Monday, December 28, 2009

Ex-Dominican Priest Richard Bennett on the Papacy’s European Union

Richard Bennett was a priest for years. He was saved by the grace of God through the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and now warns of the revival of the pope’s Roman Empire of Europe. The American people better awaken !

Papal Rome and the European Union

Richard Bennett's Life story

Richard Bennett and Michael de Semlyen

The Vatican has been the most powerful institution in Europe, and although its influence declined at the time of the Reformation it has made a significant recovery in the past two centuries. The Protestant nations of Europe that were religiously, politically and economically freed from a totalitarian Roman Church seem now to be blindly returning to her yoke.

The Vatican Bank’s tax exempt status in Italy has made it possible for her to manipulate many of the largest multi-national corporations This influence is however as nothing when compared with her power in Europe and in the world of politics and religion. A Jesuit priest writing in ‘Inside the Vatican’ stated, “Despite the importance of the papacy for the Catholic church and its prominent role in international affairs, its internal workings are little known to Catholics, to world leaders, or to the world at large.”*

This lack of knowledge is particularly evident when it comes to the role the Vatican is playing in the making of the EU. If the Protestant nations of Europe are to remain free, true believers on both sides of the Atlantic must address the issue of Rome and the EU and take it to our God in prayer. The alternative may well prove to be the return of the Inquisition.

It is the authors’ desire that this study of one of the most powerful institutions in the world today be carefully examined. Our purpose is to sound the alarm and to stimulate others to do so too.

* Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church, by Thomas J. Reese, Harvard University Press, 1996, 4

Papal Rome is widely respected and admired by the world. She is seen as well organised, successful and influential, as well as dignified and authoritative. The aura of uncritical acclaim around the person of successive popes is unique to the Church of Rome. No other global institution has it. Her pronouncements on moral issues carry great weight. So well regarded is the Papacy today that the acceptance of her extends even to Evangelicals, most of whom have ceased to question her doctrine.

Why then should we take a position contrary to this avalanche of present-day approval? We do so because we are commanded by the Lord God to proclaim His truth and His warnings. For all is not at all as it seems. We believe that the late great British preacher Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was correct when he proclaimed that “the Roman Catholic Church is a counterfeit and a sham; it represents prostitution of the worst and most diabolical kind . . . It binds the souls of its people absolutely, just as Communism and Nazism did, and it is itself a totalitarian system.”1

Papal Pronouncements on Europe

On August 31st 2003, Pope John Paul II entrusted the future of the new Europe to the Virgin Mary. In the words of the Catholic news agency Zenit,

“He placed Europe in Mary’s hands, so that it would ‘become a symphony of nations committed to building together the civilization of love and peace.’ Last Sunday, the Holy Father urged that the final draft of the European Constitution should recognize explicitly the Christian roots of the continent, as they constitute a ‘guarantee of a future.’”2

The official teaching of Rome makes clear that this statement concerning “the Christian roots of the continent” is a facade. When the Pope or his Church use the term “Christian” they mean “Roman Catholic”. A recent official decree of Rome condemns “the tendency to read and to interpret Sacred Scripture outside the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church.”3 Rome officially proclaims that the Christian Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. In her decree she states,

“Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.”4

Just as the Nazis declared non-Aryans to be non-humans, so now the Church of Rome declares other churches to be non-churches. Her official words are,

“the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense. . . .”5

In the same document, Dominus Iesus (September 5th 2000), footnote 51 refers to a decree which states,

“We declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”6

The mind of Rome is thus expressed in her official decrees. Once the Protestant nations are committed to the emerging European superstate and its Constitution, the Vatican’s plan to once again “Christianize” the European Union will be implemented. As described by the London Sunday Telegraph, “The Pope is calmly preparing to assume the mantle which he solemnly believes to be his Divine Right - that of new Holy Roman Emperor, reigning from the Urals to the Atlantic.”7

The Vatican as a “Unique Contribution” to the EU

The EU already has most of the attributes needed for nationhood. It has a passport, a flag, a single currency and an anthem. It is also drawing up in its constitution the further characteristics of nationhood such as a president, international ambassadors and a foreign secretary. The Vatican carefully gives soul to all of this by claiming that this is “a unique contribution to the building up of a Europe open to the world”. The Pope in his Ecclesia in Europa states,

“One and universal, yet present in the multiplicity of the Particular Churches, the Catholic Church can offer a unique contribution to the building up of a Europe open to the world. The Catholic Church in fact provides a model of essential unity in a diversity of cultural expressions, a consciousness of membership in a universal community which is rooted in but not confined to local communities, and a sense of what unites beyond all that divides.”8

“The Particular Churches in Europe are not simple agencies or private organizations. Rather, they carry out their work with a specific institutional dimension that merits legal recognition, in full respect for just systems of civil legislation.”9

“Particular Churches in Europe” is simply a pretense. The Vatican views itself as the Particular Church, and officially states,

“The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church.”10

From the decrees published it is clear that, apart from the Church of Rome establishing herself as the “unique contribution to the building up of a Europe open to the world”, she claims for herself “legal recognition” in accord with her own “civil legislation”. This has been the basis of the Vatican’s political manipulation over the centuries. While Rome carefully prepares her own legal place, she will tolerate no rivals - “the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate are not Churches in the proper sense.”11 Most certainly they are not to be included as part of the “unique contribution to the building up of a Europe open to the world”!

As author Adrian Hilton has warned in a recent article in The Spectator,

“the issue of European religious union is one that has been concealed even deeper than the plans for political union, but the ratchet towards a Catholic Europe is just as real. The Pope’s recent demand that ‘God’ be featured in the emerging European constitution has been echoed by many leading Catholic politicians and bishops. While on the surface such a reference may offend only Europe’s atheist and humanist contingent, it must be observed that when the Vatican refers to God, she sees herself as God’s infallible vice-regent upon earth, the leading organ of divine expression; indeed, according to its publication Dominus Iesus [5 September 2000], as the only mediator in the salvation of God’s elect, insisting that all other Churches, including the Church of England, ‘are not Churches in the proper sense’.”12

The Real Meaning of the Popes message to Europe

The Ecclesia in Europa pronouncement is one of the cleverest produced by Pope John Paul II. It is a masterpiece that purportedly proclaims the Christian message, while in fact it teaches the rites and rituals of the Papacy. For example the concept of the “Gospel of hope” is mentioned forty times in the dissertation. The message however is not one of hope; rather it is an adept counterfeit. For example Paragraph 74 begins by stating, “A prominent place needs to be given to the celebration of the sacraments, as actions of Christ and of the Church ordered to the worship of God, to the sanctification of people and to the building up of the ecclesial community.” The Pope thus presents his physical, symbolic sacraments as the efficacious cause of salvation. In place of the direct obedience to Christ Jesus demanded in the Gospel of faith, the sacraments are purported to be “actions of Christ”. This is where the Vatican’s pretense of “hope” lies. Such sacraments are declared necessary for salvation in the official teaching of Rome,

“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ‘Sacramental grace’ is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament.”13

By setting aside the direct work of God in Christ Jesus, the sacraments of Rome are an attempt to steal from Christ His Priesthood and an attempt to rob Him of His power as Mediator. The Roman Church attempts to rob God the Holy Spirit of His peculiar work as the Sanctifier, by attributing His power of giving grace to its own rituals. Thus it attempts to rob God the Father of His prerogatives of justifying and forgiving sinners. This is the reality behind the concept of the “Gospel of hope” that permeates the Pope’s message to Europe. Throughout the centuries, Rome has substituted her sacraments for the Gospel in a consistently degrading insult to the grace of God. Shameful to God and damning to men is the Pope’s memorandum to Europe.

We are at a seminal moment in history, as the Holy Roman Empire re-emerges as a European Superstate. Throughout her history the Papacy has remained self-governing and invincible to every restraining force other than that of the power of God in the Gospel. Bible believers need to be aware of the times in which we live, we need to study the history of the EU in order to see the outworking of the guile of Rome.

A Short History of the EU

After the destruction, ruin and enormous human cost of the Second World War, statesmen and politicians resolved to ensure that it would never happen again. In 1946 Sir Winston Churchill suggested in a famous speech at Zurich in Switzerland that, “we must build a kind of United States of Europe”. This was not, as Euro-enthusiasts have often insisted, a commitment for Britain to participate in the European project. Churchill envisaged a Western Europe of free independent sovereign nations, not an undemocratic federal Superstate. Together the nations would reach for a destiny of unprecedented co-operation and harmony.

In 1950 the Schuman Plan proposed the supra-national pooling of the German and French coal and steel industries in order to lay the basis of European economic unity. The partial merger of the economies of the two traditional enemies would ensure continuing peace between them. French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman and German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer signed the agreement, The Treaty of Paris, as co-founders of the Franco-German Coal and Steel Confederation. Like their colleagues Jean Monnet and Paul Henri Spaak, they were both devout Roman Catholics who shared the vision of successive post-war Popes for a re-Catholicized and united Europe. Adenauer and Schuman, along with Alcide de Gasperi, all three “founding fathers”, are in the process of being made into “Saints” by the Vatican as a reward for founding the new Europe “on Roman Catholic principles”.

The European Economic Community (The EEC), established in 1957 by The Treaty of Rome brought in Italy, Holland, Belgium and Luxemburg to join France and Germany, removing trade barriers between member states and unifying their economic policies. It made clear to those with sufficient stamina to read the Treaty’s lengthy and turgid document that the aim of the project was always to achieve political unity in economic disguise, “an ever closer union”.14

In 1962 the Common Agricultural policy was introduced with a single European market and price fixing, which has consistently favored French farmers. The Northwest Technocrat commented on the developing design of the European project at that time, “Fascism in Europe is about to be reborn in respectable business attire, and the Treaty of Rome will be finally implemented to its fullest extent. The dream of a Holy Roman Empire returning to power to dominate and direct the so-called forces of Christian mankind of the Western world is not dead, but still stalks through the antechambers of every national capital of continental Western Europe, in the determination of the leaders in the Common Market to restore the Holy Roman Empire with all that that means!”15

Nearly thirty years later, the London-based Sunday Telegraph was to express the same concern in a major article headed “Now, a Holy European Empire?” It stated,

“The Vatican notoriously thinks in centuries. In Pope John Paul II we have the most political pope of modern times. It is in the movement towards federalism of the Common Market, with the coming membership of Eastern European countries, as well as in the turmoil of the Soviet Union, that the Pope may see the greatest possibility for an increase in Catholic political power since the fall of Napoleon or since the Counter-Reformation. The Common Market itself started under the inspiration of Catholic politicians - such as Adenauer of Germany, Paul Henri Spaak, Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman. . . . The EC Social Charter and the socialism of Jacques Delors (President of the European Commission) are imbued with Catholic social doctrine. If European federalism triumphs, the EC will indeed be an empire. It will lack an emperor: but it will have the Pope. It is difficult not to think that Wojtyla realises this.”16

In 1967 Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced that Britain would apply to join the European Community (the Common Market). The British people voted to do so in a referendum in the belief that they were joining a closer trading relationship, a kind of club, rather than being bound into an evolving Superstate. Unfortunately no more people had read The Treaty of Rome in the 1960s than had read Mein Kampf in the 1930s. Politicians and opinion formers, who should have known better, accepted assurances that no loss of sovereignty was involved in acceding to the EEC.

In 1973, Prime Minister Edward Heath, who definitely did know better, committed Britain into membership of the EEC. Ireland and Denmark joined the same year. In 1979, the European Parliament was established in Strasbourg with its first direct elections. The word “economic” was carefully dropped from the name of the project that was now to be described as the European Community (EC). Greece joined the EC in 1981, which was the year of the Single European Act - enacting the gradual transfer of executive, legislative and judicial powers from member States to EC “instrumentalities”. Spain and Portugal signed up to the EC in 1986, making a total of twelve member states. In 1990, East Germany joined as part of a united Germany.

In February 1992, The Maastricht Treaty, or Treaty of European Union, was signed at Maastricht in Holland by the foreign and finance ministers of the member states. Its objective was to bind the twelve nations into cooperation or “ever closer union” on a range of issues other than economic and trading. To this end the EC was renamed The European Union. The Maastricht Treaty established economic and monetary union, which would lead ultimately to all member states sharing a single currency. The religious dimension, although not apparent, was the key to what was being formed. Among European leaders who were most influential in furthering the Maastricht agenda were Jacques Delors and Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers (both Jesuit educated) as well as devout Catholics German Chancellor Kohl and Prime Minister Felipe Gonzales of Spain. These four leaders were all products of the Roman Catholic Social Movement, which believes that “there is no nobler task than the unifying of our continent” and views the idea of a united Europe as essentially a Catholic concept.

