The World Government people like to depict their critics as uneducated and irrational. Fortunately, there are a few Alexander Solzhenitsyns around, to refute that claim. Bertrand Russell and H. G. Wells were activists in the World Government movement. The movement was pro-Lenin and Trotsky but anti-Stalin; that is why it later gave the impression of being anti-Communist.
Globalism (One-Worldism) is promoted by (a) Multi-national Corporations (against nation-based smaller business) (b) the Trotskyist & Fabian Left (against the Stalinist Left).
FDR and Pearl Harbor: Day of Deceit, by Robert B. Stinnett. Discloses the US plan to provoke Japan to fire the first shot, so as to motivate an isolationist US public to join the war against Germany. US intercepted Japanese Bomb Plot Grids for Pearl Harbor, but did not warn Kimmel. Vacant Sea: US clears shipping out of the path of the Japanese carrier force, to prevent accidental discovery. Myth of the radio silence of the Japanese carrier force. US moved its aircraft carriers & modern warships away from Pearl Harbor, leaving only old ships to be sunk by the Japanese attack. Perhaps, out of dire necessity, Roosevelt had to deceive the American people in order to defeat Hitler. Perhaps the cost of several thousand lives was justified to bring down a greater evil. But why do we have to keep lying about it? Why can't our history books tell what actually happened? pearl-harbor.html.
The National System of Political Economy, by Friedrich List, 1841, translated by Sampson S. Lloyd, 1885. About 935 KB (download): List-National-System.doc.
There are good reasons for world unity; but who will rule? Why should we trust the OneWorlders, when they try to suppress from public knowledge much of the historical information provided here, and elsewhere in this site? They - the apologists of the Open Society - are far from Open themselves.
The One World Or None report of 1946. In 1946, only the U.S. had the Atomic Bomb. In this report, scientists and journalists tell us that, to prevent nuclear wars, we need a World Government: one-world-or-none.html. The Baruch Plan for World Government was put to Stalin in that year: baruch-plan.html.
Leo Szilard and H.G. Wells, founders of the Green Left. Leo Szilard helped create the first nuclear chain reaction, and initiated the letter to Roosevelt that got the Manhattan Project under way. Later, he warned of the dangers of nuclear weapons, and joined Wells' crusade for World Government: szilard.html.
Claims that the One-World conspiracy is "British": british-conspiracy.html. A graphic overview called One World Conspiracy - "British" or "Jewish"? A Jewish one inside the British one, depicting the three factions of the "One World" conspiracy, is at british-conspiracy.gif. Feel free to make copies and transparencies of it.
(1) Free Trade is a means to World Government
F. William Engdahl on how the British Empire adopted Free Trade in the Nineteenth Century: A Century of War.
Richard Cobden was one of the earliest leaders of the Free Trade movement in Britain during the 1800s. The Repeal of the Corn Laws allowed cheaper American grain to flood Britain, forcing farm workers to flee to the cities. Cobden saw the main benefit of Free Trade as political, not economic: Cobden: Free Trade is about creating a World State.
John Locke, philosopher of the "Glorious" English Revolution of 1688, which first put Britain in the clutches of the bankers (up to then, based in Amsterdam, after their expulsion from Spain), is a major "mentor" of the "Free Trade" movement and "English Parliamentianism". Here, the real John Locke is disclosed.
Karl Marx advocated Free Trade (Capitalism) not for its own sake, but because it creates opportunities for social revolution: Marx on Free Trade.
Trotskyists advocate Free Trade for the same reason: How the Trotskyists Led the Australian Labour Party Up the Free-Trade Path.
Karl Popper against Capitalism (Laissez-Faire): The Open Society and Its Capitalist Enemies.
George Soros against Capitalism (Laissez-Faire); what next? soros2.html.
Werner Sombart, The Jews and Modern Capitalism (1911): sombart.html.
The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America, by Patrick S. J. Carmack and Bill Still: money-masters.html.
Financing Sustainable Development, by John H. Hotson; Banana Republic? No, Banana Colony, by Dr H. C. Coombs.: money.html.
F.D.R.: My Exploited Father-in-Law, by Curtis B. Dall: fdr.zip.
