U.N. to rule over America?
Geoff Metcalf interviews journalist, author William Jasper on global tyranny

Editor's note: Ask someone what "globalism" means and you are likely to get answers ranging from "world trade" to "world peace" to "I don't know." Any suggestion that it amounts to "world government" or "tyranny" brings with it the risk of being pegged as a conspiracy nut.

Yet, there is clear and mounting evidence that a handful of organizations -- most notably the United Nations -- are actively working to diminish U.S. sovereignty and the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens in order to promote an ever-increasing level of global governance.

Today, Geoff Metcalf talks with journalist and author William Jasper, senior editor for The New American magazine. Jasper's previous book, "Global Tyranny," focused on the goals, objectives and actions of the United Nations. Now, in "The United Nations Exposed," he continues to focus on the primary mechanism of would-be global controllers and what they have been up to since 1992, when "Global Tyranny" was first published.

By Geoff Metcalf

Question: You wrote "Global Tyranny" in 1992. What have you added that wasn't covered in "Global Tyranny"?

Answer: Unfortunately, a great deal because a lot has happened in those last eight or nine years. In fact, far more than had happened in the previous 40 years. I've been covering the United Nations for 25 years now and at many summits -- including the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the International Criminal Court Summit in Rome and the 50th Anniversary and the Millennium Summit and all those things -- and many of the things we warned about in "Global Tyranny" have come, or are rapidly coming, to fruition. When I went to the Millennium Summit last September in New York, the big word on everyone's lips, as it has been for the past several years, is "empowerment" ... "empowering" ... "empower". That's the word you hear. They are talking about empowering the United Nations with vast legislative, judicial and executive powers, backed up by military and police force.

Q: Ultimately what they are trying to create is a global legislative body with a for-real military to back it up.

A: That's right. With the executive, and now with the push on for the International Criminal Court, a full judiciary that claims jurisdiction over individuals -- not just the World Court for adjudicating disputes.

Q: Bill, for over a decade now, I've been warning listeners and readers that we spend a lot of time itching and moaning about all this bad legislation that keeps coming down the pike, but the way our freedoms and liberty are going to be attacked isn't going to be from legislation but from international treaties. And now, we're seeing it happen. From the International Criminal Court treaty to this gun-control stuff.

A: And, in July, they are going to be having the United Nations Summit on small arms. We first warned about this about eight years ago in The New American magazine -- actually a little before that, but in 1994, they had the first big summit. As usual, as they are getting their ducks lined up, in '94 they did it as a sub-rosa conference. It wasn't really publicized. And when they came out with their proposal -- their report in 1994 -- they kept it very quiet and only a little bit of it leaked out. I tried to get a hold of the conference report and I contacted the rabateur for the summit and he said, "No, no -- you'll have to go to your own State Department." So I went to the State Department and they said, "Oh no -- you'll have to go back to the U.N." They kept giving us that run around.

Q: Did you eventually get it?

A: Yes. But here was a report on the small arms conference -- this was back in '94, seven years ago -- and it's taken them that long to get it all lined up to where we are going to have this big open summit on small arms where the push is really on for global gun control. We were able, back in '94, to eventually squeeze out a copy of that initial report and start alerting people. And when we first did that, some of our readers who were members of the NRA would either call up or write to the NRA and say, "Did you know this was happening?"

Q: And what was their response?

A: The first response from the NRA, and from many other gun rights advocates was, "Oh, that's nonsense. There is nothing like that happening at the U.N." Fortunately, now, the NRA has it on their front cover.

Q: They finally got the memo. Except for fund raising, they don't move too fast.

A: This is what people need to realize -- when you finally see it in the news -- like George Bush going to Europe for the global warming summit of the U.N. -- when you see it in the news that way as an open summit -- by that time the dials have already been pre-set and all the agenda has been pre-planned and all you are going to see at the summits is actually an exercise in consensus.

