Metcalf's daily streaming radio show can be heard on TalkNetDaily weekdays from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time.

Question: There is an amazing story in the news. Israel is now suggesting that the United Nations control certain sacred sites in Jerusalem.

Answer: That has been the U.N. proposal since 1948. I've got some very strong evidence that both parties in Israel -- the Likud and the ruling Labor Party -- are directly tied to various global factions in the New World Order.

Q: As far as Israeli policy, such an approach had been anathema in the past.

A: And, frankly, it still is. It is very doubtful any of those leaders can survive politically and get away with this. But what they are attempting to do is give a very negative solution to the problem, something they are going to present to the Israeli people, saying, in effect, either start to shoot again or accept this package.

Q: Aren't there a lot of Israelis who would say, "Fine, let's start shooting"?

A: Actually, not very many. I was very disturbed to talk to many military officers who have been totally propagandized and believe the whole cloth that if they simply make a deal with the Palestinians, there will be no threat from any of the other Arab nations and that they will be home free.

Q: Are they putting something in the water? What precipitated that kind of capitulation?

A: I went over and observed a tank exercise and was talking to one of the tank officers. I pointed out this great big tank farm, with covers on all of the tanks, and I said, "How come they are all covered and set for storage?" And he said, "Well, we're not going to need them anymore. You know we've pulled out of Lebanon and, because of the new missile and high-tech war technology, these are obsolete. We are preparing them for decommissioning."

Q: I'm flummoxed. Honestly.

A: You ought to be. This is serious. It means that no longer is the Israeli military preparing to win. They have really been politicized and subject to a great deal of propaganda within their own ranks.

Q: For years the Israeli military has been the example to point to and say, "See, this is what warriors do." Their job is to kill people and blow up stuff. These are the only guys who are still doing it the way we ought to be doing it and now you're telling me they've been bastardized.

A: They really have. It is the most shocking thing that I pulled back from my trip there.

Q: Is your Uncle Cleon still with us?

A: He is. He's 86 years old, almost 87. He's fully retired now. He does come out occasionally to make an appearance. When Alan Keyes came recently to Utah -- where he has quite a strong following -- the Republican Committee here paid his way. We have several compromising Republicans on our delegation here, including Sen. Orrin Hatch and our own Gov. Michael Leavitt, but it was interesting when old ancient W. Cleon Skousen walked on the stage. He got a bigger standing ovation than the governor, Orrin Hatch or any of the other prestigious people there.

Q: I tried real hard about five years ago to get him to join me. He was very gracious, but he said, "Geoff, if I do it for you and let the genie out of the bottle, then I've got to do it for everybody." He just said he doesn't have the strength to do that anymore.

A: That's true. He's really in demand and people love to hear him speak, even in his old age, but he really does have a serious heart problem and has to keep a low profile.

Q: It's been at least six years that I have had an excerpt from "The Naked Communist" on various websites I have had. I never was able to get a copy of "The Naked Capitalist," which I guess he wrote in '68. (Editor's note: Both titles are available in WorldNetDaily's online store.)

A: It is in print again. It's interesting -- I reviewed "The Naked Communist," which went back a long ways, and it's still one of the best works on the sellout of China, the sellout of Cuba, the communist structure, the communist doctrine. It is really a very, very excellent work.

Q: He wrote that in 1958. He was a former FBI agent.

A: Quite high up. He was actually an assistant to J. Edgar Hoover.

Q: The book has a list of what the communists say they have to accomplish in order to win world domination. Most of it is already done.

A: That's right -- and it still hasn't happened. There is a fascinating metamorphosis going on that I've been at the forefront of unraveling. My uncle was one of the first, in his book, "The Naked Capitalist," to start to point out the integral relationship between the Western capitalists and the communists. There is a quote in there from the head of the Ford Foundation where he talks about the purpose of the relationship is to have a seamless molding between communism and the U.S. at some point. And, actually, it is my opinion now that this isn't true.

For example, we have several spies who have been uncovered, including Alger Hiss and others, who were essentially communists working within the State Department. But as I've analyzed it over the years, I've come to the conclusion that Alger Hiss never really was a communist. He was in fact a New World Order plant within the communists themselves. In other words, he was there from a higher capitalist organization that intends to gain world domination and had gone into the Communist Party to help them facilitate coming up through the lines. But people like Alger Hiss were far too sophisticated to be drawn into the radical nature of the communists. The State Department has for so many years fomented and assisted communist revolutions and undermined pro-Western governments.

Q: The Dulles brothers laid the foundation.

A: That's right. The reason they've done that is not because they were communist themselves, but because they were using communism to do their dirty work, to socialize the world, to unseat pro-Western government. But we are reaching this crescendo where this major faction within the New World Order structure, which is still tied to Moscow, is trying to finally gain full power. And the U.S. / British faction -- which essentially has all the real power within the New World Order because they control the money and the military might that gives the New World Order muscle -- isn't about to give any real power to the far leftist side.