The Amsterdam Treaty followed and was signed in 1997 as a further notch of the ratchet of “ever-closer union”, meaning in fact, ever diminishing sovereignty, following the principle of acquis communautaire (which asserts “that what has been acquired cannot be taken away”). The Amsterdam Treaty gave more powers to the unelected Commission and particularly to its unelected President as the initiator, administrator, mediator, negotiator and guardian of the Treaties. The Treaty of Nice, signed by Prime Minister Tony Blair in December 2000, was the last in the series of treaties, which have progressively drained the UK of its sovereignty. At Nice there was finally and irrevocably established the EU as a sovereign federal state. A new European criminal code, Corpus Juris, will replace the classic, longstanding British criminal code. Vital elements such as Trial by Jury and Habeas Corpus are missing from this new code.17

EU Supreme Power

Even before the Treaty of Nice came into force, the EU Constitutional Convention, presided over by former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, produced its first draft of a constitution for Europe in October 2002. On 13 June 2003 a final version of the draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, was produced. Quoting from the London Daily Telegraph,

“To the strains of Beethoven’s Ode to Joy, the Convention on the Future of Europe proclaimed agreement yesterday on a written constitution for a vast European Union of 450 million citizens bringing together East and West. Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the chair of the 105-strong body, held up a text . . .‘We have sown a seed and I am sure that seed will grow and bring fruit. Europe’s voice will be heard and respected on the international stage. Instead of a half-formed Europe, we have a Europe with a legal identity, with a single currency, common justice, a Europe which is about to have its own defence.’ There was no vote. M Giscard, famed for his autocratic style during 16 months of stormy debates, simply discerned consensus among the MPs, MEPs, and national envoys. Few were willing to spoil the party by crying foul. . . . The Constitution gives the EU full ‘legal personality’ and determines that EU law will have primacy over the law of member states. It prohibits Westminster from legislating in most areas of national life - agriculture, justice, energy, social policy, economic cohesion, transport, the environment, and aspects of public health - unless Brussels chooses to waive its power.”18

“If the new constitution is accepted, the EU will no longer be a treaty organization in which member states agree to lend power to Brussels, for certain purposes, on the understanding that they can take it back again. Rather, the EU will itself have become the fount of power, with the ability to sign international treaties in its own right. It will have its own President, foreign minister and foreign policy; its own parliament, supreme court, flag, anthem and currency. It will have become a sovereign state, in fact a federal superstate. The member states whose constitutions will be subject to this higher constitution, will cease to be sovereign. The new order will be irreversible. M Giscard made clear that the national veto is to be abolished in 50 new areas, including immigration and asylum.”19

Under the new Constitution’s rules, no nation is to be allowed to secede from the EU except by a two-thirds majority vote of member states in agreement with the secession.

The Same Spirit - of Domination

The EU will acquire competence in “all areas of foreign policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy”; though major decisions must be unanimous. The European Court, which acquires vast powers, will ensure that member states “actively and unreservedly support the EU’s common foreign and security policy”. Article 8 of the draft Constitution, which also imposes “an obligation of loyal cooperation vis-à-vis the Union” of member states, reinforces the supremacy of EU law over the laws of member states.20 An EU attorney-general will be able to prosecute “cross-border crime”, a catch-all term that will allow Brussels the supreme jurisdiction throughout the EU. The Constitution lacks any serious democratic dimension and is clearly designed to strengthen the EU power structure for the benefit of the European elite. Doubtless the intention is to force it through with the minimum of real democratic scrutiny.

This spirit of absolute autocracy that is to govern the EU is frighteningly akin to the spirit that rules in the Vatican, “The First See is judged by no one.”21 Rome’s stamp upon the pages of history has ever been “no accountability”. Its laws also state, “It is solely the right of the Roman Pontiff himself to judge, in cases mentioned in can. 1401: 1. those who hold the highest civil office in a state.”22 The same spirit of despotism in both systems loudly proclaims supreme caution.

“The Abandoning of a Thousand years of History”

The Treaty that establishes the new Constitution, due to be agreed by the Intergovernmental conference in 2004 is far more extensive than any previous treaty. Derek Heathcote-Amory, the Conservative Party representative at the Constitutional Convention, rightly described it as “bigger than the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice rolled together.” The implications of such huge changes, “the abandoning of a thousand years of history”, have not been really understood by the majority of the British people. Little by little, treaty by treaty, first the EEC, then the EC, then the EU; people have become used to Europe and bored with it; and with so many scare stories about Brussels, so-called dangers threatening their independence and sovereignty, so many eurosceptics “crying wolf”. It has all being going on as long as they can remember - and, after all, Britain does have the fourth largest economy in the world, and in the main they have prospered. The problem is that the wolf is now at the door!

Many of those who cherish Britain’s independence and who do not want to give away that for which two world wars were fought to retain, realize this. If the move to establish the Constitution for Europe is ratified by the UK parliament, it would be the first time that the United Kingdom has adopted or acceded to a wholly written constitution. How can the UK adopt such a constitution, having never had one before? The answer would seem to be straightforward. The people must give their consent. However if the Labour government has its way there will be no referendum. Tony Blair, who is said to have set his sights on the top job as President of the “United States of Europe”, has made clear that there will be no referendum. He does not want it because he knows he cannot win it. Also a referendum campaign would educate the people in both what is proposed and what has already happened. The Prime Minister agreed to hold a referendum on the Single Currency before he came into office in 1997, but to date he has hesitated to do so, as “the conditions have not been right” - again, meaning that he would have lost it.

The EU’s Power Symbols

The EU Parliament’s main base is Strasbourg in France. The city symbolizes the dream of Franco-German integration that was at the heart of the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. In December 2000, the European Union opened its new Parliament building there. It is patterned after Dutch artist Pieter Breugel’s famous painting of the Tower of Babel. Breugel’s painting portrays the Tower unfinished, as does the new EU building, which is built to appear unfinished in close resemblance to the painting. Outside the Parliament building is a statue of the goddess, Europa, riding a Bull. Inside, the dome displays a colossal painting of the Woman riding the Beast. The woman riding the beast symbol also appears on some of the “two euro” coins that have been minted.23

The same imagery has appeared on EU postage stamps, including the British one issued in 1984 to commemorate the second elections for the European Parliament. The EU’s conscious use of such symbolism creates the impression that it wishes to bring to mind Europe’s desire to rule using all the power it has at its disposal. In Scripture, the Woman riding the Beast is revealed in Revelation 17. The identification with the Church of Rome has long been apparent to Bible believers. This interpretation of Bible prophecy did much to empower the Reformation. Only Papal Rome is a city which is sited on seven hills, a religious system, whose Prelates “are arrayed in purple and scarlet color”, a civil state “with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication”, historically, with hands that are crimson with the blood of Bible believers, “that has been drunken with the blood of the saints and with the martyrs of Jesus.” Papal Rome is the only worldwide religious system that calls itself and its virgin goddess “Mother”.

History also Unveils what is Now Happening

A brief review of European history helps with this identification of the Papacy with Scripture. After the collapse of the Roman Empire in the fifth century, the Papacy continually sought to establish the same dominance as had the Caesars (in fact successive Popes used the same name - Pontifex Maximus). They did so by weaving together both temporal and spiritual jurisdictions and blasphemously assumed to themselves the office of “the Vicar of Christ”. In that spurious role, in the course of a few centuries, they were able to subjugate the kings of Europe who became their vice regents.24 Thus century-by-century the “Mother Church” succeeded in extending her power, usurping that of civil governments. Under the guise of religion she planted her own hierarchical system of government, with its exhaustive financial requirements, in each of Europe’s kingdoms. The blending of things civil and sacred was the Vatican’s hard to resist method of operation in those dark ages. Unhappily this is still so today, and will be so again, once power and control have been consolidated in the new “United States of Europe”. “Semper eadem”, Rome never changes.

The duplicity of the Papacy’s perpetual mixing of political and spiritual powers could surely not be better portrayed than in God’s Word in Revelation 17. The Apostle John beheld the ten-horned beast, representing the Roman Empire, carrying a woman dressed in purple and scarlet, decked with gold, precious stones and pearls. She is a harlot, and the mother of harlots and abominations, the paramour of kings, the pitiless persecutor intoxicated with the blood of the saints and of the martyrs of Christ Jesus. The angel told John, “The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth.” To explain this singular fact and to avoid guesswork, he adds, “the woman which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” (v 7) The city is indisputably Rome. The name upon the harlot’s brow is “mystery”. The city cannot be pagan Rome, about which there was no mystery. In contrast, Papal Rome was mysterious and continues to be elusive. Babylon, in the book of Revelation, is a city and an harlot. Jerusalem, in the same book, is a city and a bride. Babylon is the deceptive lover of earthly kings; Jerusalem the chaste bride of the King of Kings. The contrast is between Church and Church, the faithful Church and the Apostate Church.

The Flag - Another EU Spiritual Symbol

The flag of the European Union, blue with a design of twelve stars in a circle derives from the twelve stars that in Catholic tradition are the halo around the head of the Virgin Mary.[25] The stars stem from the belief that twelve is the symbol of perfection and of what is unchangeable. The political purposes behind all of these symbols are much debated; the Biblical significance, however, is revealing.26 According to the European Union publication Europe’s Star Choice: “The flag has its roots in Romanism, takes its symbolism from Romanism, and represents the Roman Catholic ideal.” The design with its halo of stars was inspired by many pictures of the Virgin Mary, the most prominent of which is on the Council of Europe stained glass window in Strasbourg Cathedral.

The EU’s “single market”, “social chapter” and “subsidiarity” are concepts of Roman Catholic social teaching, originating with Pope Pius XI in the 1930s, and adopted by Hitler’s Vatican-backed Third Reich. Nazi Finance Minister Walther Funk, styled as the architect of Hitler’s “New Europe”, issued a compendium of papers in 1942 which contained detailed plans for a Europe bearing close resemblance to the Europe now emerging. Funk’s papers described:-“The European Economic Community”, “The Common European Currency”, “Harmonisation of European Rates of Exchange”, A Common Labour Policy and a European Regional Principle. The last has now become known as the Europe of Regions Policy - England is to be replaced by seven regions, which with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will total ten regions in all. Together they are to replace the United Kingdom!

The Third Reich to be followed by the Fourth

The Third Reich, like the EU, was an attempt to revive the Roman Empire. The higher strategy of the Vatican and the acquiescence of the Catholic Central Party had brought Hitler to power. Instrumental in this strategy were Reich Chancellor Franz von Papen and Papal Nuncio, Monsignor Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII. Von Papen goes down in history as the man who obtained Hitler his two-thirds majority, signed the law which made him Head of State and was also responsible for the enormously important Concordat with the Church of Rome in 1933. He declared, “the Third Reich is the first power in the world to put into practice the lofty principles of the Papacy.”27 Incredibly, given his responsibility for Nazi atrocities, he was acquitted at Nuremberg and later became Papal Chamberlain to Pope John XXIII. Pacelli, as Pope Pius XII, became notorious for his silence with regard to the Holocaust and the other appalling crimes committed by the Fascists in Europe. The Vatican’s attempts to canonise him have proved highly controversial.

The Nazi leadership was mainly Roman Catholic. Hitler and Himmler were greatly influenced by the Jesuits, as was Mussolini whose Father Confessor was a Jesuit. Hitler said of Himmler, “in Himmler I see our Ignatius de Loyola.”28 Joseph Goebbels was also Jesuit-educated, as was Walter Schellenberg who led the SD or Sicherheitsdienst, the Security Service of the SS, and before being sentenced to death at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity, stated that, “the SS organisation has been constituted by Himmler according to the principles of the Jesuit Order. Their regulations and the spiritual exercises prescribed by Ignatius of Loyola were the model Himmler tried to copy exactly”.29

The lesson and warning of history is that undemocratic regimes whose leaders owe allegiance to the Pope or practise “the lofty principles of the Papacy” pose a threat to individual liberty, and carry out religious persecution. For example, the inquisition was alive and well in the Balkans in the 1940s. “Convert or die” was the choice on offer to 900,000 Orthodox Serbs in the new state of Croatia, run by Nazi puppet Anton Pavelich and Roman Catholic Primate, Archbishop Alois Stepinac. 200,000 were “converted”; 700,000 who preferred to die, were tortured, shot, burned or buried alive. This appalling persecution, carried out mainly by Ustashi priests and friars “for the triumph of Christ and Croatia”, included many of the worst atrocities of the War; certainly the mutilations were horrific, the savagery terrible. 30

Few people know what took place in Croatia during the Second World War: news of it has been simply suppressed. Nor do they understand what happened in the Balkans in the 1990s. The re-establishing of Croatia as an independent state, during the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, is instructive. The European Union, led by Germany ignored the protest of Britain and many other nations in pressing for this to happen. The Vatican was the first to recognise the reborn Croatia. Writing in September 1991 in the Sunday Telegraph historian Andrew Roberts expressed surprise that,

“almost the entire Western media have chosen to champion the Croats. . . . how are the Serbs expected to react to the decision to adopt the Ustashi’s chequered symbol as the Croatian national flag? In Krajina it takes longer than the attention span of today’s CNN broadcaster to forget the way Franciscan friars participated in the slaughter of Serbs in Croatian Bosnia. Orthodox Serbs were promised protection if they converted to Catholicism and were then killed, after they entered the churches, as the priests looked on.”31

None of this is surprising if we know the history of Roman Catholicism. “From the birth of Popery in 600, to the present time, it has been estimated by careful and credible historians, that more than FIFTY MILLIONS of the human family have been slaughtered for ‘the crime’ of heresy by popish persecutors, an average of more than forty thousand religious murders for every year of the existence of Popery.”32 The Scripture speaks propetically of her lust for power and blood; history has recorded many of the gruesome details.

