Get US out!The U. N. Threatens The United States

by Gary Allen

Reprints of this copyrighted article, Get US out! by GaryAllen, are available at the following prices : One to 99 copies,five for one dollar; 100-999 copies, sixteen cents each; 1,000or more copies , fourteen cents each.

This artide first appeared in AM ERICAN OPINIONmagazine, a Conservative journal of opinion, in January of1972. The subscription rate for AMERICAN OPINION, toany address in the United States, is ten dollars per year ;twelve dollars to other countries. For either reprints orsubscriptions, address:

AMERICAN OPINIONBelmont , Massachusetts 02178

Get US out!The U. N. Threatens The United States

Gary Allen, a graduate of Stanford Uni­versity and one of the nation's topauthorities on civil turmoil and the NewLeft, is author of Communist RevolutionIn The Streets, and of the explosive best­seller, Richard Nixon: The Man BehindThe Mask, just released by WesternIslands. Mr. A llen, a former instructor ofboth history and English, is active inanti-Communist and other humanitariancauses. Now a film writer, author, andjournalist, he is a Contributing Editorto AMERICAN OPINION . Gary Allen isalso nationally celebrated as a lecturer.

• ON Oc-r'OBER 25, 1971, the UnitedStates of America suffered a severe kickin the teeth when the United NationsGeneral Assembly voted 76 to 35 to oustthe legal Government of China and reoplace it with representatives of Mao Tse­tung. The New York Times reported that,after the voting, "For long minutes thepacked hall rang with applause and cheersfor the winners. There was rhythmicclapping." The word "gleeful" was gen­erally used to describe those who hadvoted to oust the peaceful government ofAmerica's staunchest ally , Chiang Kai­shek, and seat in his place the world'spremier warmongers . Symbolically andappropriately the delegate from Commu­nist Tanzania danced the Watusi when theresults of the vote were announced.

Our Ambassador to the United Na­tions, George Bush, maintained that wehad seen the "hatred" of America as itreally exists in the United Nations. "Themood of the General Assembly that nightwas ugly. It was something harsh," saidBush, noting that he had been roundly

JANUAR Y , 1972

hissed as he rose to speak. Walter Trohanof the Chicago Tribune observed:

.. . the expulsion of NationalistChina demonstrated clearly, if fur­ther demonstration were necessary,that we have few, if any friends,anywhere. Those nations we savedin World War II and those nationswe helped on their feet after thewar voted against the retention ofNationalist China in the UiN.

Even "nations" whose very creationwe supported and financed joined in thechorus of anti -Americanism. Four of thesix Common Market nations voted againstus: Belgium, France , The Netherlands,and Italy. (Of the other two, West Ger­many is not a U.N. member, and Luxem­bourg bravely abstained.) Also votingagainst us in this important test were ourN.A.T.O. "allies" Britain, Canada, Ice­land , Portugal, Turkey, Norway, and Den­mark.

As high officials in the Nixon Adminis­tration have maneuvered to blame thedefeat on assorted Ethiopians in the fuelsupply, it has become more and moreobvious that the vote was fixed from thestart. One remembers that according toHuman Events for September 25, 1971:

President Nixon handed Peking ahandsome gift last week, making hisoffering only five days prior to theopening of the GeneralAssembly ofthe United Nations. In his extem­poraneous press conference, thePresident, announcing a fresh "Sell­out Taiwan" doctrine. stressed that

the United States would not onlywelcome Peking into the U.N., butthat we also wanted it to sit on theall-important Security Council. Hefurther demonstrated that the U.S.favored the eviction of Taiwanfrom the Security Council - thiswithout Red China having relin­quished a single concession to theU.S.

Mr. Nixon had already greased theskids with his announcement that hewould journey to Peking to pay homageto the oriental despot, Mao Tse-tung. But ,for the sake of appearances, AmbassadorBush made a clumsy effort to resist theAlbanian resolution to oust the National­ist Government. And while Mr. Bush waspushing one policy for the televisioncameras , the real Nixon policy was beingspelled out privately . As the New YorkTimes reported October 26, 1971, thePresident was "flashing one political sig­nal while the United States seemed to bepursuing another in the United Nations."

The next day , in the Los AngelesTimes, the syndicated "Liberal" colum­nist Robert Elegant observed:

The long arm ofcoincidence canstretch only so far. It was hardlycoincidence that placed Dr. HenryKissinger, the President's guru forforeign affairs, in Peking at theprecise moment the United Nationswas voting to admit CommunistChina and expel Taiwan . . . .

The adroit orchestration of Kis­singer's visit, American maneuver­ing at the United Nations, andPeking's ritual denunciation of thatmaneuvering, revealed a high levelof practical cooperation . . . . Suchunderstanding is the necessary basisof joint action to attain commonpurposes . . . .

The United States appeared tobe striving to save Taiwan's seat inthe General Assembly, while ad-

2

miffing Peking to the SecurityCouncil. That appearance was al­most - but not quite - believable.After all, Washington knew Pekingwould not accept halfa loaf . . . .

Once the President announcedhis intentions of visiting China, itwas a foregone conclusion that Pe­king would get in and Taiwan be ex­pelled. The Administration simplycould not imperil the visit and theburgeoning Sino-American relation­ship by excluding Peking . . . .

Actually, Washington's ostenta­tiously warmer attitude towardCommunist China insured her ad­mission. Wavering nations knewthat voting for Peking would notreally offend the United States.

