Thank you. So tonight I'm coming to you Live with Real Bill Cooper, episode five, and this one is Bill Cooper talking about or showing the video of William Norman Grigg. It's not so much a video, it's a recording of a lecturer conference or something like that. And it is Hour of the Time number one seven and twelve and one seven hundred and thirteen, and these can be found on the Hour of the Time, h ou R of the Time on Bitch shoot. So we're gonna go ahead and play those and I'll
be sitting around here with for commentary. I just got out of I just got finished doing some grilling outside and I haven't done it in a while. So it's the weather, you know, But it was it was nice. The family loves my hickory smoked chicken, and I don't have a smoker. What I use is just that regular dome top grill. But I soaked the chips, you know. I prepped the grill, the coals and the the
you know. There's a trick you can use. It's actually been in a movie once with Robert de Niro, but it's actually a trick you can actually use. I don't know if it's a tricker. If it's just a smart idea. You can lay some dry sticks, little tiny sticks or whatever in between the coals so that when you do it, why am I freezing weird anyway? So that oh, yeah, I should probably exit out of that. Maybe that's something to do that. Let's get rid of that. Hold
on one second, I wasn't completely prepared at puss. Yeah, so when you when you put it in there, it actually holds the flame a little better, so you can get the cool started more. So that's that's just a simple little trick. Obviously literal fluid. And so after that cooks down to where it's got to go, you have your soaked chips and you drain them. You need to sprinkle them across and you start to get smoky. Put the dome on top, close down the little um we would call it
like a escape valve, the chimney. What do they call it when it's when it's a pot pipe? I forgot that thing. A carb Yeah, that's that was the way you should down and make sure that the bottom part is open so that air can get in and feed the flame. And yeah, they came out great, as always a chicken. So I did a poneless, skinless chicken breast, and Rebecca likes dark meat and thime eat more. Don't make a joke about that. She likes thime eat so I made
a whole package of that too. It's Mother's Day, so she gets what she wants. And UH got her really cool carrot cake and some ice cream that it's funny because everybody has different tate. I about three different types of ice cream. But anyway, so there's all that. They haven't even been home all day. They're all doing stuff, but it will be here when they get back. And now for me, I have my incredibly masculine spoon
right here, and the doctor manzo fulvic acid and humic acid blend. I'll be able to see you partake in as we start this little journey down learning something about so this William Norman Grigg guy, give me in a moment here one job. I can't do all that. William Norman Grigg was, and I think he was the chief editor of the New American, which was and still is the publication of the John Birch Society, which my father is a member of. And apparently I am too, because he gave me the gift
of subscription to the New American. So I'm not sure. I get emails sometimes from people from the John Bird Society as if I'm a member, unless it's just presumptuous. I don't know. Maybe I am. Maybe I don't know, but I don't go to meetings, so therefore I'm not an alcoholic. See how that works. I don't drink anyway. It's been funny,
so there you go. Well, let's just see what this guy has to say, because I've listened to this on my last trip to San Diego, and I thought it was so important for us to listen to for maybe different reasons than you think. And that'll kind of that'll that'll explain itself as we go. Now, No, I'm not. I'm not taking away from the information. What I'm saying is the way to apply the information and think about who's saying, what's saying it, and there you know, is it is
it a deep enough out understanding? Is at surface level? Is it somewhere between like what sediment lay or have they dug too before they said this must be the way and the reason why and the root cause of some problem that we have in this world. So those are the things that I look at when I'm listening to some people, because a lot of people just begrgitate what
they hear. They're parrots, so they heard some other person on some other patriot platform which is controlled as shit, be just hitting the same and yes, we have talking points too, well they do anyway, I'm not I'm not. I'm not one of the day where they'll say certain things like ah pedavores and ah da da da and this and that and this all this other stuff, and you know, it's like, okay, but how much of that do you actually know versus how much of that you're just repeating that someone
else said? And who, what, when and where and how and at what point in time was this the thing? Like do you know anything about what you're saying? Or are you just throwing it out there? Because not having a really good compass as to who the enemy is, to know thy enemy doesn't help anybody. And it's just a bunch of you know, but I am Bob. It's like, might as be watching like like you know, reading combook like bam zap pow, or like an old Batman, you
know the Batman TV show when they hit somebody at bam sap boom. It's like, okay, but what does it all mean? And if you're trying to convince someone else of something that's pretty odd at first glance, you might want to have some details to go along with your story to help support it. And then how do you know you're not being manipulated by something that's just a distraction to keep you from something else that's actually happening that's more imminent danger.
Anyway, moving on, Let's watch this first one and then we'll get it into my other psychoses sent Oh yeah, Chrome, let's do that one. I'm gonna try this one tonight. That's kind of a fun one to do. Where met you. It's got a change that I'm not trying to be a mouth breather. I'm just a look close in the mic. It's a little sense of it. For some reason. My children were in here in Rebecca, my other child. What hell am I three? Nope, rogue this one. Okay, let me put this on a full screen that
says picture and picture Daniel fucking it has the arrows. It looked the same. Okay, let's play this one. I kind of skipped over the sirens and the dogs you'll hear a little bit of him the tail end, and Bill's gonna do most of the talking in between. Mister William Norman Greer our Greg, I'm sorry, and don't go looking for him. Unfortunately he passed away at age fifty four in twenty seventeen of a heart attack. All right, so unfortunately he won't be a guest on the show. And seemed like
he had his stuff together. And Bill Jasper, actually I wrote something really nice about him. I had caught when I was looking up more information on him. But let's let's play this for now, and then we'll go back into it later to get into part two. We're gonna play part one and part two tonight, Good evening, you're listening once again to the Hour of the Time. I'm William Cooper as well. We have a special presentation for you tonight, folks. As sure, isn't that we have a special presentation
for you tonight. Posts Norman Griggs is the senior editor of the New American magazine, and what you're going to hear from him tonight is all of the plans that the United Nations has for us in the near future. Terrifying plans. I mean they're just absolutely terrifying. He's a quote you from their own writings, their own documents, their own treatises, resolutions and conventions, and
um, the Convention on the Rights of the Child. If you love freedom, if you love the family, if you love children, if you love being a parent, if you love America, if you love the principles and ideals upon which this nation was based, if you like our traditional way of life, then you better be very close attention tonight, especially if you're one of those people who thinks that some for some reason, the United Nations is
really good and we really need the United Nations. I get to tell you, you're you know, you lost it a long time ago, and you're you're you're one of the walking dead. You don't know it yet. Um. What these people are planning to do makes Hitler look like a nice guy. Like a nice guy. He's also going to verify every single thing that I have been telling you was going to happen, and that the UN stood, and that the UN had planned for us for the last twelve years.
See, I've been telling you all of these things for the last twelve years. Now he's put it all together and he's going to tell you in one speech. Okay, so listen, pay attention, pay very very close attention, and by golly, don't forget it either. If this is just absolutely amazing what you're going to hear, terrifying literally. William rman Drake, our speaker to Night, was born in Idaho and educated at Ricks College and Utah
State University. While studying at the National Journalism Centered Washington, DC, he worked as a research assistant to Fred Barnes, the White House correspondent for the New Public Magazine. He has also worked on the staff at the National Right to Life Committee from nineteen eighty nine to nineteen ninety three. Mister Green wrote an award winning column for the Provo and Daily Herald newspaper in Provo, Utah. His first book, The Gospel of Revolt, Feminism Versus the Family,
was published in nineteen ninety three. Mister Greek has reported from five foreign countries and covered the nineteen ninety four UN International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt for the New American Magazine. He is presently is heenior editor at the New American Magazine. Thank you very much. I am honored and gratified to be with you this evening in Virginia, and it's a beautiful place, and I see a room full of people who are very concerned about our nation.
I'm grateful to you for being here, and I'm also grateful for the presence of the c SPAN crew to present our message to the country at large, unfiltered by the custodians of acceptable opinion. There's much about the John Birst Society, and much about the Americanist cause which the John Birst Society represents, which is considered to be less than acceptable. The John Burst Society has on occasion been referred to as a hate group. Now this I will explain.
I hate group is any group of people whom liberals hate, and I think that no group better exemplifies that than the John Birst Society in that sense and in that sense alone. Something that should be understood is that we are also referred to as right wing extremists. Have you ever noticed that there are no left wing extremists in the world. There are left wing idealists, there are
left wing activists. There are right wing extremists and right wing ideologues. Often we are led to believe that a left wing extremist is somebody whose idealism is temporarily over his judgment. But he's doing the right thing. He's taking us in the right direction, where as the right winner, of course, is always trying to turn back the clock. Well, in some ways, turning back the clock would be a good alternative. Give them what has happened in
this bloody century, this bloodiest of all centuries. Perhaps the definitive left wing idealists, if you will, would be the communists of the former Soviet Union and maloist China. They were often referred to in the establishment press as liberals in a hurry, and of course in they're in temporate haste. They managed to rack up historically high body counts, and that is something which is still going on today. I want to talk with you briefly about the case of
army specialist Michael Knu. Many of you were acquainted with the name of Michael Knu, a young man who were listed in the US Army. He's only twenty two years old. He has received numerous commendations for his work as an army medic. He is a man of exemporary character, a man now, since most of you already know about Michael knew for our international audience, which has just come online. You're listening to the hour of the time. I'm
William Cooper. Tonight we are giving you are presenting a special presentation of a speech by Norman Grigg, who's the senior editor for New American magazine Soldier. And he's going to be talking about the United Nations in specific what they have
planned for us in the near future. And he's going to verify to you and in this short speech everything that I've been warning you about and telling you and teaching you and documenting and doing like he's going to do tonight, reading from their own papers, their own resolutions, their own documents, their own writings, and he's going to verify that it's all true, not only true, but terrifying, absolutely terrifying. Mike Hitler looked like a nice guy.
They were there to be a trip wire. They were there for the purpose of making the UN presence known according to their orders. Michael new said, I have a problem with that because I am not UN. I am not a UN soldier. I have not sworn an oath of allegiance to the United Nations. I have sworn an exclusive oath of allegiance to the United States Constitution. For that reason, I can no more wear the insignia of the United Nations than I could wear the insignia of Russia or of some other country.
About a week ago, a little more than a week ago, Michael News unit mustered out in the formation. All of them except Michael New, were wearing the colors of the United Nations, that is to say, a United States flag on one shoulder, the United Nations in Sydney on the other.
Michael New did not participate in this burlesque, and now he finds himself in a position in which he may lose not only his career, but quite possibly his freedom, because it is entirely possible that patriotism and esport has been redefined as a crime in the new World Order. Thompson's the implications of this development and a fashion similar to that which Michael New is experiencing, all of us
are finding our allegiance being transferred without our consent. And we'll talk about that a little bit, This eving and the implications that as for that which makes us most distinctive among all nations, our institutions of order, liberty, and limited government, and our concept that rights come from God, and that they are inanienable they are bestowed upon individuals by God, and that people combine to create a government for the exclusive purpose of securing our rights, and that government
is to be the servant of the rights of people who obey God's law. This is the American concept. The United Nations concept is rather different. Some of you might be acquainted with the publication called Foreign Affairs. Time magazine is referred to this as the most influential journal in print. It is the flagship
journal of a very influential group called the Council on Foreign Relations. In my book, particularly chapter one of my book Freedom on the Altar, I talk a little bit about the background of the Council on Foreign Relations, its ancestry, its objectives. Suffice it to say that the custodians of acceptable opinion take their cues to a remarkable extent from the Council on Foreign Relations and its publications,
particularly Foreign Affairs. A Contrary to the culminations of a large and rather ill informed conservative talk show host, the Council on Foreign Relations does have influence in modern American politics. Furthermore, the counclon Foreign Relations does seek to create a global system unified politically economically, philosophically, and in a certain fashion ecclesiastically
through the United Nations. One of the latest examples of this objective is found in the July August nineteen ninety five issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, in an essay by Arthur Slessinger Junior entitled Back to the Womb, Isolationism's renewed threat. What is an isolationist? I am indebted to Joseph Sobrin for the following definition. An isolationist is somebody who wants neither to slaughter nor to subsidize foreigners.