Q: It is designed to be a pro forma kind of thing. I spoke to Joan Veon a while back and she brought up the point that the currency gambit is pretty much a fait accompli already, that, ultimately, there will be only three currencies: the yen, the euro, and the U.S. dollar. Yet, if you contact anyone and talk about it, they deny that is happening.

A: Yet, as we point out in my new book, "The United Nations Exposed," it was very clear that in the higher circles of power in foreign affairs like the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations over a year and half ago, they had a major article by Manny Bettows saying the dollar and the euro are the two currencies that are going to rule the world. What that really says is we are going to have an inflation of all the currencies in the western hemisphere, and maybe even it said we might join the yen to that.

Q: The global threat is very, very real. You guys at The New American have done a superb job in documenting it. Anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together can see that it is very real. But ultimately, eventually, say the U.N. gets together in Geneva or wherever, and they sit down without whoever their masters are and they say, "Here's the deal. This is going to be the gun-control plan, and this is United Nations global law and this is what is being implemented." Fine. Implement anything you want guys but the fact is as long as the United States remains sovereign -- or that fiction continues to exist -- it is going to have to get through Congress. And unless Congress has a death wish, they are not going to abrogate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to any global authority. So, is this all a rhetorical exercise?

A: Unfortunately, no. While they are setting all these things up -- re-setting the dials to make sure that all the pieces come together at these summits, so that all the delegates hop on line -- and they have many incentives ...

Q: Hold on -- Kyoto was supposed to be a done deal and that got unplugged.

A: Right. But that was only temporarily delayed. I say in my latest article in the New American, which is about the POP Convention which George Bush signed on to on May 23rd -- a devastating U.N. Convention which is going to condemn tens of millions of people to death by malaria because it outlaws and bans various pesticides. George Bush signed on to that. He back-peddled on Kyoto, but I think that is just a temporary delaying measure to give him credibility amongst the conservatives. Had he come out right away, jumping aboard as Al Gore would have or Bill Clinton would have, he would have lost a lot of credibility. So, he first rejects it and when it comes back as a reformed document -- you might have seen the National Academy of Science, or a group from the National Academy of Science came out and said, "Global warming is real" ...

Q: Yeah, but notwithstanding protestations to the contrary, global warming is not real. We have had Dr. Fred Skinner and a bunch of others talking about this. Global warming is a fraud. They have their collection of alleged scientists -- most of whom, by the way, are not scientists -- and also it has been noted most of these jokers are getting some kind of government grant for something.

A: The so-called "scientists" on the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a pre-selected group of scientists and political scientists who are already environmental extremists ...

Q: ... and on the other side of the coin, there is a bunch of for-real scientists. I think there are something like 17,000 of them contradicting the "official" claims.

A: They do this every year when the IPCC -- which is a U.N. appointed panel -- comes up with its report. It is presented as if it is real science when, in fact, it isn't.

Q: Obviously, there is far more material in your book than we have time to cover in this interview. However, it is important that we hit some key bullet points. We have discussed it in the past, but please explain for our readers what "Agenda 21" is?

A: Agenda 21 is a massive eco-social manifesto for the whole world.

Q: This isn't fiction. This is for real!

A: Unfortunately, it is all too true. I was at the U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It was a very lonely experience. It was myself, Dixie Lee Ray and Fred Smith against the world. There were about 20,000 delegates in greenie, global-warmy, NGO (Non Governmental Organization) groups there. Sierra Club, De Green Pest, Beans of the Earth, Environmental Defense Fraud -- all those groups and many others. And they had all come together, of course, to provide the global rent-a-mob that was going to extol the virtues of all the agreements to come out of there. And the biggest of all of them was Agenda 21 -- a 600- or 700- (depending on the format) page program for regimenting the entire planet -- all of human activity. In fact, I have part of it there in my book.

Q: There are two quotes I want to lift out of your book: "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced -- a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level." Now those are not your words.

