Does that sound familiar?

     The colonists had retained the hereditary sociopolitical philosophy the Anglo-Saxons had brought with them when they invaded the British Isles; a philosophy which said that the common man has certain rights of freedom and property that even the king is obliged to honor. So strong was this belief in sovereign individual rights that 500 years of domination by French kings had been unable to erase it. And recent (17th and 18th century) philosophical thought had extended that idea to one that held that in a state of nature, not only does the common man possess rights that no one can override, but that no man is ever born with an obligation to be a slave to any other person (and its corollary that no man is ever born with a right to dictate to any other person): that all rights reside in all individuals equally, regardless of birth, and thus all human (sociopolitical) authority - sovereign power - derives from and resides in the individual citizenry.

     This means - in the American philosophy - that the individual is sovereign within his nation, and a nation of sovereign people is sovereign among nations: in the world.

     Yet ...

     Even before the American colonists defied their own King in defense of their individual rights and sovereignty, nearly 100 years before they took their stand for individual rights and freedom at Salem Bridge, Lexington, and Concord Bridge, an exactly opposite philosophy had been born in the teeming, overcrowded cities of France and England. This philosophy held that there is no such thing as individual self-determination, rights or freedom; that individual human beings - like ants and termites - exist solely to labor (and to sacrifice their life, when necessary) mindlessly for the "common" good. That the individual's labor, life, and even body exist solely to sustain the nest. (Literally. Live ants use the bodies of dead ants to sustain life: as a source of food.) In the mid-to-late 17th century (1600s), the advocates of this philosophy of "anthill society" called themselves "societarians."

     Of course, there is (and always has been) one exception to this "noble," "humanitarian," self-sacrificing philosophy, and that exception is - surprise, surprise - the very same "enlightened" leaders who "understand" this philosophy and who, because of their "enlightenment," live far better than the rest of society without laboring in their own behalf, let alone in the common behalf!

     In the 17th and 18th centuries, after a social history of family/clan (blood) loyalty, compelled obedience to superior force, and Grecian excursions into "self-rule", mankind coincidentally evolved two new and diametrically-opposed social philosophies: the sociopolitical idea of free, independent and sovereign individuals (with its concomitant economic results) on the one hand, and the socioeconomic idea of unfree and slavish masses (with its concomitant political requirements) on the other. One philosophy rewarded the man who labored longer and harder than his neighbor; the other philosophy made the first man slave to the second.

     In the 18th and 19th centuries these two diametrically opposed philosophies found themselves in real life competition with each other. In America, free and sovereign individuals proved in an incredibly brief period of time that, in the real world, there is no social philosophy that can compete - on any terms - with free individuals pursuing their self-interest. Under free and sovereign individuals, private property, and free enterprise, America became the only nation in the history of mankind to become the richest nation in the world, and a world power, without the use of military conquest.

     Societarianism, on the other hand, proved its inability to compete - let alone succeed - in the real world. While no established society has ever voluntarily adopted societarian socioeconomic philosophy, a few "demonstration societarian societies" (including one community - New Harmony, Indiana - in America ) were established, notably by a wealthy Welsh social reformer named Robert Owen. But every one of these "demonstration" mini-societies soon failed to sustain themselves, let alone thrive.

     (The first Puritan colony - Plymouth - was set up as a religious societarian society. But as we all know the story, they would have starved to death in their first winter had it not been for the friendly intervention of the Indians. And, as history shows, the next year they adopted a more equitable social plan and survived.)

     But the proven and reproven failure of collectivist human societies has not dissuaded its advocates. They are still with us today, and the 300-year-old conflict is with us still, though under different names.

     Somewhere in the 18th century the "societarians" took to calling themselves "equalitarians" in Britain and "egalitarians" in France. In the 19th century, around 1830, the egalitarians underwent a philosophical split, with "socialisme" (socialism) diverging from egalitarianism because, as was stated at the time, socialism "is not equalitarian because men are not equally endowed by nature," and the (new) socialists believed that those men who worked harder than others deserved (had the right) to live better than those others.

     About 10 years later - in 1840 - an English equalitarian named Goodwyn Barmby, while visiting in Paris, renamed egalitarianism "communism," the same communism that we know today.

     Not only did the "anthill society" advocates periodically change their name (probably in an attempt to convince the public that they were presenting some "new" philosophy), they also changed their tactics when the current one proved to be a failure. In the 19th century, after "societarianism," even when given a subsidized start, had proven its unworkability, its "intellectual" advocates refused to abandon their disastrous hallucination. Communism was imposed by armed force in Russia, in China, Cuba, Albania, etc., while socialism/communism gained a popular political foothold among the citizens of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, and others. But even under compulsion, the "anthill" philosophy proved itself philosophically invalid, socially unworkable and economically unsustainable, to the extent that today there are less than a handful of nations still calling themselves "communist," and even of these, not one practices communism except in name only!

