the requirements of "progressive" fantasies, Socialism allies itself with non-Western cultures, elements of which it uses as instruments for advancing its own agenda. Various forms of "reformed" Islam had been promoted by Milner-Fabian interests from the early 1900s (see Ch. 10, Islamization). This pattern was naturally carried on by the UN which was created by the same interests.

In the 1980s, the UN's cultural agency UNESCO began to promote Islamic culture as part of its "cultural diversity" programme. One such initiative was the production of "Sufi" music records by AUVIDIS. Incidentally, this exposes the hypocrisy of pro-Islamization interests who are using "Sufi" cultural elements as a decoy for making Islam more appealing to non-Muslims, while at the same time suppressing all forms of non-Islamic culture in Muslim countries (see Spencer, pp. 45-6).

At a UN meeting in 1998, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami proposed to make the year 2001 the "United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations". The resolution (GA/RES/53/22) was backed by 12 Islamic states and left-wing US Secretary of State and CFR member Madeleine Albright.

In November 2001, following the 11 September terror attacks on New York and Washington, UNESCO's governing body, the General Conference, headed by Director-General Koichiro Matsuura, adopted the "Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity'', in which the member states reaffirmed "their conviction that intercultural dialogue is the best guarantee of peace, thus categorically rejecting the idea that conflicts between cultures and civilizations are inevitable" ("General Conference adopts Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity", 2 Nov. 2001; http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000156697).

However, in a situation where one culture (for example, European) is forced to accept another culture (for example, Islamic), conflict between them becomes inevitable.

When the UN speaks of "intercultural dialogue", it invariably means dialogue with Islam. And "dialogue with Islam" means the promotion of Islamic culture and religion, and their adoption, in the West. Accordingly, in 2004, the UN in collaboration with European and Arab foreign ministers set up the Anna Lindh Foundation for Dialogue between Cultures (ALF) with the seat in Alexandria, Egypt.

In 2005, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in collaboration with Spain's Socialist leader Zapatero and Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, created a UN High-Level Group (HLG) to set up an organization called Alliance of Civilizations (AoC). The AoC ostensibly aims to "build bridges" between the West and the Islamic world. Its true purpose is to promote Islam in the West and legitimize and accelerate the lslamization process.

In 2007, UNESCO celebrated the 800th anniversary of Muslim poet Jalal ud-din Rumi by declaring that year "the International Year of Rumi" and launching a series of pro-Islamic propaganda programmes including a seminar on 6 September, opened by UNESCO Director-General Matsuura, discussing the ''universality of Rumi in the 21st century" (unesco.org).

In July 2008, the Anna Lindh Foundation and the Alliance of Civilizations in collaboration with the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and 43 European and Arab heads of state and government launched the Barcelona Process "Union for the Mediterranean", with the aim of incorporating Islamic North Africa, Turkey and the Middle East into the European Union (www.consilium.europa.eu).

In November 2008, the European section of the Rockefeller dominated Trilateral Commission -under chairman Peter Sutherland of the UN Global Forum on Migration -met in Paris where it praised the UN-EU programme for uniting Europe with Islamic states (Mediterranean Union) as "a model for the World" (www.trilateral.org).

At the same time (in 2008) several UN high officials including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, UN High Representative for the Alliance of Civilizations Jorje Sampaio and President of the UN Human Rights Council Dom-Romulus Costea (a former ambassador to Arab states), attacked criticism of Islam and suppressed debate on Islamic teachings and practices (Spencer, pp. 75-6).

REFERENCES

Adler, Laure, Entretiens Jacques Attali, Paris, 2007. See also Stirn, below.

Aldrich, Richard J., "OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe, 1948-60", International History Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, London, Nov. 1995.

Attlee, C. R., "Labour's Peace Aims", Daily Herald, 9 Nov. 1939; cf. Manchester Guardian, 9 Nov. 1939.

Bauer, Peter Thomas, Dissent on Development, London, 1976.

