To Ourselves Be True

In April, 1961, Walter Lippmann, travelled to Moscow to interview the Soviet Premier at the time—Nikita Khrushchev.

And Walter’s just such an oddly convenient choice to perform that interview.

---

This event was released in pamphlet form, through The Coming Tests with Russia¹. The editor’s note reminds us of Lippmann’s prior meet with the Soviet Premier in 1958, an event through which Lippmann discovered that by ‘status quo’, Khrushchev meant that will come to be, as in, not the present state but a potential future state—much like Enron conceptualised hypothetical future profits, I presume.

The meeting took place over 8 hours, of which just less than half were spent in serious talk, with Khrushchev allegedly showed his human side over several long-lasting and alcohol fueled meals. But he also reveals that he believed the primary forces of the world—the capitalist and the socialist—had by then concluded that it was useless for one to test the other by military means. Further, Khrushchev insisted that Rockefeller, in fact, was the policy driving force behind the Kennedy administration, which of course immediately leads one to speculate.. Dean Rusk²… for starters…

Khrushchev further objected to the suggestion of nineteen nuclear inspections per year, which in his eyes constituted nothing short of complete reconnaissance of the Soviet military, with three being a more realistic figure.

He further outlined the lack of interest in tactical nukes from a Soviet perspective, as these were costly, and thus a waste of money. But from the American perspective he could see their utility, as American generals typically were connected to big business. In terms of nuclear disarmament he could never accept a single negotiator, as these can never be considered to be neutral.

Khrushchev further outlined his belief that the current revolutionary movement from socialism to capitalism is much like the preceding move from feudalism to capitalism. He further spoke of Soviet disagreement over Cuba, adding that they were there only because of the Cuban request for help following the American blockade.

This, of course, was pre-Cuban Missile Crisis³.

Khrushchev also expressed that he:

… will win this cold war without military force because he is on the side of history, and because he has the military power to deter us from a serious military intervention.

That, itself, is an interesting inclusion, because per Golitsyn, the long-term planning culminating with the Perestroika Deception began under Khrushchev.

To Feel Responsible for the World's Destiny

But he further adds that China eventually will become a major factor, also outlining that Rockefeller (and DuPont) will stop Kennedy from succeeding in terms of kickstarting the American economy, before finally adding that he predicts a future crisis over Berlin (which of course happened), but also stating:

… he could hardly understand how any man who had not been in a big government for a long time could suddenly become the head of it.

And though I’ve seen this comment made elsewhere, let’s leave it for the time being.

Khrushchev saw no easy solution on the matter that is Germany, as neither the Soviet Union nor United States would ever accept unification under the other system. Consequently the solution of three appears most likely—West Germany, Easy Germany, and West Berlin. And this is exactly what happened, with the Berlin Wall⁴ going up, starting in August, 1961.

Fortunately, however, Lippmann saw no immediate likelihood of war breaking out—but he did warn that third world nations were the springboard used by the Soviet leadership, fostering the revolutionary movement in underdeveloped nations.

Where this report accelerates is in its postscript. Lippmann goes to speculate:

We have been forced to ask ourselves recently how a free and open society can compete with a totalitarian state. This is a crucial question. Can our Western society survive…

At this stage, there were no significant crisis in the West, and though the East was riding high upon the success of Sputnik, this inclusion appears forced. It feels as though he’s trying to create a problem, for which he already has a solution.

It is not possible for a free and open society to organize successfully a spectacular conspiracy. The United States, like every other government, must employ secret agents. But the United States cannot successfully conduct large secret conspiracies. It is impossible to keep them secret.

The Manhattan Project⁵?

It follows that in the great struggle with Communism, we must find our strength by developing and applying our own principles, not in abandoning them.

When these types typically speak of ‘developing’ something, it typically covers for an ulterior motive—much like contemporaries seek to redefine ‘free speech’, or demands to ‘strengthen our democracy’. Both, of course, seek to kneecap these.

The Global Digital Compact

But we need to appeal to the fear factor in men—there needs to be a reason to act:

Mr. K. is a true believer that Communism is destined to supplant capitalism as capitalism supplanted feudalism. For him this is an absolute dogma, and he will tell you that while he intends to do what he can to assist the inevitable, knowing that we will do what we can to oppose the inevitable, what he does and what we do will not be decisive. Destiny will be realized no matter what men do.

