U.S. War College Has a UN-Compliant Textbook

0
Share

Progressives in both political parties and our president have alarming globalist views which can be seen in their rhetoric and the policies they put in place. We see it in the push for treaties with the U.N. which will take a “pinch” of our sovereignty, our guns, and a percentage of our resources. We see it in our mimicking of the U.N. curriculum/standards devised by socialists/Marxists. Then there is the lawlessness with regard to our Constitution which many insist is “living” and should be molded at the whims of the few in power whenever they see fit.

We might also be seeing this rhetoric morphing into policy in the War College.

D.C. Clothesline posted an article by Timothy A. Pope titled, Officer Corps of the US Military Complicit in Treason & Establishment of World Government.

The D.C. Clothesline article focuses on Taylor’s second unclassified book, A World 2010: A New Order of Nations, which is used to some unknown degree at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College. Pope believes it proves that our military is complicit in promoting a one world government.

The book does appear to be U.N.-friendly. Since the U.N. is comprised of socialists, communists, and assorted dictators who would like to see our sovereignty diminished or destroyed, it is concerning.

Author Charles Taylor, a professor at the War College, is a strategic futurist. He puts together potential future world scenarios for critical thinking exercises. He says he doesn’t predict, something he says determines outcomes, instead he forecasts, lays out future scenarios, which is more like forecasting the weather – 60% chance of rain today, for example. In his role, he also suggests methods to prepare for different scenarios.

All his scenarios seem to point towards a one world government of sorts.

His original book for the college was written by him in 1993 and the World 2010 is the follow up study. The book is not official policy of the Department of the Army or Defense or the government according to the professor, but it’s being taught, which certainly sends a message.

The Foreward of the book makes one wonder if he is forecasting trends as stated or predetermining outcomes. Here is an excerpt [Bold is mine]:

“The 2010 environment focused on a devolution of world power and a new order of nations. The author perceived a world where new democratic governments and free-market economies of nations, including the East European nations and the Soviet Union, were developing and competing for power and world markets. The author described a world of increasing nuclear disarmament and a down-sized, CONUS-stationed military force. The concepts were sound, the forecasts were valid, but the time of the occurrence of many events was 20 years earlier than 2010. The forecasts did not anticipate an above normal Soviet rate of change effected by the former Soviet leader, Gorbachev, and the Russian leader, Yeltsin, in the 1990s. The author believed that because of these changes it was time to update the forecasts of the world in 2010. The concepts in the 1991 forecasts have been advanced to emphasize a new order of nations and to examine its impact on the national security of the United States.”

The D.C. Clothesline author, Mr. Pope, says this about Taylor’s Foreward:

“The perception of developing new democratic governments is a key giveaway. Democracy is the code word for socialism, and it was revolutionary political theorist Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, who said:

‘Democracy is indispensable to socialism.’”

Pope believes that the line [among others] “long-range strategic futures and planning” confirms that the plans are not organic, but rather planned, analyzed, and so on.

D.C. Clothesline points to the use of the word “democracy”, which is used in the Foreward, as a code word for “socialism”.

The nuclear disarmament the Foreward refers to is only happening in the U.S. thanks to our president. We have a president who is a committed globalist who appears to have his favored scenario all mapped out and one has to wonder if he and his minions are influencing the War College. If Barack Obama were writing a book, he could have written some chapters of this book. Any of the Progressives in our political parties could have written this book.

In the abstract, which follows, it forecasts the decline of the 20th century superpowers and the rise of a new world order.

“In this book, A World 2010: A New Order of Nations, the author describes the decline of the influence of the 20th century superpowers. He explores the notion of a devolution of political and economic world power and forecasts a rise of a new order of nations. Further, he advances the concept of a rise of 21st century postindustrial states to preeminence. These new realities could usher in a new era of relative world peace brought about by the crumbling of the Soviet Union, the formation of new global economic interrelationships and coalitions, and the advancement of former Third World nations to become competitive industrial states. The author concludes by forecasting the notion of a U.S. national requirement for a subdued worldwide military presence that serves a passive role, deterring conflict and preserving peace.”

