By Geoff Metcalf
Several years ago, businesswoman Joan Veon had no idea she would one day be standing toe-to-toe with world leaders, challenging their ideas on global government. Since that time, however, Veon has done extensive research on the United Nations and the organization's agenda and has attended dozens of U.N. conferences. In her book, "Prince Charles -- The Sustainable Prince," Veon explores the prince's connections to both the U.N. and the most powerful corporate leaders in the world.
WorldNetDaily reporter and talk show host Geoff Metcalf recently interviewed Veon about her analysis of the United Nations and its plans for the future.
Metcalf's daily radio show can be heard
weekdays from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time.
Question: Please explain to our readers the path to your discovery about the United Nations and its agenda.
Answer: Before I went to Cairo to attend a U.N. conference, I thought I was sophisticated; I thought I was well informed. I was a community activist and was very concerned with what was going on in the schools -- abortion, condom distribution, outcome-based education. I was testifying at the county level and at the state level on various social issues. I really thought I had it together. I was challenged to go to this economic conference in Cairo because I write an economic newsletter and I really wanted to see up close what the United Nations was, because I realized I didn't know who they were or what they did.
I was quite shocked and amazed at what I saw at this United Nations conference. It wasn't just the conference itself, it was the structure. It was the sophistication of advancement of an agenda that I had absolutely no knowledge about. I remember Vice President Gore -- he was just elected at that time -- giving a keynote address about reducing population. And I thought, "What? Do the American people know what's going on?"
Cairo was my wake-up call. I came home from Cairo mad, upset and with a suitcase full of their material. I wanted to find out how big, deep, vast, broad, how far advanced the whole agenda was. When I got back home, I realized there was a complete dumbing-down, a complete blackout of what the whole agenda was and what it meant.
Q: What was the difference between when you attended the Cairo event, ostensibly as an innocent, and when you went to Gorbachev's party in San Francisco in '95?
A: That was about a year later. In between those two conferences, I went to about seven others. I was still in the process of trying to figure out the agenda when I went to my first Gorbachev "State of the World" forum. For two and a half years, I felt like my head was in a bowl of Jell-O because I was trying to connect, I was trying to understand.
You know, when you and I talk about this agenda, it's not a short, 24-second stringer like they have us do in radio because that's how long people's attention span is. It really takes some time to get into the agenda. In six years, I have attended 36 conferences and have talked with presidents and prime ministers all over the world.
Q: I'd like to throw a few key phrases at you and get your response. "Public-private partnerships." That sounds pretty benign.
A: One of the things to remember is the United Nations never defines words. Actually, words end up becoming very hidden in their meaning. That was part of what I was trying to figure out in trying to understand what their agenda was. Public-private partnerships is a phrase I first came across in 1996. I spent six months researching it. I've written two books about it. It is extremely simple and very, very key. And let me say, it is Al Gore who has spearheaded a complete structural change of our government through public-private partnership. Interestingly enough, he's not even talking about it as to why the American people should elect him president when he has already restructured our Constitution. But a public-private partnership is exactly what it says.
Q: Break it down for us into its various components.
A: First of all, it is a partnership. It is a business arrangement. That is extremely important. The idea of any business is profit. The partners in this particular arrangement are both public and private. The public partners pertain to government: local, county, state, federal, foreign and international governments. They can all be involved, one or two or three can be involved.
Q: We have a real good example that was just pushed through and it seemed benign at the time. The agreement that Andy Cuomo blackmailed Smith and Wesson to sign was ostensibly a public-private partnership, which would have resulted in government control of a private industry.
A: The private partners are business, multinational, transnational corporations -- as well as nongovernmental organizations, these minions of a different philosophy other than the Constitution who are all funded by the foundations of the multinational, transnational corporations. So, what is a public-private partnership? It is the shifting of government responsibility and government services into a partnership with other parties -- primarily those who have deep pockets -- because your county, local and state governments are all bankrupt. What they are now saying is, "Look, we need stronger hands, deeper pockets to help us do what we used to do. We're going to do it a little differently."
Q: Once again, the golden rule: The guy with the gold makes the rules.
A: Exactly. They say, "We're going to do it in a partnership, a public-private partnership."
The people of Dallas don't want their taxes raised, so they have to use what they call "innovative financing." The city sewer system has just shifted from being owned by the people of Dallas into this new entity, which is a partnership jointly owned by government and business. These people are sitting around the corporate table. The bottom line is, who has the power? Obviously, you and I know very clearly -- whoever has the deepest pockets and the most money has the power. What has just happened?
