|UNESCO and the New World Order: In their Own Words|
|Written by Jurriaan Maessen|
|Friday, 16 April 2010 19:56|
In the wake of the last Bilderberg conference, we bare witness to a great darkening front closing in on us yet another few inches toward total world domination. The alert observers saw it coming for a long time; the thoroughly indoctrinated are only now beginning to sense that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. How could this have happened without us knowing? And where were the media during our collective comatose suspension? Well, they were busy taking crash courses in ‘educational-operations’ crafted by members of the elite- who are all into streamlining the different media-outlets towards a single purpose, a single hive-mind for us to assimilate into. If you have the misfortune of being born after 1970, you have effectively been put under the spell of this new educational system, dripping into every segment of public life: from broadcasting media and newspapers, to readymade textbooks being used in school and, even, big budget motion pictures flickering predictive programming to be subliminally absorbed.
In a 1968 publication by Louis Francois [PDF - The right to education; from proclamation to achievement, 1948-1968] for the brainwashing division of the UN, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) the author elaborates on the need for a worldwide education-system as opposed to the old, discarded one which still recognised sovereignty of the nation-state (page 18): ‘We are witnessing the establishment of a new world order based upon the system of the United Nations’, Francois explains.
He links a growing world population as one of the main obstacles to be overcome in the quest for a global educational system (page 25): ‘(…) not only is the population of the world increasing; it is also growing younger (…). So the first obstacle to be overcome by education is that of quantity. The first problem to be solved by a ministry of education is that of accommodating and teaching these rapidly increasing multitudes of young people.’
On page 32 the author comes to the point, when he arrives at the diabolically logical conclusion of his train of thought: ‘Educational expansion is hard put to it to keep up with the huge growth of population.’ In order to effectively guide the population toward slavery, the number of people should be reduced lest its effectiveness wear off. ‘Wherever we look’, says Francois on page 36, ‘education is striving to forestall the demographic explosion.’
With a sharp sense of foresight when it comes to media matters, the UN-representative describes the future of education and what its ground principles are on which this future should be founded (page 80): ‘Promoting the recognition of the fact that, if the countries of the world are still divided by their interests and their political convictions, they are, day by day, growing more closely interdependent in matters of economics, science, technology and culture. Promoting awareness of the fact that nations must cooperate, that is to say work together for their common good within international organisations.’
‘To sum up,’ the author concludes on page 98, ‘UNESCO serves as a catalyst for dynamic ideas. Well placed to hear of what is happening in the world, sensitive to the nation’s needs, UNESCO is aware of the very first stirring of ideas, follows their development and can, at the proper time, co-ordinate, harmonize and finally impose them in their full force.’
It would almost be amusing, this notion that UNESCO is merely picking up on ideas, if it were not so horribly cynical. This calculated and synchronised move toward a brave new world is not a bottom-up thing, somehow evolving naturally from the grass roots, it is a top-down system, posing as grass roots, to be imposed on as large an audience as it can reach through the use of mass media, schooling systems and other available instruments of propaganda. In 1974, the Director-General of UNESCO, Rene Maheu, stressed the importance of gathering all media, irrespective of its medium, under the great wing of UNESCO and the globalists. At a banquet of the ‘International Co-ordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere Programme’ in Williamsburg, USA, Maheu starts out by giving some insight in Unesco’s long-term vision for mankind (page 2): ‘The rationale behind the MAB (Man and the Biosphere) programme is to ensure that the physical, biological and other environmental requirements of man are placed in the hands of each of us (present) and remain under our overall control.’
Explaining to his listening audience that the earth will disintegrate if not for ‘a collective effort planned, organized and executed by the international community acting in concert.’, the Director-General goes on to state: ‘I believe that we have now reached the point in world affairs where we must have a systematic reorganisation of international relations on all levels.’ He of course favours the UN as the proper body to do the reorganising before which he gives it its proper name (page 4): ‘I wish to reiterate my firm conviction- together with my hope- that a new world order- political, monetary, economic and social- should now be established.’
Exactly then years after Louis Francois outlined the plans for a new world order, a meeting of ‘consultants’ was organised at UNESCO Headquarters discussing ‘the free and balanced flow of information in a new communication order.’