We will have influence passively?

The book forecasts a new order of nations where the superpowers have greatly diminished power across all spheres. Taylor sees more nations as equal players.

One of Taylor’s predictions: “Despite the decline in its influence, the United States in the world of 2010, as in the 20th century, remains the most powerful and influential economic and political nation of the world while its military is one of quiet military power, i.e., it serves a passive role, deterring conflict and preserving peace.”

“Quiet…passive” is what Mr. Obama is doing and it’s not working.

“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism,” Karl Marx said and D.C. Clothesline reminds us. Is this what the Professor is saying?

One of the book’s forecasts: “The 2010 environment, essentially, encompasses a relatively peaceful world. This does not mean that there will be no wars any place on the planet. It does suggest that in comparison to the 20th century, chances are good that there will be few armed conflicts in which U.S. forces will be involved. Equally important, chances are better than even that there will be few armed conflicts in which any former Soviet forces will be engaged outside of the former boundaries of the Soviet Union.”

It sounds like Professor Taylor got his crystal ball from Barack Obama or the U.N.

An immediate problem of course is that Russia is planning to become a reincarnation of the Czar’s empire. China is now interested in spreading out. Radical Islamists want a worldwide caliphate. And so on.

Taylor sees the conflict between the U.S. and Russia as mere cases on one-upmanship.

In line with the global warming mantra, Taylor sees science and technology as the only way to resolve the problem of the depletion of fossil fuels, the increasing climate threats and the problem of nuclear waste for those nations using nuclear.

Taylor blames the developed nations for the impoverishment of the underdeveloped nations.

Taylor sees the superpowers as eating up all the resources and leaving less-developed nations with no options. He says, “in the past, scientific and technological advancements were selectively monopolized and protected by the 20th century superpowers as well as by other major industrialized nations. This created a technological gap among the developed, the developing, and the less developed countries.”

He doesn’t mention the lack of productivity as almost totally the result of totalitarian regimes killing incentive and potential.

In Taylor’s future, there is a new world order where we are all interdependent and the U.S. must contribute her resources to the world, which sounds very U.N.-compliant. The U.S. will be a leader but in a very different way.

He wants U.S. taxpayers to fund overseas development in “the creation of additional incentives through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to promote investments abroad by U.S. industries and financial institutions in the industries and markets of the industrial nations e.g., in advanced technology programs, joint private commercial space programs) and in the preindustrial nations. The United States should encourage the International Monetary Fund and other national and international institutions to continue to support debtor nations. They should be supported through financial assistance programs as well as through socioeconomic guidance programs.”

He has a chapter in which he pushes common core education as a way to provide equal access to quality education worldwide, when, in actuality, it nationalizes and eventually internationalizes all learning, allowing for brainwashing. It takes control out of the hands of the parents and educators and puts it in the hands of the few.

What he thinks the future holds: “As the 21st century approaches, nations of the world will be entering into a new era of global concepts that envelop a new order of nations. Challenges and issues of the new era most likely will create new global responsibilities and demand new leadership.”

One way we could be dragged into the new world order, the DC Clothesline article points out  is to eliminate the Second Amendment.

We must not lose the right to hold and bear arms and to organize militias.

Mr. Obama has a vision of engineered social justice throughout the world. He is isolating us, reducing our military presence and power, all while the rest of the world is building theirs and we are financing them.

This book describes a new U.S. Army for the new order of nations, which the author believes will still maintain some individual philosophical, sociological, et cetera ideologies, but will be less divisive.

Much of the book focuses on the inevitable interdependence of nations. Nations will be more equal and the U.S. will be far less powerful though it will remain a leader.

Anyone who is familiar with U.N. doctrine will recognize its influence on or coincidental similarities to this book. Is the author forecasting or predicting? Read the book linked here and decide.

 

 

Share