     When it became obvious that they could never take over the United States - the engine of the world - by either sophistry ["subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation; an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid"] or force, the societarians of the 20th century turned to social and political subversion and psychological warfare.

     Young activists infiltrated the fields of education, religion, media, and government and started patiently working their way up to positions of influence and power. When the name "communist" became a liability in America, they renamed themselves "progressives." When that became a liability because of the societarian ideas the "progressives" were advocating, they appropriated the label "liberal" (which, at the time, meant tolerant, broadminded, easy going), denying vehemently that they were communists. And when "liberal" became a liability because of the (same old) ideas it represented, they stole the label "moderate," once again vehemently denying that they are either "liberals" or communists. And right now some have taken to masquerading as highly religious altruists and calling themselves "Communitarians." But just as the leopard may change its roar but cannot change its spots, societarians may change the name they use, but they cannot change their philosophy. They are waging the same old war (for power). They are simply using different names and different tactics. Let's look at the facts.

     In 1841, Goodwyn Barmby - whom we have met earlier and who had taken to calling himself the "Pontifarch (obviously a play on the Roman Catholic title "Pontiff") of the Communist Church" - founded the "Universal Communitarian Association." This "Communitarian Church" is alive and active today (as has been noted), still advocating Barmby's extremist communist philosophy - this time masquerading as a religious philosophy rather than a socioeconomic philosophy - but with an extension that brings the ultimate aspect of anthill social dynamics to the human race.

     Over the last few years, the "Communitarian Church," while apparently having incredibly few members, has been able to obtain regular and subtly approving coverage of its spokesmen and policies in the major American press. Among these policies - as reported in the San Jose (California) Mercury News 3 or 4 years ago - is the idea that individuals don't even own their own bodies: society does. Specifically, a Communitarian spokesman was quoted as explaining that society has the absolute "right" to take an individual's tissue, bones, blood and/or organs for transplantation to another person's body even if the selected "donor" refuses! [It must be observed here that they carefully did not restrict that "usage right" to dead bodies.]

     They have taken the final step: they proclaim that we don't even own our own bodies, that our bodies are, in fact, society's property, to be used to prolong the life of other humans when and as society (i.e., the "leaders") decides.

"Live ants use the bodies of dead ants to sustain life": under societarianism there is no greater respect for the dead human being than for the living one - dead or alive, he is just a mass of meat and bone to be used as the nest wishes.

     Remember this point (the appearance of communitarianism) in history; it marks a very significant milepost in societarianism.

     For 150+ years before Goodwyn Barmby, the societarians argued for their philosophy on "ethical" (pseudoethical, actually) grounds of compassion, humanitarianism, "higher obligation," "social duty," "right" to food, clothing, shelter, etc. at someone else's expense, and so on ad infinitum: socioeconomic argumentation; and they called for legislation to impose their ideas upon society: political action for socioeconomic ends.

     But Goodwyn Barmby - perhaps being aware of certain tendencies of the religious mentality - conceived of another approach to "selling" - achieving - the societarian's goal: to sell it as a religion, a "moral" matter and not as an economic one. So he called communism a "church", and he invented "communitarianism" as a religious belief rather than a socioeconomic philosophy.

     As you will see, shortly (compared to the number of centuries these people have pursued their goal) after Barmby came up with his new tactic, there were societarian activists to be found in religion as well as in education, economics, and politics, all hawking the same old "Utopian" social snake oil; the same old proclaimed "cure-all" that, in fact, destroys societies rather than saves them.

     [Ironies: "Utopia" was a fictitious, "perfect" country created and "described" in 1516 by Sir Thomas More in a book of the same name. That book may very well have been what inspired 17th century societarianism. The irony lies in the fact that the very word "utopia" was created by More from Greek words meaning "no place" - a place that does not exist, cannot exist. But the supreme irony of the societarians' goal is the fact that, though they argue imposition of societarianism as a "social necessity," their plan requires the destruction of society as we human beings know it: "society: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests."

     [Successful operation of societarianism - under whatever label is ultimately used - requires the eradication in all individuals of self identity, family identity, national identity, social identity, ethnic identity, and even racial identity, because as long as an individual retains any psychological identification with anything other than the entire human race, sooner or later that individual will rebel at his compelled involuntary sacrifice for the sake of someone outside that "category" with which he identifies himself. As you will learn - if you don't know it already - today's societarians are already "prepping" (conditioning) us for the destruction of all individual "identifications" through belittling nationalism, ethnic pride, and even self-interest. And they also, in their pronouncements, admit to the plan for/need for/timetable for the destruction of all such personal identifications.]