The Papacy has been predominant throughout the whole history of Europe. It has left its mark and record on most of the major nations. In times past it has proven itself to be totally dominant in its control of Kings and Princes. The whole history of the Western world over fourteen centuries has been plagued by the intrigues and machinations of the Church of Rome in unceasing pursuit of her global designs. In the words of the historian J.A. Wiley,

“. . . as regards the influence of Popery on government, it were easy to demonstrate, that the Papacy delayed the advent of representative and constitutional government for thirteen centuries. Superstition is the mother of despotism; Christianity is the parent of liberty. There is no truth which the past history of the world more abundantly establishes than this. It was through Christianity that the democratic element first came into the world. The papal government is the very antipodes of constitutional government: it centres all power in one man: it does so on the ground of divine right; and is therefore essentially and eternally antagonistic to the constitutional element. Its long dominancy in Europe formed the grand barrier to the progress of the popular element in society, and to the erection of constitutional government in the world.”33

Our Hope and Prayer for Europe

Once again we have come to a defining moment in history. Once more the Vatican is engaged in placing its hallmark and its rituals on the face of Europe to further its familiar agenda. It does so in a number of different ways directed from the highest levels of command in the Vatican. Firstly, it operates directly through its civil ambassadors in each European nation. According to the Catholic Almanac “Papal representatives ‘receive from the Roman Pontiff the charge of representing him in a fixed way in the various nations or regions of the world.’”34 Secondly, the Roman Church also deals directly and legally with individual nations through its many legal concordats. Less directly it operates through its representation and influence in most of the governmental agencies of Europe. This involvement, especially in the area of finance and business, is documented in her Almanac under the heading of “Governmental Organisations”. These include the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the Organisation of American States, the International Organisation for the Unification of Private Law and the International Council on Grain, among others. Rome has her observers and delegates in all of these many listed organisations.35 Finally, she operates through her own people in Europe whose allegiance is first and foremost to the Roman Catholic Church. Many of her people have access to positions in the ruling structure of their nation. As Roman Catholics, they are enjoined by the Vatican to use both influence and position to bring that nation into line with papal policy on any particular issue.

We need to pray that Europe will not be taken back to the state that it was in, spiritually and politically, during the Middle Ages. Roman Catholicism though outwardly and politically strong is inwardly and spiritually feeble. By her laws and ceremonies, her Bishops, Priests and laity are obliged to accept the system that recognizes the Pope as the universal “Sovereign Father” while denying the true Father and the Son. From its traditions, history, and crises, it is evident that it is an institution lacking the Gospel of grace in Christ, one that walks in darkness and in the shadow of death.

In contrast, the true Christian faith may outwardly look small and weak; but inwardly, and in essence, it is the strongest power on earth. That same power liberated most of Europe at the time of the Reformation. It is the power that is in Christ Jesus the Lord, and inseparable from Him. In the words of the Apostle Peter, “blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.”36 The reason for our confidence is our relationship to the risen Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ. He is Lord, the universal King and Sovereign, the Priest and Saviour. Christ Jesus our Lord is a Prophet, anointed with the Spirit and furnished with all gifts necessary for the instruction, guidance, and salvation of His people through His written Word, the Holy Scriptures. He and His Gospel of grace are our hope for the future of Europe. Our inheritance is reserved in heaven, on earth however we “are kept by the power of God through faith . . .”37

We remember that the greatest power of God has often been experienced in times of the greatest declension, such as the time of the 18th century Revival and that of the Reformation itself. “The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.”38 God in His sovereignty and in His divine timing can bring a people to the Bible, to His truth of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. When He pleases He is able with one word of His grace, to renew Europe by an act of His power, and make His enemies the footstool of Christ. We pray that He will give us the faith of the Reformers and of all those in the history of Europe who have given their lives for Biblical Truth. For the European Union we pray the words of the prophet of the Lord, “Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.”39 God can send forth His Spirit when He pleases. He did so at the time of the Reformation; we pray that He will do so again now! We remember the words of John Owen at another tuning point of history. He spoke of his own nation, England, at a time of social disintegration yet looking for revival. We now need that same faith and confidence for Britain and for the future of all the EU,

“When God will do this I know not: but I believe God can do this: He is able to do it - able to renew all his churches, by sending out supplies of the Spirit, whose fullness is with Him, to recover them in the due and appointed time. And more; I believe truly, that when God hath accomplished some ends upon us, and hath stained the glory of all flesh, He will renew the power and glory of religion among us again, even in this nation.”40

Watch and Pray; Sound an Alarm in Zion

The Church of Rome is one of the major players in the “creeping totalitarianism” of the New World Order. Her designs on the EU are a major part of the unfolding global strategy. We need to watch and pray as the “Fourth Reich” emerges out of its embryo. A watchman of old was expected to guard against robbers and disturbers of the peace. We are all commanded to be watchmen, “to watch and pray”. There has been a dreadful apathy that has afflicted the household of God, an indifference to the clear threat to our ancient liberties and Protestant identity from both the EU and the Church of Rome. As watchmen of the Lord today we are to guard against false teachers and false religion. We are to watch and discern the actions and words of the one who would seek to supplant the Gospel with apostasy and tyranny. Our task under God is to sound an alarm, “blow ye the trumpet in Zion . . .let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand.”41 Now even more than in the days of old the commands of the Lord are to be obeyed, “son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.”42 As we make our stand, so also we pray expecting to see the power of God at work in Europe, “they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.”43 We owe the liberty that we yet enjoy to Jesus Christ the Lord. By His faithfulness and perfect sacrifice He has satisfied the demands of the broken law of the All Holy God. It is He, the Son of God, who has made us free. “If the Son of God shall set you free you will be free indeed.”

There is genuine unity of all true believers throughout the world. There is but one faith. All true believers are converted by the same Holy Spirit, and receive the same work of grace, which places them in the Beloved. In Christ Jesus we are spiritually one and called to stand fast in this liberty, and stand firm in His truth. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be ye not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”44


1. Bible League Quarterly (20 Thistlebarrow Road, Salisbury SP1 3RT, England) Oct-Dec 1981
2. Date: 2003-08-31 Code: ZE03083104 9/3/03
3. DOMINUS IESUS September 5th 2000 Para 4
4. Ibid., Para. 17
5. Ibid., Para. 17
6. Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Tr. by Roy J Deferrari from Enchiridion Symbolorum, 13th ed (B. Herder Book Co., 1957), #469.
7. Sunday Telegraph, July 21st 1991
8. Eccelsia in Europa, Para. 116 9/23/03
9. Ibid., Para. 20, 7/15/03 Bolding in any quotation indicates emphasis added in this paper unless otherwise noted.
10. DOMINUS IESUS, Para. 16
11. Ibid., Para 17
12. Adrian Hilton, “Render unto the Pope”, The Spectator, 30 August, 2003,§ion=current&issue=2003-11-15&id=3450&searchText= 11/17/2003
13. Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 1994) Para. 1129
14. Vid Treaty of Rome, Articles 164-188
15. The Northwest Technocrat, 1962
16. Sunday Telegraph, 25 August 1991
17. See Frederick Forsyth “The Abolition of Habeas Corpus” and Lord Stoddart on Corpus Juris, 11/18/03
18. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, “Few willing to spoil the party for Giscard” in 6/17/03
19. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard fuseaction/ 7/7/03 See also Noel Malcolm, Daily Telegraph 28/7/03 ‘A Federal Constitution with the Heart of a Manifesto’ 11/17/03
20. 11/18/03
21. Code of Canon Law, Latin-English ed., New English Tr. (Wash. DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1983) Can. 1404 All canons are taken from this source unless otherwise stated.
22. Canon 1405, Sec.1 Can. 1401:1 states, “By proper and exclusive right the Church adjudicates: 1. cases which regard spiritual matters or those connected to spiritual matters.”
23. These EU figure-symbols can wee see on the Internet: 7/7/03; 7/7/03; 7/7/03; 7/7/03
24. For fuller treatment, see J. A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism (Rapidan, VA 22733: Hartland Publications, 2002) Orig. publ. 1878. Four vols, particularly Vol. I, Ch. 3 “Development of the Papacy from the Time of Constantine to Hildebrand”.
25. For further detail, see Adrian Hilton, The Principality and Power of Europe: Britain and the emerging Holy European Empire (Box 67, Ricksmanworth, Herts WD3 5SJ, U.K.: Dorchester House, 2000) p. 55.
26. Documentation on these EU symbols are found on the following WebPages: 7/7/03; 7/7/03; 7/7/03; 7/7/03
27. Robert d’Harcourt, “Franz von Papen l’homme a‘ tout faire . . .” (L’Aube, 3 Oct. 1946) in The Vatican Against Europe by Edmond Paris, Tr. from French by A. Robson, First English Ed 1961 (184 Fleet Street, London, EC4: The Wickliffe Press, 1961) p. 271.
28. Libres Propos, Flammarion, Paris 1952
29. Edmond Paris, The Vatican Against Europe (London: Wycliffe Press, 1961)
30. The Vatican’s Holocaust (Springfield, MO: Ozark Books, 1986)
31. Sunday Telegraph, 15 September 1991
32. “No computation can reach the numbers who have been put to death, in different ways, on account of their maintaining the profession of the Gospel, and opposing the corruptions of the Church of Rome. A MILLION poor Waldenses perished in France; NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND orthodox Christians were slain in less than thirty years after the institution of the order of the Jesuits. The Duke of Alva boasted of having put to death in the Netherlands, THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND by the hand of the common executioner during the space of a few years. The Inquisition destroyed, by various tortures, ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND within thirty years. These are a few specimens, and but a few, of those which history has recorded; but the total amount will never be known till the earth shall disclose her blood, and no more cover her slain" John Dowling, History of Rome in Scott’s Church History, Book 8
33. J.A. Wylie, The Papacy, Book III. Chapter III, “Influence of Popery on Government”, 9/25/03
34. Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Almanac 1998 (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1997) p.168
35. The Catholic Almanac 1998, p171
36. I Peter 1:3
37. I Peter 1:5
38. Isaiah 9:2
39. Lamentations 5:21
40. John Owen, The Works of John Owen (Johnstone & Hunter, 1850-53; Reprinted by The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh EH12 6EL, 1976) Vol. 9, p 514
41. Joel 2:1
42. Ezekiel 3:17
43. Isaiah 40:31
44. Galatians 5:1

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and International Strife—Part I

Proceedings from the U.S. Congressional Record of 1940 discussing how the British have been subverting the American government.

EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO READ THIS REPORT! The fact is the Conspiracy to over throw this Republic is not a new idea, the 1822 Treatise of Verona proves it, the answer to that treatise which was the Monroe Doctine proves it as well..Along with many war accounts concerning the war of 1812..But for now this 1940 Congressional Globe proves they pulled it off, Proves Americans, really factually and legally are Licensed u.s. Corporation serfs, have lived and illusion, in effect British Subjects..

Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and
International Strife—Part I
Monday, August 19.1940
Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, In order that the
American people may have a clearer understanding of those
who over a period of years have been undermining this Republic,
in order to return it to the British Empire, I have
inserted in the RECORD a number of articles to prove this point.
These articles are entitled "Steps Toward British Union, a
World State, and International Strife." This is part I, and
in this I include a hope expressed by Mr. Andrew Carnegie,
in his book entitled "Triumphant Democracy." In this he
expresses himself in this manner:
Let men say what they will, I say that as surely as the sun in
the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely
is it one morning to rise, to shine upon, to greet again the reunited
states—the British-American Union.
This statement is clear, and the organizations which Mr.
Carnegie endowed have spent millions in order to bring this
about. This thing has been made possible by scholarships,
exchange professors, subsidies of churches, subsidies of educational
institutions; all of them working for the purpose of
eliminating Americanism as was taught once in our schools
and to gradually exchange this for an English version of our
These organizations were organized to bring about a British
union, a union in which the United States would again become
a part of the British Empire. However, this has been
upset to some extent by the attempt of the internationalists
to establish their own government as an International or
world union. And there is, therefore, a conflict between the
two, for England wants a British union, with America as a
colony, and the international money changers want a Jewish
controlled union, in order to establish their own world
It is, therefore, best for us to stay out of both of these,
in order to save what is left of this Republic as it was given
to us in 1787, by a people who knew more about international
intrigue and the real problems that confronted the world,
than we know today. These early founders not only understood
the problems, but in drafting the Constitution they
provided an instrument for us to follow, so that we could
remain secure from foreign double-dealing and intrigue.
Had we adhered to the Constitution as it was given to us,
we would have been secure and safe today.
Therefore, it is our duty, in the interest of our people and
in the interest of this Republic of the United States, to
ponder seriously and to give fullest consideration to solving
the problem which now confronts the world. In doing so, I
am rather inclined to believe that the real American people
will decide without hesitation, to return to those fundamental
principles that were set forth in the Constitution of the
United States. Let no one tell you that this instrument is not
as valuable today as it was in 1787, for the fact is that it is
much more valuable today—so much so that complete disintegration
of this Republic cannot be avoided should we fail
to return our Government to the principles set forth therein.
I shall now quote an article by Andrew Carnegie, which
he wrote at the request of the London Express, and which
appeared in that paper October 14, 1904, entitled "Drifting
(Written by request for the London Express, October 14, 1904, by
Andrew Carnegie)
Britain and America being now firmly agreed that those who
attempted to tax the American Colonies against their protest were
wrong, and that in resisting this the colonists vindicated their
rights as British citizens and therefore only did their duty, the ,
question arises: Is a separation forced upon one of the parties,
and now deeply regretted by the other, to be permanent?
I cannot think so, and crave permission to present some considerations
in support of my belief that the future is certain to
bring reunion of the separated parts, which will probably come
about in this way: Those born north and south of an imaginary
line between Canada and the United States, being all Americans,
must soon merge. It were as great folly to remain divided as for
England and Scotland to have done so.
It is not to be believed that Americans and Canadians will not
be warned by Europe, with its divisions armed, not against foreign
foes, but against each other. It is the duty of Canadians and
Americans to prevent this, and to secure to their continent internal
peace under one government, as it was the duty of Englishmen
and Scotsmen to unite under precisely similar conditions.
England has 7 times the population of Scotland; the Republic
has 14 times t h a t of Canada. Born Canadians and Americans are
a common type, indistinguishable one from the other. Nothing
la surer in the near future than that they must unite. It were
criminal for them to stand apart.
It need not be feared that force will ever be used or required
to accomplish this union. It will come—must come—in the natural
order of things. Political as well as material bodies obey the
law of gravitation. Canada's destiny la to annex the Republic, as
Scotland did England, and then, taking the hand of the rebellious
big brother and that of the mother, place them in each other's
grasp, thus reuniting the then happy family that should never
have known separation. To accept this view, the people of the
United Kingdom have only to recall the bloody wars upon this
island for centuries arising from Scotland and England floating
separate flags, and contrast the change today under one flag.
The Canadians and Americans may be trusted to follow the
example of the Motherland and have but one flag embracing one
whole race in America. Present petty Jealousies melt away as the
population north and south become in a greater degree born Americans.
Even if this blessed reunion came as early as the end of the next
decade, say 16 years hence, Canada and the Republic—the Scotland
and England of America—would embrace 115.000,000 of Englishspeaking
people, probably 7,000,000 of these in Canada. By the end
of the present decade, 6 years hence, their population will be close
to 97.000,000—6,000,000 of these in Canada. The Republic added
to her numbers the past 14 years more t h a n the total population of
Australasia, or than that of Canada, the immigration having been
enormous. One of these years it almost reached a million.
The peaceful union of Canada and America would lead Britain
to a serious view of her position, resulting in the conclusion that
Cecil Rhodes reached—it will be remembered that he was at first a
strong British Imperialist. Mr. Stead recounts t h a t Mr. Rhodes went
to Lord Rothschild and laid that scheme before him, who replied—
"This is all very well, If you can get America to join—if not, it
amounts to nothing !" This led Mr. Rhodes to a study of the subject,
and the result was he saw clearly that Lord Rothschild was
British federation would leave Britain as a member of the smaller
part of her own race, and out of the main channel of progress:
instead of sitting (with race imperialism accomplished) enthroned
as the mother among hundreds of millions of her own children,
composing all but a fraction of English-speaking men. Hence he
abandoned the scheme and thereafter favored race federation, and
left to America more scholarships than to all other lands. He saw
that it was to the Republic, not to British settlements, his country
had to look for the coming reunion of his race, with Britain
in her rightful place as parent of all. A few figures will leave no
room for dispute about this. In the last decade, 1890-1900, Britain,
Canada. Australasia, and New Zealand, combined, added to their
population 4,500,000—America 13,500,000. Canada only added 508,-
000, the Commonwealth of Australasia only 660,000. In the 4 years
since 1900 America added more than the total population of either
Canada or Australasia. During the present decade, 1900-1910, at
the same rate of Increase to date, she will add more than the present
total white population of Canada, Australasia, New Zealand, and
South Africa combined. So fast does the Republic grow, so slowly
the Empire.
The United Kingdom itself increased last decade more than three
times as much as Canada and Australasia combined. It is not to her
colonies, therefore, t h a t Britain can look for much increase of population
or of trade. The growth of Australasia, small as it was in
the last decade, so far as reported in this decade is even less. Canada
is growing faster only in the far northwest, which is separated by a
thousand miles of barren land from the English-speaking Province
of Ontario. Last decade Ontario Province (English) actually declined
in British population; Quebec Province (French) slightly
increased. The census of 1900 shows fewer British-born residents
in all Canada than that of 1890. The wheatfields now reached by
rail are being settled by Americans who cross the border, selling their
American farms and buying new farms in Canada at one-tenth of the
price realized for the old. Except for this influx, about 70,000 so far,
the rate of increase in Canada will be about as last decade.
When we come to the population of the United Kingdom, we find
already in England and Wales 558 to the square mile. What thoughtful
man could wish much further increase, even if it were possible?
A denser population must cause deterioration. The density of population
in England and Wales is not reached by any European country,
except the small state of Belgium. France has only 188, Germany
270 (or one-half), Italy 290, Japan has only 296. The
authorities agree t h a t England and Wales are fully populated. Ireland
proves that it is so by the small increase. Scotland has increased
steadily for some decades, but little scope is left for further
increase. Substantially, Ireland and Scotland have today all they
can maintain in comfort.
Mark the contrast. America has only 21 people per square mile,
one-sixteenth that of the United Kingdom, one for every 26 in
England and Wales. These figures include Alaska, which resembles
most of Canada, and is not likely to support many people. Excluding
Alaska, the American population is 28 per square mile,
one-twentieth that of England and Wales. It is evident that Green
was right when he wrote years ago that the home of the Englishspeaking
race was not to be on the Clyde and the Thames, but upon
the Hudson, the Delaware, Ohio, Mississippi, and St. Lawrence.
There is not room for it in the dear old home, but there is, fortunately,
in the new lands of her children in Canada and America.
When we note the development Britain has attained industrially,
we are amazed. It is wonderful almost beyond belief: we doubt
and investigate to assure ourselves that we have the facts. This
little kingdom has today more shipping, and about as many spindles
turning as all the rest of the world. She is the richest of
all nations per capita. She makes more iron and mines more coal
per capita than any nation. Marvelous! Nothing comparable to her
in history! She positively dwarfs all previous records—a dwarf more
powerful than most giants. Who is there, then, who can expect
her to do more, what she has accomplished being scarcely credible?
It is physically impossible that much further increase can come
to Britain, and in addition to this, conditions otherwise are unfavorable
to further development. Other nations by the use of her
inventions, are more and more supplying their own wants, and
will continue to do so. They will also compete with her more and
more, especially in iron and steel, and in cotton manufactures, owing
to her lack of the cotton plantations and of needed iron stone. If
Britain succeeds in maintaining present production in these fields
great will be the credit due to her captains of industry. As with
population, therefore, so with industrials—much increase is
This is the age of consolidation, industrially and nationally.
Consider the recent consolidation of Italy and the more recent
consolidation and rapid growth of the German Empire. Who can
imagine that the process has stopped? On the contrary, we are
on the eve of further consolidations in Europe of great extent.
The successes of the American Republic, 45 States consolidated into
one Union, with free trade over all, and that of Germany with its
Zallverein, are too significant to pass unheeded.
The day of small nations is passing. Their incorporation with
larger areas is to be hailed by lovers of progress, provided always
t h a t one point be carefully preserved. The national sentiment of
the small powers should not only be guarded, but fostered in every
way, so that, as in the American Union and in Britain, the Virginian
and the Scotsman remain as intensely Virginian or Scotch
as ever. Pride in and loyalty to the wider empire do not supplant
but supplement love of the part where he was born. He loves the
part and is proud of the whole.
What will Britain do? The day is coming when Britain will have
to decide on one of three courses. First, shall she sink—comparatively
to the giant consolidations—into a third- or fourth-rate
power, a Holland or Belgium comparatively? Here note that we do
not postulate her actual decline, but the increased growth of
other powers. Or, second, shall she consolidate with a European
giant? Or, third, shall she grasp the outstretched hand of her
children in America and become again as she was before, the
mother member of the English-speaking race?
Assuming that other powers are to increase their present population
(as Germany and Russia have yet room to do), or by further
consolidation, it being evident that there is not room in the
120,000 square miles of the little, crowded United Kingdom for
further increase of moment, then the conclusion is inevitable that
one of these three courses is the only possible alternative, for
Britain has no adjoining territory she can annex.
Some have been disposed to regard British federation as a possible
fourth alternative, but the figures given, which convinced
Rothschild and Rhodes, we submit, compel its exclusion, especially
to such as seek for my motherland, as I do, a destiny worthy of ,
her—a future commensurate with her glorious and unparalleled
past. Let us rejoice that this is open. Her Canadian and republican
children across the Atlantic will hail the day she takes
her rightful place in the high council of her reunited race—that
race whose destiny, I believe with faith unshaken, is to dominate
the world for the good of the world.
(This article, in pamphlet form, was placed in the New York
Public Library on February 27, 1906, by the Honorable Joseph H.


Colorado Ruled by Rome









Wednesday, December 9, 2009

War is coming, Americans best get ready

We must realize that the Mulatto, alleged American President, Barry Davis Soetoro (alias “Barack Hussein Obama“) is a radical, left-wing, Socialist-Communist “Robin Hood,” a “take-from-the-Whites and give-to-the-Blacks/give-to-the-alien Roman Catholic Latino Invaders” Muslim pawn of Rome. Obama has ties to the arrogantly Black Supremacist, hatefully anti-White racist, “African-American” Nation of Islam cult leader, Louis Farrakhan—a co-conspirator in the FBI’s 1965 murder of Malcolm X. Both Blacks are controlled by Rome through high-level, Illuminized Freemasonry; both agitators are members of “the Craft.” Mulatto Obama attended Mulatto Jeremiah Wright’s hatefully racist, anti-White cult—operating under the guise of a “Christian church”—for 20 years. Barry also has no allegiance to his late White grandparents who raised him, but, as is the case with the vast majority of Mulattoes, fully sides against all Whites in general while aligning with all Blacks in general evidenced by his thieving, socially unjust, legislative policies, i.e., the Health Care Reform Bill and the Hate Crimes Bill.

The Mulatto is the perfect tool of Rome to be used against historic White Anglo-Saxon Protestant and Baptist Western Civilization. Way back in 1915 with the release of the silent film, The Birth of a Nation, author and White Freemason D. W. Griffith depicted his chief character of evil (panting after the White daughter of carpetbagger “Mr. Stoneman”) against the disenfranchised, ex-Confederate, Bible-believing Southern Whites to be—you guessed it—a Mulatto. Needless to say, “Brother Griffith” was foretelling of the Craft’s plot to impose Federal policies favoring Blacks culminating in the Order’s “Civil Rights Movement” birthed by Cardinal Spellman’s Jesuit John LaFarge who directed Black Freemason A. Philip Randolph. Federally-mandated Black favoritism would then, in time, result in cultural “Black Supremacy” by which “heretic” White Protestant culture in the Old South and “liberal” White Roman Catholic culture in the North and West would be destroyed. On its ruins would arise the Jesuit Order’s grand design for its “Holy Roman” 14th Amendment, Cartel-Corporate Fascist, Socialist-Communist American Empire—outraged Whites of every stripe, morphing into White Jesuit Fascism led at that time in 1915 by the Second Freemasonic Ku Klux Klan. White Jesuit Fascism would be aligned against its common enemy perceived to be all Blacks in general and all Jews in general whose treasonous Black and Jewish public spokesmen would be avowed socialist-communists—covertly loyal to Rome.

Thus, we know Barry Davis Obama’s true purpose. He has been placed into the “Oval Office of the Virgin Mary” in the West Wing to be the “boy” of his immediate White master, Vice President Joe Biden—formerly the most eloquent statesman in the U.S. Senate and Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Barry was groomed by Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Zibignew Brzezinski for two years while attending Columbia University (now Columbia College) in New York City, from 1981-1983. It was there that he changed his legal name from Barry Soetoro to “Barack Hussein Obama,” then requesting of his White grandmother not to call him Barry, but “Barack.” His majors were “political science” and “international relations”—fitting prerequisites for his role designated by the Black Pope’s, Freemasonic American White Power Structure—then including the late Irish-American Roman Catholic Knight of Malta and co-conspirator in the Kennedy assassination—William F. Buckley, Jr., who had called for a Black U.S. president way back in the 1980s.