Mr. Elegant cheered this sellout of ourbest ally in favor of our worst enemy ,describing it as "creative hypocrisy ." Hesaid it was necessary to obtain "thecreated purpose of gaining the U.N. seatsfor the People's Republic , which actuallyadministers the vast mainland and some750 million Chinese."* And Robert Ele­gant assures us, as have so many others,that "Peking's admission will not onlystrengthen the U.N. peacekeeping capa­city , but will, at the least, open the doorto U.N. activities like arms-limitation andnuclear-test ban talks." Meanwhile, ac­cording to Elegant , Mr. Nixon's "creativehypocrisy" will validate his credentials asa statesman .

The Ambassador from Pakistan, whovoted to admit Red China and expel FreeChina, saluted our President's "creativehypocrisy" by declaring : "I would like toacknowledge that President Nixon's newpolicy contribu ted to the victory." Am-

· T o his credit, Mr. Elegant uses the word"administers" rather than resorting to thecreative hypocrisy used by "Liberals" whoclaim that the Peking Government represents750 million people. The Government of RedChina represents only a small clique of topCo m munists.

AMERICAN OPINION

Above with President Wilson is Colonel E.M. House,the international Insider who sold Wilson on the Leagueof Nations. House was a founder of the Council onForeign Relations, to which both Alger Hiss and Secre­tary of State Stettinius belonged when (upper right)they flanked President Truman at founding conferenceof the U.N. Below (R) is U.N. insignia, designed byCarl Aldo Marzani to resemble Soviet emblem (L).Like Alger Hiss, the first U.N. Secretary-General, Mar­zani was a secret Communist. In 1950 our State De­partment named America's seventeen top U.N. plan­ners. Sixteen were later identified under oath as Com ­munists. U.N. Secretary-General U Thant is a dedi­cated Red who says: "Lenin was a man with ... idealsof peace ... in line with the aims of the U.N. charter."

t-,8JJ~~

Seal of U.N.

JANUARY, 1972 3

bassador James Shen of Nationalist Chinapraised Mr. Bush's efforts in behalf offree China, but added sardonically, "thereseems to be a lack of coordination withthe White House." Columnist WillardEdwards wrote that Shen "hoped itwasn't deliberate ."

Anybody has the right to hope .Part of the charade called for Mr.

Nixon to be outraged appropriately withthe consequences of his own acts. AfteralI, millions of Americans had watchedvia television as the U.N. humbled ourcountry and cheered the defeat. But thePresidential press secretary, Ronald Zieg­ler, assured newsmen that the "defeat" inthe General Assembly "will not affect ourpolicy," and that Mr. Nixon has "nointention to retaliate ." And AmbassadorBush vouched for the fact that the NixonAdministration, which even refused touse its veto in the Security Council toblock the seating of the Maoists, willcontinue to support the virulently anti­American U.N. no matter what. As Am­bassador Bush put it on November 1,1971 :

We are prepared to face thisreality and act in accordance withit . . . even though it may cause ussome grief, some arguments, somecriticism . . . . Quite obviously it isgoing to take on what some have saidis a bipolar institution and triangu­late the power. Certainly with Pe­king coming into the SecurityCouncil seat we aregoing to have ata minimum a triangulation ofpower. I think you'll see Pekingdoing what many have predicted ­championing the Third Worlddevel­oping nations or attemptingto . . . . President Nixon has alwayssupported the U'N, and will con­tinue. We have no plans to doanything else.

When Ambassador Bush was runningfor the Senate from Texas in 1964 , he

4

took quite a different attitude. At thattime he main tained : "If Red Chinashould be admitted to the United Na­tions, then the United Nations is hope­less, and we should withdraw." And ofcourse, Mr. Nixon built much of hispolitical reputation on his own ferventopposition to the admission of Red Chinato the U.N. Richard Nixon was even amember of the Committee of One Mil­lion, the largest organization devotedexclusively to fighting the admission ofthe Maoist Government to the UnitedNations.*

During his 1968 quest for the Presi­dency, on the nineteenth of April, Mr.Nixon proclaimed:

1 would not recognize Red Chinanow, and 1 would not agree toadmitting it to the United Nations,and 1 wouldn't go along with thosewell-intentioned people that said,"Trade with them , because thatmay change them." Because doingit now would only encourage them,the hardliners in Peking and thehardline policy they 're following.And it would have an immenseeffect in discouraging great num­bers of non-Communist elements inFree Asia that are now just be­ginning to develop their own confi­dence.

XRichard Nixon no longer even refers to

Communist China as Red China, but byMao's ludicrous title: The People's Re­public of China. After all, only ten daysafter taking office he had directed HenryKissinger, his national security assistant,to lay plans for embracing Peking. Oneresult was the orgy of anti-Americanism

*The admission of Red China to the U.N .carried such a high priority with the Establish­ment that three major television networks, andnine Washington and New York stations, re­fused to sell time to the Committee of OneMillion for screening of a film warning against aU.S. detente with Peking.

AMERICAN OPINION

which accompanied the expulsion of Na­tion alist China from the United Nations.

In the wake of what has been de­scribed as a diplomatic Pearl Harbor,many Americans are for the first timewilling to take a second look at theUnited Nations . In order to understandthe U.N. and the threat it poses toAmerican liberty, one must go back to itsdusty antecedents and examine the planand the planners .

A world government under a Parlia­ment of Man has been an idea l ofdreamers and schemers since ancienttimes. The dreamers envision perpetualworld peace; a utopia in which the lionwill sup with the lamb instead of diningon its carcass . The schemer bedazzles thedreamer with visions of permanentlyeliminating war, pestilence, famine , andwant. He plays the "idealists" as Heifetzplays the violin . The schemer has other,less laudable goals .