Oh noes, we will all turn communist, it’s just a matter of time. Now, let’s explore this option, the way to escape this cruel destiny which they’ve been so clever to decipher:

We can say that in Mr. K.'s dogma there is an unexamined premise. It is that the capitalist society is static, when Marx described it a hundred years ago, that — to use Mr. K.'s own lingo - there is no difference between Governor Rockefeller and his grandfather.

Ah yes, we must develop capitalism, we must change it. For the better, of course. And this ultimately is because we quite simply are too predictable in our approach:

I venture to argue from this analysis that the reason we are on the defensive in so many places is that for some ten years we have been doing exactly what Mr. K. expects us to do.

Were this indeed true, the Capitalist societies would be struggling far beyond what the case was at the time. Besides, a decade prior was during the final years of Stalin. The claim that the US has been struggling to hold up a candle for a decade does not hold water at all.

We cannot compete with Communism in Asia, Africa, or Latin America if we go on doing what we have done so often and so widely - which is to place the weak countries in a dilemma where they must stand still with us and our client rulers or start moving with the Communists.

Yes, third world nations, in short, have the budget option of following the static West, or the premium option of following the young, hip, fresh and dynamic East.

This dilemma cannot be dissolved unless it is our central and persistent and unswerving policy to offer these unhappy countries a third option, which is economic development and social improvement without the totalitarian discipline of Communism.

Already at this stage is appears increasingly obvious that what Lippmann is actually pushing, is a ‘third option’, which neither is the old and static Capitalism nor the fresh, lively and dynamic Communism—but rather representing a third way, pushing a combination of the two.

For the only real alternative to Communism is a liberal and progressive society.

… there is quite simply no other option, should we seek to defeat communism!

Of course, the economy under Khrushchev was edging on collapse on occasion, and the initial steps of opening up, liberalising the Soviet Union were quickly undone. It relatively quickly returned to Stalinism for lack of a better word. And that constitutes a dynamic alternative? Well, to Lippmann clearly it did.

Lippmann, for the record, isn’t just anyone. You see, in 1921 he co-founded the Council of Foreign Relations⁶, a group with which the Rockefellers were closely associated⁷. Oh, and he further was a member of the Fabian Society, the slow-walked commies that they are. So, yes, somewhat of an interesting choice to go visit Khruschchev one might argue.

The Fabian Society's Keir Starmer

---

But did an effort materialise, to ‘examine the premise‘ relating to ‘developing’ the allegedly static Capitalistic model?

Well, as it transpires—yes. In 1962, a redacted memo addressed to Robert Amory⁸—the departed deputy director of CIA—was penned, with the request for just such a projected rejected by CIA Deputy Director Marshall S Carter:

Dear Bob (Robert Amory, Jr):

Following your telephone call, I reviewed my previous action in not favorably considering Mr. ??? proposal to establish a project for redefining freedom and democracy. I also talked to Mr. ??? at some length. I am still of the opinion that the financing of this project is not something that fails within the immediate responsibilities of the Agency.

But even if the CIA rejected this idea, he did suggest where to take his idea next:

I have suggested to Mr. ??? that the most appropriate governmental office to support this project would be the White House. Next I believe would be the Attorney General. Next after that would be the Department of State. As we get any farther down the totem pole, the results of such an endeavor would be more and more suspect.

And Carter even included detail on the financing aspect… with NGO inclusion:

I think I convinced Mr. ??? of the merits of this viewpoint. In any event, I told him that I was prepared to offer his services (at the Agency's expense) for the next year to any governmental or non-profit agency who would be prepared to finance the remaining $65,000, plus or minus, of the estimated expenses, and that at the end of that year I would take another look at the whole project. Mr. ??? appeared reasonably well satisfied with this Proposal and I dare say I will be hearing from him at a later date.

Incidentally, there’s a slightly more redacted version of this same document available⁹, which hints at the first letter of the longer redacted section being an ‘R’.

Rockefeller?

However, do pay attention to the date of Marshall S Carter’s rejection—April 16, 1962. Because on only the previous day, Robert Amory Jr left the service¹⁰, in effect pushed out by John F Kennedy on advise by his brother, Robert F Kennedy. And just by sheer coincidence, precisely those two members of the Kennedy family were assassinated in the 1960s.