BBC News, 10 May 2012, "Nigel Farage warns of EU mass unrest and revolution".

Bideleux, Robert & Taylor, Richard, eds., European Integration and Disintegration: East and West, London, 1996.

Bonnaud, Laurent, "The Channel Tunnel, 1955-75", The Journal of Transpon History, Vol. 22, 1, 2001.

Booker, Christopher & and North, Richard, The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union, London, 2003.

Brady, Tara, "Germany's finance minister warns of a revolt if Europe adopts America's tougher welfare model", Daily Mail, 28 May 2013.

Byrne, Liam, "Liam Byrne: The market is failing -we need a new way forward", Evening Standard, 17 Jul. 2014.

Cabinet Records (CAB), Nat. Arch., Kew, Richmond, Surrey.

Callaghan, John, The Labour Party and Foreign Policy: A History, Abingdon, Oxon, 2007.

Cannadine, David, Aspects of Aristocracy, London, 1995.

Chernow, Ron, The House of Morgan: An American Dynasty and the Rise of Modem Finance, New York, NY, 1990.

Churchill, Winston S., A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, 4 vols., London, 1956.

Clarke, I. F., Voices Prophesying War I763-I984, London, 1966.

Cobain, lain, "Foreign Office hoarding 1m historic files in secret archive", Guardian, 18 Oct. 2013.

Cohen, Antonin, "Le Plan Schuman de Paul Reuter: Entre Commonaute Nationale et Federation Europeenne", Revue francaise de science politique, 1998, vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 645-663.

Cole, Margaret, The Story of Fabian Socialism, London, 1961.

Collier, Peter & Horowitz, David, The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, London, 1976.

Corey, Lewis, The House of Morgan: A Social Biography of the Masters of Money, New York, NY, 1930.

Cowles, Maria Green, "Large Firms and the Transformation of EU Business Associations: a Historical Perspective", in Greenwood, Justin, ed., The Effectiveness of EU Business Associations, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2002, pp. 64-78.

Craig, David & Elliott, Matthew, The Great European Rip-Off, London, 2009.

Curtis, Lionel, World War, Its Cause and Cure, London and New York, NY, 1945.

Curtis, Mark, The Ambiguities of Power: British Foreign Policy Since I945,London, 1995.

Curtis, Mark, The Great Deception: Anglo-American Power and World Order, London, 1998.

Curtis, Mark, Web of Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World, London, 2003.

Davies, Nick, Flat Earth News, London, 2008.

De Villemarest, Pierre, Facts & Chronicles Denied To The Public, vols. 1 & 2, 2003; English trans. Slough, Berkshire, 2004.

Dietrich, John, The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy, New York, NY, 2002.

Dinan, Desmond, Ever Closer Union? An Introduction to the European Community, Basingstoke, 1994.

Dorril, Stephen, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, London, 2001.

Encyclopaedia Judaica, 16 vols., Jerusalem, 1971.

Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose, "Europe's new deal for jobless dismissed as rhetoric", Daily Telegraph, 28 May 2013.

Ferguson, Niall, The House of Rothschild, 2 vols., New York, NY, 2000.

Ferguson, Niall, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, London, 2004.

Fontaine, Pascal, Europe -A Fresh Start: The Schuman Declaration I 950-90, Brussels, 1990.

Gandhi, M. K., "The Publication of Indian Home Rule", Indian Opinion, 2 Apr. 1910.

Gilbert, Martin, Churchill: A Life, London, 1991.

Gillingham, John, European Integration I950-2003: Superstate or New Market Economy?, Cambridge, 2003.

Graham, Otis L. Jr., ed., Perspectives on 20'h Century America: Readings and Commentary, New York, NY, 1973.

Griffiths, John L. (US Consul General at London), in "Laurier Amazed At English Fears", New York Times, 24 May 1911.

Gwin, Catherine, U.S. Relations with the World Bank I945-92, Washington DC, 1994.