Among the most important of suchschemers have been powerful interna­tional financiers and cartelists. Their goalwas described by Mantagu Norman, for­mer head of the Bank of England, whosaid they seek to assure that "the Hegem­ony of World Finance should reign su­preme over everyone, everywhere , as onewhole supernational control mechanism ."This hegemony , or domination , can onlybe established through a world govern­ment controlled from behind the scenesby the Insiders of international finance.

The leading representatives in Americaof this worldwide clique were the firms ofJ.P . Morgan & Company and Kuhn, Loeb& Company. Members of these interna­tional banking concerns were primarilyresponsible for creating the Federal Re­serve System in 1913, which gave themhegemony over America's banking systemand, thereby, essential control over oureconomy.* Next these same men , largely

• For detailed proofs see my articles "TheBankers and The Federal Reserve ," AmericanOpinion, 32 pages, two for one dollar.

JANUARY, 1972

through their control over key news­papers, and through "Colonel" EdwardMandell House , their front man who wasthe Henry Kissinger of the Wilson Admin­istration, worked mightily to push Ameri­ca into World War I. From the ashes ofthe "war to end all wars" the Insiders ofinternational finance hoped to create aworld government, the League of Na­tions, which would serve as a conduit forextending their hegemony over all worldcommerce and finance.

One of the most important agents inthis scheme was an operator named Theo­dore Marburg. Born in Maryland, anardent scholar and successful business­man, Marburg had gone to Oxford Uni­versity in 1893 to take a special course ineconomics and political science. There hehad been initiated into the conspiracy asa member of the Fabian Society and,according to Woodrow Wilson's biogra­pher Jennings Wise:

His studies brought Marburg tothe conclusion that the liberaliza­tion of the governments of theworld through the medium . of aleague of nations, with power re­siding in the hands of the interna­tional financiers to control its coun­cils and enforce peace, would provea specific for all the political ills ofmankind!

Returning to America, Marburg wassupported by international financiers in aspectacular rise in the Republican leader­ship, and at the same time he beganfounding organizations to "preachFabianism" among American intellec­tuals. It was Theodore Marburg whofounded the American Association forInternational Conciliation (and later theLeague to Enforce Peace) around suchmagnates of finance as Andrew Carnegie,Paul Warburg, Otto Kahn, Bernard Ba­ruch, and Jacob Schiff.

But Marburg was handicapped becauseof his reputation as a Republican . When it

5

became apparent that only the DemocratParty was likely to promote the FederalReserve System and assure passage of theIncome Tax Amendment, Marburg wasassigned the job of finding his own"opposite number" within the ranks ofthe Democrats . The task proved remark­ably simple. Theodore Marburg contacted"Colonel" Edward Mandell House , abehind-the-scenes manipulator in theDemocrat Party whose views paralleledMarburg's almost exactly. House wascommissioned to find a Democrat candi­date for President whom he could con­trol. The man he found was WoodrowWilson, who later described House as "myalter ego" or second self. It was throughMarburg and House, serving as agents forinternational finance , that Wilson wassold the idea of championing a League ofNations.

At the same time that the Insiders ofinternational finance were attempting tocreate a League of Nations, they werealso sponsoring and financing the Com­munist Revolution in Russia. The Bolshe­viks were bankrolled by a consortium ofbankers, many of them cousins, fromWall Street, London , and Frankfurt.While J.P . Morgan & Company and theRockefeller interests participated , thechief American sponsor was Jacob Schiff,a senior partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Com­pany and an active sponsor of Fabianagent Theodore Marburg. As the NewYork Journal-American reported on Feb­ruary 3, 1949: "Today it is estimated,even by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, aprominent member of New York society ,that the old man sank about $20 millionfor the final triumph of Bolshevism inRussia ."

Why did Insiders of international fi­nance support a movement whose osten­sible purpose is to assure their owndestruction? The answer is that theyneeded a geographical base for theirrevolutionary operations. Soviet Commu­nism would serve as the sword while theFabian movement promoted Socialism in

6

the West by use of the pen. Here weretwo arms of the same movement, withthe violent arm distracting attention fromthe ultimately more dangerous non­violent arm.

Following the Armistice of November11, 1918, Woodrow Wilson journeyed toParis , accompanied by House, ThomasLamont (a partner of J.P. Morgan &Company) and Paul Warburg (a partner ofKuhn, Loeb & Company) .* A member ofthe delegation, Professor George Herron,is quoted by the Paris Herald Tribune ofMay 21, 1919, as observing:

I have said that certain greatforces have steadily and occultlyworked for a German Peace. But Imean, in fact , one force - aninternational finance to which allother forces hostile to the freedomof nations and of the individualsoul are contributory. The influ ­ence of this finance had permeatedthe Conference . . . .

According to Professor Herron, one ofthe chief goals of the international finan ­ciers at Paris was to achieve "a recogni­tion of the Bolshevik power as the defacto government of Russia."t However,European representatives, living in fear

'Paul Warburg was known as the father of theFederal Reserve System and one of its originaldirectors. His brother Max also attended thePeace Conference in Paris .. . but as a represen­tative of Germany. It was Max who headedM.N. Warburg & Company, one of the world'slargest international banks, and arranged forLenin to be transported from Switzerland toRussia to lead the Bolshevik Revolution.tOr. £.1. Dillon, who attended the Paris PeaceConference, wrote: "Mr. Wilson, who in thedepths of his heart seems to have cherished avague fondness for the Bolshevists there, whichhe sometimes manifested in - utterances thatstartled the foreigners to whom they wereaddressed, dispatched through Colonel Housesome fellow countrymen of his to Moscow toask for peace proposals which, according to theMoscow government, were drafted by himselfand Messrs. House and Lansing."