     Sure - they insist that their product is "new," "innovative," and "different"; they call it by different names and use different words and varying arguments for why it has to be implemented, but it is the same tired old societarian plan for acquiring control of the human race, and reducing it to an anthill.

     We have traced the direct, continuous 300+ year genealogy of anthill philosophy, through all its changes in name, appearance, and tactics, from "societarian" to "communitarian." Now let us see what, according to their own explanations, their major principles are:

     1842: a man named Miall: "Your communitarians, or societarians of modern days, who seem intent on fashioning a new moral world by getting rid of all individuality of feeling, etc. ..." (ref.: the destruction of self-identity, self-determination, self-responsibility, and individual sovereignty)

     1848: a man named Forster in a May 11 entry in his diary: "I learn that the great distinction between communism and socialism is that the latter believes in payment according to work done, and the former does not." (ref.: sacrifice of the laborer to those that do not labor)

     1850: H. Macfarlane, in an article in the November 23 issue of Red Republican on translating Marx & Engels' "Manifesto of the German Communist Party": "In this sense, indeed, the Communists might resume ["summarize"] their whole theory in that last single expression - The abolition of private property." (ref.: elimination of personal property, personal rights)

     And the 1993 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica states that "communism not only advocates propertyless individuals, but also a stateless [emphasis ours] society." (ref.: eradication of national identity, nationality, and sovereignty)

     Today the question is not "is communism dead?", but why do our leaders insist that it is dead when the record so clearly proves that it lives? Not only lives, but thrives under the stewardship of those very same leaders, the very same educators, religious leaders, media personnel, and politicians who would have us believe it no longer exists!
Why are they lying to us?

     It has another new name, that is true, and that name is generally the "new world order." Consider more facts of record (all italics and comments in brackets are ours; but notice how the specifics they mention coincide with the announced plans and goals of the societarians):

     1918: "The old world order changed when this war-storm [WW I] broke. ... The old world order died with the setting of that day's sun and a new world order is being born while I speak" - Nicholas Murray Butler, in his book A World in Ferment

     1931: "If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love ["self-interest" obviously being deliberately ignored], they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands [the brainwashing is completed]" - Dr. Augustus O. Thomas, president of the World Federation of Education Associations, quoted in the book International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World

     1939: "... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent [hah!] world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people" - H.G. Wells, in his book The New World Order

     October, 1940: "The term Internationalism has been popularized in recent years to cover an interlocking financial, political, and economic world force for the purpose of establishing a World Government. Today Internationalism is heralded from pulpit and platform [church, school, government, and media] as a 'League of Nations' or a 'Federated Union' to which the United States must surrender a definite part of its National Sovereignty [destruction of national sovereignty]. The World Government plan is being advocated under such alluring names as the 'New International Order',' The New World Order',' 'World Union Now',' 'World Commonwealth of Nations',' 'World Community', etc. All terms have the same objective ["ignore the words we use: it's the same goal regardless of the labels we use"]; however, the line of approach may be religious or political [two routes to the same end] according to the taste or training of the individual ["we'll use whatever turns you on"]" - from A Memorial to be Addressed to the House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in General Convention

     October, 1940: "In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war [WW II], Arthur Greenwood, member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of 'justice and peace'" - New York Times, article entitled "New World Order Pledged to Jews"

     1940-1941?: "If totalitarianism wins this conflict, the world will be ruled by tyrants, and individuals will be slaves. If democracy wins, the nations of the earth will be united in a commonwealth of free [if it's involuntary, it ain't "free"] peoples, and individuals, wherever found, will be the sovereign units [don't you believe it: at other times and places, the societarians have spoken honestly of the necessary destruction of individual sovereignty. That "sovereign" is stuck in there solely to lull you to sleep.] of the new world order" - Congress on World Federation, The Declaration of the Federation of the World; adopted by the State Legislatures of North Carolina (1941), New Jersy (1942), and Pennsylvania (1943) and possibly others

     March, 1942: "New World Order Need for Peace: State Sovereignty Must Go, Declares Notre Dame Professor" - title of an article in The Tablet, Brooklyn, New York

     June, 1942: "Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles tonight called for the early creation of an international organization of anti-Axis nations to control the world during the period between the armistice at the end of the present war and the setting up of a new world order on a permanent basis" - Philadelphia Inquirer

     December, 1942: "The statement went on to say that the spiritual teachings of religion must become the foundation for the new world order ["we'll use whatever you'll buy into"] and that national sovereignty must be subordinate [destruction of national sovereignty - by definition, anything that is subordinate to something else has no "sovereignty"] to the higher moral law of God" - American Institute of Judaism, quoted in New York Times

     1944: "There are some plain common-sense considerations applicable to all these attempts at world planning. They can be briefly stated: 1. To talk of blueprints for the future or building a world order is, if properly understood, suggestive, but it is also dangerous. Societies grow far more truly than they are built. A constitution for a new world order is never like a blueprint for a skyscraper" - Norman Thomas, in his book What Is Our Destiny?