In other words, if you believe that America should conduct itself on the world stage as a principled exponent of its own interests in a way which is honorable and lawful, in a way which in which we deal with equity and honor with other nations, than you're an isolationists. You don't believe in collective security, or multilateralism, or any of the other nostrums of the establishment. Arthur Slessinger Junior is alarmed that isolationism, as it is referred to, is raring
its ugly head once again in the American political landscape. Perhaps non interventionism would be a more appropriate expression. Those of us who do not less to rearrange the affairs of other nations for them are to be considered non internets, not isolationists. A few months ago here in Washington's EC, I had occasion to speak with a man who was sort of the definitive internationalist, Barbara Conival, former Chairman of the World Bank. I pointed out to Barbara Conival that the
Constitution does not authorize foreign aid. He said, that strikes me as specious. It's specious to say that the Constitution does not authorize foreign aid, because the Constitution authorizes a military, and the military is simply a way in which we can exercise our influence in the world. And so we have two choices. We can either use foreign aid in order to persuade people to do what we want, or we can use the military to impose our will on the
world. So apparently it is a question of either bribing them or bombing them. If you seek a third alternative, you're an extremist. And that third alternative, of course, was described by some of our noblest founding fathers, including George Washington. We just two entangling alliances. We try to exercise and exhibit good will towards all people on principled policy matters. When the occasion arises, we may enter into multilateral temporary alliances, but we are too is too
entangling alliances. We are to retain our freedom of movement on the world stage, or to retain the independence that was purchased for us by some of the finest blood of the eighteenth century. This is the traditional American perspective. It is called isolationism. However, mister Slessinger says that isolationism is a more dangerous phenomenon than Stalinism. Counterplate this for a second. This bloody century has produced
some of the most remarkable tyrants and despots in all of Unian history. Indeed, this century leaves the role call in that respect. The bloodiest of all those tyrants arguably is Joseph Stalin. Joseph Stalin was one of those liberals in a hurry. Remember, according to Arfas Slessinger and I quote, it is to Joseph Stalin to the Americans, Oh the forty years suppression of the isolationist
impulse. The collapse of the Soviet threat phases us today with the prospect that haunted Franklin Dellan and Roosevelt half a century ago, the return to the wound in American foreign policy. Another words, isolationism arguably is a greater threat than stalinism, which is an interesting calculation, and it's typical of the dutious wisdom that we receive from the members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Is the
leadership of that organization. Progamore artist Plessenger Junior points out that this concept of the new world order is one which will be very costly. In other words, it's not simply a new state of affairs that has taken shape unbidden in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse. According to splestions your quote, we are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as
well as in words and money. That the words were going to pay for it with our blood and perhaps the blood of others, perhaps those that Kickling referred to as lesser breeds without the law, if you either dribe them or bomb them in order to make them do the will of the new world order.
There are those of us who seek a third alternative. Those of us who seek a third alternative once again, want to restore America's constitutional independence and recover America's constitutional institutions and to have peace and freed and prevail in our country, and by the strength of our moral example, inspire others to subscribe to
the principles of Americanism as adapted to their own local conditions. It would be a wonderful thing and an unfaralleled blessing to the entire world, if there were a sudden epidemic of limited government, would it not. That is something we are seeking to propagate. We are the bearers of this contagion of limited government. Unfortunately, the United Nations is the instrument through which exactly the opposite philosophy is being propagated in the world. And this is something that we need to
understand. We need to understand the implications of the United Nations institutionally and particularly philosophically, not only for other nations, but also for ourselves in this country. This is a rather interesting book which may or may not be available in wide release at the present time. It's called Managing Globalization in the Age of Interdependence. Interdependence is the opposite of independence. We have a Declaration of Independence
that inaugurated our existence as a nation. Was a unique document. It asserted the basic American premise that governments are instituted by men to defend the inalienable rights of individuals. Interdependence, on the other hand, is a document of collectivism, which is to say that our rights are a function of our membership in a group, and that when individual rights run a foul of the needs of the collective and individual rights can be taken away. This book was written by
a man named George C. Lodge. We read a little bit about this biography from the back of this book. He is a current member of the Council on Foreign Relations. There is that supposedly insignificant group again. He's also a trustee for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He used to be an
associates at the United Nations International Labor Organization. But mister Lodge tells us in this book is that we have to surrender America's doctrine of individualism in the new world order, in this new interdependent global society that is taking shape due to the ministrations of a group of people that Lodge describes as highly influential individuals who we outside the glare of publicity and beyond the scrutiny of the press, and
beyond the accountability political system, so as to create these new mechanisms of the global order, a group of people that we refer to as the insiders. This new world is to be predicated upon a doctrine called communitarianism. And this is the new philosophy that we must embrace in order to be part of this new interdependent world. Is communitarianism, well, writes mister Lodge, and I quote, there is nothing inherently good or bad about communitarianism, no ideology as
a monopoly on sin or virtue. Stalin and Hitler were communitarians, as our league on you and the leaders of Japan and Israel. Even it seems to me Bill Clinton I would also be inclined to put the name Bill Clinton in the paragraph containing the name of Stalin and Hitler. I am surprised to see that somebody who is considered to be respectable has made that connection. Whereas I am lamenting those facts, Lodges were marking upon them as if they're simply part
of the received wisdom that we're going to have to accept. This is part of the new consensus, a word which I have heard dandied about with great fluency in the UN conferences that I have intended. I have attended. They're always talking about a consensus. What is a consensus will? According to mister Lodge, individualism argues for a voluntary consensus. I would have thought that the consensus was voluntary by definition. The communitarian believes that coercion, prisons, and
the light may be necessary to secure it. As a matter of fact, he goes on to state, and I quote, in the communitarian order, a strong leader takes charge and defines the community and its needs. The new community harvests public funds from wherever they are available. Harvesting public funds he's talking
about taxation. Harvest public funds from wherever they are available. Creates subsidized housing, security, police protection, screens members for admission, establish the standards of rights and duties for all community members, and forces those standards vigorously expelling those who do not obey, and imposes discipline. Sounds a little to me like
the leader principle has realized, for instance, in Nazi Germany. He goes on to say in another part of this book that in order to help people understand this new communitarian consensus, we will have to see nothing less than the re education of mankind, including, of course, the United States. That which makes us most distinctive once again is our constitutional doctrine of individual liberty and limited government. Our constitution specifies the powers the government may exercise. It can
do only those things which the Constitution authorizes it to do. Whereas our rights are inalienable and they are not enumerated, our rights belong to us. They are given to us by Almighty God. We confer limited powers upon the state. The collectivest perspective holds once again that your rights are a function of the state's generosity. The state gives you certain rights, tells you how you may use those rights, takes those rights away from you when the state decides that
your rights are interfering with its designs. That the United Nations subscribe to the latter proposition, the latter concept of rights. Indeed it does. This is a document available from the United Nations called the International Bill of Human Rights. This is supposed to be an embellishment or an elaboration upon America's doctrine of individual rights. It is the antithesis of the American doctrine of individual rights. Recall
with me briefly what the Bill of Rights does. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because the anti federalists in our country were concerned that the federal government might take away individual rights, that it might grow and absorb functions that were not its property constitutionally speaking, and so a Bill of Rights was added in part to assuage the concerns of the right being extremists, who are
the anti federalists at the time. But the Bill of Rights specifies in Amendments nine and ten that the Bill of Rights is not contained a comprehensive listing of our rights. It reserves rights to the people, reserves powers to the state, and it says, in effect, to the federal government, if we have forgotten to tell you something you cannot do, you cannot do that thing
either. That's the essence of the Bill of Rights. Now the so called Universal Decoration of Human Rights by the United Nations, a primary author of which, by the way, was Eleanor Roosevelt. For those of you who have some esteem for Eleanor Roosevelt, you may be interested to know something of our anti work. The Universal Decoration of Human Rights, in a detailed fashion, enumerates what our rights consists of, tells us what our rights are, defines
with them very carefully and then presents us with a brand nullification clause. Article twenty nine, Section one I quote. Everyone has duties to the community, in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. Remember when we learned about communitarianism. You have to be brought into the consensus by cowercioning if necessary, and by re education if necessary. Article twenty nine,
Section two, I quote. In part, in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law. Suddenly learned that our rights to be taken away by the state which supposedly gave us our rights. You remember what Jove said, the Lord giveth, the Lord taketh the way. Blessed be the name of the Lord. The uns philosophy of humanizes the state giveth, the state taketh the way blessed
be the name of the state. Article twenty nine, Section three. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. So the United Nations decides, for instance, that you're right of freedom of assembly, which we are exercising this evening collies with its purposes and principles. You no longer have the right a freedom of assembly.
That's how that works. What happens when the state becomes unaccountable in the exercise of its powers or decides that it can take away individual rights because it bestows individual rights upon people. What happens is bloodshead on an unprecedented scale. This has been the century of collectivism. Actually the collectivist era arguable that began
in July seventeen eighty nine with the said of the French Revolution. But in this century collectivism was wedded with technological sophistication in a way that may genocide and what is called democide possible. Government is a dangerous enterprise. When it is harnessed to secure the rights of individuals, it can be useful in protecting the rights of individuals. However, when it begins to treat itself as the master rather than the servant, what happens is tyranny, and what happens in the
modern world, of course, is tyrannical genocide. Some of you might be acquainted with this book, Depth by Government by R. J. Rummel, who was a professor of political science in the University of Hawaii. Doctor Rummel is recognized by experts across the political spectrum as the world's leading authority on political mass murder what is called democide. Democide includes genocide and politicide and other acts
of mass murder committed by governments. In this book Depth by Government, doctor Rummel meticulously documents the fact that in this century, nearly one hundred and seventy million people have been killed in time of so called peace by their own governments. Contemplate that for a second, this easily eclipses the total of war dead in two World wars, in many lesser wars, and in various ancillary conflicts. In this century, we're told that peace under tyranny is more lethal than
more The United Nations says we need to achieve perpetual peace. We need to achieve perpetual peace by centralizing political authority in one global institution. What do we learn about peace under centralized and unaccountable government. The United Nations, of course, is completely unaccountable. The United Nations, of course, seeks to centralize political power, and it seeks to exercise political power in a fashion that assumes
that the state gives us our revocable rights. That is a recipe or politicide or democide on a global scale, and blood must be shed to create the new world order, says Archer's Lessenger. Some might contend that the United Nations would never intended to be a global government. Mister Schlessenger's article, of course, dispels this oblusion. He said, that's exactly what it was meant to be. Was meant to be collective security using military force in order to enforce
a global peace regime. This is an attribute or a description rather of a certain type of government. This report Our Global Neighborhood, the final report of the Commission on Global Governance, further puts further shoves aside the argument that the United Nations was not intended to be a world government. The Commission on Global
Governance that is a neologism. Really that makes little sense. Governance is what government does, so they're talking about a global institution that would exercise the powers
of governance. This report calls for the enpowerment of the United Nations with direct taxing authority, beginning with taxes on international financial transactions, fees on the use of the electromagnetic telecommunications spectrum, and various fees on other activities, including parking, fees on geosynchronous communication satellites of the life, establishing the preston that the
United Nations would have the power to tax directly. We're told that the United Nations is a discussion group, if you will, or that it is a catalyst. It is some kind of denying global copy clash. But none of those institutions can exercise the power of taxation. Only a government can exercise the power of taxation. Furthermore, our global neighborhood once again reiterates the long standing objective of comprehensive disarmament not only of nations, but of individuals in order to
create a culture of peace on a global scale. As it's preferred to comprehensive disarmament in order to create perpetual peace what happens in peacetime under a tyrannical regime. One person who will not dissimulate with respects to the United Nations as a global government is an individual by the name of Richard Hudson, who is the executive director of the nonprofit Center for War and Peace Studies in New York City.