AMERICAN OPINION

that the Bolshevik match might ignite arevolutionary tinderbox all over the Con­tinent , thwarted the Insiders working toachieve this goal.

of And, while Wilson and House bar-gained in Paris, disillusion was rapidlysetting in back on Main Street. As thePeace Conference dragged on it becamemore and more obvious to Americansthat the War had not been a moralcrusade at all, but had resulted from themachinations of venal politicians whosespecialty was secret treaties hidden be­hind secret treaties - all for the benefitof the Insiders of international finance.The American people quickly becameskeptical about any involvement withsuch intriguers in a League of Nations.Facing a furious electorate the Senatedared not ratify the treaty and the U.S.did not join the League. Without Americathe League of Nations was like a cottonplantation without cotton.

But the Peace Conference was far froma total disaster for the conspirators . TheVersailles Treaty, which betrayed theterms upon which Germany had agreed toan armistice, was so written as to guar­antee that within two decades the worldwou ld once again face general warfare .

The Insiders, anticipating a secondchance, were determined to learn fromtheir mistakes. They quickly establishedorganizations in the major Western coun­tries to propagandize for internationalismand idealize the concept of One Worldgovernment. At the same time they madeevery effort to encourage governmentpolicies aimed at furthering these objec ­tives. The instrument they created topromote these goals in the United Statesis called the Council on Foreign Rela­tions ,* and the man most responsible forits creation was the ubiquitous "Colonel"Edward Mandell House. Joining House infounding the C.F.R. were such interna-

'For details see my article, "The C.F.R. ­Conspiracy To Rule The World," AmericanOpinion, five for one dollar.

JANUARY, 1972

tional financiers as Schiff, Lamont , War­burg, Kahn, Rockefeller, and Baruch - thevery men who had been so anxious to col­lar the United States into the League ofNa­tions. Stripped of its claptrap, the Charterof the Council on Foreign Relations revealsits purpose to be abolition of the UnitedStates in favor of a One World superstate.

It is doubtful that one American in ahundred has ever heard of the Council onForeign Relations , or that one in athousand can explain anything at allabout its goals. Despite the fact that its1,450 members include some of the mostfamous men in America from the worldsof high finance, industry , government,the foundations, academe, and the massmedia , the C.F .R. operates in almostcomplete anonymity. Yet nearly half ofits members have served in the federalgovernment, and President Nixon hasappointed more than one hundred mem­bers of the Council on Foreign Relationsto key posts in his Administration. HenryKissinger, for example, came to theNixon Administration from a staff posi­tion at the C.F.R.

The annual report of the Council onForeign Relations for 1958-1959 dis­cussed an informal talk made on May 21,1959, by Walter Mallory, then retiringafter thirty-two years as Executive Direc­tor of the Council. Mallory observed :

When I cast my mind back toI 927, it seems little short ofa mira­cle that the organization could havetaken root in those days. You willremember that the United Stateshad decided not to join the Leagueof Nations . . . . On the domesticfront, the budget was extremelysmall, taxes were light and wedidn't even recognize the Russians.There were a few men who did notfeel content in the comfortableisolationist climate . . . .

The C.F .R., composed of just suchuncomfortable men, worked diligently to

7

change all that. "A Record Of Twenty­Five Years," published privately by theCouncil on Foreign Relations in 1947,reveals how it achieved a hammerlock onAmerican foreign policy:

. . . [in 1939] Hamilton FishArmstrong, editor of "Foreign Affairs," and WalterH. Mallory, Exec­utive Director of the Council, paida visit to the Department of Stateto offer such aid on the part of theCouncil as might be useful andappropriate in view of the war . . . .

As a result of this meeting, the StateDepartment authorized the C.F .R. to"form groups of experts to proceed withresearch under four general heads: Secu­rity and Armaments Problems, Economicand Financial Problems, Political Prob ­lems, and Territorial Problems . . . ."Then, according to the C.F.R., "theRockefeller Foundation was approachedfor a grant of funds to put the plan intooperation ." However, by February of1941, the State Department took overthe whole operation, absorbing theC.F .R.'s top operators into post-Warplanning activities. Remember, this wasten months before Pearl Harbor.

During World War II it was increasing­ly taken for granted that as soon as thefighting was ended a new internationalorganization would be formed, and that itwould be called the United Nations.Planning for creation of that organizationwas taken over by members of the C.F.R.- lock , stock, and barrel of borscht. Theman termed "the architect of the UnitedNations Charter" by Time magazine in itsissue for May 18, 1953, was Russian -bornLeo Pasvolsky (C.F .R.), Chief of theDivision of Special Research in the StateDepartment. Born of Communist parents,Pasvolsky was raised a radical and infil­trated into our government in 1934. Herapidly rose to the key position fromwhich he worked to effect the transfer ofU.S. sovereignty to the United Nations.

8

Working side by side with Pasvolsky informulating the U.N. Charter was AlgerHiss, who was at the same time a memberof the Communists' Harold Ware cell inWashington, a Soviet espionage agent , anda member of the Council on Foreign Rela­tions. Hiss played key roles at Yalta andDumbarton Oaks, where agreements wereworked out with the Soviets on the con­tent of the U.N. Charter. According tolengthy testimony before the Senate Inter­nal Security Subcommittee, it was AlgerHiss who sat at F D .R.'s side as his topspecialist on international organization.

In 1950, the State Department issuedan official report entitled PostwarForeignPolicy Preparation, 1939-1945, whichnamed the men who did the planning andshaped the policies that led to the creationof the new World Organization . That listand similar official records revealed thesemen to have been (in addition to AlgerHiss): Harry Dexter White, Virginius FrankCoe, Dean Acheson , Noel Field, LaurenceDuggan, Henry Julian Wadleigh, John Car­ter Vincent, David Weintraub, NathanGregory Silvermaster, Harold Glasser, Vic­tor Perlo, Irving Kaplan, Solomon Adler,Abraham George Silverman , William Ull­man, and WilliamTaylor.