Q: Because?

A: Because, in essence, they know they will ruin it for them. They want a very carefully crafted New World Order that will not alert people to the fact that they are headed for a loss of sovereignty. Just as we saw at this last Millennium Summit, we saw a move by the far-left faction in Europe to try to gain all the power in the hands of the U.N. in one fell swoop.

Q: I've got about 28 communist objectives listed on my Web page from Cleon's book. I'd like to throw a few of them at you and briefly get you to comment.

"Promote the United Nations as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces."

A: Well, that was proposed at this Millennium Summit.

Q: A couple of countries have already started to do this and we have a bill in Congress proposing about 6,000 troops for the U.N. Rapid Deployment increment.

A: Yes. It is interesting that in the Declaration of Principles that they read at the end of this conference, they stated just this, that "we reaffirm our support for the United Nations as the only hope for world peace." So, they are definitely mimicking that very same identical language that Cleon identified so many years ago.

Q: Item 10 I get a kick out of: "Capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S."

A: (laughing) They've got both.

Q: Kind of the other side of that is, "Gain control of key positions in radio, TV and motion pictures."

A: Yes. Remember the story of Whiticker Chambers, when he testified clear back in the 1930s that the communists had a major editor position in every news magazine and he was one of the prime editors at Time magazine. I have no doubt that that has continued.

Q: "Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propaganda. Get control of the teachers associations." Done!

A: Absolutely.

Q: Amusingly, they suggest, "Infiltrate the press." We are way beyond that now. They for all practical purposes control it.

A: Actually, that isn't true. The press, in fact, is wholly owned by the New World Order people, not the Communist Party. And we have to make a distinction there.

Q: What is the distinction?

A: Well, the distinction is that hardcore, dedicated, Marxist communists aligned with Russia really do take orders from Russia -- and they are not sophisticated enough to run the kind of show the globalists are running. The press is extremely sophisticated. There have been several defectors from the CIA who have said that they can get reporters to be corrupted by initially offering them inside access to secrets that only the CIA can provide. They keep them on retainer for awhile. But that's how reporters like Bob Woodward make their day, by getting access to things. When I was just starting out in this business of news analysis, I often found I learned more from the liberal press because they were the only ones who had access to the secrets.

Q: I've talked to a lot of people over the years and everybody has their own different boogeyman. Dr. John Coleman claims it is the Committee of 300. The John Birch Society blames everything on the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergers. Who is the bad guy?

A: They are all part of a distributed system. But it is actually quite complex. Let me explain what the two major factions are and how they fit into Bilderbergers, Committee of 300, Club of Rome -- there are at least a dozen organizations.

Q: And it is incestuous. A lot of them include the same individual people, too.

A: That's right. There's crossover between them. That shows that they are not necessarily competing.

Q: Let me share a quote, allegedly from David Rockefeller speaking at the June 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany.

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years." He went on to explain: "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

A: Yes, I've seen that. It is a powerful quote. What is interesting, though, is that many conservatives have felt if you simply get a list of who attends Bilderberger or Club of Rome or Committee of 300, you know who runs the world, but it isn't true. It is very clear that there is a whole range of hierarchical figures attending Bilderberger, including new members they are trying to cultivate. I've made the analogy that Bilderberger conferences are essentially a leadership-training seminar. The real decisions are not made at Bilderberger. You have people like Kissinger and Rockefeller show up and they tell what they are going to do. Essentially, they get these young leaders from Spain, Italy and France, and they try to influence them, bring them onboard, get them comfortable working with international relations. But the real decisions are made elsewhere.

Q: Such as?

A: For example, this past year at the Bilderberger conference some of the major higher-ups, at least second-level higher-ups, met at an Aspen Institute conference prior to Bilderberger where they discussed the agenda and what they were going to present at Bilderberger. Clearly, Bilderberger does not represent the hierarchy or the pinnacle of that hierarchy.

Q: Is Henry Kissinger one of the major players?

A: Yes. He's everywhere. Here's a typical example that I found when I was in Europe one time. I was listening to Inaki Gabilondo. He's their Walter Cronkite, only a sincere liberal, not a sellout traitor like Cronkite is. Inaki Gabilondo is the most respected journalist in Spain and he was interviewing Jose Maria Aznar, the new president after the fall of Gonzales, when the Socialist Party fell -- and this guy was a newcomer to politics, relatively. He was asked, "How was it, Jose Maria, that you came into politics and rose to become the president of Spain as a newcomer?" His response was, "Well, the powers that be came to me and invited me to run."

Inaki Gabilondo, being a naïve liberal, never heard this, and he said, "What do you mean the powers that be?" The new president said, "You know, the bankers, the labor union people and other big party members from around Spain said they offer financial support."

Q: What was Gabilondo's reaction to the epiphany?