Heath, Edward, "A Euro-sceptic? Churchill? Never", Independent, 27 Sept. 1996.

Hodgson, Godfrey, Woodrow Wilson's Right Hand: The Life of Colonel Edward M. House, New Haven and London, 2006.

Hodson, Henry V., Twentieth-Century Empire, London, 1948.

Holt, Hamilton, "Promoter Of International Amity", New York Times, 4 Apr. 1920.

Hom, Martin, Britain, France, and the Financing of the First World War, Montreal, 2002.

Jenkins, Lindsay, Britain Held Hostage, London, 1997.

Joppke, Christian, Immigration and the Nation-State, New York, NY, 1999.

Kilzer, Louis C., Churchill's Deception, New York, NY, 1994.

Kimball, Warren F., Swords or Ploughshares? The Morgenthau Plan for Defeated Nazi Germany, New York, NY, 1976.

Knight, Nigel, Churchill: The Greatest Briton Unmasked, Newton Abbot, Devon, 2008.

Kolz, Arno W. F., "British Economic Interests in Siberia during the Russian Civil War, 1918-1920", Journal of Modern History, vol. 48 (Sept. 1976), pp. 483-491.

Langworth, Richard M., Churchill by Himself: The Life, Times and Opinions ofWinston Churchill in His Own Words, 2008.

Laurent, Eric, La Face cachee des banques, Paris, 2009.

Lavin, Deborah, From Empire to International Commonwealth: A Biography ofLionel Curtis, Oxford, 1995.

Leigh, David, "Britain's security services and journalists: the secret story", British Journalism Review, vol. 11, No. 2, 2000, pp. 21-6.

Liebknecht, Wilhelm, Preface to "On the Political Position of SocialDemocracy", London, 1889; MIA, www.marxists.org

Lundberg, Ferdinand, America's 60 Families, New York, NY, 1937.

MacDonogh, Giles, After the Reich, London, 2007.

MacKay, R. W. G., Peace Aims And The New Order, London, 1940.

Mandelson, Peter, "Building a New Consensus for Europe", lecture given to the Fabian Society at Clifford Chance LLP, Canary Wharf, London, 13 June 2005.

Martin, James, The Meaning of the 21'1 Century, New York, 2007.

Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.

Maser, Werner. Der Wortbruch. Hitler, Stalin und der Zweite Weltkrieg (The Betrayal: Hitler, Stalin and the Second World War), Selent, 2007.

Mazower, Mark, No Enchanted Palace: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations, Princeton, NJ, 2009.

Medlicott, W. N., "Britain and Germany: The Search for Agreement 1930-1937", The Creighton Lecture in History I968, London, 1969.

Monnet, Jean, Memoirs, English trans. London, 1978.

Morton, Frederic, The Rothschilds: A Family Portrait, London, 1963.

Mote, Ashley, Vigilance: A Defence of British Liberty, Petersfield, Hampshire, 2001.

New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 29 vols., Chicago, IL, 2002.

Nugent, Neill, The Government and Politics of the European Union, Basingstoke, 2010.

Osterreichisches Biographisches Lexicon I815-1950, Vienna, 1959 www.biographien.ac.at

Parmar, Inderjeet, Think Tanks and Power in Foreign Policy, Basingstoke and New York, 2004.

Pirnlott Baker, Anne, The Pilgrims of Great Britain, London, 2002.

Ponsonby, Arthur, "The Case for a United Europe", Labour Leader, Apr. 1915.

Prime Ministers files (PREM), National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey.

Pugh, Patricia, Educate, Agitate, Organize: JOO Years of Fabian Socialism, London, 1984.

Quigley, Caroll, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, New York, 1966, 3rct printing, GSG & Associates, San Pedro, CA, 1998.

Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, GSG & Associates, San Pedro, CA, 1981.

Rebattet, F. X., "The European Movement 1945-53: A Study in National and International Non-Governmental Organizations working for

European Unity", Doctoral Thesis, St. Antony's, Oxford, 1962.