Sir James Goldsmith argues against Free Trade, in his book The Trap. The front cover asks, "How is it that humanity's greatest leap forward in material prosperity has resulted in extreme social breakdown?" Also presents the case against modern Agriculture, the EU, and the homogenization of the sexes: goldsmith.html.
Strobe Talbott, deputy Secretary of State in Clinton's 1st and 2nd administrations, puts the case for World Government: cobden.html.
Michael Hudson on tax havens ("Offshore Banking Centers"):
A "foreign investor" is likely to be a local oligarch operating out of an offshore account. The complicity of the US Government in setting up such centres. "Much of America's net foreign debt, along with that of countries such as Argentina, is owed to these flight-capital centers." They provide "a cloak of invisibility for the wealth built up by embezzlers, tax evaders, a few drug dealers, arms dealers and government intelligence agencies to use for their covert operations." How they increase the tax burdon on ordinary people. How they can be shut down. tax-havens.html.
(2) Attempts at World Government: The League of Nations, the Baruch Plan
Articles 10-16 of the the Covenant of the League of Nations provided for a World Army: Documents of the 20th Century.
Extracts from the first Soviet Constitution, the Russian Constitution of 1918.
The complete USSR Constitution of 1924, committed to World Federalism (federating all countries within the USSR): USSR Constitution 1924.
The 1946 Baruch Plan for World Government: baruch-plan.html.
Andrei Sakharov on East-West Convergence towards World Government (World Federalism) - How Anatoliy Golitsyn garbled the story, and how his misinterpretation is being taken up in the United States by George W. Bush: convergence.html.
Walter Lippman shows how "Colonel" House, liasing with Lord (Sir Edward) Grey of the Anglo (Rhodes) conspiracy, persuaded Woodrow Wilson to join World War I. Lippman wanted the League of Nations to be a World Government with a World Army and a World Court. His book Men of Destiny is a collection of articles on these themes, originally published in various journals including Foreign Affairs: lippmann.html.
Arnold J. Toynbee argues the case for World Government: "Abolishing war would involve setting up at least a rudimentary world-government. The first world-authority that it would be necessary for us to establish - and, of course, also to endow with effective power - would be a central agency for controlling the production and the use of atomic energy. ... " toynbee.html.
(3) Writings of the Anglo-American Establishment
The Will of Cecil Rhodes, endowing a Secret Society to run the British Empire and draw the United States back in. The British Empire is now called the British Commonwealth. Rhodes' Secret Society is called the Round Table; its American branch is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR set up the Trilateral Commission to co-ordinate North America, Western Europe and Japan: rhodes-will.html
Cecil Rhodes' Imperialism and the Rhodes Scholarships for World Governance: rhodes-scholars.html
Carroll Quigley exposes the Secret Society which largely ran the British Empire (and now largely runs the British Commonwealth and the United States), and which has also been trying to create a World Government (this is the "top-level" "Anglo" Conspiracy, through which, I argue, another, even more secret one operates): The Anglo-American Establishment.
In Tragedy and Hope, he writes, "I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. ... my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known" (p. 950): Tragedy and Hope.
Lionel Curtis on why the British Empire should re-incorporate the United States and become a World State: The Commonwealth of Nations (1911-16)
More from Lionel Curtis Civitas Dei: The Commonwealth of God (1938).
A number of important members of the Anglo-American Establishment participated in the Coefficients Club, organized by Beatrice Webb of the Fabian Society to promote Socialism within the Empire. Their concept of Socialism would be called "fascism" by today's Fabians: most Fabians then supported the Empire, the Boer War and World War I. But a minority envisaged a world run by a meritocracy drawn from all races, and supported the Bolshevik Revolution; this group included H. G. Wells and Bertrand Russell. Their faction seems dominant in the Fabians today.
H. G. Wells wrote a book called The Open Conspiracy, which was his name for the movement for World Government. See H.G. Wells, The Open Conspiracy (the movement for World Government) and H.G. Wells, 4 other H.G. Wells books promoting World Government.
Karl Popper wrote a book called The Open Society. Is the Open Society - the borderless world - also the Open Conspiracy? Open Society, Open Conspiracy
The head of the Open Society Foundation is speculator George Soros, the public face of the Rothschilds. What's "Open" about Tax Havens, where the world's rich hide their money, and from which they control the countries in debt to them? Does the foreign debt of all countries add up to zero? If the foreign debt of all countries at, say, 30 June each year is not published, where's the "Openness"? If money-creation in Capitalism is based on fraud, on deception of the public, if the foreign debt of most countries has been created by dishonest means, why should the debt not be repudiated?