Once Barry Davis Obama graduated from Harvard Law School—a favorite institution for the Order’s future political cronies (including Fox News patriarchal commentator Bill O’Reilly)—he went to Chicago, ruled by the Jesuits from Loyola University overseeing the Archbishop of Chicago, Francis Cardinal George. Chicago, founded by French Jesuit Jacques Marquette, was also the stomping ground of his natural father, socialist-communist, hatefully anti-White racist, Frank Marshall Davis. Frank loved to exhibit his hatred for the White race by seducing White women—the ultimate expression of “equality” thereby enraging White men who still have a God-given allegiance to their own race. Frankie impregnated Barry’s White mother at the age of 18 in Honolulu, and to cover-up the sin (as Frankie had a White wife and several mulatto children), arrangements were made for Ann Dunham to be married to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a jet-Black Kenyan attending the University of Hawaii, at which both Barack, Sr., and Ann were attendees. The couple was married in 1961, moved to Kenya and there Barry was born that same year. The fact of Obama’s foreign birth rendering him ineligible to be a constitutionally-elected U.S. president has been suppressed by the Pope’s CFR-controlled press, both right-wing (Fox) and left wing (CNN/MSNBC).

All is now in place to impose the Black Pope’s centennial design of White Jesuit Roman Fascism on the “accursed heretic and liberal” peoples of North America—White and Black—condemned by the Pope’s Counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-1563). From Reagan to Bush, the infrastructure was put in place for the arrival of neo-Nazi White Jesuit Fascism. The only left-wing, socialist-communist to occupy the “Oval Office of the Virgin Mary” in Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Martin Sheen’s “West Wing” White House was that darling of Jesuit Georgetown University mentored by Roman Catholic Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley, President William Jefferson Clinton. Otherwise, from 1981 to 2009, the Radical “New Right” Republican Party financed early on by Knight of Malta J. Peter Grace—another co-conspirator in the Kennedy Assassination—dominated the capital for all but eight years! During this time, Reagan armed the Shia Muslims of Iraq and Iran while recognizing the Pope’s Sovereign State of Vatican City in 1984—for the first time in 117 years! Reagan then ended the Pope’s international political hoax and joke on all Middle Class Americans—”the Cold War.” Bush 41 would begin to create the controlled threat of Islam to the West by bringing millions of Muslims into the Empire settling in cites with high populations of Jews (New York City, Miami, Los Angeles) and historic White Protestants (St. Paul-Minneapolis). Bush would also use the FBI to attack the World Trade Center in 1993 using certain Muslims working for the Bureau—further inciting anti-Islamic fury. Having exchanged the false enemy of “Soviet-Communism” (financed by the U.S. since its inception in 1917) for the false enemy of modern day Islam (built by the U.S. since the founding of Freemasonic Ataturk’s Turkey in 1922 and extending to the founding of Freemasonic “Saudi” Arabia in 1932), the Vatican’s American-led Crusade, first against Shia Islam of Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Southern Lebanon (via the Israeli IDF) and then soon-to-be Iran, was put in motion. After eight years of Clinton, the Order was ready to begin the Crusade with Bush 43 overseeing the 911 demolition of the World Trade Center—blamed on Osama Bin Laden, a CIA asset and whose brother had been a business partner with the Bush Crime Family and the Carlyle Group for over 20 years.

At long last, the Black Pope had his Jesuit Fascist infrastructure in place (Department of “Romeland Insecurity,” the Patriot Act, Wall Street Cartel-Capitalist grand theft “Bailout” of 2008, Concentration Camps, etc.). The last and final manipulation of the historic White Middle Class into the “New Right” Jesuit Fascism was to be realized. Enter Barack Hussein Obama! This cretin of Rome is now being used by his White master, Joe Biden, to drive all Whites first to financial desperation. Unemployment is now at least 15% in the major cities and growing. More troops are being deployed to Afghanistan further robbing America of her vital military protectors. Obama has just made an unbelievable statement against the nation’s all-volunteer military—purposely inciting the armed forces against himself and his overt handlers.

And who are Obama’s open and visible handlers? why they are two prominent, Freemasonic Jews—White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Senior Adviser David Axelrod as well as several other Jews connected to the Pope’s Council on Foreign Relations! Fox News is steadily blaming these two Jews for the socialist-communist, performance of Obama—never mentioning Biden whatsoever! Alternative pundits such as Texe Marrs are doing the same. The Order’s Pravda in Moscow is likening Obama to Lenin, stating America is now socialist-communist! Meanwhile the Order’s CIA loves every minute of Obama’s policies! Fox News loves every new outrage perpetrated by Obama! The Jew-hating, White Power Structure running this Empire since 1900 loves Obama and his unconscionable compromises with our historical enemies such as Communist Red China.

Meanwhile, the domestic terrorist events are on schedule to unfold. Another banking collapse is looming. Gun confiscation is in the wings, and race war is about to be incited—benefiting not the socialist-communists, but the socialist fascists! And when that day arrives, Obama will have served his purpose—of which design he is a willing party. A White Roman Catholic fascist military dictator will rule the Empire (someone like Army General David Petraeous or Admiral Michael Mullen) and the roundups will begin. The end of all White Protestant and Baptist constitutional liberty will be a foregone conclusion—along with six million resident Hebrew/Jewish/Israelites of North America.

In conclusion, we White Anglo-Saxon-Celtic-Slavic Protestant and Baptist, Reformation Av1611 Bible-believing men cannot fall into this trap. We must resolve that we will NEVER participate in the coming race war and subsequent Jesuit fascist military dictatorship now on the horizon. We must continue to advocate State Secession, to the end that we may break the temporal power of the Pope forced upon us from “Rome on the Potomac!” Once we secede we must then prepare for invasion as the Order’s minions will seek our destruction. But never, no never, must we ever fall into this trap now baited and ready to catch its prey—the historic White Protestants and Baptists who truly love the risen Lord Jesus Christ and are true, Bible-believing nationalists!

Semper Fi—always faithful—to the God and Father of the risen Lord Jesus Christ and the supreme law of the land, the Protestant Presbyterian Constitution and Baptist-Calvinist Bill of Rights!

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

The Pope and his Temporal Power

The idol-worshipping Pope of Rome claims he has the right to rule every government of the world. The Jesuit Order enforces this right “by any means necessary,” for “the ends justify the means.” Today in America Pope Benedict XVI rules the government in Washington, D.C., the city rightly nicknamed “Rome on the Potomac.” Pope Benedict, subject to the oversight of Jesuit Superior General Adolfo Nicolas, directs the domestic and foreign policy of the American Empire through the Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, D.C., and Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York City. Archbishop Wuerl is overseen by the Jesuits of Georgetown University and Archbishop Dolan is overseen by the Jesuits of Fordham University. It is this papal apparatus that directs the policies of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefeller-created Trilateral Commission. These “trusted third parties” then direct the domestic and foreign policies of every presidential administration—republican or democrat—from the vaginally-shaped “Oval Office” of the Virgin Mary in the “West Wing” of the Jesuit Andrew “White House.”

Mulatto Barry Davis Soetero Hussein Obama, the Muslim, Socialist-Communist and alleged President of the United States, is the front man. The real powerbroker behind the puppet is White Roman Catholic, Vice President Joe Biden. Biden has honorary degrees from two Jesuit universities: St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia and the University of Scranton, both institutions being in Pennsylvania. Every bill Obama signs is attended by his White master, Joe Biden. What Tumulty was to Wilson; what Bormann was to Hitler; what Poskrebyshev was to Stalin; what Tacchi-Venturi was to Mussolini; Biden is to Obama. This is the Pope’s Temporal Power structure now in effect in 14th Amendment America.

The following quote taken from the post below further sustains the above contention—that the Pope of Rome has the right to rule the world:

“Tell us we are Catholics first and Americans or Englishmen afterwards; of course we are. Tell us, in the conflict between the church and the civil government we take the side of the church; of course we do. Why, if the government of the United States were at war with the church, we would say tomorrow, to hell with the government of the United States; and if the church and all the governments of the world were at war, we would say, to hell with all the governments of the world. * * * Why is it that in this country where we have only seven per cent of the population, the Catholic church is so much feared? She is loved by all her children and feared by everybody. Why is it the Pope has such tremendous power? Why, the Pope is the ruler of the world. All the emperors, all the kings, all the princes, all the presidents of the world are as these altar boys of mine. The Pope is the ruler of the world.”

Source: The Western Watchman, a paper published in St. Louis by Father D. S. Phelan, June 27th, 1912.

“67. … the hand of God, who guides the course of history, has set down the Chair of His Vicar on earth, in this city of Rome which, from being the capital of the wonderful Roman Empire, was made by Him the capital of the whole world, because He made it the seat of a sovereignty which, since it extends beyond the confines of nations and states, embraces within itself all the peoples of the whole world. The very origin and divine nature of this sovereignty demands, the inviolable rights of conscience of millions of the faithful of the whole world demand that this sacred sovereignty must not be, neither must it ever appear to be, subject to any human authority or law whatsoever, even though that law be one which proclaims certain guaranties for the liberty of the Roman Pontiff.”

Source: Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Letter UBI ARCANO DEI CONSILIO (On the Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ), December 23, 1922.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

The Club of Romes Nazi Environmentalism to murder humanity

The main purpose of the Club of Rome is to formulate crisis, through which the world can be "united" under a world government. As the "Elite" would say, global problems requiring global solutions. The elites think that in searching for a new enemy to unite us, they came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit their agenda, of a New World Order, one world government, their excuse is all the above crisis are caused by human intervention, meaning humanity as a whole is destroying the earth, when in fact they are destroying the earth with their prescribed crisis, via HAARP, Scaler Technology, laser weather warfare, wars, orchestrated famines, due to weather manipulation. According to these Elites the Real enemy is humanity itself, excluding them of course, now that they own all the worlds intrinsic wealth, they want the planet for themselves excepting a 500,000 slave population to serve their needs world wide.. Ted Turner, another Knight of Malta, CFR member, and Trilateralist and SMOM Elitist believes " A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal, he stated this publicaly in 1996. Maurice Strong stated that "Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class-involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work place air conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.. It is quite evident looking around today they intend to bring these ideology's about.. They are destroying the Global economy with these Agendas. George H. W. Bush brought forth Agenda 21, the Agenda for the 21st Century, He signed America up for this Agenda in 1992 at Rio. He forgot to ask we the people about this agenda. The United Nations Agenda 21 outlines the globalist plan for a completely managed global society, all under the auspices of the United Nations. Agenda 21 will, and has been since 1993 when Clinton issued it as and executive order, set new global requirements for how people will be required to live, eat, travel, learn and communicate. This has been and still is being sold to the public under the guise of we must protect mother ghia, saving mother earth. Excerpted from the 40 page document called the Earth Summit-Agenda 21 the United Nations Programme of action from Rio, is "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society unlike anything the world has ever experienced..(Perhaps the world has not, unfortunately many nations in history did experience these events, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Marxism never changes they just keep repainting it.) a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern be integrated into individual and collective decision making at every level." Under the new system to come private property ownership is to be eliminated, as well as personal vehicle ownership, guns are not allowed in the public hands, only the guards will have guns, tasers, hand cuffs, cages...People will be herded into cities, this economy collapse which is and orchestrated event is causing this now, many people have moved to the cities seeking work, food, shelter. Eventually all people will be removed from the rural lands which sit in the planned Wilding lands and those lands will be off limits to humans period..The people will be told they must live in compact cities, which are human habitat areas. These items are outlined in the United Nations Documents, this is their plan for North America.. “It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.” George H.W. Bush addressing the General Assembly of the U.N, February 1, 1992. Sounds like we surrender to me except the deceivers in D.C. forgot to tell us to our faces, we must find out via researching to understand what they have done to us, and these lands. Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, for the 21st Century, Environmentalism's great lie, the most ingenious evil of all evils, this trojan horse, get the nations peoples to fight over what they all care for, and all the while steal it from them all.. World Communism will not last, it shall bring on the war of all wars..WWIII.. It has started. Read on > Who pulls the strings of environmental groups? The establishment figures who fund and control it -- from England's Prince Phillip and the Netherlands' Prince Bernhard, to U.S. corporate funders like Robert O. Anderson.
Who Owns the Environmentalist Movement?

Far from a grass roots movement, envronmentalism is a big business, funded and directed by the leading families of the U.S. and European establishments

This article is adapted from Chapter 10 of the Holes in the Ozone Scare: The Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn't Falling, published in June 1992 by 21st Century and now in its second printing.

Twenty-five years ago, those who believed that Mother Nature comes first and humankind second were part of an insignificant fringe, considered radical by most Americans. These environmentalists were visible mostly at the level of the antinuclear street demonstration, where marijuana smoke wafted around "Back To Nature" posters on display. Today, however, what used to be extremist "environmentalist" ideology has become mainstream, permeating American institutions at every level, from corporate boardrooms to the Federal Reserve, the Congress, the White House, the churches, homes and schools.

Official lore from the environmental movement's publications asserts that the movement emerged from the grass roots. The truth, however, is that funding and policy lines comes from the most prestigious institutions of the Eastern Liberal Establishment, centered around the New York Council on Foreign Relations, and including the Trilateral commission, the Aspen Institute, and a host of private family foundations.

