It is disheartening these days to watch all of those CFR types on the
Ted Koppel show calling for an all-out land war against the Serbs in
order to retrieve Kosovo for the Albanians. Not one of them has had the
courage to reflect on the utter futility of a NATO-sponsored war in the
Balkans as a means of solving that region’s centuries-old ethnic
problems. Wisdom would have dictated that it was foolish for America to
insert itself as an instant solver of problems that have festered for
hundreds of years. The ethnic conflicts and tensions in that region can
only be sorted out by the people who live there and by nobody else. What
we do there will only be a temporary rearrangement of forces. One
hundred years from now a new arrangement will no doubt exist.

The reason why wisdom has not prevailed among government leaders in
the Twentieth Century is because politics has been plagued by two insane
ideas: communism and world government. The idea of a communist
proletarian utopia has led to human misery on an unprecedented scale all
across the globe. And the idea of world government, set in motion by
Cecil Rhodes at the turn of the century, has led to world wars and their
horrific consequences. Malachi Martin, a very wise man, identified these
two malevolent forces in his book, “The Keys of This Blood.” He saw
these forces as enemies of the one universal force for good,
Christianity. He wrote,

“Willing or not, ready or not, we are all involved in an all-out,
no-holds-barred, three-way global competition. Most of us are not
competitors, however. We are the stakes. For the competition is about
who will establish the first one-world system of government that has
ever existed in the society of nations. … The competition is all-out
because, now that it has started, there is no way it can be reversed or
called off.”

The two competitors to Christianity are communism and the western
internationalists. He describes the latter as “a group of men who are
united as one in power, mind and will for the purpose of achieving a
single common goal: to be victorious in the competition for the new
global hegemony.” He sees this latter assemblage as comprised of two
groups: 1) transnationalist financiers and entrepreneurs and 2)
political internationalists. “Both are so closely intertwined in their
membership that individuals move easily and with great effect from an
Internationalist to a Transnationalist role and back again.”

All you have to do is look at the membership list of the Council on
Foreign Relations and its corporate sponsors to see how true Martin’s
observation is. He also writes, “And not least important in the
all-encompassing confrontation that is under way, both groups share the
same philosophy about human life and its ultimate meaning — a
philosophy that appears, in the surprised view of some observers, to be
closer to Mikhail Gorbachev’s than to Pope John Paul’s.”

Martin’s book was published in 1990, and much has happened since then
to affirm the correctness of his observations. Communism as a force in
Europe has been defeated, but its political power isn’t entirely dead in
Russia and certainly not dead in China. Economic reality has forced
Russia to accept the hegemony of the financial west. Meanwhile, NATO has
been transformed into the military arm of the internationalists. That is
why the CFR types insist that NATO must win its war against Serbia. A
defeat would set back the goal of world government fifty years.

The inability of the great brains of the west to recognize the idea
of world government as another insane utopian concept is what has kept
wisdom from prevailing as our leaders lead us and the people of the
Balkans into greater calamity and catastrophe. The other day, I listened
to Max Frankel, columnist at the New York Times, pontificate on the need
for the United States and other nations to give up their sovereignty to
a world government. What is to replace national sovereignty is never
spelled out in any detail. And what Frankel ignores is that our
sovereignty has permitted us to develop as the nation we are, a nation
that could take him and his family in as refugees.

It is easy for the Max Frankels and Strobe Talbotts to call for
Americans to give up their national sovereignty. But they can’t
guarantee what we shall have after that is done. The idea of communism
sounded good to a lot of deluded people. Likewise, the idea of world
federation sounds just as good to many humanist do-gooders. We’ve seen
the evil results of communism in power and yet many American Marxists
are still not convinced that communism and socialism are bad. And in the
Balkans, we are just beginning to see what the New World Order will be
like as it imposes its solutions on local ethnic problems.

It was former banker Norman Dodd, a researcher for the Reese
Committee in the 1950s, who gave us a glimpse of the utopian mindset of
the one-worlders when he investigated the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. Dodd was given access to the Endowment’s minute
books from its inception in 1908. He writes,

“In 1908 the trustees had raised this question: ‘Is there any way
known to man more effective than war, assuming that you wish to alter
the life of an entire people?’ They discussed this question academically
and in a scholarly fashion for almost a year and came up with the
conclusion that war is the most effective means known to man, assuming
that you want to begin concentrating power in government and abandon the
dispersion of authority contemplated by the Constitution.

“They then raised Question No. 2: ‘How do we involve the United
States in such a war?’ This was in 1909. … The trustees answered the
question this way: ‘We must control the diplomatic machinery of the
United States.’ … Finally, in 1917, we did get in a war — World War
I. These trustees then had the brashness to congratulate themselves on
the wisdom and validity of their original decision. The impact of our
participation in World War I immediately indicated its capacity to alter
our national life. … Finally the war was over. The trustees then took
up the problem of preventing — as they put it — a reversion of life in
the United States to what it was prior to 1914. They came to the
conclusion that to gain that end they must somehow get control of
education in the United States.”

The rest is history. Are the leaders of NATO operating under the same
premises as those trustees? Their determination to win at all costs
indicates that they are.

Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of “The Whole-Language/OBE Fraud”
and seven other books on education. His books are available on

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.