There’s further an interview of Amory in relation to the assassination of JFK¹¹ which reveals he was less than pleased with developments under Kennedy:

Then when Allen was obviously due to go, I was not at all happy with McCone as a selection. In fact, I protested vigorously to Mac Bundy, and Pete Scoville [Herbert F. Scoville] and I both threatened to resign. I thought this appointment was just the wrong thing; this was just a cheap political move to put a prominent Republican in so the heat could be taken off the Bay. We would no longer be part of the Kennedy New Frontier; we would be something that was an incubus that he’d inherited, and so on and so forth. And I thought it was a very bad show, and I intended this to go back to him. Let me see, I’m getting out of order here. No, that’s when he was first moving around, that is the right order. Then, very shortly, Kennedy made up his mind and firmly announced McCone.

Amory didn’t work on anything in relation to the failed Bay of Pigs, however in January, 1962, he recommend the above project, exploring the development of a World Congress for Freedom and Democracy¹²:

This project grows out of nearly a year of preliminary exploration, conducted by ??? Chief, Senior Research Staff on International Communism, DD/I, of a proposal made to Mr Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Special Assistant to the President, at the Fifth International Convegno of Il Mulino Research Group, Bologna, Italy, 22 April 1961.

And this, in terms of timeline, fits perfectly with Walter Lippmann’s booklet above. And this case is only strengthened by what follows:

This proposal was that there should be organised ‘a large conference in the US… where the very principles on which the policy of the Western world must draw its inspiration would be debated and which might determine the doctrine of the relationship of the countries of the West and the Third World’

Arthur Schlesinger was aligned, and the outcome of an exploratory meeting led to the conclusion that what was required was a new international organisation of public-private nature to allegedly fight communism:

Subsequent to this meeting, ??? and Mr Schlesinger agreed that this proposal deserved careful consideration… The Paris meeting was hailed by all who took part in it as an impressive step in pioneering a new type of international organisation of a mixed public and private nature, which… could serve… meeting the universal challenge of Communism.

And the finance beyond public subsidy would be found via private support.

The sales pitch continues through the final pages:

Is is anticipated that this year of exploration will determine the general advisability of continuing in the actual process of organizing the World Congress. Should the outcome be favorable, the benefite to the US Government and to the Free World in general would be great. The Agency would profit directly through the emergence of a powerful and dynamic institution of free, democratic action, under whose aegis its own multiform operations would receive added stature, scope, and worth.

Only for the document to finish off by recommending:

That the expenditure ??? be authorised for this project. The Office of the DD/I will make the funds available.

Robert Amory, Jr.

Consequently, the suggestion was rejected early, and Amory lodged an appeal which, similarly, was denied by Marshall S Carter—on precisely the day he had left the organisation. In other words, the idea was shot down.

But what was in said proposal? Good question. And it just so happens this document is available elsewhere¹³:

3 October 1961

Mr. Allen Dulles

The attached Proposal for the Creation of a World Congress for Freedom and Democracy, and a draft of a Declaration of Principles, are submitted to you on a personal basis.

Allen Dulles, for the record, was let go by JFK as an outcome of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion¹⁴.

The two documents are the outgrowth of a proposal made at Bologna in April 1961 by Ugo La Malfa and Altiero Spinelli, endorsed by Il Mulino research group.

The name Altiero Spinelli¹⁵ should raise an eyebrow, not only because he was a communist in his youth, but also because of his ties to the Europen Union.

The document continues by suggesting Kennedy should drive this process:

The purpose of this memorandum is to recommend that President Kennedy take the initiative in promoting the organization of a permanent World Congress for Freedom and Democracy… endorsed by Altiero Spinelli… In the face of the aggressive Communist challenge there appears to be a widespread sentiment—reflected in numerous weighty editorials, speeches and articles—that it is high time for the US to undertake positive and confident measures on a scale transcending previous endeavors.

And they work heroically, creating the demand:

The wellsprings of our political and social thought have not run dry. The Free World still has abundant sources of creative theory and action and it has noble spokesmen who are able to give fresh meaning to the immemorial principles of the Hellenic-Judeo-Christian tradition within the complex of modern polities, economies and societies.