Bertrand Russell and H. G. Wells were activists in the World Government movement. The movement was pro-Lenin and Trotsky but anti-Stalin; that is why it later gave the impression of being anti-Communist.
The Trotskyist/Fabian version of Communism is alive and well. Open-border immigation, casual relationships treated as equivalent to marriage, parents afraid of being "dobbed in" to the government ... the wreckage of family life was brought to the West from the pre-Stalin period of the Soviet Union.
In the early (Trotskyist) period of the Soviet Union, marriage was abolished, polygamy was abolished (this mainly affected the Islamic cultures of Central Asia), and homosexuality was legalised. Stalin restored marriage, gave advantages to married women over unmarried women, and made sodomy a crime.
The Russian Revolution was an invasion led by non-theistic Jews, pretending to represent the Working Class. Stalin got power partly because he was not a Jew. Eventually he turned the tables on those who had introduced such terror; in 1953 he was murdered as that clash flared once more.
Stalin was no hero, but he stole the conspiracy, preventing a link-up between the Soviet and Western forces for World Government, as proposed in the 1946 Baruch Plan.
H. G. Wells saw the end of World War I as an opportunity to create a new world. He supported both Lenin, and the attempt to create a World Government at the Treaty of Versailles. He also advocated the creation of a Jewish state. His ideas for a united world drew on Jewish thought, in discussions with David Lubin and Israel Zangwill.
Until recently I was puzzled why Lenin opposed the Treaty of Versailles powers, when I thought Wells & his friends had supported that Treaty. Wells wanted it to create a World Government, with a World Army and a World Court.
David C. Smith explains in his biography H. G. Wells: Desperately Mortal (pp. 240-2), that Wells & his associates felt that the Treaty of Versailles was a failure, because a World Government had not been created. Their opponents were the "Tory" faction of the British Empire, plus American nativism.
Russell observed the despotism set up by Lenin and Trotsky. In the late 1940s, he reproduced in his autobiography a letter he wrote in 1920 attesting to it. In that letter to Ottoline Morrell, Russell confirms that the early Bolshevik regime was a tyranny set up by Americanised Jews.
See the Unwin paperback, The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, 1975, p. 354; in the hardback edition, the second of three volumes, The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell 1914-1944, p. 172.
Russell saw the situation first-hand when he visited Russia shortly after the Revolution. Yet in his book about the new regime, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, published in 1920 soon after his visit to Russia, he makes no mention of the Jewish connection; in the Preface of that book he even wrote, "The Russian Revolution is one of the great heroic events of the world's history" (Unwin paperback, London 1962, p. 7).
Why omit the Jewish connection?
Because he was basically sympathetic to Marxism - he wanted it to work. In his book Roads to Freedom, published in 1918 before he had visited Bolshevik Russia, he wrote,
"If the Russian Revolution had been accompanied by a revolution in Germany, the dramatic suddenness of the change might have shaken Europe, for the moment, out of its habits of thought: the idea of fraternity might have seemed, in the twinkling of an eye, to have entered the world of practical politics; and no idea is so practical as the idea of the brotherhood of man, if only people can be startled into believing in it. If once the idea of fraternity between nations were inaugurated with the faith and vigour belonging to a new revolution, all the difficulties surrounding it would melt away, for all of them are due to suspicion and the tyranny of ancient prejudice. Those who (as is common in the English-speaking world) reject revolution as a method, and praise the gradual piecemeal development which (we are told) constitutes solid progress, overlook the effect of dramatic events in changing the mood and the beliefs of whole populations. A simultaneous revolution in Germany and Russia would no doubt have had such an effect, and would have made the creation of a new world possible here and now." (Unwin paperback, London 1977, p. 120).
During the Cold War, Russell remained a major advocate of World Government. He promoted it in speeches, in books such as Authority and the Individual (1949, p, 34), and especially in his book Has Man a Future?, pp. 17-18, 23, 24-5, 72-6, 87, 94-5, 97, 122-4.
