Dr. Dennis Cuddy
Vol. 6, Issue 3
To Disarm America
Posted May 3, 2012
A September 23, 2011 U.S. Congressional Armed Services Committee Republican Budget Impact Analysis stated, “We believe potential cuts to the military pose a serious threat that would break the back of our armed forces…” What should be understood is that this “evisceration” is part of a plan developed long ago.
Writing early in this nation’s history, Alexis DeToqueville in Democracy in America (1840) warned of how despotism may appear in the world, and said,
“...every man, when he is oppressed and disarmed, may still imagine that, while he yields in obedience, it is to himself he yields it… It is in vain to summon a people who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing their faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity.”
With more and more American military bases closing, analysts are pointing to that as one of the objectives of Blueprint for the Peace Race (May 1962) by the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
At the beginning of this document is a quote by President John F. Kennedy (September 25, 1961), stating his goal
“…to advance together step by step, stage by stage, until general and complete disarmament has been achieved.”
The document was the successor to the State Department’s Freedom From War (Sept. 1961), and according to William Nary (historian of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency), in January 1991 the Blueprint disarmament proposal had not been withdrawn -- it remained active. Perhaps relevant to this is the fact that in Renewing the United Nations: Programme for Reform (July 1997), published by the UN, one finds that
“The United Nations Centre for Disarmament Affairs is being reconstituted as the Department for Disarmament and Arms Regulation. A high priority for this Department will be to develop strategies and policies to prevent the proliferation of all types of weapons and to control the flow of conventional weapons to areas of conflict.” [emphasis added]
Perhaps a height of irony was reached on July 3, 1997 when The Washington Post printed the following notice:
“Independence Day parade starts at Seventh Street and Constitution Ave, NW, …American Roots concert at 4pm… with the Staple Singers, Paquito d’Rivera and the United Nations Orchestra…on the grounds of the Washington Monument.” [emphasis added]
Some say the plan to disarm America had its origin in World Peace Through World Law by Grenville Clark and Louis Sohn in 1958. The plan, however, began much earlier. In 1939, Clark wrote an initial draft for a global government titled A Federation of Free Peoples. The next year, through his close friend Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, he was responsible for the appointment of another friend, Henry Stimson, as Secretary of War. Frankfurter was a leftist who said,
“The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes.”
Furthermore, Stimson was a member of the Skull & Bones society, and initiated George H. W. Bush into the same fraternity in the late 1940s (Bush, as U.S. president, would promote the New World Order). During World War II, Clark became a confidential consultant to Stimson and advised the selection of Robert Lovett (Skull & Bones member and leader in the Council on Foreign Relations) and John J. McCloy (CFR chairman 1953-70) for War Department posts. It would be McCloy on June 23, 1961 who, as Special Advisor on Disarmament to President Kennedy, would send to the White House a draft of a bill to create the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
After World War II, various world federalist organizations met in February 1947 and founded the United World Federalists (UWF, later called World Federalist Association, WFA). Clark would become the organization’s Vice-President, and in his Plan for Peace (1950), he wrote in its Foreword:
“The thesis of this volume is that disarmament is the crux of the problem of world order, and that only disarmament in all arms and by all nations will suffice… creation of a limited world government… including a plan for disarmament by stages and for a United Nations Peace Force.”
A 3-stage plan with an increasingly strong UN Peace Force would be exactly what Freedom From War and Blueprint for the Peace Race would call for over a decade later.
Another early Vice-President of the United World Federalists was Rhodes scholar Robert Lee Humber who, like Clark, in the late 1930s was devising a proposal for world federal government. His “Declaration of the Federation of the World,” first passed by the North Carolina State Legislature on March 13, 1941, and then by 19 more state legislatures, stated the following,
“…the nations of the earth will be united in a commonwealth of free peoples, and individuals, wherever found, will be the sovereign units of the new world order... Nationalism [has] reached its apogee in this generation and yielded its hegemony in the body politic to internationalism….
"It is better for the world to be ruled by an international sovereignty of reason, social justice and peace than by diverse national sovereignties…
"There is no alternative to the federation of all nations except endless war… No nation should be excluded from membership in the Federation of the World that is willing to suppress its military, naval and air forces, retaining only a constabulatory sufficient to police its territory and to maintain order within its jurisdiction.”