The call for a new and reinvigorated definition of free world capitalism naturally follows. And though we haven’t yet seen direct inclusion of Lippmann…:

What is proposed here is a renewal—not so much revaluation as revitalization—of that ‘public philosophy’ (Walter Lippmann) which our millennial culture has produced, coupled with a critical scrutiny of those changes which must be made in it if it is to meet the historical challenges which are the begetters and destroyers of the world's great civilizations.

This is a call to ‘renew’ capitalism, exactly as Lippmann requested:

We are seeking to reinvigorate both the ideological and the organizational framework of the Free World… Our ultimate aim of course would be to bring an end to… an eternal conflict of light and dark…

Bringing to an end the antagonism between light and dark… through a ‘third way’ approach perhaps?

Next follows what can broadly be described as an intense attempt to ‘sell’ this congress, before a more specific request is added:

We would have to find our own interpretation of the neologism coined by the Moscow Declaration of December, 1960, the state form called ‘national democracy’, …

This declaration¹⁶ in short reaffirmed global solidarity among socialist states, endorsed Marxism-Leninism as the guiding ideology, and emphasized the peaceful coexistence between socialist and capitalist countries—while also supporting revolutionary movements against imperialism.

As for the American president, he is to play a leading role:

In the initial preparatory stage, leadership of the World Congress must come from the United States… Kennedy… to muster the moral, material and intellectual resources to carry it through its formative phase.

We have ourselves a moral call. But Spinelli’s influence, further, is obvious:

Almost immediately the full weight of potentially integrated Europe with its vast resources of thought and power would provide a stimulating and friendly challenge to the American leadership… ancicipated that stubborn factors of nationalism, …

The organisation quite simply must be outside traditional influence, with this even counting the United Nations:

It is precisely for this reason that the World Congress must be independent. Governments should be invited to contribute money and men to the organization, including the participation of high officials. But in the meetings of the Congress the latter would be on the same footing as distinguished private individuals and would be expected to rest their authority, whether as heads or members of delegations, on their personal ability to contribute to the global and local development of Freedom and Democracy. There could be no Lobbying for special national interests, no behind-the-scenes influencing, and least of all attempts at clandestine exploitation. In practice this would mean that the Congress would have to be a private organization. Inevitably much and even most of its material support would come from public sources, but this would be accepted only as a free contribution. It would be hoped that a substantial part, if not the bulk of the U.S. contribution, which itself would be by fax the largest, would come from private foundations and other institutions.

The World Congress would expect to see participation from high officials and be primarily funded by governments—though still retain full independence. And the shortfall would be made whole by private foundations and—no doubt—NGOs.

Impressively bold, isn’t it?

The follows an expected future timeline which include:

January 1962… The President would recommend that the same principle be accepted by all countries taking part in the World Congress. He would offer to contribute a sum estimated to cover one quprter of the expenses of the International Preparatory Commission. He would invite American private institutions to contribute another quarter, the rest to be made up from foreign private and public sources.

They—in all seriousness—expect this initiative to be funded by the taxpayer, with private foundations making up the shortfall. It’s a model they use repeatedly—the World Health Organisation, for instance, sees the taxpayer fund the operational cost. And that’s of convenience to the foundations, who provide the earmarked funds. That way, in essence, the foundations only pay the bare minimum, and thus have direct future research and working methods subsidised.

The proposed organisation further revealed to take on roughly the same structure as that of the United Nations, with national entities working in parallel:

In essence the World Congress would be an international Corporation of a private nature. Ideally it should have an endowment contributed by both governments and private sources.

The alignment is just bordering on the incomprehensible, because with one alignment follows the next:

It is apparent, that because of its private nature and its exclusion of non-democratic nations, the World Congress could not have direct affiliation with the United Nations

Yes, a public-private takeover of world affairs, it appears—with no democratic oversight, as even those high officials attending will be doing so in private capacity. It next begins to outline the various commissions it seeks to establish:

Commission on the ‘Public Philosophy’ of Freedom and Democracy. This Commission would seek to ‘establish the essential content of thé twin concepts of Democracy and Freedom. In the face of the Communist misappropriation of these terms a profound intellectual effort will be necessary to give them new content and meaning.

Which—per above—would be Walter Lippmann’s specialty. We next have ‘The Commission on Free and Democratic Polity‘, with indirect IPU influence. The reason why I highlight the IPU, is because it was they who restructured third world civil service back in the early 90s. Were third world nations to refuse, they would receive no development aid. From that followed electoral reform in 1997 through the UNDP.