No U.N.This network of foundations created environmentalism, moving it from a radical fringe movement into a mass movement to support the institutionalization of antiscience, no-growth policies at all levels of government and public life. As prescribed in the Council on Foreign Relations 1980s Project book series, environmentalism has been used against America's economy, against such targets as high-technology agriculture and the nuclear power industry. This movement is fundamentally a green pagan religion in its outlook. Unless defeated, it will destroy not only the economy, but also the Judeo-Christian culture of the United States, and has in fact come perilously close to accomplishing this objective already.

The vast wealth of the environmentalist groups may come as a shock to most readers who believe that these groups are made up of "public interest", "nonprofit" organizations that are making great sacrifices to save the Earth from a looming doomsday caused by man's activities. In fact, the environmental movement is one of the most powerful and lucrative businesses in the world today.

Funding from the Foundations

There are several thousand groups in the United States today involved in "saving the Earth". Although all share a common philosophy, these groups are of four general types: those concerned, respectively with environmental problems, population control, animal rights, and land trusts. Most of these groups are very secretive about their finances, but there is enough evidence on the public record to determine what they are up to.

Table 1 lists the annual revenues of a sampling of 30 environmental groups. These few groups alone had revenues of more than $1.17 billion in 1990. This list, it must be emphasized, by no means includes all of these envirobusinesses. It is estimated that there are more than 3,000 so-called nonprofit environmental groups in the United States today, and most of them take in more than a million dollars a year.

The Global Tomorrow Coalition, for example, is made up of 110 environmental and population-control groups, few of which have revenues less than $3 million per year and land holdings of more than 6 million acres worth billions of dollars, is just the best known of more than 900 land trusts now operating in the United States.

Table 2, lists the grants of 35 foundations to two heavily funded and powerful environmentalist groups -- the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council -- for the year 1988.

The data available from public sources show that the total revenues of the environmentalist movement are more than $8.5 billion per year. If the revenues of law firms involved in environmental litigation and of university environmental programs were added on, this figure would easily double to more than $16 billion a year. This point is emphasized in Table 3, which lists the top 15 environmental groups receiving grants for environmental lawsuits and protection and education programs.

To get an idea of how much money this is, the reader should consider that this income is larger than the Gross National Product (GNP) of 56 underdeveloped nations (Table 4). The 48 nations for which the latest GNP figures were available have a total population of more than 360 million human beings. Ethiopia, for example, with a population of 47.4 million human beings, many starving, has a GNP of only $5.7 billion per year. Somalia, with 5.9 million inhabitants, has a GNP that is lower than the revenues of those groups listed in Table 1. Not a single nation in Central America or the Caribbean has a GNP greater than the revenues of the U.S. environmental movement.

With these massive resources under its control, it is no surprise that the environmentalist movement has been able to set the national policy agenda. There is no trade association in the world with the financial resources and power to match the vast resources of the environmental lobby. In addition, it has the support of most of the news media. Opposing views and scientific refutations of environmental scares are most often simply blacked out.

Where do the environmental groups get their money? Dues from members represent an average of 50 percent of the income of most groups; most of the rest of the income comes from foundation grants, corporate contributions, and U.S. government funds. Almost every one of today's land-trust, environmental, animal-rights, and population-control groups was created with grants from one of the elite foundations, like the Ford foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. These "seed grants" enable the radical groups to become established and start their own fundraising operations. These grants are also a seal-of-approval for the other foundations.

The foundations also provide funding for special projects. For example, the Worldwatch Institute received $825,000 in foundation grants in 1988. Almost all of that money was earmarked specifically for the launching of a magazine, World Watch, which has become influential among policy-makers, promoting the group's antiscience and antipopulation views. The Worldwatch Institute's brochures report that it was created by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to "alert policy makers and the general public to emerging global trends in the availability and management of resources -- both human and natural".

Foundation grants in the range of $20 to $50 million for the environmental cause are no longer a novelty. In July 1990, the Rockefeller Foundation announced a $50 million global environmental program. The specific purpose of the program is to create an elite group of individuals in each country whose role is to implement and enforce the international environmental treaties now being negotiated.

Kathleen Teltsch reported in the New York times (July 24, 1990):

"As an initial step, the five-year program will assist hundreds of young scientists and policy makers in developing countries to create a worldwide network of trained environmental leaders, who will meet regularly at workshops, sharing information and discussing strategy.

"Through the international network, the foundation wants to encourage efforts to build environmental protection into governments' long-range economic planning. Other major elements would promote the drafting of international treaties to deal with forest, land, and water preservation, and hazardous waste disposal"

The foundations are run by America's top patrician families. These families channel billions of dollars into the organizations and causes they wish to support every year, and thereby exert enormous political clout. By deciding who and what gets funded, they determine the political issues up front in Washington, which are then voted on by Congress. It is all tax free, since the foundations are tax-exempt. The boards of directors of the large foundations are made up of some of the most powerful individuals in this country, and they always overlap with power brokers in government and industry.

One such individual was Thornton F. Bradshaw, who, until his recent death, was chairman and program director of the MacArthur foundation and a trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Conservation Foundation. At the same time, Bradshaw was chairman of the RCA Corporation and a director of NBC, the Atlantic Richfield corp., Champion International, and first Boston, Inc. Bradshaw was also a member of the Malthusian Club of Rome and director of the Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies, organizations that have played a critical role in spreading the "limits to growth" ideology of the environmental movement.

Another individual perhaps better known to readers is Henry A. Kissinger, former U.s. secretary of state and a trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. For years Kissinger was the director of the fund's special Studies Project, which was in charge of special operations.

Corporate Contributions

Another huge source of contributions to the environmental movement is private corporations. Unlike tax-exempt foundations, however, corporations are not required by law to report what they do with their money, so it is difficult for an independent researcher to estimate the level of funding for the environmentalist movement from business and industry. There are watchdog groups, however, that have investigated these money flows and come up with startlingly large figures.

For example, the April 1991 newsletter of the Capital Research Center in Washington, D.C., which monitors trends in corporate giving, scathingly denounces those corporations it has discovered financing the environmentalists. The newsletter states that oil companies "are heavy financial supporters of the very advocacy groups which oppose activities essential to their ability to meet consumer needs".

Further, it reports, "The Nature Conservancy's 1990 report reflects contributions of over $1,000,000 from Amoco, over $135,000 from Arco, over 4100,000 from BP Exploration and BP Oil, more than $3,200,000 (in real estate) from Chevron, over $10,000 from Conoco and Phillips Petroleum and over $260,000 from Exxon".

From the scant information publicly available (largely annual reports from the major environmental groups), one can conservatively estimate that corporations contribute more than $200 million a year to the environmentalist movement.

This should come as no surprise. Over the past 20 years, giant corporations have discovered that by using environmental regulations they can bankrupt their competition, the small- and medium-sized firms that are the most active and technologically innovative part of the U.S. economy.

Compliance with environmental regulations is also big business. According to official figures from the federal government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it costs the U.S. economy $131 billion today to comply with environmental regulations. That figure will have risen to more than $300 billion a year by the year 2000. The expenditures are a net drain on the economy, but while the nation is bankrupted, someone is profiting from the services and equipment sold. A look at classified advertisements in the papers today reveals that companies involved in environmental compliance are growing fast. Many of these corporations are contributing to the environmental movement.

Funds from the U.S. Government

There is a third area of funding for the environmental movement: the U.S. government itself. As reported in detail by Peter Metzger, former science editor of the Rocky Mountain News, there are now thousands of professional environmentalists ensconced in the U.S. government. These environmentalists channel hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and favors to environmentalists and environmental groups under all kinds of guises. In a 1991 newspaper series, columnist Warren Brookes exposed how the federal Bureau of Land Management [BLM] used the Nature Conservancy as a land broker, giving the antigrowth organization handsome profits.

The EPA doles out huge amounts of money to environmental groups to conduct "studies" of the impact of global warming and ozone depletion. President Bush has made the Global Climate Change program a priority, so while the Space Station, vaccinations for children, and other crucial projects have been virtually eliminated from the budget, $1.3 billion is available for studies of how man is fouling the Earth. Similarly, scientists who challenge global warming and ozone depletion as hoaxes do not receive a penny in funding, while those who scream doomsday receive tens of millions in research grants from the "climate change" program.

How much funding do the environmentalists receive from the federal government? Officially, the U.S. government gives away more than $3 billion a year in grants to support environmental groups and projects. The actual total, however, is impossible to estimate. A top-ranking official of the department of Energy who spent two years attempting to cut off tens of millions of dollars in "pork barrel" grants going to environmentalist groups, discovered that for each grant she was eliminating, environmentalist moles in the department added several new ones. The official resigned in disgust.

The environmentalist capture of Washington, which was consolidated during the Carter administration, produced radical changes in the Washington, D.C. establishment. This process of subversion was described by [Peter] Metzger in a speech given in 1980, titled "Government-funded Activism: Hiding Behind the Public Interest."

"For the first time in history, a presidential administration is funding a political movement dedicated to destroying many of the institutions and principles of American society. Activist organizations, created, trained, and funded at taxpayers' expense, and claiming to represent the public interest, are attacking our economic system and advocating its replacement by a new form of government. Not only is this being done by means already adjudicated as being unconstitutional, but it is being done without the consent of Congress, the knowledge of the public, or the attention of the press.

It all began when President Carter hired individuals prominently identified with the protest or adversary culture… the appointment [by the Carter administration] of several hundred leading activists to key regulatory and policy-making positions in Washington resulted in their use of the federal regulatory bureaucracy in order to achieve their personal and ideological goals.

Already accomplished is the virtual paralysis of new federal coal leasing, conventional electric generating plant licensing in many areas, federal minerals land leasing and water development, industrial exporting without complex environmental hearings, and the halting of new nuclear power plant construction…

The consequences of those sub-cabinet appointees having then made their own appointments, and those having then made theirs, so that now, there are thousands of [environmentalist] representatives in government…"

According to Metzger, this new class,

"enshrined in the universities, the news media, and especially the federal bureaucracy, has become one of the most powerful of the special interests."

Two Case Studies

Let us consider two case studies of how foundation-funded environmentalist organizations have virtually taken over national policy.

The Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) was created in 1969. The cover story is that it sprang from America's grass roots, after a group of Long Island citizens began having coffee clatches to discuss the threat of toxic chemicals. The truth is that EDF was created by grants from the leading Eastern Establishment foundations and these foundations have continued to support it.

The Ford Foundation gave EDF its seed money in 1969. In 1988, EDF received $500,000 from the ford Foundation, $1,000,000 from the William Bingham Foundation, $75,000 from the Joyce Foundation, $150,000 from the Mott Foundation, and $25,000 from the Carnegie Foundation, among others. Today, EDF has seven offices nationwide, more than 150,000 members, and an annual operating budget of $17 million.

The EDF made its name in the fight to ban DDT, which it accomplished with the help of Natural Resources Defense Council litigation in 1972 -- and with the cooperation of the EPA's administrator, William Ruckelshaus. Ruckelshaus ignored the scientific evidence presented during seven months of EPA hearings on DDT, and he ignored the decision of the EPA's hearing examiner not to ban DDT; instead, for what he admitted were political reasons, he banned this life-saving insecticide that was turning the tide on malaria. Thus "public perception" became established as more important than scientific evidence in environmental decisions.

In 1986, EDF helped to draft California's first sweeping environmental regulations in the form of the ballot initiative known as Proposition 65, which restricted the use of dozens of chemicals in industry and agriculture and has cost the California economy billions.

EDF's goals for the 1990s include: defending against the so-called greenhouse effect; saving sea turtles and porpoises by shutting down the fishing industry; banning CFCs worldwide by the year 2000; saving the world's rain forests; passing legislation to prevent so-called acid rain; setting aside Antarctica as a permanent wildlife reserve; extending the chemical bans in California's Proposition 65 to the entire nation; and recycling all household and industrial waste material.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), one of several of the legal arms of the environmentalist movement, was founded in 1970 with a massive infusion of funds from the Ford Foundation. Together with the Legal Defense Fund of the Sierra Club and the National Audobon Society, the NRDC took to the courts, filing dozens of lawsuits to block dams, shut down nuclear power-plant construction, and derail highway development projects.

The NRDC and its cohorts also targeted federal regulators in the Environmental Protection Agency and other offices, forcing tightened controls on pollution and demanding the enforcement of statutory rules for clean air and rivers. The Clean Air Act of 1970 was a first fruit of these efforts.

Who funds these multi-million-dollar court battles? In 1988, the NRDC received grants of $75,000 from the Educational Foundation of America, $600,000 from the MacArthur Foundation, $165,000 from the W. Alton Jones Foundation, and $850,000 from the Beinecke Foundation.

A good chunk of this money ends up in the expense accounts and salaries of the Eastern Establishment bigwigs who run the environmentalist advocacy groups -- or in the pockets of their lawyers. A 1990 cover story in Forbes magazine reports that the organizational network of consumer and environmentalist activist Ralph Nader is worth close to $10 million and receives ardent support in its anti-industry lawsuits from a circle of plaintiff attorneys with multi-million-dollar annual incomes (see Brimelow and Spencer 1990)

Nader himself lives very well off the publicity stirred up from court cases. "Oh, God, limousines and nothing but the best hotels", Forbes quotes a former state Trial Lawyers Association official. "We got quite a bill when he [Nader] was in town". Nader lives in a $1.5 million townhouse in Washington, D.C. (owned by his sister) and commands up to five-figure fees each for between 50 and 100 speaking appearances per year.