The concept expressed in this last sentence would be incorporated almost exactly in Freedom From War and Blueprint for the Peace Race two decades later.
The Work of WAPWG
In a July 31, 1951 Chicago Tribune article, “OWI Propaganda Machine Linked to Rhodes Men,” one reads that after the federal government’s Office of War Information broke up following World War II, many of its former employees went into other government departments, but most went into the radio and publishing fields, where “those who absorbed the [Elmer] Davis [head of OWI who had been a Rhodes scholar] training have pushed the British concept of policing the world with American soldiers and economic aid and have fought for a world federation under which the United States would surrender its sovereignty.”
Then, a few weeks later in September 1951, the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government (WAPWG) was founded. Clark’s 1958 co-author, Lewis Sohn, would be a legal consultant to the organization.
At WAPWG’s 1952 London meeting, it adopted a map showing that one of the places American soldiers would police under a world government would be Yugoslavia (Rhodes scholar, CFR member and Trilateralist, President Clinton, sent U.S. soldiers to Yugoslavia). The map also showed U.S. troops would be in Australia, and on November 16, 2011 BBC News reported that Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, at a news conference with President Obama, announced that Australia would host a full U.S. Marine task force of about 2500 personnel in the coming years. The WAPWG map further showed US armed forces would be in Kazak (on September 14, 1997 U.S. troops began a joint exercise in Kazakhstan), among other places.
This same 1952 map also showed Russian soldiers in the world government would be policing in Oklahoma (just south of Kansas) southward and eastward in the U.S. Coincidentally, Russian soldiers were in Ft. Riley, Kansas in October 1995 in an exercise designed “to foster interoperability between the U.S. and Russian soldiers.” Similarly, former Soviet bloc countries’ soldiers were in exercises at Ft. Polk, Louisiana in August 1997. And Russian police have been in Southern towns like Beaumont, Mississippi (see The Beaumont, November 9, 1994), with one Russian officer even assisting in the arrest of 3 people in western North Carolina (see The Lincoln Gazette, March 12, 1995).
WAPWG’s world government was to be called the World Organization (WO) and it would “take over the existing facilities of the United Nations Organization.” According to its Charter, the WO would be “coordinating, and if necessary directing, the production and distribution of basic food stuffs, raw and strategic materials.” It would have a World Security Force but
“personnel will abide for purposes of Military Law and discipline under their own national, union, or commonwealth codes until such time as it appears suitable for a standardization to take place… All trade agreements between Governments and their plans for future development of basic needs will be coordinated by World Organization.”
All of the information regarding WAPWG’s 1952 map showing what nation’s forces would be policing where, was included in a pamphlet distributed at the United World Federalists’ Annual Assembly, June 6-7, 1959. UWF members Mr. and Mrs. Alan Cranston were sponsors of the Annual Assembly, and Alan Cranston would later become a UWF President, a U.S. Senator, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Gorbachev Foundation/USA. In 1949, Cranston had wanted Congress to call for a national convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to “expedite and insure the participation of the United States in a federal world government.”
In 1953, S.Con.Res.32 “Favoring universal disarmament” was introduced with such sponsors as Senators Bricker, Kennedy, Mansfield, Morse and Fulbright. In that same year, Grenville Clark and Louis Sohn wrote Detailed Proposals for Revision of the United Nations Charter.
In 1954, the WAPWG and the World Movement for World Federal Government (WMWFG) issued Proposals for United Nations Charter Revision, which included making the UN into a world federal government from which no member could secede, totally disarming nations in stages, forming an International Police Force and an International Court of Justice (with compulsory jurisdiction), and enacting legislation for raising revenues from member nations proportionately (a UN conference later brought up the possibility of a global tax).
The WAPWG Executive indicated that “it has already obtained from the British, Swiss, Italian and Pakistan Governments a statement of complete support for the Association’s policy.”
As an example of this type of support, on March 2, 1955, British Defense Minister Harold MacMillan stated in the House of Commons:
“Genuine disarmament… must include all weapons, new and old, conventional and unconventional. The control must provide effective international, or if we like supra-national, authority invested with real power. Honorable Members may say that this is elevating the United Nations, or whatever may be the authority, into something like world government, be it so, it is none the worse for that. In the long run this is the only way out for mankind.”