Good governance, and all.

Good Governance

Next follows the ‘The Commission on Free and Democratic Economy‘:

… the nature of the modern Free World economies has become relatively stagnant, and indeed no concerted effort has been made to revitalize the whole economic though in thr West… It seems almost impossible to refurbish the image of classical capitalism under the wornout shibboleths of private initiative and enterprise…

It should be fairly obvious where they are heading with this—public-private partnerships—working towards the common good, I can assure.

This is the model they have rolled out ever since Leonard S Woolf’s International Government in 1916 which was used as blueprint for the League of Nations, later to become the model employed by the United Nations through Trisectoral Networks.

International Government

Trisectoral Networks

Our task again is dialectics: The communists claim to be creamng a ‘utopian synthesis based on the harmonions reconciliation of the individual and the collective principles in ‘social labor’. A vast amount of study and soul-searching will be necessary in order to prove that we have an actually or at least a potentially more valuable synthesis of our own.

A synthesis… of the individual and the collective? And this is supposed to be working to fight collectivism?

Incidentally, this is precisely the concept of a ‘citizen’, as framed by Tony Blair in his 1991 article in Marxism Today.

The Third Way.

The Economic Commission… would include the right and duty of the State to intervene on behalf of social and economic justice.

This is supposed to be pro-capitalism and not communism? The entire thing is absurd. Who dictates what is considered ‘social and economic justice’, for starters?

… the legitimate demands of individuals for stability and security from cradle to grave… management-labor relationships… co-determination… profit sharing… regulatory mechanism for the spiralling incentives of management and labour… the role of cooperatives…

Capitalism… with the state guaranteeing your every living moment from cradle to grave, with inclusion of those cooperatives employed by Lenin in 1921?

The New Economic Policy

Commission on the Rule of Law… invoke an antecendent Divine or Natural Law…

And that would be Thomas Aquinas invoked. The trick here lies in natural law being established through science-based rationality—and certainly not religious tradition.

… cultural freedom… examine the role of humanities and the creative arts in establishing a bond among all free peoples…

A bond… between all people? All of these concepts can be found repeatedly in communist literature, but hardly at all in what you’d consider capitalism.

… science and technology… it would push interdisciplinary approaches… cybernetics… study the intensive efforts now being made in the USSR to perfect ‘human-engineering’ techniques for conditioning of the ‘New Communist Man’…

The plan is to prepare the individual to become a cell in the human super-organism. And this will be achieved through cybernetic automation, the engineering of humanity, and social conditioning aka brainwashing.

Eventually this Commission should become the supreme scientific body of the Free World, coordinating and inspiring research on such vast problems as public health, the balance of nature, peaceful uses of atomic energy, and the disposal of nuclear wastes.

Eventually, this commission will become the lead science organisation in capacity of this initiative. The very same, which will be used to establish the natural law through which… they plan to rule?

Wait, we already have one of those.

The International Council of Scientific Unions

But as for their alleged strong opposition to communism:

While it would not adopt a line of rigid non-cooperation with international bodies including Communist scientists, it would seek constantly to infuse them with the principles of Freedom and Democracy.

They seek to cooperate with the Scientific Socialists themselves, who of course will in fact infuse Western scientists with the principles of Scientific Socialism.

The Soviet Union always attended major science conferences, but the scientists themselves had a dual purpose. The public purpose was to present the science, but the private purpose related to subtly attracting foreign scientists to the cause. And the Science and World Order conference in London in 1941 is a great example thereof—though perhaps too obvious a one; these efforts tended to be more covert.

Science and World Order

But it’s not enough to exchange scientists, we also need to exchange those who educate the children—yes:

… education… international cooperation in exchanges of teachers and students…

The exchange of teachers functioned as another corridor of spreading the message of Scientific Socialism. Teachers going to the Soviet Union would receive subtle programming, while those going to the West got to spread the message of Marxist Utopia. And this in full cooperation with:

… work closely with the great foundations, and would encourage governments to integrate educational with economic aid in the newly emerging nations… propagate the basic principle that education is the key to human dignity and productivity

Yes—those foundations again. In fact, economic aid should only be granted in exchange for changes to education. But as this is now becoming really rather obvious:

Commission for World Peace in Freedom and Democracy… seize the initiative from the Communists… the World Peace Council… influence can only be moral… impinge on problems of a purely military order, the destructive efforts of nuclear weapons, disarmament, arms control, and the requirements of civil defense.