A: No. Unfortunately, that is their own self-indictment with their own words.

Q: But it gets worse. They go on with unbridled hubris and audacity to say, "There are specific actions which are intended to be undertaken by multi-national corporations and entrepreneurs, by financial institutions and individual investors, by high-tech companies and indigenous people, by workers and labor unions, by farmers and consumers, by students and schools, by governments and legislators, by scientists, by women, by children -- in short, by every person on Earth."

A: And it goes on and gets even worse.

Q: How the heck do they intend to mandate something like that though?

A: This is what the POP Convention (Persistent Organic Pollutants) that Bush signed on May 23rd is, just one facet of this. They are going to legislate for the entire planet.

Q: We have seen in California the successes of what happens when the enviro-wackos take over. You don't get to build any power plants for 25 years, you have an increase in population, you have a shortage of resources necessary to accommodate the needs of that increased population and, guess what? You eventually reach that point of diminishing return and the lights go out.

A: It was very clear at the Earth Summit. Maurice Strong, who was the head eco-wacko there ...

Q: Mr. Evil.

A: Yeah -- the World Economic Forum, the Club of Rome, the Aspen Institute -- he belongs to all those groups. He's one of Ted Turner's and Mikhail Gorbachev's and David Rockefeller's best buddies. When he was going there to the summit, he said he was going to be guided by a plan (in fact, he wrote the foreword for it for the Trilateral Commission) called "Beyond Interdependence/Meshing of the World's Ecology with the World's Economy." And he said this is what was going to guide him. He said the primary author of this report, Jim MacNeill, is going to be guiding him on decisions that will affect the fate of the entire planet.

Q: Not too arrogant? Hubris personified.

A: These people have his kind of messianic view of themselves, that they know what is best. They have this divine omniscience in which they can determine what is best for the planet. And, at the summit, Maurice Strong, like so many others, reserved their most vicious diatribes for the United States. Because we're using up all the resources, we're a terrible burden on the planet, we have to stop all our suburban living, and use of electricity and air conditioning and what not.

Q: But they want to affect this metamorphosis with our money though.

A: And the thing that is so infuriating about this and all these summits, these people live in extreme luxury. While they were denouncing the United States for using air conditioning, they had the whole conference site air-conditioned and all the doors opened. They fed in sumptuous splendor. These people, of course, have one idea of what existence should be for themselves -- for all the privileged, pampered, perfumed princes of the U.N. -- and the rest of us ...

Q: ... are serfs.

I have to ask you something I have asked Joan Veon, John Coleman, Joel Skousen and others. Most people eventually come to the conclusion that there are some would-be controllers somewhere who are attempting to manipulate the agenda for everything -- from cradle to grave, sperm to worm. Different people have different views on who the bad guys are. Your buddy John McMannus and the John Birch Society tend to think it's the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. Dr. John Coleman says it is the Committee of 300. Some claim it's the Club of Rome or the Fabian Society. One guy thinks it's a fellow named Benny who lives in a basement in London. Who is trying to control the world and/or are all these people inter-connected or are they all the same players?

A: Most of these groups you've mentioned Club of Rome, Aspen Society, Fabians -- it is a network of power, a web of control and organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission or the even more exclusive Bilderbergers -- those represent pretty close to the higher levels of what is referred to as a global conspiracy. Because, really, they are pushing for evil and immoral purposes and they doing it largely in secret. Although, they are coming out more and more into the open. Those groups are still front groups for the inner people who make the decisions. It's like the mafia or any criminal conspiracy involving the drug cartels or what not. It's very difficult to find the people who actually make the ultimate decisions.

Q: So is John Coleman closer to the mark in saying it is the Committee of 300? A collection of real old families.

A: There are some old families involved in it. But if you go back to the ultimate conspiracy that has been fully documented, where we've been able to see transcontinental, transgenerational control like that, go back to the Bavarian Illuminati, that type of thing -- there were families, very powerful families and royal families but they were always brought in by those who were part of a secret society and who played upon their various interests and desires. Such as Frederick the Great or others who were brought in. They appeared to be the most powerful on the outside but they were still not the inner sanctum.