(Photo caption) The National Wildlife Federation's Jay Hair, like other leaders of environmental empires, commands a six-figure salary -- $200,000. However, his actual income is much higher because it includes earnings from his membership on the boards of corporations and other environmental groups. On average, environmental executives have salaries in the range of $150,000 to $200,000 a year, excluding benefits and income from other sources.

Other environmentalist organization leaders also maintain an expensive lifestyle. In August 1983, reporter Nancy Shute gave a colorful description of the environmentalists-turned-establishment who had taken over Washington. Under the headline "Bambi Goes to Washington", Shute writes in National Review:

"On December 1, 1982, barely two years after Ronald Reagan's election, hundreds of Washington lawyers and lobbyists munched pears and cheese and sipped Bloody Marys under the sparkling crystal chandeliers at the Organization of the American States ( headquarters, just two blocks from the White House. The conversation turned to politics, as do all Washington cocktail-party conversations.

"But the women in pearls and men in dark suits who shouted to be heard over the seven piece dance band represented not Exxon or U.S. Steel or General Motors, but the nations' environmental lobby, celebrating the tenth birthday of the Environmental Policy Center, an influential Washington lobbying group and research institute.

"In the 13 years since Earth Day, the environmental presence in the capital has grown from a ragtag band dedicated to saving trees and whales to a formidable Washington institution.

"Much of the environmental windfall has been spent on sleek new offices, on high-profile lobbyists like former senator Gaylord Nelson and Carter Administration Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus… on high-priced economists and lawyers, and on millions of direct-mail pleas for more cash…" [p.924]

These environmentalists are unabashed about their affluence. Their conferences have become notorious for their plush locales (Switzerland, Beverly Hills, Sundance and Aspen, for example).

The Campaign against CFCs

Both the EDF and NRDC played a leading role in the propaganda and legal campaign to ban CFCs.

In June 1974, Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina's doomsday paper claiming CFCs would deplete the ozone layer was published in Nature. At that moment, however, the hottest topic in the news media was that chlorine emissions from the Space Shuttle would wipe out the ozone layer. It was not until September 1974, that articles on the CFCs threat started to appear.

In November 1974, the Natural Resources Defense Council joined the ozone debate, calling for an immediate ban on CFCs. In June 1975, the NRDC sued the Consumer Products Safety Commission for a ban on CFCs used in aerosol spray cans. The lawsuit was rejected by the commission in July 1975, on grounds that there was insufficient evidence that CFCs harm the atmosphere.

At that point, EPA administrator Russell E. Train intervened on behalf of the NRDC and proponents of the ozone depletion theory, calling for all nations to cooperate in establishing worldwide guidelines on CFCs to avoid environmental disaster. Today Russell E. Train is head of the World Wildlife Fund/Conservation Foundation, a trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and a top-ranking member of both the Trilateral Commission and the New York Council on Foreign Relations.

For the next two years, debate raged on the future of CFCs, with the NRDC, lavishly funded by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, playing a major role. While President Ford's top science advisers said the evidence was still not strong enough for an immediate ban on CFCs, other members of the administration moved to implement such a ban. Once of them was Russell W. Peterson, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, who worked for a ban on the use of CFCs in aerosol cans as a first step toward the total banning of CFCs. Peterson made it clear that it did not matter that there was no scientific evidence against CFCs. According to Sharon Roan in Ozone Crisis, Peterson told the press:

"I believe firmly that we cannot afford to give chemicals the same constitutional rights that we enjoy under the law. Chemicals are not innocent until proven guilty" (p. 83).

Peterson today is the head of the National Audubon Society.

In October 1978, CFCs used as propellants in aerosol cans were banned in the United States.

The CFCs issue lay dormant for the next several years, until November 1984, when the NRDC started a new phase on the assault on CFCs with a suit against the EPA. The suit sought to force the EPA to place a cap on overall CFC production, as mandated under the EPA's Phase Two proposals. The NRDC argued that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA was required to regulate CFCs if they were deemed harmful to the environment. The group claimed the EPA had acknowledged this in its 1980 proposed regulations, which had not been implemented during the first four years of the Reagan administration.

As the NRDC relaunched its campaign against CFCs, a major political change was taking place in Washington, D.C. The leading proponents of technology, the space program, and economic development in the Reagan administration had been ousted by a series of media-orchestrated scandals == Interior Secretary James Watt, NASA Administrator James Beggs, and EPA Chief Anne Burford. Burford was replaced by the multimillionaire corporate environmentalist, William Ruckelshaus, his second term as EPA administration.

There was still no credible scientific evidence against CFCs; supposedly this changed in May 1985 with the publication of Joseph Farman's doomsday ozone-hole paper in Nature magazine. This article enabled the environmental lobby to start creating hysteria about CFCs once more, which set the wheels into motion that led to the signing of the Montreal Protocol in 1987.

In September 1986, the DuPont Company announced its support for the banning of CFCs. By summer 1987, the environmental onslaught against CFCs was in full gear under the leadership of the well-funded NRDC. It was at that moment that the World Resources Institute received a $25 million grant from the MacArthur Foundation. According to Sharon Roan's book, Ozone Crisis (page 204):

"Economist Daniel J. Dudek of the Environmental Defense Fund provided a study on the cost of reducing ozone depletion… At the World Resources Institute and Worldwatch Institute, studies were completed to alert Americans to the effects of various ozone control policies. The Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, and Sierra Club initiated public education campaigns and began pressuring industry to own up to its responsibility."

In September 1987, the Montreal Protocol was signed, calling for a 50 percent ban on CFCs by the year 2000.

[CDR Note: In 1995 Arizona State Legislature passed a bill (HB 2236) -- a one pager -- which allowed the possession, use, manufacture, purchase, installation, transportation and sale of chloroflurocarbons (namely freon), while prohibiting any penalty, fine or retaliatory action against any person or political subdivision (local government) of the state who or which did any of the above. Governor Fife Symington signed the bill into law on April 15, 1995 and very shortly thereafter was out of office on alleged charges of misuse of campaign funds, or some silly nonsense.

According to a report we've obtained, scientific studies have debunked the theory that CFC's from freon were responsible for the hole in the ozone layer. The hole is caused from lack of sunlight at the polar areas during the long-night season. When the sun returns, the hole repairs itself. It is a repetitive process. The studies claim that CFCs from volcanoes and other natural phenomena are released into the atmosphere at a much higher rate than those [CFCs] released by freon.

It is most probable that since DuPont's patent on freon was about to expire -- at which time any company could manufacture freon -- the timed release of the ozone-hole scare played a two-fold role; that is, forwarding the environmentalist movement and catering to the interests of the transnational DuPont company. We understand that the new coolant approved for use is also a DuPont patented product; was never tested for environmental safety; is much less efficient; uses more electricity to cool; is caustic to equipment, reducing the life of equipment; and cannot be used in present equipment so will ultimately cost homeowners and businesses billions to modify or change out equipment.]

The First Earth Day

First demonstrators who put spotted owls first, environmentalists define people as the enemy.

At the same time that the environmental organizations were becoming a well-funded big business, their propaganda output was used to create popular support for the environmentalist cause in the United States. A turning point in the transformation of the environmentalist fringe into a radicalized mass movement was Earth Day 1970.

On April 22, 1970, thousands of college students and curious onlookers turned out to participate in the widely publicized Earth Day festivities in dozens of major U.S. cities. Fold music, antinuclear slogans, "Love Your Mother Planet Earth" posters and college students were everywhere. On the surface it appeared to most observers that the nationwide rallies represented a grass roots movement to protest "the destruction of the environment". Nothing could be further from the truth. The Earth Day publicity stunt was part of a highly coordinated effort to create a climate of sympathy for Malthusian zero growth, where none yet existed in the United States.

Earth Day was partly bankrolled by a $200,000 personal grant from Robert O. Anderson, at the time the president of Atlantic Richfield Oil Corporation, the president of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, and a personal protégé of University of Chicago zero-growth ideologue Robert Maynard Hutchins. Anderson and the Aspen Institute played a crucial role in the launching of a worldwide environmentalist movement, and Earth Day was a big step along the way.

Coincident with the Earth Day effort, The Progressive, a 70-year-old publication of the U.S. branch of the Fabian socialist movement of H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and Julian and Aldous Huxley, devoted its entire issue to a special report on "The Crisis of Survival". Among the environmentalist ideologues who contributed to this special issue were Ralph Nader and Paul Ehrlich. Denis Hayes, a Stanford University graduate who would later become the environmentalist-in-residence at the Worldwatch Institute, wrote the keynote article on Earth Day. He stated:

"April 22 is a tool -- something that can be used to focus the attention of society on where we are heading. It's a chance to start getting a handle on it all; a rejection of the silly idea that bigger is better, and faster is better, world without limits, amen.

"This has never been true. It presumes a mastery by Man over nature, and over Nature's laws. Instead of seeking harmony, man has sought to subdue the whole world. The consequences of this are beginning to come home. And time is running out."

In 1970, most Americans would have summarily rejected this pessimistic view. But, by the time the organizers of Earth Day 1970 were planning 20th anniversary celebrations of the event for 1990, the environmentalist hoax had been sold to the population of the United States. In the months before Earth Day 1990, every elementary and secondary school in the nation was provided with a special Earth Day preparation curriculum from the environmental Protection Agency. EPA spokesmen toured the nation. Television, magazines, and newspapers from the national to local level reported and editorialized on the event. State and town governments promoted it with public funds.

On Earth Day 1990, according to a spokesman for Friends of the Earth (a leading arm of the environmentalist lobby also financed by Robert O. Anderson), "one of the largest demonstrations ever" was held in Washington, D.C. and tens of thousands of people, representing "all types of environmental groups from all over the United States and internationally" were there. Smaller celebrations were held in literally thousands of state capitals, towns, and cities across the United States. A mass movement against science, technology, and economic growth had been consolidated in the United States.

Next Comes Genocide

In 1989, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak estimated that 500 million people in the Third World had starved to death in the decade of the 1980's; current estimates by the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) are that 40,000 children under the age of five starve to death every day. Most of these deaths can be attributed directly or indirectly to debt service and "technological apartheid", policies that prevent modern technologies -- such as water treatment plants, nuclear energy, refrigeration, mechanized agriculture, pesticides, and fertilizers -- from being used in Third World countries. These policies were considered colonialist in past decades; today, they are promoted by environmental groups in industrialized nations, under the guise of saving the Earth from pollution.

[CDR Note: See related article: Toxic Wastes 'Recycled' As Fertilizer Threaten U.S. Farms - Food Supply

Many environmentalists have no idea of the consequences of their belief system for the people of the Third World, but it is clear that those at the top of the environmentalist movement are witting in their advocacy of policies that ultimately kill people. We know this is the case because many of the environmentalist policy-makers say so publicly. It is not simply that the ban on CFCs will kill people and that the top environmentalists know that it will kill people.

The fact is that the top ozone depletion propagandists at the World Wildlife Fund, the Club of Rome, the Population Crisis Committee/Draper Fund, and other elite bodies want it to kill people. Depopulation is one of the reasons they devised the ozone hoax in the first place. By scaring the general population with stories of imminent catastrophe, these policy-makers intend to justify adoption of stringent measures that will curtail economic growth and population. The ozone hole is just one of several such scare stories.

On July 24, 1980, the U.S. State Department unveiled the Global 2000 Report to the President. It had been in preparation by the White House Council on environmental Quality and the State Department, employing scores of government personnel and hundreds of outside consultants since the early days of the Carter administration -- an administration dominated by elite members of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission. The report was a long-inded proposal that "population control" -- a euphemism for killing people -- be made the cornerstone of the policies of all U.S. presidents from that time forward.

Pervading the report and several companion documents were lurid predictions: crises in water resources, severe energy shortages, shortfalls in strategically vital raw materials -- all blamed on "population growth".

The report argued that without countervailing action, by the year 2000 there will be 2 to 4 billion people too many. Therefore, the report said, it is required that government implicitly direct all policies domestic and foreign toward the elimination of 2 to 4 billion people by the year 2000.

The rationale for proposing a crime of such great magnitude is the simple -- and totally wrong -- Malthusian ideology that claims population growth inherently exhausts "natural resources" and there are, therefore, "limits to growth", as the Club of Rome has insisted.

In the real world of human production of the means of human existence, there is no correlation between "natural resources" and human population potential, for the simple reason that resources are not really "natural". The resources for human existence are defined by human science and technology, and the development of science and technology defines whole new arrays of "resources" for the societies that avail themselves of such progress. For example, oil was there "naturally", but if did not exist as a resource for humankind until the technology -- combustion engines, and so on -- existed to make it a resource. Before that, it was a black mud that usually meant ruination of farm fields.