     May, 1944: "He [John Foster Dulles] stated directly to me that he had every reason to believe that the Governor [Thomas E. Dewey of New York] accepts his point of view and that he is personally convinced that this is the policy that he would promote with great vigor [if elected as President]. So it is fair to say that on the first round the Sphinx of Albany [Dewey] has established himself as a prima facie champion of a strong and definite new world order" - Ralph W. Page, in an article in the Philadelphia Bulletin

     February 17, 1950: "We shall have world government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World government will be achieved by conquest or consent." - James Paul Warburg, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, in testimony before the U.S. Senate

     February, 1962: "The United Nations, he told an audience at Harvard University, 'has not been able - nor can it be able - to shape a new world order which events so compellingly demand.' ... The new world order that will answer economic, military, and political problems, he said, 'urgently requires, I believe, that the United States take the leadership ...'" - Nelson Rockefeller, quoted in an article in the New York Times, "Rockefeller Bids Free Lands Unite: Calls at Harvard for Drive to Build New World Order"

     October, 1967: "The developing coherence of Asian regional thinking is reflected in a disposition to consider problems and loyalties in regional terms [negating national loyalties and sovereignties], and to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a new world order" - Richard Nixon, Foreign Affairs*

     February, 1972: "He [President Nixon] spoke of the talks as a beginning, saying nothing more about the prospects for future contacts and merely reiterating the belief he brought to China that both nations share an interest in peace and building a 'new world order'" - article in the New York Times

     1973: "Every child in America who enters school with an allegiance toward our elected officials, toward our founding fathers, toward our institutions, toward the preservation of this form of government ... all of this proves the children are sick, because the truly well individual is one who has rejected all of those things and is what I would call the true international child of the future." - Chester M. Pierce, professor at Harvard University, quoted in Educating For The New World Order

     April, 1974: "If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? ... The hope for the foreseeable future lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war [WW II], but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership [the "patient and persistent" strategy] to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great, 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty [no longer talking about "partial national sovereignty", are they?], eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault" - Richard N. Gardner, Foreign Affairs*

     1975: "The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate, and the main uncertainty is whether mankind can exert a positive role in shaping a new world order or is doomed to await collapse in a passive posture. We believe a new world order will be born no later than early in the next century [their time schedule] and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species" - Richard A. Falk in "Toward a New World Order: Modest Methods and Drastic Visions" article in On the Creation of a Just World Order

     October, 1975: "Let us fashion together a new world order" - Henry Kissinger, speech to the United Nations General Assembly

     November, 1975: "Nelson Rockefeller was in the forefront of the struggle to establish not only an American system of political and economic security but a new world order" - New York Times

     June, 1977: "A New World Order" - Pennsylvania Gazette, title of an article on a commencement address at University of Pennsylvania by Hubert Humphrey, former Senator, Vice President of the U.S.

     1977: "Council [Council on Foreign Relations] leaders believed that blueprints for a new world order were necessary and, furthermore, that this was exactly the kind of activity the Council had been created to undertake" - Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, Imperial Brain Trust

     December, 1988: "Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for a universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order" - Mikhail Gorbachev, Secretary of the Communist Party, speech to United Nations

     September, 1990: "We can see beyond the present shadow of war in the Middle East to a new world order where the strong work together to deter and stop aggression. This was precisely Franklin Roosevelt's and Winston Churchill's vision for peace in the post-war period" - Rep. Richard Gephardt, in Wall Street Journal

     January, 1991: "If we do not follow the dictates of our inner moral ["moral" justification] compass and stand up for human life, then his [Saddam Hussein] lawlessness will threaten the peace and democracy of the emerging new world order we now see, this long dreamed-of vision we've all worked toward for so long [there's that "patient and persistent" strategy again]" - President George Bush

     January, 1991: "But it became clear as time went on that in Mr. Bush's mind the New World Order was founded on a convergence of goals and interests between the U.S. and the Soviet Union" - A.M. Rosenthal, New York Times