Q: People acknowledge the world is going to hell in a hand basket. When did it start? Different people embrace different dates. I have always felt, and this is just one guy's opinion, that 1913 and the Woodrow Wilson administration was our turn down the path of despair.

A: That was a big watershed year.

Q: That was a bad year for the Republic.

A: We had the institution of the Federal Reserve, the graduated income tax, and the direct election of senators. All three of those things greatly devastated our constitutional checks and balances.

Q: Please explain to our readers who haven't yet heard: Gaia. What is this whole U.N. effort to manufacture this new-age religion that worships the Mother Earth?

A: Well, that has really been accelerating since the Earth Summit. At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, everywhere you looked there were all kinds of pagan celebrations sponsored by the United Nations by Maurice Strong, the blessing of the sacred waters -- these were not Christian rites, they were all pagan rites, where they were basically pantheistic rites worshiping the earth and worshiping various gods or goddesses of the earth. This is part of the whole movement in the United Nations.

Q: Here's the problem I have with this Bill: I can understand why they would want it as a strategic tool for exercising control -- but come on -- take a look at the Middle East, between the religious conflicts that already exist between Christianity and Islam -- that's not going to just go away because some U.N. bureaucratic dweeb says, "Oh, by the way, there is a new United Nations world religion." That ain't gonna happen!

A: That is exactly true. What it will do is give them, however, a pretext for once they have instituted the earth ethic -- which is the basis for their new religion which is being promoted at the U.N. -- they will then have the basis for later enforcement as they acquire their global army, which is part of the millennium summit agenda for the 21st century. And which has been signed on to by most of the nations of the earth. Once they have a world army, then they will be able to incite these various religious wars in various places -- and then bring in, under the authority of the earth ethic, the new global religion and the firepower to suppress any of those contrary religions. Particularly, they singled out all the monotheistic religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Of those, Christianity has taken the biggest hit at the Earth Summit, and at many U.N. summits since, they have particularly gone after what they claim is the Christian and Judeo-Christian biblical command to take dominion over the earth. They say that is species genocide, that man is not supposed to have any more rights or any other higher status than any other creatures.

Q: Do these pretentious, arrogant, hubris-fed, would-be controllers recognize that if or when they try to impose some kind of global religion that, at least on our dirt, they are going to have your sons and my son shooting at them?

A: The way they intend to get around this is, they are quickly compromising, or trying to compromise, as many of the religious leaders as possible to come on board and sign on to this so that they have at least a patina of legitimacy for this. Right before the Millennium Summit, they had the Global Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders where they brought all the different pagan, aboriginal, shamans, and witch doctors together with all the various major religion participants that they could, bringing bishops and various mullahs together to all sign on to this. Now get this -- here is this global peace summit and who do they exclude specifically from it? The Dali Lama! Now I don't agree with the Dali Lama of Tibet's theology, but no one can dispute that he is a man of peace. He is a pacifist. He's not a threat to anyone except to Communist China.

Q: The Chicoms went ballistic over the prospect of the Dali Lama being included?

A: Oh yeah. Communist China objected to the Dali Lama coming to this peace summit of world religious leaders so the U.N. caved in and specifically excluded the Dali Lama. Instead, they had a phony bishop from Red China come and deliver a homily extolling peace and universal brotherhood and everyone treated it as if there was no charade going on.

Q: Since we're talking religious implications, several recent guests (Dr. Stanley Monteith, Tal Brookes, Ted Flynn and others) suggest the whole globalist battle is really a spiritual struggle between good and evil?

A: People have been telling me for the last 30 years that Matthew 24 is knocking on the door. I don't get into theological arguments and speculation because if you take any denomination of Christianity, you'll find variances of opinion about meaning of various scriptures and what time periods apply it to.

