The High Priest of Humanism: Meet the UN’s Maurice Strong
“We will either fail to understand the UN or to cope with it unless we recognize that it is religious in inspiration and a religious necessity for humanism, for the religion of humanity,” said R. J. Rushdoony.1
Many Christians believe in the possibility of reconstructing this fallen world, following God’s revealed word as the blueprint.
But there is a competing vision of reconstruction, a humanist vision. “Just give us the power,” its proponents say, “and we’ll give you an earthly paradise.” They don’t mention that the “power” they seek combines the worst features of socialism and fascism.
Given that America will elect a president this year, the issue takes on an element of urgency. The wife of one of the two main candidates (hint: it’s not Laura Bush) has openly and often beat the drum for globalism. What would it mean to America for the “global governance” crowd to have a friend in the White House?
Meet Mr. Strong
A leading light of the globalist movement, Canadian billionaire Maurice Strong may serve to represent the whole.
“He’s the most dangerous man in the world,” said Tom DeWeese, founder of the American Policy Center, Virginia, a conservative think tank. “At the United Nations, all roads lead to him.”
Henry Lamb of Sovereignty International, Tennessee, a UN-accredited Non-governmental Organization (NGO), said, “I don’t know what he’s going to do — but I do know what he’s already done to U. S. citizens. Have you heard of the Endangered Species Act? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)? Neither would have come about without Maurice Strong and his 1972 Earth Summit. We got those pieces of legislation in 1973 as a direct result of that summit.”
Strong’s resume is too lengthy to fit in here. Its highlights include leadership or advisory positions with the World Bank, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund, and the Rockefeller Foundation, and UN agencies like the Business Council, World Economic Forum, UNESCO (Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), and the Commission on Global Governance.
He has supervised the UN’s internal administrative reforms, directed the Stockholm, Sweden, Earth Summit in 1972 and the Rio de Janeiro Summit in 1997.
The National Review has called him an “international man of mystery.”2 He’s in line to be the top advisor to ultra-liberal Paul Martin, Canada’s next prime minister.3 Earlier this year, he jetted off to North Korea for “confidential” discussions with leader Kim Jong II.
All in all, “an exceedingly influential man,” Lamb said.
What Does He Stand For?
“The key phrase,” Tom DeWeese said, “is ‘sustainable development.’
“This is the ruling principle articulated by Strong and his friends. It has three elements.
“One, ‘social equity,’ which means global redistribution of wealth.
“Two, ‘economic prosperity,’ which is supposed to come about through ‘partnerships between businesses and government.’ That means top-down control of everything, on the Mussolini model — a form of fascism. A good example of this comes from Ireland, where McDonald’s recently had to file an environmental impact statement before opening a restaurant. The topic they were ordered to address in that statement was — obesity!
“Three, ‘ecological integrity’ — in other words, government control of all land use.
“Maurice Strong is the man behind all this. Take out the words ‘ Soviet Union,’ add ‘ecological integrity,’ and it’s the same program. Marx and Lenin don’t inspire people anymore; but take their ideas, give them a nice coat of environmental green, and you’ve got a worldwide movement going.”
Henry Lamb added, “These people are enjoying a 30-year reign over the global environmental movement. Does it affect us here in America? You bet. Our domestic policy flows directly from the international agenda.”
The Religious Angle
Strong has been accused of promulgating a new world religion, a form of “earth worship” embodied in the Earth Charter, which he co-authored with Mikhail Gorbachev, the ex-Soviet premier, and David Rockefeller, a guru of the “interfaith” movement.4
“They are actively trying to displace Christianity,” DeWeese said. “Earth worship drives the global environmental movement, and Mr. Strong seems to be a real believer.
“He’s also very active in the UN Religions Initiative. These people go all over the U.S. holding seminars and workshops. They have Baptist ministers preaching paganism out of the pulpit.”
According to a special report by Austin Ruse, of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, the Religions Initiative bills itself as “a spiritual partner of the United Nations” and supports abortion, artificial conception, and homosexual “marriage.”5
Strong has ties to such diverse “alternative religion” enterprises as the Temple of Understanding, the Interfaith Center, and the Lindisfarne Association. He paid for Lindisfarne to move its headquarters from New York City to Boca Grande, Colorado, where he had purchased a ranch for them.6 Space does not permit a detailed description of Lindisfarne’s muddled, neo-pagan theology (the Earthlight article goes into it at great length). Suffice it to say that it mixes Christianity with Tibetan Lamaism, yoga, the doctrine of assorted swamis, and Atlantis mythology.
Why would a billionaire like Strong, a deputy director of the UN and advisor to the World Bank, a serious international player, devote masses of time and money to “religious” activities that would strike many people as ludicrous?
“If you’re going to destroy Western culture,” DeWeese said, “you first have to get rid of Christianity. Everything of value in Western culture springs from Christianity.
“I once heard Maurice Strong talk about a novel he’d like to write someday — about the collapse of the industrialized nations. And he said, ‘Isn’t it our job to bring that about?’”
“What drives the man to want to restructure the whole world according to a system [communism] that has already failed?” DeWeese wondered.
Henry Lamb had an answer.
“People like Maurice Strong advocate radical programs because they hope to use the UN to benefit their financial institutions,” he said. “For instance, had they been able to get the world to sign on to the Kyoto Accords, companies like Enron would have made untold zillions of dollars with natural gas in India, with various emissions-trading schemes.”
The Kyoto treaty, he explained (rejected by the U.S. Senate in July 2000, 97-2), would have exempted “developing countries” like India from restrictions on industrial emissions, while severely limiting emissions in “developed countries” like the U.S. India could then “trade” some of its emissions allowance to the U.S. (a plan by which Enron hoped to recoup its catastrophic losses).
“It’s complicated, but the basic principle is simple — Maurice Strong and his friends come out on top,” Lamb said. “When you watch these people, you have to follow the money. They always find their way to the money.”
“Governance” or Government?
“What gets me is that we do this voluntarily,” Tom DeWeese said. “We could stop it. The president could stop it anytime. But we are voluntarily handing over our sovereignty to the UN. We are doing these things, but they’re coming out of the UN, and NGOs write them [new regulations on the environment, law of the sea, water management, etc.].”
The Bush administration, he added, has given “mixed signals” on globalism — bucking the UN on the International Criminal Court, the Iraq war, and the quest for a global “right” to abortion, but going along with it elsewhere.
“He put us back into UNESCO, and we’ve allowed the Department of Education to give out grants for the UN Baccalaureate Program, which teaches globalism in our schools.”
Maurice Strong has taken pains not to use words like “world government.” But his ongoing work as overseer of the UN’s internal reforms, DeWeese said, shows that his word selection doesn’t match his thinking.
“They won’t say ‘world government,’ but they’re talking about a global tax, a standing UN military force, abolishing the veto power [of permanent members of the Security Council, including the U. S.], and global regulations that would apply to building and land use at the local level.
“If we give them all those things, it doesn’t matter what they call it. It’s world government.”
Will an American First Lady someday help to push it forward?
1. R. J. Rushdoony, The Politics of Guilt and Pity (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1995), 186.
2. Article by Ronald Bailey, Sept. 1, 1997. See afn.org/~govern/strong.html.
3. See “It’s Official” on lifesite.net/ldn/2003/sep/03092202.html.
4. See chalcedon.edu/articles/0402/040201duigon.shtml.
5. See touchstonemag.com/docs/issues13.9docs/13-9pg48.html.
6. See earthlight.org/2002/essay47.
Topics: Philosophy, Statism