     February, 1991: "I would support a Presidential candidate who pledged to take the following steps: ... At the end of the war in the Persian Gulf, press for ... a 'new world order' based not upon Pax Americana but on peace through law [code phrase] with a stronger ["sovereign"] U.N. and World Court" - George McGovern, New York Times

     May, 1991: "We believe we are creating the beginning of a new world order coming out of the collapse of the U.S.-Soviet antagonisms" - Brent Scowcroft, quoted in the Washington (D.C.) Post

     April, 1992: "How I Learned to Love the New World Order" - Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Wall Street Journal

     April, 1994: "The Final Act of the Uruguay Round, marking the conclusion of the most ambitious trade negotiation of our century, will give birth - in Morocco - to the World Trade Organization, the third pillar of the New World Order, along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund" - New York Times, full page ad by the government of Morocco

     August, 1994: "New World Order: The Rise of the Region-State [again, negation of national identity and national sovereignty]" - Kenichi Ohmae, Wall Street Journal

     October, 1994: "[the] ... new world order that is in the making must focus on the creation of a world of democracy [which means every person in the world will vote on laws for Americans and taxes on Americans], peace and prosperity for all" - Nelson Mandela, President of South Africa, Philadelphia Inquirer

     April, 1995: "The renewal of the nonproliferation treaty was described as important 'for the welfare of the whole world and the new world order'" - Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt, New York Times

     May/June, 1995: "Alchemy for a New World Order" - Stephen John Stedman, Foreign Affairs*

     July/August, 1995: "We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money" - Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Foreign Affairs*

     May 8, 1996: "We are the cutting edge of the new world order, and we have to make it work" - Maj. John Bushyhead, U.S. Army in Bosnia, CBS (TV) Evening News

     date unknown: "The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England and believes national directives should be obliterated and one-world rule established. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and was permitted in the early 1960's to examine its papers and secret records." - Dr. Carroll Quigley, professor at Georgetown University

     date unknown: "The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government." - Rear Admiral Chester Ward, CFR member for 15 years

     date unknown: "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas [eradication of self-identity, family identity, national identity, and patriotism]." - Brock Chisolm, onetime Director of World Health Organization

     Editorial Note 1: Virtually all of the individuals quoted immediately above have documented histories of communist and/or socialist association and/or activism. In light of all we know, it can not be coincidental.

     Editorial Note 2: During the "Cold War", Russian communists attacked and criticized the United Nations relentlessly. But the United Nations was planned and agreed to during WW II by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin, in meetings on January 1, 1942 and at Moscow, Russia on October 30, 1943, the Dumbarton Oaks estate (owned by the notoriously communist-leaning Harvard University) in Washington, D.C. in 1944, and Yalta, Russia in February 1945. You might say that the United Nations was "conceived" - if not "born" - on communist territory. So why would Russian communists attack the United Nations? Because, during the "Cold War" with Russia, nothing could be more certain to get Americans to support something - anything - than to have it "attacked" by the communists. Stop and think about it!!

     We have documented for you a 300+ years long continuous, activist advocacy, through several changes of names and tactics but direct, unbroken and continuous nevertheless, of what is today called communism, though undoubtedly not for much longer: in the last 30 years they have changed the label they use three times! It appears to be in the middle of yet another name and tactic metamorphosis right now. Don't let them fool you.

     Historical records prior to the 19th century are very few, and what there are, are sketchy. We have been able to find no first person statements of their motivations, etc., so we have been unable to ascertain whether or not the original societarians were as dedicated, fanatic ideologues as their successors are, but the undebatable philosophical continuity proves they are the same old people striving for the same old "anthill" society.

     The societarians might have been merely sincere, misguided altruists, but the equalitarians and communists of the last 150 years and the communitarians of the future have proven that they will stop at nothing in their determination to rule mankind.

     The lesson here is: do not be fooled by the word games they play.

     Ignore the labels they use, the justifications they give, the goals they claim to be pursuing, the "consideration", "concern", and "compassion" they preach, or the creations through which they ply their schemes - look only at the planned final conditions they occasionally reveal.

     If they demonize and scorn individualism, self-interest, property rights, patriotism, national pride, individual freedom, independence, accountability, and self-responsibility, they are in fact closet societarians intent on reducing you to the status of a human ant - no matter what they claim to be or what they say their goal is.

     If they praise, extol, and exalt compassion, humanitarianism, multiculturalism, diversity, universality, "one world", one human race, and "brotherhood", they are in fact closet societarians intent on reducing you to the status of a human ant - no matter what they claim to be or what they say their goal is.

     After all, they have called themselves by different names and claimed to be pursuing different goals for more than 300 years.