I had the opportunity to listen to a presentation by Richard Hudson that recently concluded the National Assembly on the United States the United Nations, which was held in watching the DC in August. He has written a letter to the Commission on Global Governance, and he has said that they should dispense with the pretense that the United Nations was not intended to be a global government. We read to you a little bit from that letter quote, the UN already is a
world government. How can the world organization to consend five hundred thousand proofs in to Kuwait not be a world government. I understand why you want to avoid the term world government. It scares people. But still in my dictionary, the Websters under Bridge Third New International Dictionary in nineteen sixty five, the word of governance is defined as the act or process of government or government. The
United Nations already is the world government. We are seeing today and this week a series of hearings being held on Capitol Hill to examined the Clinton administration's proposal the twenty thousand American troops be sent to Bosnia to serve on a NATO mission to serve as peace keepers or peace in coursers. There's another interesting locution, peace enforcement under United Nations authority. Once again, this is something that the
government does. A government leials military force, a government collects taxes, a government creates legislation. At the Cairo Conference which I attended last August, I attended many briefings presided over by Secretary Timothy Worth, who is the Deputy Secretary of State or Assistant Secretary of State for Global Affairs in the Clinton administration and
also a member of this insignificant group called the Council on Foreign Relations. He referred to the process of creating a global platform of action to regulate population. He referred to this as legislation at the global level, legislation to something government
does. These are all attributes of government. And we've talked a little bit about the kind of government that the United Nations would be, who were allowed to proceed to unchecked and the accumulation of these powers and the advancement of its agenda. Blood must be shed for the new world order. Arthurs Lections who
wrote, because who blood is being shed? You know the blood is being shed in Bosnia where the United Nations, through its NATO affiliate, has been bombing for peace, which is something that we have seen in many headlines without a whisper of irony. People will talk about bombing for peace in Bosnia and China, blood is being shed for the new world order. China has the world's most notorious population control program. It was spoken about briefly at the recently
concluded Beijing Summit on Women. China's population control program includes a regime in which parents are allowed to have one child, allowed by their government to have one child because the government grants China's population control program includes a regime in which parents are allowed to have one child, allowed by their government to have one child
because the government grants them this right to have a child. And this results, of course, and policies of forced abortions and sterilization, forced the mail, and fanticide, all manner of piteous sanctions being deployed against those who do not cooperate with this policy. And this policy has received numerous awards from the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and financial support from the United Nations Fund for
Population Activities and technical assistance from that organization and allied multilateral organizations. The same policies are being imposed upon occupied to Bed, which was overrun by me Is China very early in the life of that malignant regime. Tibet is one of the most peaceful places on Earth. It is inhabited by some of the most unassuming and weak and non violent people on Earth, and that culture is being eradicated from the face of the earth from one of the means whereby the communist
occupation forces are pursuing. Their final solution to the problem of the Tibetan culture is through Chinese style population control, once again with the assistance of these multilateral agencies from the UN, including the UN Development Program. In Rwanda, just a few years ago, actually just less than a few years ago, we saw bloodshed on a scale that beggar's comprehension even in the eras such as ours, and which is casually figure as to have zeros behind it before it gets
our attention. There is not something in which we can implicate the United Nations.
But it is an interesting to note that when I was in Cairo, there was a press conference that I was able to attend featuring a man named Patrick Mazumuka, who is the Rwandan Minister for Youth and Cooperation, and he pointed out that in spite of the fact that they had lost one point five million people on a matter of months, that's one fifth of the total population of that country, that Rwanda was going to have to embark on a program
of what he called, I'm quoting post genocide population management. One foot point five million souls had been consumed by this fratricidal blood letting. And yet, according to Mazumuca quote, the government will have to try to keep the family on track because we cannot afford the big population. This is in pursuit of something the United Nations call sustainable development. Remember that phrase, well, Sustainable
development. Simply put, sustainable development is an environmental philosophy which holds that the human population is a resource to be managed by a global elite. Now, of course, those of us in the Biblical tradition believe that the human population human population consists of individuals who perceive their rights from God. But from the United Nations perspective, the human population is just one factor that must be kept in equilibrium. If that words, excuse me, if that word sustainable is
it in your lexicon already for the New World Order? Terms? Put it in there? Sustainable? You find that on all kinds of food? What does that actually mean? What are they sustaining you the source of the food? Are you making assumptions in this democratic biosphere, man has no ascendency in nature. Human kinds is just another species with rights that are no more significant
than those of plants or other animals. Sustainable development. In order to appease sustainable development, according to the United Nations, China has been doing a good job and maintaining the equilibrium of its population, and now, in order to preserve sustainable development, Rwanda, after its genocidal blood letting just a few months ago, will have to keep the family under control by the state in order to keep its population down. Cambodia is a country whose name is synonymous with
genocide. The camer Rouge under Pollpot did in a few short months to Cambodia, but the Black Death took decades to do a medieval Europe. In terms of the per capita blood letting, Cambodia under the camer Rouge experienced the worst genocide in history. Yet, what we learned last week is that the United Nations, which is exercising political control over Cambodia, is going to embark upon a door to door census in Cambodia for the purpose of population in control.
They have to know how many people manage to survive this plague of power in Cambodia and how best to keep their population down and sustainable. And the former Soviet Georgia. Interestingly enough, one of the champions of the New World Order, a man of the name of Edward sheber Nasa, who has received support from the United States in the form of protection by United States Special Forces personnel.
The regime under Edward scheber Nasa, according to Christopher Story, a British sovietologist, citing a report in the Swiss press, that regime has managed somehow to misplace hundreds of thousands of people just in the last four years. Blood is being shed for the New World Order in Soviet Georgia. It gets even
worse, however. Jacques Cousteau, the venerated oceanographer looked upon by many is the buncular embodiments of the quest for human knowledge and the pursuit of natural exploration, gave an interview nineteen ninety one to the French language edition of the UNESCO Courier. UNESCO is the United Nations Educational, social and Cultural organization. Jacques Fustau was one of the major apostles of sustainable development and of the nineteen ninety
two Earth's summit in Rio day Janeiro. He was received by UN officials and by the people who attended that meeting as something just this side of the divinity. The Jacques Coustill, in this interview in November of nineteen ninety one, said the following thing. He said that in order to stabilize the human population, that is on a global scale, we must eliminate three hundred and fifty thousand people per day. That's the way the mathematics is played out, three
hundred and fifty thousand people per day to achieve sustainable development. But that is not the high end estimate as to the expendability of the human population. A new record was just set in that regard a couple of weeks ago at Mikael
Garbaschev's State of the World Forum in San Francisco. Mikael Garbashov, who if there were any justice in the world, would have received the same treatment the moose a lady did outside in the lawn at the end of World War two, convened this form for the purpose of inaugurating what he calls the creation of a United Nations Council of Elders, a group of enlightened souls like himself, who would assemble from time to time so was to plot our future for us.
Very thoughtful and generous of them. Indeed, Michael Gorvitchev was introduced at that meeting by Ted Turner. Ted Turner said that Michael Gorvitchev's tenure as Chief Commissar of the Gulag State was the most important event in human history, which puts the New Testament to sort of an interesting light, I guess. But at this meeting, convened by Michael Gorbachev, aka the Prince of Peace and savior of the world from Ted Turner's perspective, the final one of the final
speeches rather was given by a New Wish philosopher named sam Keene. Sam Keene was addressing the question of sustainability. What he said is that in order to achieve sustainability, population must be considered the primary problem. That is to say, people are the primary impediment to sustainability. And he said that we must reduce the human population by ninety percent ninety nine zero. That was not a misprint, That was not a mispronunciation. Ninety percent nine out of every cent
of us in this room is expendable. Has anybody else noticed that those who concern themselves about surplus population never considered themselves to be among the surplus. For some reason, we're in encumbrance that they're indispensable. And of course sam Keene is an example of exactly that type of philosophy. Mikael Gorbachev has become the leading example of what might be called the watermelon Marxist, just to say he is read on the outside now, but he's deep read in the middle.
And Mikael Gorbachev, along with Maurice Strong, who was the Secretary General of the United Nations Earth Summitt nineteen ninety two, is composing an Earth Charter. Mikiel Gobshov last year in Hollywood suffered a sudden fit of piety and started talking about the sacred Earth, and he started quoting the wisdom, that is the potted, prefabricated paper mache caricature of the wisdom of the Native Americans. Of
course, Michael Gorbushov's a sudden reverence for indigenous peoples of the curiosity. He showed no such inclinations when he was wiping them out by the tens of thousands in his dominion, in his domain. Rather, but Michael Gorbashov last year in Hollywood, talked about an earth charge that he would compose what he called a ten Commanders for the environment, that no one would be allowed to violate. No one would be allowed to violate. Two problems, of course,
present themselves. First of all, there is the Ten Commandments. Michael Gorbershov cannot improve upon the original. Secondly, the original Ten Commandments was not something that would be enforced by prior restraint. This, once again is one of the differences that we see between the UN's concepts and the concepts of Western Biblical
culture. There is a religious vision that underhards the United Nations. Once again, to refer to the conference who was convened here in Washington just a few months ago, the closing speech was delivered by Reverend Joan Brown Campbell, who was the chairman of the National Council of Churches. Now she was a pinch
hitter. That speech was originally supposed to be given by Vice President al Gore, but as the Clinton administration's Resident druid was occupied with other duties, they got Reverend Campbell to come in as a pinch hitter, and she conveyed to them Al Gore's respect and his appreciation for the United Nations, and she reflected upon something she had seen in his office. In his office, she had
seen something she referred to as a religious icon. Some of us might know what a religious icon isn't as a fiction of an individual that is considered sacred. For instance, a religious icon might be a the fiction of Jesus Christ. This particular icon, Reverend campbell reminiscence, was an orbital photograph of the
Earth. This is the religious icon that captures the spirituality of al Gore, who has written about the pan religious perspective that we must embrace in order to achieve sustainable development of the world scale on a world scale, and the achievement of sustainability, according to algre must be the central organizing principle of this new
society. It's writted in a religious perspective. If you think this is irrelevant right now because the inconvenient truth was a long time ago or something, my daughter was just talking to us the other I don't know if it was a few weeks ago or not talking about polar bears because of climate change, and where did you hear that from. This is the stuff that they're teaching our
children. If we're not being careful, of course, we corrected the issue there and had a good talking around with whomever may have been the source of that propaganda. But yeah, it's still part of the same climate change's nonsense and the very cherry picked data, absolute nonsense. That the whole thing about the polar bears was completely debunked a long long time ago, yet they're still
pushing forward and still using that same stupid basic meme. Actually, if you really want to boil it down to what it is to scare children, The UN, of course pursue sustainability regards the Earth to be, if you will, sort of a self sustaining deity whom we must appreciate through the ministrations of a certain elite that is sensitive to the needs of our sacred Earth Goddess Mother,
and the spiritual. The spiritual aspect of the United Stations objectives and agenda sometimes seeps into some of the more candid decorations, and some of the people of great influenced the United Nations system. One such was the man by the name of Robert Mueller, who was a former Assistant Secretary General. He has said that the UN represents the body of Christ that is his black For me not mine, Please do not hold against me for repeating it to you.
And he had suggested that all houses of worship, for instance, the one in which we find ourselves this evening, should just play the United Nations plaque as a gesture of loyalty and fidelity to this new religious vision. And he has said that if Christ were to return to her, his first visit would be to the United Nations to see if his vision of human wideness and brotherhood
had come true. Now I believe that indeed, when Christ returns, he might make a point of visiting the United Nations, perhaps armed with the same whip he used to evict the money changers from the temple. Now. Another example of this religious vision can be captured in a declaration by Sprie Chimoy, who is the director of the UN Meditation Group. As I was driving through Washington, DC today, I saw that there were a number of placards of
advertising an evening of music and meditation featuring Sprie Chinmoy. I was not aware that he was a musician. In his official capacity, he is the director of the UNI Meditation Group. And this is what he has said about the spiritual aspect of the United Nations. Quote. No human force will ever be able to destroy the United Nations. For the United Nations is not a mere
building or a mere idea. It is not a man made creation. The United Nations is the vision light of the Absolute Supreme, which is slowly, steadily and unerringly illuminating the ignorance of the night of our human life. The Divine's success and supreme progress of the United Nations is bound to become a reality at his choice hour. The Absolute Supreme will ring his own victory bell here on earth through the loving and serving heart of the United Nations. That does
not sound to mean like a mere discussion group. And Sri Chinmoy and people of his religious inclinations, of course, are free to pursue them. They're free to pursue the religious vision. They're free to indulge in whatever variety of mysticism, or to worship how will, how where, what they may.