The State Department could hardlyhave anticipated what a disastrous confes­sion this would prove to be. For sincethen, with the single exception of DeanAcheson (C.F .R.), who had himself beenhired by Joseph Stalin to serve as SovietRussia's legal counsel in the UnitedStates, every one of those seventeen menhas been identified in sworn test imony asa Communist agent. It is hardly startlingthat such men were willing to make everyconcession to the Soviets at DumbartonOaks , Yalta, and at the official foundingof the United Nations at San Francisco.

The U.N. Charter was thus a productof both major arms of the InternationalCommunist Conspiracy. Our delegationto the San Francisco Conference in Aprilof 1945 was headed by Secretary of StateEdward R. Stettinius Jr. , a member of the

AMERICAN OPINION

C.F.R. and a former partner in theinternational banking f irm of J.P. Morgan& Comp any. Serving as Secretary-Generalof the Conference was Alger Hiss, both amember of th e C.F.R. and a Communist.Apologists for the U.N. never mentionthe key part Hiss played at Dumb artonOak s and Yalta , where the general formatfor the U.N. was hammered out with th eSoviet s, nor his years of work withPasvolsky in preparing plans for the inter­nat ional organization . And the y havedone their best to dismiss the role. heplayed at the San Francisco Conference.But a contemporary issue of Time maga­zine noted even in advance of the SanFrancisco Conference :

Alger Hiss will be an importantfigure there. As Secretary-General,managing the agenda, he will have alot to say behind the scenes aboutwho gets the breaks.

He cert ainly did!The U.S. Treasury's representative at

the San Francisco Conference was HarryDexter White , who gave special attentionto the establishment of U.N.E.S.C .O. ­the United Nations Educ ational, Scien­tific and Cultural Organizat ion - whichhas had such an influence on the writingof textbooks for our scho ols. But White'smain duty was establishment of theWorld Bank , an institution dear to theheart s of the Insiders of high financ e.Subsequently Harry Dexter White wasidentified in sworn testimony by bothElizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Cham­bers as a Soviet agent who gave themstolen government documents for trans­mittal to the Kremlin . White's lieutenantat San Francisco was William Ullman , alsoidentified by Miss Bentle y as a member ofthe Communist underground.

Yet another key advisor at the SanFran cisco Confe rence was Dalton Trum­bo, who served as a ghost-w riter for

· O u t of an American staff of less th an 200.

JANUARY, 1972

Stettinius and others. A wealthy screenwrit er, Trumbo later was ident ified as amember of the Communist Part y and wasone of the infamous Hollywood Ten whowere sentenced to jail for contempt ofCon gress as a result of their behaviorbefore a Congressional Committee investi­gating Communist activities in the movieindustry.

Working in tandem with th e sevent eenor so Soviet spies at San Francisco wereforty-three members of the Counc il onForeign Relations.* Some of the mo reinteresting C.F.R. members in the delega­tion had str ong international banking ties .They includ ed John Foster Dulles (1.Henry Shro eder Bank , the bank thatfinanced Hitler) , Edward R. Stettinius(J.P. Morgan & Company), Nelson Rocke­feller (whose family controls Chase Man­hattan Bank and First National CityBank), John J. McCloy (Chairman of theBoard, Chase Manhattan) , and ArtemusGates (New York Trust Company).

At the conclusion of the San FranciscoConference it was Alger Hiss who wasentrusted with taking the Chart er toWashington. On Page 23 of Life magazin efor July 16 , 1945 , was a "picture of theweek" showing Hiss arriving in Washing­to n with a large package. The captionread:

At the conclusion of the SanFrancisco Conference the Charterof the United Nations was bundledoff to a waiting plane and gingerlyplaced in a 75-pound fireproofsafeequipped with a small parachute.A ttached to the safe was a steminscription: "Finder - do notopen! Notify the Department ofStat e - Washington, D.C" Chiefcustodian was Conf erence Secre­tary-General Alger Hiss, shown herewith the Charter at the end of thecross-country trip. . . .

The Chicago Tribune of June 11,1945, describe d the presentation of the

9

'.' The Fearful Master\ -I A SECOND LOOK AT THE UNITED NATIONS

~ 1JI By G. Edward Griffin~~--

The Fearful Master, concisely writtenand well documented, sets forth thedouble standard which guides the UNthrough its devious and treacherous pathtoward world domination.

The author, Mr. G. Edward Griffin, hasperformed an outstanding service in giv­ing the people of the free world a pictureof what has happened, is happening, andwill happen in the very near future - ifwe continue our course of strategic sur­render to international forces.

The book opens with the story of Katanga and reveals thebroken promises which the UN made to Moise Tshombe inorder to deceive him , and to turn over to the central govern­ment the only province of the Congo where law and order hadprevailed, and where freedom was the watchword of its lead­ers. The murder, pillaging and rape practiced by the UNforces in Katanga can happen to any country that surrendersto UN control.

Author Griffin outlines in considerable detail the Corn­munist infiltration into the personnel at every echelon of theUN, and he exposes the treachery and subversion that flour­ishes there.

The Fearful Master is a book which is long overdue andshould be read by all Americans. It demands their thoughtfuland immediate attention.