Yes, a reframing of efforts is required. See, the problem is not that this is a method commonly used by the communists, no, the issue is that we don’t aim to do the same. Next following another favourite trick of theirs:

… the aspirations of the ‘third world’… a voice of conscience directed against the numerous remains of imperialism and colonialism… The US would have to face the hard fact that it has been formally designated by the Communists as the ‘leader of the imperialist camp’…

Only recently, there was a concentrated effort related to ‘Christ is King’ on Twitter. The claim was that ‘fascists have taken control of the term’, and because of that, you have to somehow excuse or cede territory in that regard. The entire idea here is that you’re being made to apologise for something you did not do, because the very second you do, the other side will immediately demand some kind of compensation, typically through further admissions, true or not.

In these cases, there is only one correct answer—stand your ground, do not apologise, and ignore the noise. If you are made to somehow apologise for something you did not do, make them take the first step. Have them make an admission first. They won’t, of course, because they fully well know the objective of the inititive, and by them accepting some level of guilt, it opens them up for a counterattack.

Besides, the more you dig into this particular case, the more absurd it becames. Here’s the central character—who on his own website claims that he represents 600¹⁷-700 million evangelicals worldwide (a higher count than even exists)—asking Americans to accept some education course relating to ‘understanding how to be American’¹⁸, which to me appears pretty outrageous.

It’s intellectual fraud, through and through, and I found no end of issues with this character—not least, as absolutely nothing exist in regard to his organisation on Wayback. That appears more than a little strange, if he indeed represents more evangelicals than exist on this planet.

He’s absolutely not to be trusted. Who knows, he’ll be selling you Teilhard’ian panentheism along with Paula White before you know it… oh wait…

And just to cement my claim:

So long as we enjoy benefits, directly or indirectly, from the activities of even vestigial imperialism and colonialism… our hands are not fully cleansed

Yes, we must quite simply own up, and we must do so first, because if we show ourselved to be morally superior, then the Soviet Union will totally have to own up (which they won’t, of course). As for another claim cemented:

Prominent officials would be welcome, but in a private capacity only

This, of course, means that governments will have absolutely no influnce. Which is extremely convenient—for those foundations.

Much of the success of the World Congress for Democracy and Freedom would depend upon its ability to establish cooperative working relations with other more limited and specialised organisations…

And now that the organisation is entirely outside of government scope, the inclusion of masquerading NGOs—in reality, nothing short of fronts for communism—can begin in earnest.

We next see the Declaration of Principles:

… the Free World must affirm the universal truth and the living force of its principles. These are the principles which should govern all mankind… the one enemy of true Freedom, International Communism…

These people allegedly seek freedom, yet, their principles should be used to govern all of mankind. Yeah, no, you’re overdoing it here… wait, let’s double down:

We also work to remove the tarnish… on such noble concepts as Peace, Democracy, Freedom, Social Justice, Humanism, Commonwealth, Social Democracy, and even—supreme irony—the Dignity of Man… it strives toward that ‘unity of opposites’…

If you, at this stage, do not understand that this organisation itself is nothing short of a front for communism, then you really do need to quit smoking that stuff.

Social Justice, humanism and the Dignity of Man are certainly no concepts prioritised by supposed free world capitalists. But they are prioritised by socialists.

Living with Dignity

The Dignity of Man… His is a moral essence… the nature of Man is clearly a union of matter and spirit. The purpose of his life is to perfect this union.

… and now it turns almost level 33 masonic. More on that later.

Doctrine of the Mean

We candidly acknowledge our errors of omission and commission. Unlike the Communists whose spurious ‘self-criticism' is but the medium through which the very real criticism of a superior is abjectly acknowledged and intensified, we, through free discussion, are able to timely correction of abuses and insure the orderly process of responsible governance.

Again, do not excuse or change course—or even entertain the breathtakingly stupid conversation relating to the contemporary focus on ‘Christ is King’. Ignore it completely—unless it appears forces are becoming successful in their objective, which of course relates to changing the term ‘Christ is King’ eventually.