That is their sovereign right given to them by God. But inasmuch as they seek to use the power of a developing global state to pursue that vision and to conscript our participation in that vision, we are dealing with a real problem, one which of course will impose upon the religious liberty and those of us
who subscribe to traditional biblical faith. I've often considered the United Nations to be the society for the repeal of the Book of Genesis, and the reason why I say that is because in every particular their social agenda defies the border described in the Book of Genesis. Genesis describes how man was created by God, a special creation. We were created in His image. We were endowed with
right from God. We were given stewardship over creation. You were given to menied over creation, to be exercised responsibly and in a fashion which we would be accountable to God. God created mankind and two complementary sexes and join them together in a family which was meant to perpetuate itself, and the family was
instructed to multiply and replenish the earth. The undinations, on the other hand, proceeds from the assumption that the earth itself is divine, that man is at very best product of the machinations of an impersonal and in different process of evolution, That we have not received rights from God, that our rights are social artifacts to be granted to us by the state, that mankind was not given to meaning over nature, but rather is simply an unassuming part of nature.
That we were not created in two definitive sexes, but rather the undifferentiated mass of humanity can occupy any number of socially constructed gender roles. That the family itself is a social artifact which can be manipulated and changed to will. And of course the worst thing we can do from the United Nations perspective is
to multiply and replenish the earth. So, in other words, I think that there's a case to be made for the proposition once again that the United Nations should be called, in the social realm, the society for the repeal of the Book of Genesis. Those of us who believe in the Book of Genesis, that includes, of course Christians as well as Jews and Muglims, have a problem with this because we want to preserve that order, the order in which our liberties can take root and flourish. However, there is a
new religious order which is being created ostensibly for our benefit. It's part of this consensus that we will have to accept in this interdependent world. That consensus is in trying in a document called the Declaration of a Global Ethic. Some of you might have heard of. This was created by a globalist theologian by the name of Hans Kung, who began his work at a nineteen ninety one
Paris symposian sponsored by the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization. This is what Hans Kung has to say about those of us who are so called fundamentalists. Quote. Any form of church to the servicism is to be rejected. Put a bluntly, no regressive or repressive religion, whether Christian, Islamic, Jewish or whatever, providence has a long term future. In other words, history is to creed the immediate abolition of so called regressive or repressive religion
or fundamentalist religion. What have we learned about liberals in the hurry? They're not at all shy about giving history a little push now. The Declaration of a Global Ethics was presented to the nineteen ninety three Parliament of World Religions in Chicago. That meeting attracted thousands of religious leaders from around the world, representing every denomination in this country and just about every religious tradition in the world.
One are the chief organizers of that event was the ban by the name of Gerald Barney, who was the director of the Millennium Institute. He is a former program director for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The Rockefeller Institutions are not without influence in the world. I think I do not exaggerate by describing them in those terms. Mister Barney has in the company is some of the most powerful
and ambitious people in the world. He has been privy to some of their otherwise unexpressed thoughts and ambitions, And in his penot Address to the Parliament of the World Religions, Gerald Barney said the following thing quote. An internationally famous, highly influential author on sustainable development told the bluntly, religion must die. It is a fundamental cause of virtually all social, economic, and ecological problems
and much of the violence in the world. So the alternative, according to mister Barney, the alternative to the extinction of religion, and of course this would be something that would be assisted by history servants. Of course, the alternative to the extinction of religion would be the creation of a sustainable faith tradition to which we could all subscribe. And that faith tradition, of course,
is outlined in the Declaration of a Global Ethic. What is truly foreboding about the Declaration of a Global Ethic is that it says in the text of the document the acceptance of the Global Ethic is the minimum standard that must be met in order to be recognized as authentically human. And what have we learned in the century about the common faith of those who are considered to be something other
than authentically human. There are one hundred and seventy million casualties killed by their own governments to testify of what happens to those who are considered to be something other than authentically human. From a very early stage of its development, the United Nations was urging people to think the unthinkable with respect to questions of eugenics. That was the praise written by Julian Huxley, who was the founding Director
General of UNESCO. UNESCO, of the institution that facilitated the creation of the Declaration of a Global Ethic, way back in nineteen forty eight. He said, we're going to have to help people think the unthinkable with respect to eugenics, which is to say, population selective, population controlled, control of reproduction by the state and so forth. We talked about unaccountable power. When the
unthinkable is why with unaccountable power. What results is purity and demicide. The one hundred and seventy million casualties a century indicate and illustrate the dangers of what we see in that respect. Julian Huxley incidentally helped create the United Nations vision of education for a global society. What would have to take place in order
for children to be educated to become the world citizens? According to Julian Huxley quote, it would mean an extension of education backwards from the nursery school to the nursery itself as early as possible. The faith, that is to say, the global state would have to start exercising certain types of authority within the home. For renal authority would have to be subverted, or circumvented or abolished
outright. Would have talked just briefly about one part of the message that I convey in my books, A Freedom on the Altar, the UN's crusade against God and Family. This title is considered by some to be quite inflammatory. I certainly hope so it was meant to provoke a certain reaction. It was meant to provoke a certain response. We've talked a little bit about the crusade against God as God is understood by those of us who believe in the Bible,
those of us who believe in biblical faith. Let's talk a little bit about the family. The family was the first human institution. It was created by God to be the primary human institution. It was created to serve the function of instilling in children the attributes and attitudes necessary for responsible life as moral agents in freedom, because God created us to be free. The human institution, which we call government, is the agency of coercion. Is what government
does. That's all we have time for tonight. Book. We'll finish it tomorrow night, and I'm going to finish it tonight for the people in the round valley. So if you're in the round, I'm just gonna wait for him to finish what he's saying, and I'm going to play the second part as well, So just end by. I'm value you're listening. I'm going to go ahead as soon as we sign off WBCQ and finish the tape for those of you in the round valley, so that you'll have some sense of
continuity. For those of you listening international, we will finish this tomorrow night. And of course, as I always do, I will back it up some so that the continuity is maintained as closely as we can. I hope you all agree that what you've heard, what I've heard anyway, is is exactly what I've been warning you against for the last twelve years. I have documented it. I have given you the quotations right out of their own publications.
I have given you all of the same information. And what you're going to hear more and much much, much much more. And the reason I'm doin this tonight so that you can hear it from somebody else's mouth, so that you know it's not just me. I didn't make it up. It didn't fall out of the sky, you know, in my bed and I just picked it up ran with it. That's not what happened, folks. It's the truth. Who is this Great Supreme that's gonna come down and sit
on the throne of the United Nations. Well, if you're a Christian, you should know the answer to that. The Great Supreme memories of the United States, Nined Nations wasn't created by human hands, was created by the Great Supreme. And when it's already and prepared, the Great Supreme will come down and sit on the throne of the world and reign from there. Now,
this is not conjecture. This is what these people really believe. Now, whether you believe it will happen or not, it doesn't make any difference. What I believe it's going to happen or not, doesn't make any difference if they believe it. Whatever they believe, even if they have the power, it's going to affect us. And we had better damn well understand what it is that they believe in. Why I've been telling you for years, it's
not the Jews. You heard what he said. You heard their plans for all of the existing fundamentalist religions, and I named them also Jewish, Christian, Islamic scheduled for extinction, and any other religion that they consider to be regressive, whatever the hell that means. So you'd better wake up. I mean, you had better wake up, because we don't have too much time.
We don't have too much time. I've been telling you for years there's going to be a civil war in this country, and you'd better be prepared for it. If you're not prepared for it, and if you're not fighting on our side, you're going to be a victim. You're going to be a victim, because if you're not on our side, you're on their side, and they don't want you on their side. And if they don't kill you, we will. There's going to be a war in this country.
We're going to restore constitutional, republican government. Blood is going to run in the streets of America. Not because I say so, but because they have. They have dictated that it's going to happen, because they are going to eliminate billions of people and established their world socialist, utopian government on this earth with the quote Great Supreme end quote sitting on the throne of the world. These are all things that I've told you in the past. I've documented it.
I've read you right out of the United Nations resolutions, documents, pamphlets, publications. I've explained to you the entire layout and the meaning of the symbology and the meditation room of the United Nations. I have read to you the dictates and the writings and the resolutions and the conventions, all spelled out by the heads of the globalist organizations that literally control the United Nations. Are you're not listening, form or seek out and join a militia get ready to
fight for your freedom. I need it. You don't have much time, and we're going to have to do it. And if you're not ready when it starts, it's too late to get ready. If you're a Christian, they're going to kill you if you haven't got a prayer and hell of living on this earth. Not you, not your family, not your children, any bit of you. If you're a Jew, same thing. Now you see all these so called Jews and government who are socialists, who are helped
bringing about the destruction of this country. They're not Jews. Are not Jews. They don't believe in Judaism. If they go to synagogue, it's for show, just like when George Bush goes to church, it's for show. George Blush is not a Christian. Bill Clinton is not a Christian. When he goes to church, it's for show. He's a communist. Communalism is the new word for communism. Communalist is just the new word for communist.
I've been telling you all along, these people are communists. The new World Order will be a world utopian socialist totalitarian state which will ultimately proceed to its ultimate goal, as declared by Karl Marx and the island and communism. What is peace that he was talking about through all this talk? What is the definition of peace by Marxists, Leninists and socialist communists? The definition of peace is the elimination of all opposition to socialism. Now that should put it in
a better perspective for all of you. Good night, folks, God bless you. I hope you to sleep tonight. I don't see how you can, and don't forget to tune in tomorrow night. Good night any food, and Alison, I love you with all my heart. All right, on to the next one. Sustainable. Like I said before, I had paused for a moment there, and it said something not sustained, not sustaining, it's on an action or something that had just happened. It's sustainable, which
is kind of strange. How does one do that they can sustain something by repunishing the supply or by reducing its consumption or its demand, by reducing the consumers. I don't know if if you want to keep on buying stuff from people who have that objective in mind with you, how do I get rid of this? Oh? Right there, Okay, let's put up the next screen and get to the next one. Yeah, I think I have to
do that thing again every time you have to like reset it. Yep, are good enough and it's precessor you're on even gonna get a little bit of the intro dog barking and sirens, and it's gonna get right back into the let's do it. You're listening to the hour of the time. I'm William
Cooper. Well, folks, I hope last night that you've got an hair pull and I hope you understood what it was that that you've got an hear full of some terrifying stuff coming down the pike, all planned by the New World Order, minions of the communists United Nations than they all are communists. Bill Clinton's a communist, his wife's a communist. This country's been taken over by a communist. McCarthy was right. Senator Joseph McCarthy was right, and
that's why they destroyed him. That's why they made McCarthy isn't the dirty name. That's why they're making patriot and militia a dirty name. More on the McCarthy thing on a different video. I've covered it in the past, but I think it's time we refreshed our memories as to just how right Senator Joseph McCarthy was, so that you won't fall into politically incorrect thinking in the new
world order. You're all going to be re educated, just like I've been telling you for years, Like I wrote in my book that was published years years and years and years years ago. It's amazing that the John Birch Society has been calling me a lunatic for years, and they've been claiming for years that it's a communist conspiracy engine being engineered in Moscow. And I've been telling them you're all wrong. Communism just didn't spring up out of the ground.
This comes from the ancient mystery religion of Babylon, practice underground in the mystery schools, the secret societies, and fraternal orders. It's the source of the labor unions. It's the source of socialism. It's the source of the Communist Party. It's the source of the International, It's the source of world the Revolution. Its goal is one world totalitarian socialist government, which eventually will lead into world communism. It's all of those things. Its center is not in
Moscow. It is in New York and London. Always has been, always has been the Soviet Union was another in a long line of experiments to see how far they can go and try different methods of governing large masses of people, to see what works and what does it work, and to create the illusion that there was some kind of a deep conflict between what they call the West and the Soviet Union. In reality, there was no conflict at all.