ORDER YOUR COpy TODAY! HARDBOUND $5.00 PAPERBOUND $1.00From any AMERICAN OPINION BOOKSTORE or

Belmont,Massachusetts

02178

WESTE~M ISLANDS"., ........," t' I \' '­'" , "- ~....~ _-.""",.-.~ ..... ,.... -, -.. ....-..,..~....i~::te-t.-~',~ .., ......~~-

-: ~'dPublishers of the Americanist Classics 'y'

San Marino,California

91108

United Nations Charter to the SenateForeign Affairs Committee :

The hearings in Washingtonstarted, appropriately enough, witha lengthy statement read by Mr.Stettinius, but apparently writtenby Mr. Pasvolsky. When the timecame to ask questions Mr. Stettin­ius gracefully yielded the center ofthe stage to the same Mr. Pasvolsky ,who knows all the answers.

This is more than a little odd.Mr. Pasvolsky 's expertism is said toresult from the fact that he wrotethe original draft of the treaty , butthat was quite a long time ago andhis work meanwhile has undergoneconsiderable modification. Nobodyhas yet explained why the Depart­ment entrusted the drafting of thisdocument to a foreign-born func­tionary, whose training has been ineconomics rather than diplomacy.It is even more curious that thenatives among our delegates, two ofwhom are members of the SenateCommittee, did not assert f or them­selves the right of interpretation.

The diffidence - if that is theword for it - of Mr. Connally andMr. Vandenberg, to say nothing ofMr. St ettinius and the rest, hasgiven the country the impressionthat it is really Mr. Pasvolsky 'streaty , not theirs; that he under­stands it and they don 't; that menwith a good deal of experience inforeign affairs who were themselvesparticipants in the negotiationshave only an incomplete grasp ofthe content and purpose of thisintricate and difficult document.They were at San Francisco, itappears, to assist him rather than heto assist them . . . .

Only five days of testim ony about theCharter were heard by the Committee. Afew raised their voices against this per-

JANUARY, 1972

manent ent angling alliance , but theirvoices were a whisper in th e wilderness.So universal was the managed acclaim forthe U.N. Charter, sight unseen , that it wasratified by the Senate on July twenty­eighth, virtually without debate, and fewhad bothered to read the thing. The votewas 89 to 2. The two Senators who votedagainst the Charter had read it.

The Senators would have done well toinspect the U.N. Charter more carefully.It bears a remarkable resemblance to theConstitution of the Soviet Union. Manyof the ph rases and clauses employed inboth documents are virtu ally identical.

Cleon Skousen , former assistant toF.B.1. Director J . Edgar Hoover , notes inhis book The Naked Capitalist:

Anyone familiar with the Com­munist Constitution of Russia willrecognize in the United NationsCharter a similar f ormat. It is char­acterized by a fervent declarationof democratic principles which aresound and desirable; this is thenfollowed by a constitutional restric­tion or procedural limitation whichcompletely nullifies the principlesjust announced!

The Charter also gives the U.S.S.R.three votes in the General Assemblyunde r the hyp ocrit ical guise that theSoviet sta tes of Ukraine and Byelorussiaare "i ndependent" republ ics. This littleploy was worked out between Stalin andAlger Hiss, but America has ye t to hearthe first " Liberal" complaint about it, orso much as a suggestion that Byelorussiaand the Ukraine receive the sort oftreatment just accorded to NationalistChina .

There is also a striking resemblancebetween the U.N. flag and the Sovietarms bann er , highest embl em in Com­munist heraldry , found on the cover ofthe Constit utio n of the U.S.S.R. That thisis something ot her tha n coincidence isatt ested to by the fact th at the U.N. flag

11

was created and designed by Carl AldoMarzani, head of the presentation bran chof the U.S. Office of Strategic Services, inApril of 1945 . Marzani was later found tobe a member of the Communist Partywho operated under the Part y name ofTony Whales.

Att emp ting to explain away the in­credible appeasement of the Soviets atDumbarton Oaks , Yalta, and at the SanFrancisco Confe rence , "Liberal" folklorehas it that Stalin and Company had to becajo led into jo ining the U.N. The truth isthat the Bolsheviks couldn't have beenkept out unless the door were barred witha steel plank . As Earl Browder, form erGeneral Secretary of the CommunistParty, U.S.A., and twice its candidate forPresident of the United States, wrot e inhis boo k Victory A nd After: "The Amer i­can Communists worked energeticall yand tirelessly to lay the foundations forthe United Nations, which we were surewould come int o existence." And a for­mal preamble to the constitution of theCommunist Party, U.S.A., states that thePart y believes "the true nat ional interestof our country and the cause of peaceand progress require . . . the strengtheningof the United Nations as a universalinstrument of peace."

Political Affairs is the official theoreti ­cal journal of the Communist Party ,U.S.A., through which the official "PartyLine" is transmitted to Comrades and themuch larger body of Party sympathizers.In April 1945, two months before theSan Francisco Conference, Political Affairs published the following direct ive :

Great popular support and en­thusiasm for the United Nationspolicies should be built up; wellorganized and f ully articulate . . . .The opposition must be rendered soimpotent that it will be unable togather any signif icant support inthe Senate agains t the United Na­tions Charter and the treaties whichwill follow.

12

A coro llary to the "Liberal" my ththat the Communists did not really wantto be includ ed in the U.N. is that theWorld Organization has proved aconstan t thorn in the side of the Soviet sand their satellites, producing const antfrustration as symbolized by Khrushchevpounding his shoe on the lectern of theGener al Assembly . It was good showbiz, but that is all it was. A formerCzecho-Slovakian int elligence officer,Colonel Jan Bukar , has testi fied beforethe House Comm ittee on Un-AmericanActivities that he heard a GeneralBondarenko deliver a lecture at theFrunze Military Academy in Moscow inwhich the Soviet general declared :

From the rostrum of the UnitedNations, we shall convince the colo­nial and semi-colonial people toliberate themselves and to spreadthe Communist theory over all theworld. We recognize the U N. as noauthority over the Soviet Union,but the United Nat ions serves todeflect the capitalists and warmon­gers in the Western World.