Then you engage, but by then, you fully attack those who attempt to change the term. You are not responsible for what others might say or do. But by you seeking to ‘compromise’ by ceding territory, you accept guilt.

Christ is King.

The Free World does nat claim that the specific European tradition of Graeco-Latin humanism, fused as it has been with Judeo-Christianity, is the only pattern for the formation of Man, It sees in the worldwide variety of spiritual and ethical disciplines - including some, such as Confucianism, which are now being perverted by Communism - the embodiment of the truth expressed by Christ.

Including some… now being perverted by Communism? How apt.

Especially apt given what comes next:

Nations of the Earth, Unite

It’s a joke. An absolute joke¹⁹.

Every single person who promoted this is either a subversive communist, or—quite frankly—that dumb s/he should immediately be sacked—especially if allegedly working for intelligence services (such as the CIA), as it’s their express job to suss this out.

Nationalism is a mighty creative force, but it is aso a breeder of turbulence and even of destruction…

And the primary enemy of those internationalists… yes, nationalists. Those who seek to fly their nations’ flag with pride—which obviously was one of the first symbols to be smeared and attacked.

True nationalism can flourish only in freedom under discipline

As spoken by the Fabian Executive Council member, Keir Starmer²⁰.

The entire document smears it on rather that thick, that no doubt Kennedy would have realised. I mean, how couldn’t you?

There is no ‘parliament of man’ but the ideal persists. Only the antagonism of International Communism stands in its way.

See, around the same time, a movement to federalise the world began²¹. And it was chock full of communists, such as Einstein²². It was absolutely not driven by libertarians or the likes. The claim that is was, or that somehow, communists blocked this drive is absurd.

But much like Starmer engineers the conflation of terms like nationalism and patriotism, so do they:

… through the patient study of means to rise above the limitations of the classic national ‘sovereignty’ while preserving the richness of life…

Ah there you go. We quite simply need to change the definition of the term itself. These people are unbridled communists, playing the games communists always do.

Next, let’s have a look at their proposed structure of our future utopia:

Government of the people, by the people and for the people… They have imposed a hierarchical transmission of arbitrary directive, calling it ‘democratic centralism’… We do not lay down a detailed blueprint for Democracy…

Subsidiarity. It’s what Tony Blair recommended in 1998. The claim is that they ‘decentralise to the lowest appropriate extent’. What this means, is to centralise global matters. Because what else is appropriate when matters allegedly are global?

Subsidiarity

And they just can’t help themselves:

The greatest good of the greatest number

Which is the collectivist approach of utilitarian ethics. It really is utterly relentless at this stage, yet, we still haven’t had outright admission:

The Free World enfolds both capitalism and socialism, not as antitheses… both of which blend into numerous forms…

But there it is. It’s not quite capitalism, and nor is it socialism. It’s the synthesis—it’s the Marxist revisionist Eduard Bernstein’s Social Democracy from 1899.

The Origin of Global Governance

What’s next? Them telling us that a planned economy, regulation and public-private-partnerships cooperating in the name of social justice is capitalism? Oh wait:

Even the concept of a ‘planned economy’ is no longer a specific differential between the two ‘world systems’. Communist economies, especially the Soviet, are seeking to promote flexibility of local initiative and decision within… A new economic edifice is being created in the Free World. The cornerstone of Social Justice in the economy… Planning has entered openly in most countries… regulation of private business and provision of public investment by the state.

The entire document is one long sales pitch.

But it ain’t for capitalism, that’s for sure.

The message is then repeated continuously, not least through:

What we present is a concept of Economic Democracy… embraces the plenitude of new economics… We propose, therefore, that the classic shibboleths of ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’ be withdrawn from the arena of conflict, and be invested with neutrality of value. What should replace them is a plurality of economic concepts based on the stages of development of nations and regions… Let us direct the productive work of mankind in the spirit of Social Justice and Democratic Freedom!

But let’s instead focus on… third-world development. Incidentally, exactly what Lippmann outlined as an issue. See, these should not receive aid unless they are capable of sound planning, which calls for the IPU—Civil Service reform:

… the effort of economic assistance must be doubled and trebled and more… The responsibility of the beneficiary nation goes further. It must show that it is capable of sound planning and of administrering programs honestly…. make effective reforms on behalf of the many.