Soviet Union never had the missiles that we thought they had. The Soviet Union never even had the capability to manufacture even the most rudimentary basic computer chip. And without being able to have computers on spacecraft, they could never have gone into space or gone to the moon or anywhere else. Everything that they got they got from us. We gave it to them through underground channels. It's the through, folks, and it's all there for anybody wants to look
at it. Do you ever look at their space shuttle that never flew, carbon copy of ours, carbon copy of our space shuttle. The reason it never flew is it didn't have the capability to to do navigate and do the functions that only computers could allow it to do. They never had that technology, never ever, still don't. As a matter of fact, they're buying buying it still, you know, buying it from the West, but they don't have the technology. How many of you caught the part about the about
the Council of Wise Men that will advise the United Nations. Remember I've been telling you about that for years and years and years and years and years. Whoever is presented as the frontman, whom the world will believe to be the leader, will just be just like I said, the front man put the Council of Wise Men. It's all on the website in Majesty twelve. Go to the website, click on Majesty twelve and read it. The website is
William Cooper dot net. Now it's amazing that I've been telling you this all these years. The John Birch Society has been telling you that I'm a crazy, whacked out lunatic nut. Don't listen to Bill Cooper and certainly don't take action. See the John birt Socide will kick you out if you if you take any other action than writing your congressman. They don't like that. They
don't like that kind of stuff. And the man that you heard last night was the senior editor of The New American, which is the magazine for the John Birch Society at last night. He confirmed with and agreed with, and proved and cited documentation and sources for everything that I've already done that with you about for the last twelve years. So they have eventually come around to my way of thinking. They have eventually learned that what I've been telling them all
along is the truth. Isn't that amazing how everybody eventually reaches that point. Now tonight we're going to continue and you're going to hear the rest of his talk, and I've rewounded a little bit so you can hear that did again about the Council of Wise Men. I mean, that's very important. Who do you think they're going to be. They'll be the men who really rule
the world, is who they will be. They will take the place of what's functioning in the United States in that role, which is the Council of part Relations. In England it's the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and Greek country has their group that is a branch of this actually, so they very close. Attention, folks, And I hope you took notes last night. I hope you're taking notes to night, and I'll be back and we'll open
the pons when it's finished, So listen closely of the human population. I think I might skip it up a little bit because he does kind of go back above ten or fifteen minutes. We've already just just heard it. Record was just state was the most important event in human history, which puts the New Testament the sort of an interesting light. Now I want just go in it. I'll go different here. But at this meeting convened by Michael Gorbachev,
aka the Prince of Peace and Savior of the world. From Ted Turner's perspective, the final one of the final speeches. Rather, it was given by a New Wage philosopher named sam Keene. Sam Keene was aggressive the question of sustainability. What he said is that in order to achieve sustainability, population must be considered the primary problem. That is to say, people are the primary impediment to sustainability. And he said that we must reduce the human population
by ninety percent ninety nine zero. That was not a misprint, That was not a mispronunciation. Ninety percent, nine out of every ten of us in this room is expendable. Does anybody else notice that those who concern themselves about surplus population never considered themselves to be among the surplus for some reason. We're an encumbrance, but they're indispensable. And of course stan Keene is an example
of exactly that type of philosophy. Mikael Garbashav has become the leading example of what might be called the watermelon Marxists, which is to say, he is green on the outside now, but he's deep red in the middle. And Mikael Grbashov, along with Maurice Strong, who was the Secretary General of the United Nations Earth Son in nineteen ninety two, is imposing an Earth Charter.
Diiel Barbashov last year in Hollywood suffered a sudden fit of piety and started talking about the sacred Earth, and he started quoting the wisdom, that is, the plotted, prefabricated paper mache caricature of the wisdom of the Native Americans. Of course, Migiel Gorbushov's sudden reverence for indigenous peoples as a curiosity. He showed no such inclinations when he was wiping them out by the tens of thousands
in his dominion and his domain. Rather, the Michael Gorbachov last year in Hollywood talked about an earth Charter, he would compose what he called a ten Commanders for the environment that no one would be allowed to violate. No one would be allowed to violate. Two problems, of course, present themselves. First of all, there is a ten Commandments. Michael Gorbashov cannot improve upon the original. Secondly, the original Ten Commandments was not something that would be
enforced by prior restraint. This, once again is one of the differences that we see between the UN concepts and the concepts of Western biblical culture. There is a religious vision that undergirds the United Nations. Once again, to refer to the conference who was convened here in Washington just a few months ago, the closing speech was delivered by Reverend Joan Brown Campbell, who was the chairman
of the National Council of Churches. Now she was a pinch hitter. His speech was originally supposed to be given by Vice President al Gore, but as the Clinton administration's Resident Druid was occupied with other duties, they got Reverend Campbell to come in as a pinch hitter, and she conveyed to them al Gore's respect and his appreciation for the United Nations, and she reflected upon something she had seen in his office. In his office, she had seen something she
referred to as a religious icon. Some of us might know what a religious icon is. It as a piction of an individual that is considered sacred. For instance, a religious icon might be a depiction of Jesus Christ. This particular icon, Reverend Campbell reminisce, was an orbital photograph of the earth. This is the religious icon that captures the spirituality of al Gore, who has written about the pan religious perspective that we must embrace in order to achieve sustainable
development of the world scale. On a world scale, and the achievement of sustainability, according to al Gore, must be the central organizing principle of this new society. It's britted in a religious perspective. This woman, he mentions, from the National Council of Churches, this reverend the National Council of Churches was pointed out by Myron Fagan in that very famous old two hour recording of the Illuminati. If you haven't heard that the National Council of Churches used to
be known by a different name prior to the mid fifties. They changed their name because of all the backlash that they received, but they are the Marxist influence on most religions across at least this country. The UN, of course, pursues sustainability regards the earth to be, if you will, sort of a self sustaining deity whom we must propitiate through the ministrations of a certain elite that is sensitive to the needs of our sacred Earth Goddess Mother and the spiritual.
The spiritual aspect of the United Nations objectives and agenda sometimes seeps into some of the more candid declarations, as some of the people a great influence in the United Nations system. One such was a man by the name of Robert Eueller, who is a former Assistant Secretary General. He has said that the UN represents the body of Christ, that is his blastom, me not mine.
Please do not hold against me for repeating it to you. And he has suggested that all houses of worship, for instance, the one in which we find ourselves this evening, should just play the United Nations flag as a gesture of loyalty and fidelity to this new religious vision. And he has said that if I were to return to Earth, his first visit would be to the United Nations to see if his vision of human oneness and brotherhood had come
true. Now, I believe that indeed, when Christ returns, he might make a point of visiting the United Nations, perhaps armed with the same whity used to evict the money changers from the Temple. No one of the deceptions or the secrets so called in the Freemasonic ranks and files that they learn over time, if they ever get that far, is that they considered Lucifer and
Jesus the same. Then they think that it's a ha haha, that they've deceived us into supporting their man on top, which is a deception in and of itself that they've self deceived themselves by. But it's just kind of funny
that they would even consider that being one and the same. Another example of this religious vision can be captured in a decoration by Spry Chimo, who's the director of the Uan Meditation Group. As I was driving through Washington, DC today, I saw that there were a number of placards of advertising an evening of music and meditation featuring sprite Chinmoy. I was not aware that he was a musician. In his official capacity, he is the director of the Uan
Meditation Group. And this is what he has said about the spiritual aspect of the United Nations. Quote, no human force will ever be able to destroy the United Nations. For the United Nations is not a mere building or a mere idea. It is not a man made creation. The United Nations is the vision light of the Absolute Supreme, which is slowly, steadily and unerringly
illuminating the ignorance of the night of our human life. The Divine's success and supreme progress of the United Nations is bound to become a reality at his choice hour. The Absolute Supreme will ring his own victory bell here on earth through the loving and serving part of the United Nations. So that being Lucifer in that scenario that does not sound to mean like a mere discussion group. And Trichinoy and people of his religious inclinations, of course, are free to pursue
them. They're free to pursue their religious vision. They're free to indulge in whatever variety of mysticism, or to worship how will, how where what they made. That is their sovereign right given to them by God. But inasmuch as they seek to use the power of a developing global state to pursue that vision and to conscript our participation in that vision. We are leading with the real problem, one which of course will impose upon the religious liberty and those
of us who subscribe to traditional biblical faith. I've often considered the United Nations to be the society for the repeal of the Book of Genesis, and the reason why I say that is because in every particular their social agenda applies the order described in the Book of Genesis. Genesis describes how man was created by God, a special creation. We were created in His image. We were
endowed with rice from God, who were given stewardship over creation. You were given to mened over creation, to be exercised responsibly and in a fashion in which we would be accountable for God. God created mankind in two complimentary sexes and join them together in a family which was meant to perpetuate itself, and
the family was instructed to multiply and replenish the earth. The odinations, on the other hand, proceeds from the assumption that the earth itself is divine, that man is at very best product of the machinations of an impersonal and indifferent process of evolution, that we have not received rights from God, that our rights, our social artifacts to be granted to us by the state, that mankind was not given to need over nature, but rather it is simply an
unassuming part of nature. That we were not created in two definitive sexes, but rather the undifferentiated mass of humanity can occupy any number of socially constructed gender roles. But the family itself is a social artifact which can be manipulated and changed at will. And of course the worst thing we can do from the
United Nations perspective is to multiply and replenish the earth. So, in other words, I think that there's a case to be made for the proposition once again that the United Nations should be called, in the social realm, the society for the repeal of the Book of Genesis. Those of us who believe in the Book of Genesis, that includes, of course Christians as well as Jews and Muslims, have a problem with this because we want to preserve that
order, the order in which our liberties can take root and flourish. However, there is a new religious order which is being created ostensibly for our benefit. It's part of this consensus that we will have to accept. In this interdependent world. That consensus is in trying. In a document called the Declaration
of a Global Ethic some of you might have heard of. It was created by a globalist theologian by the name of Hans Kun who began his work at a nineteen ninety one Paris symposian sponsored by the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization. This is what Hans Kung has to say about those of us who are so called fundamentalists. Quote, any form of church con servicism is
to be rejected. To put a bluntly, no regressive or repressive religion, whether Christian, Islamic, Jewish or whatever, providence has a long term future. Now the words history is to create the immediate abolition of so called regressive or repressive religion or fundamentalist religion. What have we learned about liberals in a hurry? They're not at all shy about giving history a little push now. The Declaration of a Global Ethic was presented to the nineteen ninety three Parliament of
World Religions in Chicago. That meeting attracted thousands of religious leaders from around the world, represent every denomination in this country and in just about every religious tradition of the world. One of the team organizers of that event was a ban by the name of Gerald Barney, who was the director of the Millennium Institute. He is a former program director for the Rocketfeller Brothers Fund. The Rocket Feller Institutions are not without influence in the world. I think I do not
exaggerate by describing them in those terms. Mister Barney has been in the companies some of the most powerful and ambitious people in the world. He has been privy to some of their otherwise unexpressed thoughts and ambitions, And in his Keenote address to the part of them of the world religions, Gerald Barney said the following thing quote. An internationally famous, highly influential author on sustainable development told
me bluntly, religion must die. It is a fundamental cause of virtually all social, economic, and ecological problems and much of the violence in the world. So the alternative, according to mister Barney, the alternative to the extinction of religion, and of course this would be something that would be assisted by
history servants. Of course, the alternative to the extinction of the if you want to call it King's court historians religion would be the creation of a sustainable faith tradition to which we could all subscribe, and that faith tradition, of course, is outlined in the Declaration of a Global Ethic. What is truly foreboding about the Declaration of a Global Ethic is that it says in the text of the document the acceptance of the Global Ethic is the minimum standard that must
be met in order to be recognized as authentically human. That what have we learned in the century about the common faith of those who are considered to be something other than authentically human? There are one hundred and seventy million casualties killed by their own governments. That if you don't buy into the great a Sunburghs of the world, you are less than human. Testify of what happens to
those who are considered to be something other than authentically human. From a very early stage of its development, and the United Nations was urging people to think the unthinkable with respect to questions of eugenics. That was a praise written by Julian Huxley, who was the founding Director General of UNESCO. UNESCO, the
institution that facilitated the creation of the Declaration of a Global Ethic. Way back in nineteen forty eight, he said, we're going to have to help people think the unthinkable with respect to eugenics, which is to say, population control, selective population control, control of reproduction by the state, and so forth. We talked about unaccountable power. When the unthinkable is wed with unaccountable power or results is tyranny and demicide. The one hundred and seventy million casualties of
a century indicate and illustrate the dangers what we see in that respect. Jugian Huxley incidentally helped create the United Nations vision of education for a global society. What would have to take place in order for children to be educated to become the world citizens? According to Julian Huxley, quote, it would mean an extension of education backwards from the nursery school to the nursery itself as early as possible. The state, that is to say, the global state, would
have to start exercising certain types of authority within the home. Parental authority would have to be subverted or circumvented or abolished. Out right, I want to talk just briefly about one part of the message that I convey in my book. Don't you see that happening? Right now, a freedom on the altar. The UN's crusade against God and Family. This title is considered by some to be quite inflammatory. I certainly hope so it was meant to provoke a
certain reaction. It is meant to provoke a certain response. We talked a little bit about the crusade against God, as God is understood by those of us who believe in the Bible, those of us who believe in biblical faith. Let's talk a little bit about the family. The family was the first human institution. It was created by God to be the primary human institution.