Dr. Marek Korowicz , a memb er ofCommunist Poland's delegat ion at theU.N. who elud ed his guards and soughtasylum in the United States , put it wellwhen he said : "The Communist Partyregards the U.N. as the most importantplatform of Soviet propaganda in theworld . . . ." On October 7, 1961 , theWest Coast newspape r of the CommunistParty , the People's World , act ually carriedan editorial entitled "Save The U.N." Itdeclared in part :

The U N. commands a great res­ervoir of support in our country.This support should now be madevocal. People should write PresidentKennedy, telling him -

Do not withdraw from UN.Restore UN. to the Grand DesignofFranklin Roosevelt . . . .

AMER ICAN OPINION

New Times, an offic ial Soviet publica­tion printed in Moscow , reported in itsissue for July 8, 1970 :

As stressed by Premier Kosy­gin . . . on June 19, the SovietUnion attaches much importance tothe United Nations. In the future,as in the past, it will spare no effortto steer the Organization's work.

It is equally fictitious to claim, as didthe C.F.R.'s James Reston in a recentcolumn , that the Communists want theUnited States to get out of the UnitedNat ions. If the U.S. gets out of the U.N.,the U.N. collapses as a springboard forCommunist attempts at world domina­tion . And the Comrades know it! OnJanuary 21 , 1962 , the official Communistnewspaper , The Worker, carried an articleheadlined, "Birchers Take WarpathAgainst UN Peace Hopes. " The Commu­nist Worker warned the Comr ades :

The John Birch Society has in­structed its members to prepare a

. hate campaign against the UnitedNations. In his secret "bulletin " f ormembers, Robert Welch . .. ordershis fo llowers to place this anti­United Nations drive at the top oftheir 1962 political agenda . . . . Itwas in the spring of last year thatthe ultra hate campaign to destroythe United Nations actually began.

The Birch Societ y's education cam­paign was very effec tive indeed. Thencame the counterattack. In late 1964 andearly 1965 the Xerox Corporation spon­sored a national prime-time televisionseries to propagandize for the U.N. Incommenting on one of these pro grams inits issue of July 23, 1965 , the CommunistPeople 's World noted :

It's not a little horrify ing that inour country at this time a pitch isneeded for the UN and for peace,

JANUAR Y, 1972

but that is the case, and we 're allfor figuratively hitting people overthe head with the message. The[Xerox] program did that.

Meanwhile the Communists have con­tinued to solidi fy the ir U.N. control. Socomplete had it become by 1965 tha tMikhail Sergeyevich Lvov, an official Sov­iet spokesman on U.N. affairs, to ld aMoscow Radio audience on June 27 ,1965 :

There can be no doubt that withthe United Nations constitu ted as itis at present, the consistent line ofthe Soviet Union in pressingfor theUnited Nations to face fully up tothe problems of strengtheningpeace and ensuring freedom is pro­ducing more and more positive re­sults.

Of course the Communists havecontrolled the U.N. staff from the be­ginning. The Secret ary-Gener al has tra­ditionally been port rayed as the epito meof neutralism , the ideal non-Communist.But Trygve Lie, the first U.N. Sec­reta ry-Gener al, was a dedicated Socialist ,and a high-ranking member of theDemo cratic Labor Party of Norway - aspur of the Communist International.After the resignat ion of Dr. Lie, DagHammarskj old was elected to fill theoffice . He too was a self-declared Socialistand openl y approved the goals of worldCommunism. Hammarskj old even refusedto support a very timid resolutioncondemning Red China's invasion andgenocide in Tibet.

After Dag Hamm arskjold was killed ina plane crash in 1961 , th e Soviets presseddemands for leadersh ip to be shored by athree-man ' "Troika." Then, suddenly,they turned off their "Troika" talk andbacked Burmese Marxist U Thant asHammarskjold's successor. According toThant, "socialism ought to be the wave ofthe future for rich and poor alike." A

13

dedicated apostle of world government ,Secretary-General Thani is a consistentsupporter of the Communists who de­plores Amer ica's "suspicion of Comm u­nist motives." Thant, both a Marxist anda Leninist , is openly running the U.N. tosupport Communist purposes. The fol­lowing is the complete text of an Associ­ated Press report as it appeared in the LosAngeles Times for April 7, 1970:

UN. Secretary-General U Thantpraised Vladimir 1. Lenin, founderof the Soviet Union, as a politicalleader whose ideals were reflectedin the UN. charter.

Thant released Monday the textof a statement sent to a symposiumon Lenin at Tampere, Finland,sponsored by the UN. Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organiza­tion.

"Lenin was a man with a mindofgreat clarity and incisiveness, andhis ideas have had a prof ound influ­ence on the course of contempo­rary history ," Thant's statementsaid.

"(Lenin's) ideals of peace andpeaceful coexistence among stateshave won widespread internationalacceptance and they are in line with

/ the aims of the UN. charter . . . . "

~Clearly, the Soviets got their Troika

when they got Tha nt. He has had twoprimary assistants: one a Soviet national,and the other Dr. Ralph Bunche (C.F .R.).Dr. Bunche, who had been an assista nt toAlger Hiss, has been ident ified under oat has a member of the Communist Party byboth Manning Johnson and Leonard Pat ­terson , former top Comm unists, in closedHearings before a government LoyaltyBoard. * They had attended cell meetingswith Comrade Bunche . Patterson andJohnson , both Negroes, had been trainedin Moscow , but defected from the Party

' See the Ne w York Daily News, May 26 , 1954.