A: After he got over his shock about there being "powers that be" influencing elections in Spain, he asked the new president what his first day was like. To which Spain's new president said, "My first appointment was with Henry Kissinger." That produced another shock and eventual question, "What could Henry Kissinger possibly have wanted here in Spain? He doesn't speak Spanish. He isn't an expert on Spain." And the answer is revealing. President Aznar replied, "He was here to explain to me how the world works."

Q: Basically, to give him his marching orders.

A: That's right.

Q: I remember back to my own epiphany about 15 years ago when I learned that when Woodrow Wilson showed up for his first day as president, he was literally introduced to his cabinet. He didn't get to select them. They had been pre-selected and he got to meet them that first day in office.

A: That doesn't surprise me. He was like Jimmy Carter in the sense that he was not a knowing conspirator in the group, but someone who could be easily manipulated.

Q: How close are we to the socialist fascists achieving their objectives and is there anything we can do about it -- or is it too late?

A: What was presented at the Millennium Summit -- the 12 basic points in the Charter for Global Democracy, which came out of the European faction of the New World Order -- essentially delineates what it takes to take the world government into a supreme sovereign position and to eliminate national sovereignty. It takes arms, it takes a taxation system, it takes disarmament of all national armies and all control of all the financial mechanisms they use to manipulate governments around the world. All of that was in the package proposed for this Millennial Summit. And virtually none of it got accepted.

None of it got passed. In fact, there was such a sensitivity, it appeared, to the conservatives getting upset about this summit that two things happened in the final euphemistic documents that the heads of the U.N. read to the world in their press conference after it had ended. One of them was that they inserted a change in the Declaration of Future goals concerning sovereignty. This is the first time they ever mention sovereignty positively. The fact that it was not in the first draft, which we have a copy of, indicates that they were responding to public pressure and wanted to assure the public that they were not going to threaten sovereignty. Of course, they are lying through their teeth. Everything that they have said through the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the Aspen Institute has talked about how sovereignty must go, so we know their purposes are there.

The other significant thing is that, for the first time, the Security Council made their own press statement. Instead of just taking the statement of Declaration of Principles from the U.N., the Security Council came out with a massive statement reinforcing that we are cognizant of the needs of the group and that we will do our best to be more responsive. What they were responding to, I believe, was that in the private meetings where these things were hashed out, one of the major factors of the Europeans was the elimination of the veto power. In essence, that's drawing all member nations into a permanent relationship where they cannot escape.

Q: They kind of accomplished that with the trial balloon of the World Trade Organization, didn't they? In the WTO, every country gets one vote regardless of size or clout, and there is no veto.

A: But there is a veto in the WTO. Technically, any one of the nations can still withdraw -- that's right there in the language. It's a de facto assumption that no one will have the political will to withdraw but, technically, the words are still there. And they are there in the Charter about the veto power, and that essentially assures sovereignty. But the mere fact that they bent over backwards to assure the world -- they were really talking to conservatives to try to disarm them -- indicates that the U.S. / British / Tory faction, which I believe controls all the financial powers, knows that they do not have the power or the votes to implement this full international organization without bringing out a rebellion from the conservatives in Congress, even though most of it is co-opted in the United States. They still cannot show their true colors.

Q: So it is rather like the golden rule: The guys with the gold make the rules. And right now, the guys that control the gold are Britain and the U.S.

A: That's right. It also has to do with economic policy. The radical far-left factions in eastern Europe are really still tied to Moscow with the Socialist International. This is Moscow's two-pronged approach. They've got one approach, which is controlling European heads through the Socialist International, and I mean that very literally. The first two to gain real prominence in Europe were Willie Brandt and Francois Mitterand. Both of them had underground communist connections.

Q: How did they hide that fact?

A: Their secret services burned files several inches thick on their communist connections when they came to power. And Willie Brandt went down because of the European spy from East Germany that was in his cabinet. They exposed him (the spy), but didn't expose the fact that Willie Brandt was himself a communist and controlled by Moscow. Francois Mitterand was the same way.

Q: That was then. What about now?

A: Now, virtually every head of government in European states is a member of the Socialist International. So, what the U.S. / British faction believes is that they have the more sophisticated system. That is, we know how to keep people believing they have a free market. We know how to keep the economy of the world churning at a high rate. The hard-core socialists in the European faction would ruin it all for us because they would shut down the free market. And they would. That's the way Moscow thinks. They are not really good at hiding their disdain for capitalism.

Q: What can we do about arresting the goals of our would-be controllers?

A: I think the most important thing to realize is that what this Millennial Summit tells us is that this U.S. / British / Tory faction is calling the shots and still very much in charge, and that we are not going to get any radical changes in the U.N. system. It is still going to be continuation of slow change so that they can keep people dumbed-down.

In being dumbed-down, there will be no seminal issue that will allow us to rally the troops. That's their major strategy. But at some point, they've got to accelerate and get into scrapping national sovereignty. It's my opinion that they can't do it by slow change. When you first start hauling people before The Hague for wetland violations in Montana, you're going to find an uproar from around the nation.

Find out more about "The Naked Communist."

Find out more about "The Naked Capitalist."