It was created to serve the function of instilling in children the attributes and attitudes necessary for responsible life as moral agents in the freedom because God created us to be free. The human institution, which we call government, is the agency of coercion. This is what government does. Government does not empower, Government does not motivate. Government does not enrich. Government compels or forbids. Government
exercises power. That is what government is. Government is force. Our government and the family have always been at daggers drawn with each other. Who has always been a rivalry between the state and the family. That is because the family exercises certain functions that the state always covers. The state always tends to expand, and by expanding, it has to start occupying and exercising social functions that the family more properly exercises. So there's always this rivalry between the state
and the families. Since time, the memorial governments have always sought to disrupt the family, or to subvert the family, and in some radical instance, is to destroy the family. Some of you might be acquainted with Plato's Republic. Plato was not without his merits, but in his Republic he said the ideal state would be one in which no parent knew his children, and no
child knew his parents. The children would be taken away from the parents at an early age and raised to be what the state had decreed that they would be. This has been more or less the ambition of every state, to
a greater or lesser extent. Gratifyingly, the American Constitutional Republic was predicated upon a rather different concept, and that concept was that the state again had only those roles and only that authority which had been delegated to it by the sovereign people, and the family was to be left entirely out of the jurisdiction of the federal government. The federal government had no role in the family because the
Constitution did not give the federal government a role. Indeed, we believe in what John lockebroach, which is that God had decreed that the family, the parents would be responsible for bringing up the children, that no state could absolve the parents of that responsibility, and no state could relieve children of their responsibility
to the parents. That is the American concept. The very opposite of that concept is to be found in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, coming to us in a warm and buzzy and appealing package tied up with a little bow in the form of the UNSUS slogan, every child is our child, our child skin the language of collectivism. I have not any had any children with UNESCO. I am certainly not responsible for populating the entire
world in the company UNESCO. In no senses, every child our child. They're talking about this Platonic idea, the children to be raised collectively on behalf of the state. Incidentally, unisp is displayed a tendency to do what Aristotle predicted would happen in the Platonic regime. Aristotle said, when the twildren are raised communally, they're equally neglected by all, and of course we see that
happening today in many of the welfare plantations in this country. In nineteen eighty seven, the Belgian Office of UNOS was involved in a child pornography scandal in which tens of thousands of pictures portographic pictures feature he showed, are many of them of North African descent, were being distributed through the Belgian Office of UNISEF through a mailing list which had been compiled on the unicp homopous computer in Belgium.
Something to think about. Something else to think about in this respect is the fact that in Canada, the group which most actively and energetically sought the ratification of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child was the North American Man Boy Love Association. Is difficult for the human mind to conceive of the
base depravity of that horrifying organization. Hollywood glorified one of its major proponents of nambula way back when, when Sean Penn played the role of Harvey Milk, and he was supposed to be some big gay activist superhero, but in reality
he was deeply tied into nambula. The North American Man Boy Love Association seeks to make lisit sexual congress between adults and children as young as age six, and they believe that the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child is a device they could use to prise children out of the protection of the home and make them fair game or sexual conquests. Something to think about in that respect, but the problems associated with the un Convention are much deeper and rooted in
principle. The un Convention of the Rights of the Child is meant to enshrine in law the proposition that children are the custodial property of the state and the parents perceived limited jurisdiction over the state's children to raise as the state beings fit. This is an interpretation which was confirmed to me in March the Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen, Denmark. In a conversation I had with doctor Richard
Jolly, who at the time was the acting head of UNICEF. He said, of course, the state is the primary custodian of the rights of children. Of course the state has that primary role. And when I talk with them about the fact that in this country many people consider the UN Convention to be subversive of the parental rights. He said, there are only two groups of people in your country who think that way. They are home schoolers and
people who want to be able to beat their children. Interestingly enough, he confirmed to be that physical punishment of children, that is to say, spanking, is considered a crime under the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child. England found that out the shore. Incidentally, England was censured by a UN Committee on the Rights of the Child because England is not yet forbidden not only physical punishment of children, but verbal chastisement of children by the parents.
The parents don't have the right to discipline the state's children unless the state says they can. That is the logic of the UN Convention. Article Night of that Convention, for the more, states that children cannot be separated from their parents by the state unless the state can think of a good reason to do so. Of course, every state can think of the good reason to do
anything it wants to do. We've learned, of course, in this country, that the state is willing to protect its children by attacking them with tanks and poison gas. Something wants again to think about. Article line says that the state wants again can take children away from parents if it can justify doing
so in the name of the best interests of the children. Fortunately, at this juncture, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has not yet been ratified, and for that we have Senator Jesse Helms the things because he has managed to keep that hideous document bottled up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But it was signed in February by Euan and Bastard. Madeleine Albright and doctor Jolly informed me that that signature was to be taken as a binding expression
of our government's intention to seek ratification of the UN Convention. This is something you must prevented all hazards. What would happen where we could ratify that convention and implement its tenants in this country. Well, there are plenty of people in this country who would find their powers vastly enhanced and find the legal rationale and justification for doing some incredibly terrible things. This was a ninety five who
made the speech in nineteen ninety seven. The Clinton's mostly Hillary in this end this instance. Oh, they came up with the adoption and say Families acts, and that one made it basically so that they we're incentivising through money CPS to go still children and the rest is history to disrupt the autonomy and social integrity of families. Listen to the wisdom such as it is a doctor Mary Joe Bain, who was the Assistant Secretary of Administration for Children and Families,
the department that helped to give the services I quote. We really don't know how to raise children. If we want to talk about equality of opportunity for children, then the fact that children are raised in families means there's no equality. In order to raise children with the equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them, once again, the old Platonic idea.
And it is by no means insignificant that in the nineteen ninety five budgets of the Clinton illustration when families support programs, which is to say, programs confuse the power of the state to intervene in the home, we're up for appropriation
to to fight all these interventions in the home. The Clinton administration cided, not the constitution decided Plato's Republic and I quote, because early the fourth century BC, the philosopher Plato strust the importance of investing in children from an early age. And they go on to state that in the Republic, Plato talked
about all these ways of the state would intervene in the home. And they conclude by saying, the first step, as you know, is always what matters most, particularly when we are dealing with those who are young and tender. That is the time when they are taking shape, and when any impression we choose to make leaves a permanent march. Same thing as a Jesuit credo, same thing as the Leninist statement that give me a child at the age seven. Same thing, that's the same thing that the Jesuit said that.
Jesuits also were one of the very first in more modern times sixteen hundreds to have their own communist commune in Paraguay. The Reductions of Paraguay all said something very similar about children and taking them from the families. And it makes you not wonder so much about why there would be Greek style architecture at that nefarious
island of Epsteins. Now, if you can, with equanimlity look upon the prospect of the Clinton Now, if you can, with equanimity look upon the prospect of the Clinton administration choosing what market will leave upon your children just makes perfect sense. But this is a group of people, the lower the moral tone of a meeting of the Christian bloods. I don't think that they're particularly
qualified to leave a mark on children. Yet we're going to see the development of certain types of methodisms to compel parents once again to make sure that their children are part of this new consensus. And one method that might be employed is the idea of licensing parents. How many of you have heard of the idea of having parents obtain licenses from the government at the condition of being allowed to raise the state's children. This is a proposal which is a direct emitation
of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is not very well understood in this country. Back in nineteen eighty one, Amen Bylima Jane Stevens, who is the professor at the University of South Carolina, predicted that by the years two thousand, we would see a system of provental licensing in this country. To some certain extent, this is what he said, I quote. In most cases, certified couples would be allowed to have their own
natural children. In some instances, however, genetic scanning may find that some women and men can produce super babies but are not well through to de rear them. These couples will be licensed to breed, but will give up their children to other people licensed to rear them. So prediction made back in nineteen eighty one. Just last year, a book was published by doctor Jack Westman
of the University of wiscons to Madison. Of course, he is an associate of doctor Donna Jalaila, who is the head of the Department of Celcome to the Services, and she has a copy of his book. The book is
entitled Licensing Parents Can we Prevent Child Abuse? And what doctor Westman says is that because the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says that the state has primary stewardship over children, the state not only can require parents to obtain a license, but it must require parents to obtain a license, and he elaborates upon that concept of some great length. Incidentally, I was able to ask doctor Westman about those of us who would object to this on constitutional grounds.
He said that the constitutional arguments are not as important as the prudential arguments. In other words, the problem is simply too big to fuss with constitutional immunities. Once again, the state can take away our rights that the state grants our rights. Doctor Weston, although he appears to be in many respects of finding considerate, man, is wrongheaded and mistaken about his concept of government, and the result would be a tyrannical program which would subvert the rights of
parents and would do nothing to enhance the lives of children. He is not a law however, in proposing a system of prontal licensure. Another book has come out written by a professor named David Lichn from Minnesota. He talks about licensing parents and he has suggested that because we have a problem with crime in this country, we have the license parents, because obviously the government is not
at all, it's the parents that are infirm. He hasn't thought that perhaps we should make it easier for police to apprehend criminals than easier to convict criminals, and we should have punishments to make sense in true collectives passion, He says that in order to deal with the problem of crime, we have to abridge the liberties of the law abiding. This is something that we see altogether too frequently. Furthermore, David Likens program has some aspects which are very reminiscent
of the Chinese population control policy. He has said, for instance, that we should have government officials prowling maternity wards, checking for licenses when women go into maternity wards to have children. If women have children that are unauthorized,
those children would be taken away from them and immediately adopted. And the women who have an authorized children would be compelled to undergo an implant of north plant to sterilize them so that they wouldn't have unauthorized children for a period of four or five years. Where would he begin with this program. He wouldn't begin in the suburbs. He wouldn't begin on Beacon Hill. He wouldn't begin in the mainstream. Had begin in the inner cities. And why would it begin
in the inner cities. First of all, because the family has been disrupted in the inner cities, and the way, which is unprecedented, the things that have been done in the inner cities of the family have created this baleful synergy. The one hand, the families are disrupted, just causes crime.
Crime causes family disruption. It becomes a self perpetuating cycle. And so he thinks, David lind does that perhaps to be best to start in the inner cities by telling women on welfare that they won't be permitted to have a child. Of course, the principle the precedent would apply to everybody eventually, And wouldn't that make it more I don't know, malleable for the unthinking, massive
people. I almost in masses. But hey, if it shoe fits whatever, you know, if I'm not talking to you or about you, if it doesn't fit you, But think about it. Yes, there's a lot of bad parents out there, and a lot of un irresponsible parents that have multiple ones just so that they can get more money from the government, but don't care about their children. So where do you think People mostly think that
that happens in inner cities. So with those things in play, starting there with that type of scenario or that type of program would actually garner support, which is sickening because what people don't understand is that the government isn't there to do anything to actually help children at all whatsoever. It's to erode the rights and the ethics and responsibilities and sanctity of the family and destroy all of our religious concepts of what that makes that sacred in the first place. And he
says you shouldn't worry about this program. If you meet the qualifications, you should have no problem getting a license, receiving this great favor from the state of being allowed to have a child quote unquote by the all powerful state. Remember that name David Mike and L Y K K E M. I guess the third K would have been too obvious. Now he is not alone, nor is he unique in terms of applying the parental licensing concept of population control
or eugenics oriented questions. There is yet another proposal which was made just before last year's Population Controls summit in Cairo, was proposed by Sir Roy Kaland, who was a noted British surgeon. He has said that not only do we need a worldwide parental licensing program in order to retard the growth of the human population, but we should emulate the Chinese model of population control on a worldwide
basis. And this would clue according to the sermoid called I am not making this up, as spring arbies to say, you can look at UT's true. In addition to all this, he has proposed the development of a of an injectable sterilization virus. Boy does that sound a little familiar? So population control summits in Cairo. The fact that there's something called a population control summit
that happens annually should concern everyone. But the fact that that's happening and what one would consider pretty dawn close to Mystery Babylon because where did that, Where did that all go to after it went from like you know, the era of dim rod and all that. Where did the mystery schools crop up again? Where did they infest in and destroy the pharaohs and make them all corrupt?