Q: A redistribution of assets?
A: Yes, sir. A major asset has been shifted out of governmental hands into a new relationship, a public-private partnership that is for business, which is, by way of philosophical bent, fascism, because fascism is the marriage between government and business. The bottom line now is profit -- and the citizens now become customers.
Q: One of the things we have to try to explain to our readers is a phrase that is starting to be repeated more and more -- "sustainable development." What does that really mean?
A: Sustainable development came out of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and, in fact, I titled my book, "Prince Charles -- The Sustainable Prince" after sustainable development. He was the one who has been pushing this Orwellian agenda.
The bottom line is, it is a new concept. The phrase "sustainable development" was never used in any U.N. document before 1992. The Rio Earth Summit is where it made its debut. Sustainable development basically says there are too many people on the planet, that we must reduce the population, that the United Nations is the only organization in a position to help monitor and control the assets of the world.
Q: When you tried to look for the genesis of the philosophy, you looked in the Constitution, and, not surprisingly, it's not there. But you did find it somewhere. Tell us where.
A: One day I was analyzing these concepts, and I thought, "Wait a minute. It's not in my Constitution." So, I immediately thought, "What is the opposite of my Constitution?" It is the Russian constitution. And I had just purchased a book, a copy of the 1977 U.S.S.R. constitution, and I got as far as Chapter 2, Article 18, and there it was. Not using the words "sustainable development," but there was a full description of sustainable development as to having to care for the earth for future generations.
If I needed any proof that the United Nations agenda was communist, that was the document that handed me the proof. When you look at all the countries in the world, the United States is the only country with the kind of representative government we have, with a Constitution with inalienable, God-given rights, not guaranteed or dependent on what you say or do -- they are your rights, period. In those rights, we have personal property rights. All of a sudden, we have the United States supporting, orchestrating, enhancing an evil agenda I realized was communist.
Q: Where does this spiritual link to Gaia come in? Is that just window dressing to try to sell it to the masses? It's like these would-be controllers are attempting a major spiritual shift from the Judeo-Christian ethic to Gaia. What is Gaia?
A: I guess you could call it window dressing. Gaia is Greek for "Mother Earth." What really happened at the United Nations Rio Earth Summit was, first and foremost, philosophical. The world up until 1992 -- and it still is in our opinion -- was under the Judeo-Christian ethic. Under the Judeo-Christian ethic, God gave man dominance over the earth. In 1992, what the United Nations did was, they perverted, inverted, that truth, and they basically said man was no longer dominant over the earth, but the earth was dominant over man. They said that we, as men, as living human beings, were equal to the plants and the animals. And so, what Gaia really is, is paganism. So, we now have the United Nations espousing a pagan religion and they are trying to make it equal for each one of us and therefore stamp out the validity and personhood of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the savior of the world.
Q: In their effort to use as a tool these public-private partnerships and all these non-governmental organizations, wouldn't it be reasonable to try to exploit the traditional churches as part of that public-private partnership?
A: That's coming; it's on the docket. Interestingly enough, we are seeing public-private partnerships in each area. It's not only the water system and the sewer but it is all areas, all levels of services that the government used to provide. We are now seeing, and interestingly, Rep. J.C. Watts from Oklahoma City has been spearheading, public-private partnerships between governments and churches.
Q: That's rather like a return to feudalism, isn't it?
A: Yes it is. That's exactly what's happening.
Under our form of government, we the people had rights and we had ownership in the government. When you shift the assets of government into a public-private partnership, as you are shifting those assets (which is a transfer of wealth), those of us who are paying taxes have to say, "Hey, what are my tax dollars going for?" Before, when we had government under the Constitution, I knew I was supporting government to provide certain services. Now, under public-private partnership, when all of these things and all of these assets have been shifted out from the aegis of government, where are my tax dollars going and for what reason? That equates to the same kind of feudal system whereby the serfs had to pay rent on the land that they worked.
Q: What I really see is an incremental progression from the republic we still think we enjoy to fascism to eventually feudalism. Is that the long-term plan?
A: Absolutely. And that is where I have been going in my research. I'm looking to write my third book about 21st century feudalism because that is exactly the shift we are making.
Q: Recently, you sent me a chart that I think was intended to crystallize and clarify things for me. I thought I was looking at some kind of DNA chart in a science class I didn't sign up for. Can you please try to explain the chart?