The participants were carefully selected to match the designs of the globalist organisers (page 1): ‘Fifteen consultants and observers from university and professional circles and representatives of international journalists’ organizations attended this meeting. The main purpose of the meeting was to review briefly the origins of the concept of a free and balanced flow of information, to analyse the current state of discussions and the components of a new world order, together with its legal, technological and socio-economic implications, and to maker suggestions and recommendations for future action by UNESCO and other international organisations.’
One of the aims described in the document, was (page 2): ‘Preparing and carrying out "pilot programmes" of education incorporating these principles.’ Regarding the before mentioned ‘legal implications’, one of the proposals was to ‘Draw up regulations relating to international mass communications (page 3).’
There is nothing like a strong chokehold to force your subjects into submission. When the status of the journalist in this new world order was discussed, the participants agreed that they would first have to ‘assess the feasibility of establishing an international code of ethics which would be adopted by journalists possessing a "universal" sense of mission, that is to say transcending their national origin in the defence of peace and fraternity (page 3)’. When we strip off the Orwellian euphemisms, a code of ethics off course equals an oath of obedience.
Among the many disturbing recommendations made by the panel, such as setting up ‘an international fund for the purpose of renting news transmission channels’, the need was expressed ‘to set up a "World Press Council" to help ensure the truthfulness and objectivity of information, in the event of it proving impossible to devise and adapt an "international code of ethics (page 6)"’.
A transnational body, in other words, that will decide whether a news item is truthful or not. While the going was good, the participants also called for (page 4) ’seminars for professionals in order to make them understand the need to broaden the concerns of those who, in the mass communication process, have the responsibility for selecting information, in other words, those who act as information filters (Gate-Keepers).’
At a 1983 UNESCO conference, there seemed to be an even greater consensus on the strategies that should be implemented in order to reach a new world order and it appears that those in attendance had a swell time debating semantics (page 16): ‘The participants regarded the new world order as a recognized concept, developing but irreversible, which would be established stage by stage.(…) The establishment of a new world communication order appeared to one participant as a participation, a world response to the communications revolution, whereas another emphasized the importance of the word "new" in describing the concept.
Some statements emphasized the importance of speaking of a new order and not the new order since the concept was steadily evolving and also stressed the important difference between a new international order, concerned only with inter-State relations, and a new world order, which took into account all communication problems in a global context.’ Bordering on the ridiculous, this exchange between globalists is nevertheless significant for it occurred long before papa Bush delivered his famous ‘new world order’ speech before the US congress in 1991. It became part of the nomenclature long before that within the seclusion of key globalist meetings. On page 10 some participants of the conference declared that ‘the effort to establish a new world information and communication order in stages could not be separated from the effort to promote a new international economic order.’
Their final idea and plan for a world government is not some magical or mysterious force that can only be understood by an arduous reading between the lines, on the contrary: it’s being spelled out for us word for word by overeager transnationalists. As professor Saul Mendlovitz, Co-Director of World Order Models Project (WOMP) said in his acceptance speech at the award ceremony of the 1990 UNESCO ‘Prize for Peace Education’ (page 36): ‘it is my personal belief (not shared by all members of WOMP) that there is an overwhelming surge in the direction of global polity and that a world state is emerging. Indeed, some of the policy elite are beginning to discuss a single world central bank and a single currency.’
This- in their own words- is the endgame of the elite. But the road is not without obstacles, as they themselves are acutely aware of. In the same acceptance speech- champagne glass in hand- the professor expresses his concern about a smooth going in the near future: ‘My fear’, Mendlovitz added, ‘is that we will be put off by notions of centralization and legal form and attempt to realize values ‘at a local level’, thus permitting the centralizing forces of the dominant states and classes to maintain control of both the transition and governance of the global polity. What I believe is called for then is the liberating from within ourselves the idea of specie identity. That is, to cultivate that capacity in each of us to identify, empathize and act with and on behalf of the human specie, and in the end the planet we inhabit.’
In order to further inspire this detachment of humans from their own tribe- and divert this natural inclination towards a sense of world citizenry- replacing the tribe for the ‘global tribe’- a great propaganda-infrastructure was forced into being, with a special seat reserved in it for the mass media to incrementally commence with the brainwashing. The globalists have meanwhile spread their tentacles very wide indeed, in an attempt to suck out our survival instincts ’stage by stage’, and pumping human creative energy straight into their desired new world order.
The question as to whether they will succeed depends entirely on the capability of the ‘target audiences’ to resist the constant stream of propaganda. And this capability of course will depend for a large part on the effectiveness of the information war we are waging.