Right, so it's almost symbolic and also discussing that they be holding them in that in that area which will be used to secure women of their motility. Once again, people are the disease. That means the tyranny is the cure. And after publishing his book It's called Too Many People, once again
he configures us to be the surplus. Through Roy coln undertook a tour of communist China to promote this proposal, and of course I'm sure he was received with more gratitude by the Chinese government than he was by the subjects of the Chinese government. Hopefully this is the bad news and I didn't mean needlessly to harrow up your souls at length without mitigating the effects of this lecture somewhat with some good news. So by way of concluding this address, I'd like to
share with you some good news. Some of the best news comes out of the Michael news story. Michael New was a very brave young man who talked a little bit about his struggle at the commencement of our remarks this evening.
Michael New is inspiring millions of people, which is resistance. The time was overdue for such a principal stand to be taken by a meek and modest, twenty two year old man from Texas, a homeschool child, somebody who is raised in the fear and the admolition of the Lord and not the fear and admonition of the all powerful state. He's a tremendous example. And it turns out that there are some in the military with whom I have spoken who have
said they would do the same thing that Michael Knew has done. They would take the same stand. They would no more be willing to wear the un insignia than they would be willing to wear a hammer and sickle or a swastika. They would be faithful to their oath, that is good news and record. His story is resounding with the American public in spite of the best efforts
of the opinion cartel to keep it out of the newspapers. In the former Soviet Union, there was something called Saggia's die is to say, unauthorized publicity or unauthorized dissemination of news. There is an American Sammy's Dot. Part of that is to be found in The New American magazine, a publication which I
served as senior editor. We were one of the few publications to talk about the micro news story a couple of months ago before it was recognized as an official story just this week by the wire services and by some of the radio services. Another example of Sammy's Dot is the Internet, which drives the opinion and information managers perfectly nuts. How they hate the Internet, how they hate the fact that people have unfiltered access to what's going on through the internet through
talk radio. I have a different view of that in light of everything that's been going on. There's not so much a declassification process, but there's a initiation that's going on, because how can you be one hundred percent fully afraid of what is happening if you're not first told about it, and fear is a great motivator. Fear paralyzes, fear does lots of different things, including if you believe that they feed off that energy, sure find whatever, Well,
then there's that going on as well. But this is a type of initiation on a public level, so letting it out, pretending like they don't want it to happen. They created the internet, you know, so at some point you have to say, well, even if they don't like certain things being passed around, they're they're going to use everything and anything to their advantage for their endgame, no matter what way you think they perceive it.
Because yeah, it's a lot of it's an act. A lot of it is getting you looking and scattered on three thousand different things that are distracting you from the main problem that's happening more eminently, and there's a lot of that going on. So I don't always think that too much information or all the information or information that they quote unquote don't want you to hear, is really part of some kind of victory. I don't see it that way. Through
publications like the New Americans through c SPAN, information gets out. When information gets out, the truth can be had. People can evaluate for themselves, as free agents, how they should interpret certain developments and how they should react to the plans of this elite that George Lodge talked about to create this global society under their supposedly benevolent stewardship. Some other good news that I should share
with you came at that UN conference in late August and early September. There is no more devoted proponent of world government than Strobe Talbot, a Deputy Secretary
of State in the Court in Administration. Mister Talbot, aspired to be known as a world citizen, received the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award from the World Federalists Association back in nineteen ninety three for an say he had written in nineteen ninety two called the Birth of a Global Nation, published in Time magazine in July in nineteen ninety two, Stroke Talbot said that before long we will have a world government and we will all be called world citizens. He eagerly longs
for and anticipates that day. But there is a problem. We found out what's going on, we don't like it, and this awful plague of so called isolationism has broken out at the United Nations Association conference in August, Strub Talbot delivered an address on behalf of the Clint administration, and he announced to some delight that, in a way that he had not anticipated just a few short years ago, we are one world. And of course that has such
certain connotations. Would it is said by somebody of strug Talbot's inclinations, they're talking about one world politically and institutionally. However, there was bad news from his perspective. He said that in contemporary America, and I'm the only digger and Juicier's target and big government is woral government. People don't like big government.
They certainly don't like world government. And because of that, I quote the bipartisan consensus is the port of the UN has grayed badly, announced Talbot. If we further reduce our payments to the UN, others will surely follow. And if Conners polls the plug on basic huan activities such as so called peacekeeping, then the UN might very quickly join the League of Nations on the
ash keep of history. That is the best news I have heard. All our strongest ammunition, of course, is the truth and the best way that we can pursue the re establishment of American constitutional sovereignty is by making the truth known as widely as possible. As it happens, most people want to be free, and it's easier for us to explain these people why God intended for them to be free, that it is for the other side to explain why
they must surrender their freedom. Now, that is an argument that we will win every time. That is a struggle. If you will, we will win every time. As a matter of fact, to the borrow a sports metaphor, will run up the score if we're playing on a level playing field. The way to establish the level playing field is to defund the left.
They should no longer have the completely unnecessary and utterly unconstitutional and immoral advantage of being able to tax us in order to subsidize our own demise as a nation. The key to doing this is to reassert constitutional accountability over the House of Representatives, where the checks are cut, where the laws are created, where taxes are appropriated, where funds are redistributed from our pockets into the pockets of
those who want to create this malevolent global regime. This is something that we can prevent. We can prevent it by helping people themselves with what the UN represents and with the principles of American liberty. Principles of American liberty provide us with our best immunity against tyranny, our best immunity against the type of purity that has taken the lives of one hundred and seventy million people in this horrible century. This is a horrible century, it is also a magnificent century.
Many ways to take advantage of the resources that we have at our disposal to once again to assert our constitutional independence. Some people to support the United Nations will grudgingly admit, and in doing so they consider themselves to be making a gesture a great magnanimity and generosity, that the UN is not a perfect institution. They will admit that this record is pot markless spectacular failures. They will
admit that the institution itself is riddled with corruption. They will admit that the United Nations doesn't do everything that it was supposed to do. What we say, we don't want the United Nations to do what it's designed to do, which is to become the capstone of a world government. The UNS advocates will admit, once beginning grudging that the UN is badly in needed reform. No, we say that the UE is badly in need of abolition, and this
is something we can bring about with George hard Thank you very much. And that's the ear of that, folks. I'm sure you heard the mention of the Council of wise Men, also called the Council of elders, which is the term that he used, and you might want to notice that in his book The Quickening. In his book The Quickening, art Bell said that if the world has to have a benevolent dictatorship ruled by a council of elders,
so be it. I'm all for it. That's what he said. Every time he wears that black shirt with the skull and bones on it and laughing
at all of you. Boy, he's having a belly laugh. This guy's got you all twisted around in knots, spinning in the cold to sacks, you know, caught in the little eddies by the side of the river, while the whole thing is marching right by you and you don't even know it because you're soul lost in bullshit, deceptions, fantasy lives, con artists, new age crap, and well, I could go on and on in fact, I've got the whole list of the adjectives here. Describe what art Bill's
doing that probably would take two or three hours to get through. We're gonna open the phones now. Five two zero three three three four five seven eight. What do you think about what you've heard last night and tonight? Five to zero three three three four five seven eight is the number, by the way, I went into our little radio shack that we have. All right, we're gonna cut it there if you guys want to watch the rest of that or listen to the rest of that on the hour of the time on
Bitch Shoot. And that is episode one seven one three, originally broadcast November third, nineteen ninety nine. That particular lecture was given by William Norman Grigg on I in nineteen ninety five. I'm not quite sure what the date was, Okay, So revelation of the method was what I guess I was trying to explain a minute ago when I was talking about you know how he said
that they hate the Internet. That that might be a surface level, but I don't think anything isn't without its controls already in place, for it gives it gives also the availability to flood everything with too much information, to overload people's minds to not know what's what you know, and the veiled fact checker
attempt to somehow mitigate the fallout from something. I think that's all still just a distraction, I mean a revelation of the method, but it's you're looking at a cult ritual, somewhat predictive programming, but also revealing the intent and what their objectives and goals are, what they have been doing and what they are doing and going to do, so that people then have the obligation the duty to either resist, push back and say not not you know this line
and no further. And when they don't do that, that's consent. It's a tacit agreement to allow what they've just said they're going to do is to happen. And that's part of their ritual as well, for that universal law, if you want to call it karma or whatnot. So there's there's a lot of things to consider when it comes to that. So let's go into one more episode. If I can find the Folconelli one easily, I'll do that one. That one was good might not be the easiest thing to find.
Rar it off the bad pudd I'll try. I think it's in my YouTube one. Let's just take a look real quick. There's another channel on YouTube called Bill Cooper and see hyphen Luke. So if I can get into my I think it's in research or is it in common Hero? Common Hero should be read at the top, then yeah, there is. Give me a second scroll. As soon as I find it, I'll put it up. I have very long playlists and just about every spot, so it's a
lot of scrolling to find what I'm looking for. This one, I didn't have cqued up because I wasn't sure if I was gonna do it or not. Oh is not there? There it is, folcon Nelly. All right, cool, let me just plause it real quick. This is two thousand and one, thirty October. It's a little Bill Cooper. But we're not gonna get We're not gonna listen to a lot of this because at the time
we've already been on for long enough. But I'm just gonna play a little bit of this because this is interesting and it kind of going to tie into the next subject that I'm going to discuss, which is Paris post World War One. That's weird, strange renaissance that occurred in the rise of psychiatry, mostly because you know, they were implementing it in Soviet Land. We're gonna talk, We're gonna show a couple of the documentaries that debunk the entire nonsense
of psychiatry in its mechanism of control and destruction of human souls. But Folcanelli when his introduction and description of this starts to play into discussing that a little bit. And that's the part that I find important that I want to I want to share with you. But let me go ahead and drop this screen first, and I'll getting that one. All right, let's do it again present. It's not so much. I mean, it is me a little bit, but this is just a coversome way to do things with share what
do you call it? Stream yard? All right, let's go for it. I think you guys can see that, Yes you can. You got a little araborous looking thing going on in front here, consuming itself. If when it comes into the like the Nordic aspect of things like the Ragnarok and all that, the oraborous or whatever they call it, it's like the if you want to think of like the ice ring that's allegedly around our world, and they were in the little ice skating rink. We'll imagine those like shrinking
and squeezing everything that's inside into into nothingness. And that's pretty much how the thing is consuming itself. It's making smaller and smaller and smaller until it chokes everything out and destroys all of creation. All right, let's a play here. You might hear that with the siren. I didn't check for that. Hold On, I'm I'm William Cooper. Good evening, folks. Tonight is
one of those nights. You better get the pen and paper and pencil and something to smack on, and maybe maybe a glass of water or tea or whatever it is that you like to drink while you listen to the hour of the time. You're gonna want to take notes, and I'm gonna give you some books that you're going to want to read as we continue on our quest, our little march towards Albion. Hold On, I'll get past the music can the night, folks, We're going to talk about one of the greatest
mysteries of the last century from our perspective. During the second year of the New millennium cosmic in the cycle perspective, World War one, the Great War, to those who lived through it, feels as ancient as all those other senseless wars in history. Our only connections with that conflict are sad the cpo's own images of our ancestors killing each other for reasons vaguely understood even to themselves.