Also, in 1955, WAPWG’s Secretary-General, Gilbert McAllister, edited a volume, The Bomb: Challenge and Answer, containing articles by Fabian Socialist Bertrand Russell, member of the British Parliament, Henry Usborne, and by Lord Beveridge. The latter indicated that the supranational authority’s police should have the right “of inspection to ensure that no nation is secretly preparing the means of war.”
This is the same type of inspection the UN would later conduct in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Bertrand Russell believed that before such a world government could be established, there would need to be years of political preparation so that the people would accept it. To help this process, he advocated the increase of “mutual trade and mutual visits (exchanges), especially of a cultural and educational sort” (NOTE: Soviet-American, Chinese-American and other international exchanges and trade relationships have greatly increased).
Russell also advised that “schools should fly a flag of a... universalised United Nations” (which U.S. schools have done). And he proposed that the World Government Authority’s military forces be superior to those of any nation, which would retain only those forces necessary for internal order (exactly what would be proposed in Freedom from War and Blueprint for the Peace Race).
Similarly, Henry Usborne stated that “through the monopoly of force which it (World Federal Government) holds, no citizen within the Union can hope successfully to challenge the federal laws and authority.” Usborne even proposed that a “blue-print” for the World Federal Government be produced (like the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency’s Blueprint).
He advocated that “the command of the national armed forces will be solemnly transferred to the (World Government) Federation and the new oaths of loyalty sworn” (the UN would indeed write in its “loyalty oaths,” and some U.S. forces have been required to serve under UN command, have been called “UN personnel,” and have been required to wear UN insignia over their own American uniforms). Usborne bluntly stated that “the problem of ‘aggression’ can be dissolved if national sovereignty be surrendered.”
He disagreed, though, with those who advocated that the best strategy to obtain world government was for “reductions in sovereignty” to occur “inch by inch.”
During his tenure as Council on Foreign Relations chairman, Power Elite agent John J. McCloy in 1956 had written:
“In my view we must be ready to consider the most far-reaching proposals, including those for total disarmament, universal, enforceable and complete with international controls and inspection.”
Because of this viewpoint, President-elect John Kennedy on January 2, 1961, designated McCloy as his principal disarmament advisor and negotiator. Nine months later, Kennedy on September 25, 1961, addressed the UN General Assembly, proclaiming:
“Let us join in dismantling the national capacity to wage war… The program to be presented to this assembly is for general and complete disarmament.”
Rhodes scholar, Trilateralist and CFR member Richard Gardner in the CFR’s Foreign Affairs (April 1974) wrote that to achieve the “house of world order,” an “end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault.”
This was three years after Norman Cousins, along with UN Secretary-General U Thant and leading New Ager Donald Keys, had founded Planetary Citizens. This organization was affiliated with Planetary Initiative for the World We Choose, which in 1983 held a Congress criticizing “myopic and narrow nationalism” and an “outmoded sense of national sovereignty.”
Instead, the Congress advocated disarmament along with a global system of law, the establishment of a permanent world peacekeeping corps and compulsory arbitration service, the promotion of a New International Economic Order, expanded exchange programs, “transformative and teamwork-based education” (like Outcome-Based Education today), and “the moral and ethical values of a New Age.”
On March 20, 1985, Grenville Clark was honored on a 39 cent U.S. postage stamp, and it seems that his and WAPWG’s plans were pursued under President George H.W. Bush (with his New World Order) and President Clinton. In 1992, Richard Gardner, mentioned earlier, was an advisor on UN matters to Bill Clinton during his presidential campaign, after which President Clinton appointed him Ambassador to Spain. Also during Clinton’s presidential campaign, fellow Rhodes scholar, Trilaterialist and CFR Director Strobe Talbott in Time (July 20, 1992) wrote that
“Perhaps national sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all… But it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government.”
For this article, Talbott was given the World Federalist Association’s first Norman Cousins Global Governance Award. Cousins had been a president of the WFA (successor to Grenville Clark’s United World Federalists) who had said, “World government is coming, in fact, it is inevitable.”
And on June 22, 1993, President Clinton wrote a letter to the WFA stating: “Norman Cousins worked for world peace and world government… Strobe Talbott… will be a worthy recipient of the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award. Best Wishes… for future success.”