This means two things. First, there are no "limits to growth". There are only limits within the confines of a given array of technology. So, unless scientific and technological progress were stopped dead, there could never be an absolute limit to "resources" for human life. There can never be such a thing as absolute "overpopulation" of the human species.

Second, were modern agricultural and industrial capabilities, even as they exist in industrialized nations today, diffused throughout the Third World, we would discover that not only do we have ample resources for year-2000 population levels, but we also have too few people to operate advanced agroindustrial facilities at optimum capacity. If we took account of in-sight technological advances, we would discover that underpopulation is the main problem we face.

The Global 2000 Report, however, assumed no diffusion of modern agroindustrial capabilities to the Third World. Instead, it assumed that the Third World would be denied even available forms of technology.

In addition, it assumed no progress beyond existing scientific and technological arsenals. The over population forecast follows neatly from these assumptions: The report assumes that science and technology have been forced to come to a stop, in order to assert that by the year 2000, there will be 2 to 4 billion more people than the world economy can sustain. The report neglects to point out that if science and technology were not to be forced into stagnation, the globe's population would have much brighter prospects.

In other words, the Global 2000 Report is simply a statement of policy intent for genocide, not a scientific forecast at all. It reveals in a unique way the depopulation aims of those also behind the ozone-depletion hoax.

By the time Global 2000 was issued, whole sections of the U.S. government existed solely to implement its recommendation: depopulation. The role of Richard Elliott Benedick, who negotiated the Montreal Protocol for the United States, must be emphasized again. Benedick has spent most of his government career as head of the State Department Population Office, promoting policies to reduce the size of the world's population.

Lest the skeptical reader think we exaggerate, listen to Thomas Ferguson, a Benedick colleague and head of the Latin American desk at Benedick's Office of Population Affairs. Ferguson made these comments on State Department policy toward the civil war in El Salvado (as reported by Executive Intelligence Review, 1981, p. 43):

"Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. The professionals are not interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons… In El Salvador, there is no place for these people -- period. No place.

"Look at Vietnam. We studied the thing. That area was also overpopulated and a problem. We thought that the war would lower rates, and we were wrong. To really reduce population quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females. You know, as long as you have a large number of fertile females, you will have a problem…

"In El Salvador, you are killing a small number of males and not enough females to do the job on the population. The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease., like the Black Death.

"What might happen in El Salvador is that the war might disrupt the distribution of food: The population could weaken itself, you could have disease and starvation. Then you can successfully create a tendency for population rates to decline rapidly… but otherwise, people breed like animals."

Ferguson's level of moral depravity is not unique among government policy-makers. Listen to William Paddock, an adviser to the State Department under both Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance. In spring 1981, Paddock told a Georgetown University seminar that 3.5 million of El Salvador's 4 million people should be eliminated, and would be, provided that there was "continuous turmoil and civil strife, which is the only solution to the overpopulation problem."

Paddock continued:

"The United States should support the current military dictatorship, because that is what is required… But we should also open up contacts with the opposition, because they will eventually come to power. As we do that, we should work with their opposition, because we will need to bring them to power. That is what our policy is, that is what it must be… an endless cycle."

Readers are encouraged to seek out and read the documentation for themselves in official government documents. For example, National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, a recently declassified memo written by National Security Advisers Brent Scowcroft and Henry Kissinger in 1974, states specifically that population growth in the developing sector is a national security threat to the United States, and must be curtailed as a matter of America's foreign policy. Under the rubric of this document, the United States has worked internationally to cut the growth and overall size of the darker-skinned peoples of the Third World -- an explicitly racist policy.*


This policy against the Third World and "less advantaged populations" is being implemented on a scale never seen before but, in fact, it is nothing new. Historian Anton Chaitkin documented recently that the policy-makers gathered around George Bush, the family of the President, and the Anglo-American financial establishment behind the Bush administration, are the same group of people who put the racist Adolf Hitler into power and copied his eugenics policies in practice in the United States. The continue to promulgate the policy of Hitlerite "eugenics" or race purification under the new label of population control and in the name of "saving the environment".

Bush's work for population control goes back to the 1960s, when he was the first congressman to introduce national population-control legislation. Bush was also a conspicuous activist for population reduction when he was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 1971 to 1972. In 1972, prodded by Bush and others, the U. S. Agency for International Development (AID) began funding the Serilization League of America to sterilize nonwhites.

In his introduction to the 1973 book The World Population Crisis: The U.S. Response, by Phyllis Piotrow, Bush wrote that "one of the major challenges of the 1970s… will be to curb the world's fertility".

In 1988, U.S. AID made a new contract with the Sterilization League, committing the U.S. government to spend $80 million over five years. This contract is not listed in the public U.S. AID budgetary literature, yet the group says that 87 percent of its foreign operations are funded by the U.S. government.

The sterilization program is based on deception.

The U. S. AID tells Congress and the public, that since the Reagan and Bush administrations have been opposed to abortions, tax money that would have funded abortions in foreign countries has been diverted to "family planning activities". They fail to explain that in addition to buying 7 billion condoms, the program funds surgical sterilization of growing numbers of the Third World Population.


Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer, 1990. "Ralph Nader, Inc.", Forbes (9-17) pp 117-122 (cover story)

Anton chaitkin and Webster Tarpley, 1992. George Bush; The Unauthorized Biography. In Press.

Council on Environmental Quality, 1980. "The Global 2000 Report to the President: Entering the Twenty-first Century", Washington D.C.

Executive Intelligence Review, 1981. The Conspiracy Behind the Trilateral Commission, New York.

Joseph Farman et al. 1985. "Large losses of total ozone in Antartica reveal seasonal CLOx/NOx Interaction", Nature, Vol. 315 (Jan 24), pp 207-210.

Peter Metzger, 1980. "Government-Funded Activism: Hiding behind the Public Interest". Present at the 47th Annual Conference of the Southwestern Electric Exchange in Boca Raton, Florida (March 26).

Mario J. Molina and F.S. Rowland, 1974. "Stratospheric sink for chlorfluromethanes: chlorine atomic-atalysed {sic} destruction of ozone", Nature, Vol. 249 (June 28), pp 810-812.

Kathleen Murphy, 1979. "The 1980s Project: Blueprint for 'Controlled Disintegration' ", Fusion (October), pp. 36-47.

National Security Study Memorandum 20, 1974, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, Washington, D.C.

William Paddock, 1981. "The Demographic and National Security Inplications of the Salvado Revolution". Washington, D.C.; Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies Seminar (Feb. 27).

Sharon Road. 1989. Ozone Crisis: The 15-Year Evolution of a Sudden Global Emergency. New York; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lydia Schulman, 1981. "Global 2000: Will the Zero-Growthers capture the White House?" Fusion Magazine (May), pp. 18-19.

"The State Department's Office of Population Affairs: Depopulating by 'War and Famine' ", 1981. Fusion magazine (June), pp. 20-23.

Nancy Shute, 1983. "The Greening of James Watt", National Review (Aug 5), pp 924-928

Kathleen Teltsch, 1990. "Rockefeller Foundation Starts Ecology Effort", The New York Times, July 24.

Table 1

Environmental Groups

(U.S. dollars, 1990, 1991)


Organization Revenues


African Wildlife Foundation $ 4,676,000

American Humane Association 3,000,000

Center for Marine Conservation 3,600,000

Clean Water Action 9,000,000

Conservation International 8,288,216

The Cousteau Society 14,576,328

Defenders of Wildlife 6,454,240

Earth Island Institute 1,300,000

Environmental Defense Fund 16,900,000

Greenpeace International 100,000,000

Humane society 19,237,791

Inform 1,500,000

International Fund for Animal Welfare 4,916,491

National Arbor Day Foundation 14,700,000

National Audobon Society 37,000,000

National Parks Conservation Assoc. 8,717,104

National Wildlife Federation 77,180,104

Natural Resources Defense Council 16,926,305

Nature Conservancy 254,251,717

North Shore animal League 26,125,383

Planned Parenthood 383,000,000

Population Crisis Committee 4,000,000

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy 1,544,293

Sierra club 40,659,100

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 8,783,902

Student Conservation Association, inc. 3,800,000

Trust for Public Land 23,516,506

Wilderness Society 17,903,091

Wildlife Conservation International 4,500,000

WWF/Conservation Foundation 60,000,000

Zero Population Growth 1,600,000

Total $1,177,656,571


Sources: Buzzwork, September/October 1991- Chronicle of Philanthropy March, 13, 1992




(U.S. dollars, 1988)


Foundation EDF NRDC


Beinecke foundation, Inc. 850,000

Carnegie Corporation of New York 25,000

Clark Foundation 150,000

Columbia Foundation 30,000

Cox Charitable Trust 38,000

Diamond Foundation 50,000

Dodge Foundation, Geraldine 75,000 10,000

Educational Foundation of America 30,000 75,000

Ford Foundation 500,000

Gerbode Foundation 50,000 40,000

Gund Foundation 85,000 40,000

Harder Foundation 200,000

Joyce Foundation 75,000 30,000

MacArthur Foundation 600,000

Mertz-Gilmore Foundation 75,000 80,000

Milbank Memorial Fund 50,000

Morgan guaranty charitable Trust 5,000 6,000

Mott Foundation, Charles Stewart 150,000 40,000

New Hope Foundation, Inc. 45,000

New York Community Trust 35,000

Noble foundation, Inc. 20,000 35,000

Northwest Area foundation 100,000

Packard Foundation 50,000 37,000

Prospect Hill Foundation 45,000

Public Welfare Foundation 150,000

Robert Sterling Clark Foundation 50,000 40,000

Rockefeller Brothers Fund 75,000

San Francisco Foundation 50,000

Scherman Foundation 40,000 50,000

Schumann foundation 50,000

Steele-Reese Foundation 100,000

Victoria Foundation 35,000 35,000

Virginia Environmental Endowment 25,000

W. Alton Jones Foundation 100,000 165,000

Wallace Genetic Foundation 80,000 65,000

William Bingham Foundation 1,000,000 150,000

Total* 2,885,000 3,236,000


*The total includes some smaller foundation grants not listed here.

Source: The Foundation Grants Index -- 1989, 1990



Recipient Foundation Grant in $

World Resources Institute MacArthur Foundation 15,000,000

World Resources Institute MacArthur Foundation 10,000,000

Nature Conservancy R.K. Mellon Foundation 4,050,000

Nature Conservancy Champlin Foundations 2,000,000

Oregon Coast Aquarium Fred Meyer Charitable Trust 1,500,000 International Irrigation Mgmt Inst. Ford Foundation 1,500,000

Open Space Institute R.K. Mellon Foundation 1,400,000

Internat'l Irrigation Mgmt. Inst. Rockefeller Foundation 1,200,000

Chicago Zoological society MacArthur Foundation 1,000,000

Native American Rights Foundation Ford foundation 1,000,000

Wilderness Society R.K. Mellon Foundation 800,000

World Resources Institute A.W. Mellon Foundation 800,000

University of Arkansas W.K. Kellogg Foundation 764,060

National Park Service Pillsbury Co. Foundation 750,000

National Audobon society A.W. Mellon Foundation 750,000


SOURCE: Environmental Grant Association Directory, 1989


Underdeveloped Nations Whose Gross National Product (GNP) Is Less Than

The Annual Revenues of U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS (1990)

Country GNP (billions $ Population

Bhutan 0.25 1.4

Laos 0.70 3.9

Lesotho 0.71 1.7

Chad 0.86 5.4

Mauritania 0.91 1.9

Somalia 1.00 5.9

Yemen 1.03 2.4

Central African Republic 1.10 2.9

Botswana 1.21 1.2

Burundi 1.22 5.1

Togo 1.26 3.4

Malawi 1.36 8.0

Mozambique 1.49 14.9

Benin 1.72 4.4

Burkina Faso 1.70 8.5

Mali 1.84 8.0

Congo 1.91 2.1

Madagascar 1.96 10.9

Maurilius 1.96 1.1

Rwanda 2.14 6.7

Niger 2.19 7.3

Zambia 2.20 7.6

Guinea 2.32 5.4

Haiti 2.39 6.3

Jamaica 2.57 2.4

Papua New Guinea 3.00 3.7

Nepal 3.24 18.0

Gabon 3.27 1.1

Bolivia 3.03 6.9

Tanzania 3.95 24.7

Trinidad and Tobago 4.02 1.2

Honduras 4.13 4.8

Uganda 4.54 16.2

Senegal 4.55 7.0

Costa Rica 4.56 2.7

El Salvador 4.70 5.0

Paraguay 4.72 4.0

Panama 4.88 2.3

Dominican Republic 4.97 6.9

Ghana 5.60 14.0

Ethiopia 5.69 47.4

Jordan 5.85 3.9

Sri Lanka 6.97 16.6

Oman 7.00 1.4

Uruguay 7.66 3.1

Guatemala 7.83 8.7

Kenya 8.29 22.4

Ivory Coast 8.62 11.2

Total 362.0

Figures were not available for Afghanistan, Kampuchea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Angola, Lebanon, Nicaragua and Vietnam. Source: World Development Report 1990: Poverty, The World Bank (New York, London, Oxford University Press, 1990