Most people, even in this listening audience, would be hard put to explain exactly why World War One was fought and why so many men went to give their lives in it, Demoted by an even greater War, One's so large that nothing but the title World War could possibly encompass it. The Great War became a mayor fancy dress prelude to an entire century of destruction and horror, And indeed the twentieth century was exactly that, the bloodiest, most devastating,
most destructive century, and the history of the world. Reading of the ideals and passions of that long forgotten error feels embarrassing to most of us men. If we think of it at all, We assign it an emotional value somewhere between a massive industrial accident the migration of livings to the sea. When we look back through history we find many wars and disasters, plagues and conquests, volcanic eruptions, climatic changes, and mass migrations. But Ladies and Gentlemen,
we find nothing quite like the Great War. Four hundred years of European intellectual, moral, and technical superiority created and fed the engines of industrialized murder. These forces, in turn consumed the very social order which had created them, and after four years, the self proclaimed masters of the universe lay broken and bleeding in the waste land, saved from ultimate extinction only by the interference
of the United States and its revolutionary Republic. Cultural suicide, perhaps an apocalypse by any other name, Ladies and Gentlemen, is still and a shatological event. It's the end of the world for the inhabitants of that world. For example, near the end of the Great War, in September of nineteen eighteen, the Turkey's twelfth Army, holding the Ridge line in front of Damascus, which included the ancient mound of Medigo, was attacked and destroyed by the combined
use of airplanes, tanks, and cavalry. This battle, earily described in Saint John's Revelation, Chapter sixteen, suggests that Armageddon occurred in nineteen eighteen. Not only is the battle clearly delineated, but it occurred in the midst of the worst plague since the Black Death of the fourteenth century. Revelations Apocalypse looks much like the history of the twentieth century leading up to one final millenarial explosion.
Could this be true, Well, ladies and gentlemen, the millennium has come and gone, and so we know it has not as yet occurred. There's always the possibility that our method of keeping time is not the same method used in predicting time by John in his Book of Revelation. Was the prophecy of Revelation and ongoing process that essentially started sometime befo the Great War was the
twentieth century and unfolding of the Final Book of the Bible. When the Great War finally ended all the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh Month, the old world, with its noble and imperial ways, was well and truly dead. The victorious Allies propped up the corpse of Europe, and, using all the tricks of the Undertaker's trade, gave it the brief appearance of animation. This lasted just long enough to necromancy a treaty together at Versailles.
It decomposed soon enough. It's stitch conditioning Europe for the burned bacon aroma of the Nazis whom to come. But while it lasted, this zombie summer of fast fading European superiority valvanized the entire world. The epicenter of this fleeting renaissance was Paris, the city of Light. During the war, this city had been the goal for which millions of men had marched, fought, bled, and died. As it had been for centuries, Paris was a symbol to
both sides in the conflict of something irrepressible in the human character. After the war, it became a mecca for all those who felt that the world must be changed somehow by the horror and sacrifice of the war, and that this change must mean something, say something, and do something. They went to Paris like insects drawn to the light of immolated cultures, having burned their candles all at once in the final apodfae of European civilization. They firmly believed that
out of that conflagration would come a better world. Same dreamers, dreaming the same dream, and so they came to Paris to help create that world. Mystics, visionaries, painters, poets, artists of all time, scientists, political thinkers, revolutionaries, expatriots, all looking for that new world of hope, peace and freedom which they helped must grow out of the war to ins all wars, the conflict they thought had made them all equal. Now they
mingled on the boulevards. They drank, they talked at the cafes and bars and bookstalls. They plotted and painted late into the night in small cold the water flats in the March Trey are danced and drank in the nightclubs and Demimond's dives of the Latin Quarter. As if driven by deep rooted survival guilt, everyone wanted to live fast, fully and gloriously. Paris in the post apocalyptic twenties appeared to be the light of the world, the flash point of history,
and the beginning of the end of time itself. And remember that statement, the beginning of end of the end of time itself. Remember that, because I'm going to repeat that theme throughout this broadcast. Out of all this too brief efflorescence emerged, artistic, literary, social, political and scientific concepts that shaped much of the rest of the twentieth century, From the surrealists such as Hans Arp and Marcel Duchamp to the mathematics of Paul Dirat to the literary
pyrotechnics of James Joyce, the idea of trans formation. Trans formation bubbled just below the surface. Remember that also, for that will be too a recurring theme. It was that the venus of this transformative undercurrent that in nineteen twenty six, an anonymous volume, issued in a luxury edition of three hundred copies only by a small Paris publishing firm known mostly for artistic reprints, rocks the
Parisian occult underworld. Its title The Mystery of the Cathedrals. The author Full Kennelly, He claimed that the great secret of alchemy, the queen of Western occult science, was plainly displayed on the walls of Paris's own cathedral, Notre Dame de Paris. He was right, as you've heard on previous broadcasts.
In nineteen twenty six, al Cany by our post modern lights, a quaint and just credited Renaissance Hugo science, was in the process of being reclaimed and reconditioned by two of the most influential movements of the century, Surrealism and the psychiatry. Did you catch that? Did you catch what you just said? They're about psychiatry alchemy at about the same time, and each attached their own
notions about reality to the ancient concept. Carl Jung spent the twenties teasing out the theory of the archetypal unconscious form of the symbolic tapestry of alchemical images and studying how these symbols are expressed in the dream state. The poet philosopher Andre Brattarn and the surrealists may then intuity leap of faith and proclaimed that the alchemical
process could be expressed artistically. Bratton, in his nineteen twenty four Surrealist Manifesto, announced that Surrealism was nothing but al chemical art Fulcanelli's book would have an indirect effect on both of these intellectual movements and direct, ladies and gentlemen, and here we begin this great mystery and directed because of the book managed a major literary miracle. It became influential while remaining apparently completely unknown outside of French
occult and alchemical circles. And remember, there were only three hundred copies in existence. Now, this is perhaps the strangest of all the mysteries surrounding the mystery of the Cathedrals. One illustration suffices to show the magnitude of the occasion, the occasion, ladies and gentlemen, being the occlusion, the hiding,
the secreting of the source of all that was influenced. Take any art history text on the Gothic Cathedrals written in the last thirty years and look at what it says about the obscure images found on the walls and inference ways of Notre Dame. You will find four times out of five that alchemy is mentioned as
a possible meaning for these vaguely Christian images. You will also find, especially if the textbook is in English, that full Kennelly and the Mystery of the Cathedrals are not ever given as a source or mentioned in any way whatsoever, although it is the only source from which such information could have been obtained. There was, and you may have seen and it a popular television special on
Alcany hosted by Leonard Lumoy. It used the very same images from Notre Dame that full Cannelli presents in his book, describes them and direct full Cannelli paraphrase, and never ever mentions the source as Fulcanelli are lens three de cathedral. It's as if the concept entered common usage without ever being individually articulated. Do you believe that, well, we may call this the dog that didn't bark in the night effect, like the dog that doesn't make a sound while the
house is robbed. Full Cannelli's work is conspicuous by its since. On the other hand, the book's widespread influence suggests an importance far beyond the antiquarian idea that the cathedrals were designed as alchemical texts to understand the silence. It might
be a good idea to try and understand full Kennelly. The earliest known incident where his name was ever mentioned with the nineteen twenty six and publisher Jean Schmisch received a visit from a small man dressed as a prewar Bohemian with a long asterisks you know, that big gall style mustache, thick crossing the midline of the face above the lip, but not not curled up or hanging down.
The man wanted to talk about Gothic architecture, the green argot of its sculptural symbols and house slang was a kind of punning code, which he called the language of the birds. A few weeks later, mister Schmidt introduced to him again as Jeanne or Jean in the French Julian Champaign, the illustrator of a
proposed book by a mysterious alchemist called simply full Canally. Mister Schmidt thought, at all three of the visitor, the author, and the illustrator were the same man, and perhaps perhaps they were, and this is the most credible Fulcanelli sighting. Beyond this, he exists as words in a page, and in some occult circles, as a mythic alchemical immortal with the status or identity of a Saint Germain. There were two things that everyone agreed upon concerning Folcanelli.
One he was definitely a mind to be reckoned with, and two he was a true enigma. What seems to have happened is that Fulconelli student, a young occult upstart named Eugene Cancillier, offered the publisher the manuscript of the Mystery of the Cathedrals, or in French, Le Mystery de Cathedrals. Chamitt bought it, and Salier wrote a preface for the book, in which he stated that the author, his master Fulcanelli, had departed this realm. What
he meant by realme, no one really knows. He then goes on to thank Julian Champaigne, the man whom Schmidt thought was Fulcanelli, for the illustrations. Champagne, a minor symbolist artist and inventored far into an absent fueled decline, had gathered around him a small entourage, including Cancillier. The talk always
centered around alchemy when they met in the small cafes of the Montemartress. Champagne lived nearby in the Rue de Russia Shouart, and his sixth floor room in the crumbling Parisian sentiment was often the scene of late night symposiums of all sorts of occult subjects. Now in this country, When I say, oh, called, many people shiver and sort of crossed their arms across the chest and fear. Occult simply means secret, are hidden, has no connotation of evil,
unless, of course, it's used in an evil manner. It is simply hidden information. To his young friends, he must have seemed like a ghost from another age, with his unfashionably long hair, his riddles, his must fashion, most of all, his claim to all the secrets of alchemy.
At the time, no one else but Schmidt seemed to believe that Julian Champagne was Concilier's master vulcan Elly. His taste for great quantity of pernoan absinthe indicated a man too dissipated to be as knowledgeable and everydict as the author of Cathedrals. However, he certainly didn't know a real alchemist, whoever Folkanelli was, and his illustrations show that he indeed had a profound understanding of the alchemical
art, no doubt about it whatsoever. So we are left with the unsolvable mystery of the missing master alchemist, a man who does not seem to exist, and yet is recreated constantly in the imagination of every seeker who threads the path, a perfect foil for projection. We might even think, with all jokes, some kind of massive, elaborate hoax up for the material itself. When one turns to mystery of the cathedrals, he finds a witty intelligence who
seems quite sure of the nature and importance of his information. This Fulcanelli knows something and is trying to communicate his knowledge of this. There can be no doubt Fulcanelli's main point. The key to unraveling the mystery lies in an understanding of what he calls the phonetic law of the spoken Kabbalah, or the language
of the birds. This punning, multi lingual word play can be used to reveal unusual and, according to Fulcanelli, meaningful associations between ideas, what unsuspected marbles we should find if we knew how to dissect words, to strip them of their barks and liberate the spirit, the divine light which is within Fulkenelli rights. He claims that in our day this is the natural language of the outsiders, the outlaws and heretics at the fringes of society. It's the language
of the birds. And he says, it's the language of the outsiders and the fringes of society sound like the fallen ones to anybody, maybe you know when to stop there. You can find the rest of this on Bill Cooper and see Luke is the name of the channel. Mystery of Fulkennelly is the title. It's a longer title, but you can find her with that, and hopefully that you know spark your curiosity is to a good check more and then we'll go into some other stuff with mister Cooper. I'm gonna do this
on a maybe a weekly basis. I'll have one up there and maybe one of these days if I know what my schedule is, I'll start putting up an actual time like for my live streams that will be consistent on a schedule for you. All right, that's it. Check out the description if you want to show the support to the show. And if you want some of that delicious actually flavorless but full vic acid doctor Manso supplies, you can find it through my link because I have a little thing you can just click it
and go right to this page. All right, And then and then tomorrow that will not be a Doctor Artist because Doctor Artists is going to be or is on his way there. Now I think you left this evening to Ohio to meet up with Doctor Manzo oddly enough, right, so that's cool or interestingly enough, so I probably won't be able to get doctor Monso and if
he's waiting or trying to welcome in Doctor Artists that same day. But but there will be more stuff coming up this week, so just keep an eyeball on it subscribes, so you can get your notifications when something goes live and if you want to join the little joint button there. Then when rare content or stuff, I don't think it's good enough or not, I'm honest say good enough, it's a little too dangerous for the man, you know,
something that might get me booted or otherwise. Maybe it's a little controversial in the sense that if you understood what I was talking about in these two that I do have up on Patreon, and I put one of them up on somebody you know, departed the earth before they had an opportunity to give me the green light on something, and I had a few questions a little concern
over their interview, so I never actually I didn't post it. I posted it on unlisted and that person never got back to me because they were ted. So, um, I don't know if I was the last interview or not, but um, yeah, So that one is on the that one's on the locals. If you want to join locals, you'll be able to see that all right later