Russell and Wells imagined that they were leading the movement for World Government; but behind the scenes were Rothschild and other minders.
Roland Perry discloses in his book The Fifth Man, how Rothschild stayed close to Russell & other members of the Pugwash conferences promoting convergence between the Soviet Union and the West:
"{p. 223} Rothschild assiduously kept contact with the key organizers so that his involvement always seemed natural.
"Correspondence with Russell in early 1955 was typical:
"Dear Russell, I would like to present the manuscript of your recent broadcast dealing with the Hydrogen Bomb to Trinity. Can you suggest any way in which I might acquire it? Yours Sincerely, Rothschild"
See perry.html (p. 223).
I do not maintain that Jewish political action is evil per se, as Nazis do. It has brought benefits for the non-European peoples of the world, whom the Europeans conquered. But if the truth about Bolshevism cannot be told, especially its high connections within the British Establishment, can we trust those same forces today?
The Cold War was won in the name of "Democracy", yet we have no choice about Globalism because it is "inevitable". In George Orwell's vision of a future totalitarian state, 1984, Goldstein, the underground leader and Big Brother's arch-enemy, was modelled on Trotsky (Like Snowball in Animal Farm). Now, ironically, Hitler is the new Goldstein: The Role of Hitler in the New World Order.
(4) World Federalism
David Ben Gurion, writing in 1962, predicted World Government by 1987. Ben Gurion saw Eastern Europe being torn from the USSR and joined with Western Europe; and China (even Mao's China) and Japan joining the US in what seems the first published depiction of APEC: writing in LOOK magazine, Jan. 16, 1962 (scroll down to see text).
The World Government movement is often called "World Federalism" or "Global Governance"; "interdependence" means much the same.
Here are some sites promoting it: (a) World Constitution and Parliament Association: http://www.scruz.net/~tgilman/cnfdeart.dir/contents.html (b) The Commission on Global Governance: http://www.cgg.ch/(c) World Federalism FAQ Page: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6094/WFFAQ.html (d) World Government Awareness Campaign: http://government.faithweb.com/list.html (this links to many other NGOs pushing Global Governance, e.g. BAHA'I WORLD http://www.bahai.org/; the Bahai faith has its headquarters in Haifa, Israel) (e) Links to international NGOs (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch etc): http://www.politicalresources.net/int2.htm.
Here are some sites exposing it: (a) http://www.bilderberg.org/ (b) http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/worldgov.html (c) (John Loeffler, Henry Lamb):http://www.khouse.org/articles/currentevents/20000701-264.html.
Strobe Talbot, Deputy Secretary of State under Clinton, promoting World Federalism (Time Magazine July 20, 1992): http://www.comeandtakeit.com/s-talbot.html. Global goals of the Clinton administration (The Phyllis Schlafly Report): http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1997/oct97/psroct97.html. Time Magazine November 3, 1997 on the Asia Crisis: "How to Kill a Tiger" (how speculators killed the Asian Tigers): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1997/int/971103/asia.how_to_kill_a.html. Clinton's Jewish cabinet: http://www.abbc2.com/islam/english/toread/clintjew.htm. Clinton's Jewish ambassadors:http://www.abbc2.com/islam/english/jewishp/jambas.htm. Jewish oligarchs controlling Yeltsin's Russia: http://abbc.com/islam/english/jewishp/russia/finan.htm.
(5) A World Court - the Politics of "Human Rights"
The Hague Tribunal judging Milosevic is a World Government initiative. Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney-General, is one brave American who has rejected the blitzkrieg-for-human-rights methods of the New World Order in Iraq & Yugoslavia.
The NWO destroyed Yugoslavia, a multicultural country; it began when the IMF demanded repayment of loans, the amount of which is far less than the cost of the damage caused to the shattered Balkans by the 10 years of war since: http://www.emperors-clothes.com.
In his book The Open Conspiracy (1933), H. G. Wells wrote, "The Open Conspiracy rests upon a disrespect for nationality, and there is no reason why it should tolerate noxious or obstructive governments because they hold their own in this or that patch of human territory" (p. 89).
The Gulf War was fought because Iraq invaded Kuwait's sovereignty, yet when Saddam invaded Iran, the US did not stop him - it sold him weapons.