In 1995, through the military chain of command, President Clinton ordered U.S. soldiers going to Macedonia (Yugoslavia) to wear the UN insignia over their American uniforms. However, Army Specialist Michael New refused, saying that he took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution but he had not taken an oath to the UN.
In 1996, Congress passed the eleventh straight year of declining defense budgets. After adjusting for inflation, President Clinton’s 1996 budget request ($10.2 billion less than the previous year) was about 40% less than in 1985, and many more military bases were closed.
Non-military disarmament was also favored by the Clinton administration. Nationally syndicated columnist (and psychiatrist) Charles Krauthammer in “Civilized Society Must Disarm Its Citizenry” (The Detroit News, April 9, 1996) wrote:
“Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry… Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic —move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”
In 2000, Justice Department officials Seth Waxman and Ronnie Edelman wrote separate letters indicating the Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms only applied to well regulated militias and not to individuals. This was after Deputy Attorney-General Eric Holder on ABC’s “This Week” (May 2, 1999) proclaimed that the Second Amendment “talks about bearing guns in a well-regulated militia. And I don’t think anywhere it talks about an individual.” It should be remembered here that Eric Holder would be chosen by President Obama to be U.S. Attorney-General and is currently in that position.
In 2001, author William Grigg wrote Global Gun Grab: The United Nations Campaign To Disarm Americans, in which he explained that Americans “who expect an apocalyptic by blue-helmeted UN troops are fixating on the wrong threat. A much more plausible scenario is that UN civilian disarmament policies would be enforced by Americans against Americans.”
He also warned that,
“...the chief impact that the UN will have upon American institutions and policies will come in the form of ‘harmonization’ — meaning that our laws and governmental policies will be adjusted to conform with our nation’s supposed ‘international obligation’ as defined in UN treaties and conventions,' and the greatest threat 'comes not from the UN itself but from American institutions that are being corrupted and placed at the service of the UN’s agenda — particularly the U.S. military and our law enforcement agencies.'”
If we do not resist the New World Order’s Socialist World Government, what life will be like can be seen in the movie Ben-Hur. In this movie, Judah Ben-Hur (a religious fundamentalist played by Charlton Heston) meets his boyhood friend, now a Roman officer (played by Stephen Boyd). Heston says that he follows God, but Boyd (choosing allegiance to Rome, the New World Order of that day) says that Caesar (Big Brother or Antichrist) is God because he represents power and control. When Boyd asks Heston to inform on those in Judea who are rebellious against Rome, Heston refuses, saying “they’re patriots.”
Because the Roman Empire (the New World Order) considered as threats those religious fundamentalists who were also active proponents of patriotic nationalism (similarly today), Heston is falsely accused of an offense and placed on a slave ship. The Roman officer in charge of the ship never refers to Heston by name but only his number “41” (in the New World Order under Big Brother we will all be known only by numbers assigned to us). The officer tells Heston to “row well and live.”
This is what life will be like under the Socialist New World Order world government, which was described at the end of The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism (1928) by Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw,
“…under Socialism… you would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed…”
is the editor of Forcing Change (www.forcingchange.org), a monthly online publication detailing the changing worldview and transforming agendas now shaping society, the church, and nation.
FC is a monthly, online publication dedicated to documenting and analyzing the socio-religious transformations now sweeping our Western world.
Forcing Change is a membership subscription service, with an annual fee of $54.95 US. Membership in Forcing Change allows access to the full range of FC publications, including special reports, audio and media presentations, FC back issues, expert documents, and more. FC receives neither government funding nor the financial backing of any other institutions; rather, FC operates solely on subscription/membership support. To learn more about Forcing Change, including member benefits, go towww.forcingchange.org.
Benefits of Forcing Change membership...
Membership in Forcing Change allows access to the full range of FC publications, including e-reports, audio and media presentations, Forcing Change back issues, downloadable expert documents, and more. FC receives neither government funding nor the financial backing of any other institutions; rather, Forcing Change operates solely on subscription/membership support. To learn more about Forcing Change, including membership benefits, go to
P.O. Box 31
Plumas, Manitoba, Canada, R0J-1P0
Index to FC's previous reports
One World, One Force: Part III - Swords into Plowshares, 1960-1969