Q: And notwithstanding whatever stance people take on the biblical implications of all that, the simple fact is that evil, in whatever form or from whatever source, should be opposed.

A: Right. I don't get into that. But I do agree that it can be shown that what we are facing is satanically evil. Yet, I believe it is my duty, as a Christian, to fight the good fight as Paul said. And I have to do that by opposing evil and exposing it.

Q: Let's talk about a few specific evils. You have mentioned previously the Tobin Tax. What is going to happen with that?

A: The Tobin Tax is named after James Tobin, Nobel laureate in economics. He's got this brilliant idea that one of the big functions of government is to tax us. Most people think we're paying enough taxes, if not too many, and it's difficult enough when you've got federal bureaucrats and state bureaucrats and local bureaucrats.

Q: This isn't the first time the U.N. has tried to take a bite out of this apple?

A: Oh no, no -- they've tried it with the global carbon tax, which isn't dead yet -- the global travel tax -- those are still on the drawing board. But the Tobin Tax they like because it would tax international financial transactions. Some folks say, hey that won't affect me. Well, look at the clothes on your back, look at your shoes, look at your car, the furnishings in your home -- virtually all of them have at least components if not the entire product made in foreign lands. Every one of those components of your appliances involve an international financial transaction. It will be a hidden tax. The consumer will be paying for it. If you have a mutual fund, an IRA, a Keogh or any kind of investment in stocks and bonds, those are all invested in international companies that do business overseas.

Q: Yeah, but here's what bugs me about the Tobin tax. It is greed. What about territorial imperatives? Is congress going to be anxious to let some one else poach on their turf?

A: That's one of the checks that should naturally be there, and would be there -- particularly if the American people are informed about it and let their congressman know. But all these things -- where you would think that the territorial imperative would act against those expansions or increasing of power to the U.N. -- are being subverted by the multi-pronged attack. Both in the media where they will show these various global emergencies, global crises -- we have to deal with it -- global crisis require global solutions. That's the mantra.

Then they organize these vast, huge, coordinated, multi-layered NGO rent-a-mobs so they can have all these different people appearing to represent (as they say) global civil society. Then they bring in all the academics that argue in favor of all these things. The way we have seen it with most of these congressmen, once they get assaulted with the media and organized campaigns of people writing in and e-mailing, they start yielding to these things.

Q: What, if any, U.N. involvement was there in the Rwandan massacres?

A: There was a lot of U.N. involvement and this should really be of interest to most Americans as we approach the small-arms conference. The Rwandan genocide, which was one of the intensive genocides in history -- 800,000 to 1,000,000 people slaughtered in the most hideous ways in 103 days. That is an incredible slaughter.

Q: Hold on. I thought the U.N. was supposed to stop stuff like that?

A: Yeah. Well, the thing that is amazing is that the Canadian, General DeLair, who was in charge of the United Nations so-called peace-keeping force there, went to Kofi Annan, who was at that time assistant secretary general, before he was elevated, and he said, "Hey, we have an informant from the Rwandan government (the Hutu) who says they have drawn up a list of all the Tutsi tribes there and they are going to slaughter them." Kofi Annan told him to turn over the informant to the Rwandan government that was planning the slaughter. And he told the general not to do anything about it.

Q: What?

A: So here we have the man who is standing in the position of the exalted conscience of the world, Kofi Annan, was really (in my opinion) an indictable criminal in that whole slaughter.

Beyond that, the people of Rwanda had already been disarmed -- much like we are being asked or told we must disarm. The slaughter was enabled there by the disarmament. All of the victims had no firearms. The killers, in many cases were armed with just machetes and spears.

Q: That's all they needed.

A: That's all they needed. In those few instances, where the victims were able to get firearms, they were able to avert a great deal of more bloodshed. Poor General DeLair was almost driven to insanity and despair as a result of being told that he and his men had to basically stand aside and watch the slaughter.