Big Brother's blitzkriegs and economic embargoes are justified in the name of "Human Rights". But what are "Human Rights"?: Deconstructing Human Rights.
Gore Vidal on the FBI's holocaust at Waco: http://www.geocities.com/gorevidal3000/tim.htm.
(6) John Hewson, a Globalist, argues against Sovereignty
Hewson, an academic economist, led Australia's Liberal Party (=Tory, Republican) to the 1993 federal election. After losing, he quit.
The Australian Financial Review of May 31, 2002 published the following article by Hewson.
{title} Dubya's double standards
{subtitle} John Hewson, who is in China, writes the world must face the reality of globalisation.
{text} Globalisation is inevitable. But the debate will rage for years as to what it really means and what its consequences are.
{I am always intrigued by things that are ÒinevitableÓ. Communism was, Christianity was, Islam was, Capitalism is. Is inevitability compatible with Democracy, i.e. rule by the people?}
My guess is that few, if any, are really focusing on the magnitude of the changes required to complete the process.
It's a bit like the debate of the early 1970s about the formation of a European common market. At the time, few would have really contemplated the full extent of the potential integration and the loss of national sovereignty with the formation of a single monetary policy and a single currency, the euro.
The US should be leading this process but we are suffering from an appalling lack of leadership. While spruiking the benefits of globalisation and free trade, US President George Dubya imposes tariffs to protect his steel industry and the Congress passes a reprehensible farm bill.
The world is desperate for a new round of trade liberalisation, whether individual countries recognise it or they don't. Bush promises an American free trade zone and initiates discussions with a range of other countries for bilateral free trade agreements, yet he persists in protecting certain industries for short-term political gain. The world needs his leadership, but unfortunately it is not forthcoming.
We can all try to protect our favoured industries as much as we like, but it is inevitable that the manufacturing base of the world will shift to countries like China. We can protect our manufacturing industries only at the expense of our taxpayers. We are better off recognising where our strengths lie, and supporting those industries, rather than trying to protect the unprotectable.
If I take South Australia as an example, its strengths are not in manufacturing, relative to a country like China, but it has a unique opportunity in education and aged care and similar industries. There is no reason why South Australia can't be the Boston of the United States, in terms of funds management, or the Phoenix of the United States, in terms of aged care. But government policy has been intent on maintaining a manufacturing base which is, quite frankly, unsustainable.
Globalisation will also require dramatic rationalisation of key industries worldwide. Take a couple of examples, airlines and telcos. The real question in both cases is how many global companies will or should survive. Yet individual governments see a national airline or a telco as an essential status symbol and are going to be most reluctant to let go.
The answer to that question is maybe three or four global telcos and airlines. The path to this rationalisation is going to be difficult and painful in terms of national sovereignty, and again, it requires leadership.
Just consider the rationalisation in process of our airline industry. Ansett has gone and Qantas and Air New Zealand must be one, despite statements to the contrary this week. New Zealand will find this hard to accept. But, as I have said many times, we should really operate as if New Zealand is a state of Australia anyway. Sorry, Helen.
It's essential to recognise the reality of the airline and telco industries. These are highly competitive, low-margin businesses. Scale is everything. And it must be global scale. As tough as it is for individual countries to accept that they will not necessarily have their own airline and their own telco, global rationalisation down to a few operators is the only answer. Smart governments will be attempting to prepare their electorates for this reality rather than defending the indefensible.
Another area of major concern in terms of globalisation is labour market mobility. Rather than opening up, countries are closing down. There are now something like 23 million identiified genuine refugees sitting in camps around the world that no country will take, and anti-immigration sentiment is growing in Europe and other parts of the world, including Australia.
In a globalised world the flee flow of labour is at least as important as the free flow of goods. While the world has made some progress in terms of trade liberalisation, it is way behind in terms of the free flow of people.
Again, it's a leadership question. George Dubya should use his coalition, and/or the UN, to solve this refugee crisis. I guess it will take countries to sit around a table and to allocate the existing refugees to do this. At this stage, unfortunately, the process is being resisted. There is no leadership.
There is also the issue of the Kyoto Protocol and the fact that internationally we must have some agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In a globalised world we would all agree, because it is so significant.