A: It's all interconnected. Two years ago when I wrote "Prince Charles -- The Sustainable Prince" -- and this book is as up-to-date today as it was then in the material and in the message -- I realized that this thing looks like an ameba.
Q: It looks like something Gene Rodenberry invented when he was way behind a deadline. There are financial bodies, U.N. agencies, multinational corporations, professional bodies, NGOs and a lot of arrows.
A: Let me explain. The United Nations has had the Security Council, which is composed of the five permanent members, and they decide whether or not we're going to go to war as a world. Then we have representatives from every country, which they call the "lower assembly" or the "first chamber," and that's composed of ambassadors from the different countries to the United Nations. What they have been working on in the United Nations since 1988, and even before, is a second chamber, a people's chamber or "the peoples parliament."
Q: The "perception" of democratization?
A: Yes. And so I include this chart to show that where the United Nations is evolving is toward a people's chamber or representative government on the international level that bypasses our Congress.
What we are seeing with the U.N. is, first of all, that all the countries are reinventing their governments. They are all shifting governmental assets into public-private partnerships. There are a few chosen in the inner circle who are busy as part of the multinational, transnational corporations.
Q: We are now seeing legislation in Congress to authorize about 6,000 troops for a United Nations army. Is this another part of the incrementalism?
A: Absolutely. Let me just mention, when we start taking a look at the United Nations and the power it has amassed over the last 55 years -- its structure -- it is pretty big, pretty vast and pretty deep. The bottom line is, there are three things missing to make it full world government. Number one, representative government at the international level, which is the People's Millennium Assembly. They want the people of the world to have their own voice.
Q: They want them to "think" they have their own voice.
A: That's correct. Number two, global taxation. Believe me: they are not going to rest until they have a way of unlimited income from you and me. Number three would be a rapid deployment force. And yes, we now have a House Bill, HR 4453, to allow America to send 6,000 of her finest to the United Nations to serve under United Nations jurisdiction and control. I think they want 42,000, so it's seven countries to begin with.
Q: Several countries have already agreed to this, and the core of the rapid deployment force is in place.
A: That's right. What that means is, every time somebody doesn't want world government, they already have a rapid deployment force that can be sent immediately to take care of the problem.
Q: How integral is the British Royal Family in all this?
A: That is something I have been researching and constantly I am finding connections to the British Royal Family with the United Nations. For example, Prince Charles, in the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, which we haven't had time to go into, basically is writing books on corporate governance. You see, when you shift government from government to a public-private partnership, corporations now are in a position of governance. They call it corporate governance. Interestingly enough, Prince Charles and his Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum are leaders and trendsetters in what corporate governance means and how to do it through public-private partnerships.
Q: In an interview that Prince Charles gave on BBC in 1994, he said, "So much I try to do is behind the scenes. So it is difficult for people to understand how all the things fit together." Frankly, isn't part of his objective not to let people know how "all the things fit together"?
A: Absolutely! And that's why I find it fascinating that Charles is coming out of the closet for the Gorbachev State of the World Forum, which will be donuted around the People's Millennium Assembly. The agendas are the same. Mikhail Gorbachev, the United Nations and Prince Charles -- their agendas are all the same. And my question is, which throne does Charles really want?
Q: I know people who have received death threats for writing less compelling, less researched and documented stuff than you have. Yet you still continue to attend all these events. You are going to be in New York in September right?
Q: How are you received at all these U.N. conferences? Are you considered the crazy aunt in the basement no one wants to acknowledge?
A: Not at all, because I understand their agenda. To be honest, I have had some absolutely hilarious run-ins with major movers and shakers on a global level who, when I level THE question at them, are so dumbfounded, they answer it. Then, they get mad at me or they get mad at themselves for answering it. I'm doing a job, just like you and WorldNetDaily. I'm looking to help the American people understand the threats to our sovereignty, the threats to our freedom, our personal property rights and the fact that we appear to be on the deck of the Titanic and going down. It's up to Americans to make sure that doesn't happen.
Q: So how do how do we stop it?
A: Number one, the battle at this point has basically shifted down to the local, county and state levels. That's where our battle is. Get involved; look around; ask questions; don't be afraid. I believe it is a spiritual battle above all and, therefore, I think it begins with us, with our own humbleness and repentance before God. The bottom line is, once freedom is lost, it is lost forever. It is irretrievable. It would be a lot harder to get freedom once we lost it versus protecting it and saving it while we still have it.