Richard, Henry & Burritt, Elihu, Report of the Proceedings of the Second General Peace Congress, held in Paris, on the 22nd, 23rd and 241h of August, 1849, Paris, 1849 books.google.co.uk

Roberts, Priscilla, "Lord Lothian and the Atlantic World", The Historian, Vol. 66, 2004.

Rockefeller, David, Memoirs, New York, NY, 2002.

Rose, Saul, The Socialist International, London, 1955. See also Sibilev Nikolai, The Socialist International, English trans., Moscow, 1984;

Socialist International Information, London, 1951-70; and Socialist Affairs: The Journal of the Socialist International, London, 1971-2012.

Rothschild, Robert, Un Phenix nomme Europe. Memoirs 1945-1995, Brussels, 1997.

Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), Britain in Western Europe: WEU and the Atlantic Alliance, London and New York, 1956.

Salter, Arthur, "Food in British Zone", The Times, 16 Apr. 1946.

Salter, Arthur, Memoirs ofa Public Servant, London, 1961.

Samuels, Nathaniel, "The European Coal Organization", Foreign Affairs, July 1948.

Senate Banking Committee, Hearing on the "Financial Marketplace of the Future", Prepared Testimony of Mr. Henry M. Paulson Chairman & CEO Goldman Sachs & Company, 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, 29 February, 2000.

Sklar, Holly, Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Government, Boston, MA, 1980.

Smoot, Dan, The Invisible Government, Boston, MA, 1962.

Soames, Mary, ed., Speaking for Themselves: The Personal Letters of Winston and Clementine Churchill, London, 1999.

Stirn, Olivier, Mes Presidents. 50 ans au service de la Ve Republique, Paris, 2004.

Note: although Mitterrand nationalized the Banque Rothschild in 1982, he allowed the Rothschilds to open a new banking house and surrounded himself with Rothschild associates like Olivier and Bernard Stirn, Henri Emmanuelli and, above all, special presidential adviser Jacques Attali, whom the Financial Times aptly described as "the philosopher-king of Mitterrand's court" (cf. Coignard & Guichard, p. 67; "Men & Matters: Sherpa Attali", FT, 7 Jun. 1982). In a hint of Rothschild-Mitterrandian involvement in the European Project, the Rothschild bank whose nationalization was implemented by Budget Secretary Emmanuelli of the Swiss-based Compagnie Financiere Edmond de Rothschild was rechristened "Compagnie Europeenne de Banque". As related by Stirn, Mitterrand imposed the euro on German Chancellor Helmut Kohl against the wishes of the German people (see also Attali in Adler, above). Another architect of the EU's single currency project at Mitterrand's court was Finance Minister and Attali collaborator Jacques Delors who went on to become President of the European Commission and had close links to the European Round Table of Industrialists, another Rothschild-associated outfit. Sutton, Antony C., Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, first published in New York, 1974, reprinted in Forest Row, East Sussex, 2011.

Sutton, Antony C. & Wood, Patrick M., Trilaterals over Washington, Scottsdale, AZ, 1979.

Ungerer, Horst, A Concise History of European Monetary Integration: From EPU to EMU, Westport, CT, 1997.

Van Apeldoom, Bastiaan, "The European Round Table of Industrialists: Still a Unique Player?" in Greenwood, Justin, ed., The Effectiveness of EU Business Associations, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2002, pp. 194-205.

Wilson, Derek, Rothschild: A story of wealth and power, London, 1988.

Yeor, Bat, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison, NJ, 2006.

Zunz, Olivier, Philanthropy in America: A History, Princeton, NJ, 2012.

Оставить комментарий © Copyright Ratiu Ioan Обновлено: 30/01/2026. 113k. Статистика. Эссе: Великобритания Скачать FB2		Ваша оценка:

Ratiu Ioan: другие произведения.

Ioan Ratiu. The Un Scam