But we also have the issue outlined by the Atlantic Charter (the earliest call for, in effect, the United Nations), that resources are scattered around the globe:

The Earth is good, its resources abundant beyond his needs. But the distibution of its wealth is not in balance with the limitations of Man who, by his improvidence, has turned fertile areas into desert and, …

Dumbarton Oaks

… only to continue with the common alarmist predictions, relating to death and destruction, overpopulation, exploitation of the earth…

… tyranny of disease has been abated… ‘population explosion’… no escape from the Malthusian law. A present balance must be established.

… even Malthus, along with the balancing of humanity with nature—laid out by recommendation 3.3 in the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference proceedings.

Use and Conservation of the Biosphere

But as for those natural resources:

The natural resources of the poor are a trust which the rich must administer prudently for them until they can take over the task.

Yeah, the third world population, they’re quite simply too ignorant to be trusted with their fortune. Rather, we need the foundation class to go exploit those same people, while leaving them… terribly indebted.

Debt-for-Nature Swaps

But fossil fuel, especially coal and oil shale, is virtually unlimited, and once the narrower considerations of commercial profitability are absorbed in the broader spirit of providing Man's needs at whatever cost, they can surely be exploited on an unimagined scale. (There is also an abundance of natural gas, …

Funny how no-one’s worried about alleged climate issues. But then, they only started to properly fabricate that narrative in 1963.

A Climate Chronology

Let us bring Man into harmony with his Mother, the Earth!

The 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference. I cannot overemphasise the importance of that conference.

The 1968 Launch Event

Man's advance in knowledge is the measure of his progress. In the great task of social construction, education is the universal lever. Philosophy unfolds the principle of Being and the arts give expression to its plenitude (‘the Great Chain of Being’').

From here on, it moves towards the importance of education. And corrupting education had been a key drive of theirs for many years by 1961²³, with even Walter Lippmann himself an early member of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society in 1909.

We will return to the League of Industrial Democracy.

As for Lippmann:

It is this derivation from the generality of human experience that makes education in Freedom and in discipline the sole creator of the ‘good life’… The Good Life… though it presupposes a modicum of material welfare, is not assured by abundance… The resolution of this crisis calls for an act of will and renunciation. Those who are richly endowed must recognize the obligation which their fortune imposes, …

Well, isn’t that just yet an astonishing coincidence²⁴?

I hardly find the need to make my case at this point, but:

The individual, sacred in himself, achieves his full stature only as he develops among other men. The community in which he lives is more than the soulless ‘collective’ of the Communists. It is a part, however small, of the brotherhood of Man.

The brotherhood of man… towards which man should strive as he seeks his full development. Collectivism, in short. The human super-organism.

The act of will for which we call is one of moderation. It seeks the ‘Golden Mean’.

And the synthesis finishes in Greece, with Socrates, Plato, and—especially—Aristotle.

---

Now, Lippmann and Amory… they knew one another²⁵.

---

The above drive, calling for a ‘World Congress for Freedom and Democracy’ took place during the early days of the Israeli nuclear programme… of which Amory had full knowledge²⁶.

And as for Marshall Carter²⁷—who rejected Amory’s appeal in terms of establishing this tool of communist control:

While serving as Director of the NSA, Carter testified to a House Appropriations Committee about the 1967 USS Liberty incident. He stated that “It couldn’t be anything else but deliberate. There’s just no way you could have a series of circumstances that would justify it being an accident

But wait, that’s Wikipedia, right?

So let’s head over to the UN Naval Institute itself²⁸:

But it wasn’t just politicians who disputed Israel’s explanation. Senior intelligence leaders also were convinced the attack was no accident. “It couldn’t be anything else but deliberate,” concluded NSA Director Marshall Carter. “I don’t think there can be any doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing,” recalled CIA Director Richard Helms. “We were all quite convinced the Israelis knew what they were doing,” added Thomas Hughes, director of the State Department’s intelligence bureau.

In fact, the entire article is deeply scathing of the event, and the claimed innocence of what took place on that day. I recommend you read it for yourself.

---

A year down the line, Kennedy was assassinated. And with him gone, Lyndon B Johnson became the President of the United States. And that change is easily observable through the latter’s executive orders.

To which we shall return.