Again the US is stepping outside and Australia is ignorantly following. Yet Kyoto is inevitahle and Australia has negotiated a great deal. It would be absolutely foolish to not accept it.
¥ John Hewson is an investment banker, a company director and a former leader of the Liberal Party.
{end of text}
(7) What the Kyoto Protocol could mean
The Sydney Morning Herald published the following article on June 5, 2002.
{title} The new green house effect {by Anne Davies, Urban Affairs Editor}
{text} The cost of the typical Australian home could rise by as much as $111,000 if the nation was to meet its obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a conference of architects was told yesterday.
A lawyer and greenhouse expert, Ross Biair, told the Royal Australian Institute of Architects that the cost of making the materials which went into houses, such as bricks and con rete, was very energy-intensive.
If Australia adopted a carbon tax system to meet its Kyoto protocol obligations, the housing sector would be hit hard.
Mr Blair said a $40-a-ton carbon tax would cause the cost of the average house to rise by $37,000 to pay for the cost of the "embodied energy" in the raw materials.
But other research bodies had said a carbon tax would need to be much hiqher. At $120 a tonne, the cost of tine embodied energy would rise by $111,000.
Anne Davies
{end of text}
Lets's explore the consequences.
Fired Bricks and Concrete go up in price, making Mudbrick and Stone houses more affordable - that is, Mudbrick and Stone houses in the rural areas, where the raw materials are found & there's no transport cost to move these bulky materials.
All sorts of alternative housing could replace the current fad for Fired Brick.
And people would shift out of the big cities, back to the land where the materials are.
Could be a godsend!
Or would we end up using nuclear power instead of coal? Is this why Japan signed up?
With energy more expensive, labour (i.e.) muscle would make a comeback. China & India would gain a relative advantage.
(8) A Paradise In This World, by Leo Trotsky
An Address delivered to a Working Class audience on April 14th, 1918
British Socialist Party, London, 1920
{Trotsky predicts that the Bolshevik Revolution will spread to Germany, thence to the whole world}
{p. 19} ... The day, howver, will come, comrades, when that boiler will blow up, and then the working class will get hold of an iron broom and will start sweeping the dust out of all corners of the present German Empire, and will do it vith German thoroughness and steadiness, so that our hearts will rejoice watching them doing it.
But in the meantime we say: "We are passing through hard, strenuous times, but we are prepared to suffer hunger, cold, rain and many other calamities and misfortunes, because we are only part of the world working class and are fighting for its complete emancipation. And we shall hold out, comrades, and shall carry our fight to a successful end, we shall repair the railways, the locomotives, we shall put production on a firm hasis, put straight the food supply, do all that is necessary - if only we keep in our bodies a cheerful mind and a strong stout heart. So long as our soul is a living one, our Russian land is safe, and the Soviet republic stands firm."
Let us then, comrades, remember and remind the less conscious of us, that we stand as a city on the mount, and that the workers of all countries look at us and ask themselves with bated breath, whether we shall tumble, whether we shall fail, or stand our ground? And we, on our part, call out to them: "We vow to you that we shall stand our ground, that we shall not fail, that we shall remain in power to the end." But you, workers of the other countries, you, brothers, do not exhaust our patience too much, hurry up, stop the slaughter, overthrow the bourgeoisie, take the power into your hands, and then we shall turn the whole globe into one world re-
{p. 20} public of Labour. Al the earthly riches, all the lands and all the seas - all this shall be one common property of the whole of humanity, whatever the name of its parts: English, Russian, French, German, etc. We shall create one brotherly state: the land which nature gave us. This land we shall plough and cultivate on associative principles, turn into one blossoming garden, where our chidren, grand-children, and great-grand-children will live as in a paradise. Time was when people believed in legends which told of a paradise. These were vague and confused dreams, the yearning of the soul of the oppressed Man after a better life. There was the yearning after a purer, more righteous life, and Man said: "There must be such a paradise, at least, in the 'other' world, an unknown and mysterious country." But we say, we shall create such a paradise with our toiling hands here, in this world, upon earth, for all, for our children and grand children and for all eternity! ... {end}
However, just as Marx insisted that Christianity be judged by its practice rather than its theory (theology), so Communism must be judged by its practice not its rhetoric.
Source: http://www.mailstar.net/oneworld.html