14

when they became aware that the Com­munists were working to enslave peopleof all races.

Ultimate control of the United Na­tions is in the hands of the members ofthe permanent staff of the Secretariat ,where resolutions and edicts of the Gen­eral Assembly and Security Council areeithe r neutralized or given teet h withwhich to bite. The United Nat ions hasapproximate ly 6,000 employees in theSecretariat. About one-fourth of thesehold supervisory and policy-making posi­tions classified as professional. These"professional" appointments are filledaccording to the geographic origin of themember nations and in proportion totheir contribut ion to the U.N. Budget.The United States meets approximatelyone -third of that Budget and is thereforeentitled to approximately one-third ofthe "professional" appoin tmen ts. Theother two-thirds come from the othermember nations , Communist as well asnon-Communist. And, as Us. News &World Report observed as early as Decem­ber 12, 1952 : "An informed est imatesuggests that as many as one-half of the1,350 administrative executives in the UNare either Communists or people who arewilling to do what they want."

The situation is so serious that when aNew York federa l grand jury stumbledacross evidence of Communist penet ra­tion into the American staff of the U.N.,it so alarme d the grand jury that itcon ducted a full-scale inquiry into thematt er. Enough evidence was presentedto enable the grand ju ry to release thefollowing statement :

This jury must, as a duty to thepeople of the United States , advisethe court that startling evidence hasdisclosed infiltration into the UN ofan overwhelmingly large group ofdisloyal US. citizens, many ofwhom are closely associated withthe international Communist move­ment. This group numbers scores of

AMERICAN OPINION

individuals, most of whom havelong records of federal employ­ment, and at the same time havebeen connected with persons andorganizations subversive to thiscountry. Their positions at the timewe subpoenaed them were ones oftrust and responsibility in the UNSecretariat and in its specializedagencies.

The resulta nt publicity prompted theSenate Committee on the Judiciary toinitia te its own investigation - with thesame results. The Chairman of th at Sen­ate Committee released the followingstatement at the conclusion o f tho seHear ings:

1 am appalled at the extensiveevidence indicating that there istoday in the UN among the Ameri­can employees there, the greatestconcentration of Communists thatthis Committee has ever encoun­tered. Those American off icialswho have been called represent asubstantial percentage of the peoplewho are representing us in theUN . . . . These people occupy highpositions. They have high salariesand almost all of these people have,in the past, been employees in theU. S. Government in high and sensi­tive positions. 1 believe that theevidence shows that the securityofficers of our government knew,or at least had reason to know, thatthese people have been Communistsfor many years. In fact , some ofthese people have been the subjectof charges before Congress beforeand during their employment withthe U.N. It is more than strangethat such a condition existed in theGovernment of the U.S., and it iscertainly more than strange thatthese people should be transferredto the UN and charged to theAmerican quota.

JANUARY. 1972

The point was well summed up by Mr.Joseph Korn feder , a former top Commu­nist who was trained in Moscow , when hespoke before th e Congress of Freedom in1955:

How many Communists, fe llowtravelers and sympathizers there areamong the UN employees, no oneseems to know, but judging by theirnumb er among the American per­sonnel, there can be no doubt thatthe Communists control the UNand its staff association, and use itfor all it 's worth; which means thatmost of the special agencies at UNheadquarters are, in fact, operatedby them and coordinated throughthe Communist cell in the UN staffassociation.

Given the compl exion of the U.N.staff, th e headquarters of the U.N. couldhardly be located in a worse place fromthe standpoint of American securi ty.When the Rockefeller family donated theland on th e East River for cons truc tion ofthe "H ouse Tha t Hiss Built ," the Sovietswere delighted . One of thei r delegates,Mr. Saskin , even served on the site-selec­tion committee. And the Manhatt an­based U.N. has provided the Communistswith the best possible center for subver­sive operations. As F.B.1. Director J.Edgar Hoover has test ified :

A ttention is called to the factthat many of the incidents andcauses previously cited involvedSoviet employ ees of the UnitedNations. They are guests of theUnited States and are supposedlydedicated in the cause of interna­tional peace. But they are, in fact ,carefully selected envoys of theinternational Communist conspir­acy , trained in trickery and deceitand dedicated to the concept offully exploiting the freedoms of thecountries they seek to destroy. It is

15

too much to expect that theywould not subvert the United Na­tions.

The nationally syndicated columnistHenry J. Taylor adds:

FBI Director J. Edgar Hooverreports that 865 Soviet-bloc person­nel and more than 1,200 depen­dents, all with diplomatic immunityagainst arrest, and most of themaccredited to the United Nationsand not to the United States, arestationed here. His bureau estimatesthat about 80% of the Soviet -blocpersonnel are intelligence officersand not diplomats at all.

Nothing could be a heavier,easier and quicker blow to Redespionage than to put the UNheadquarters elsewhere. *

In his nationally syndicated column ofOctober 7, 1971, Paul Scott commentson the effect of adding the Red Chineseto the already huge bank of Communistspies in the United Nations:

Espionage will be an even greaterdanger now that Red China hasbeen admitted to the UN Sincethe size of each country's UNdelegation and staffreflects the sizeof the country's population, andsince Red China has between 700and 800 million people, she mightbe allowed 3,000 or more diplo­mats and staff members, each ofwhom would possess diplomatic im­munity. Their suit-cases and trunkscould not be examined by Amen-

'New York newspapermen Pierre J. Huss andGeorge Carpozi Jr. have authored a book titledRed Spies In The U.N. which details the moredramatic stories of F.B.I. capture of Commu­nist spies. The punishment for a spy who iscaught is to be sent back to the Soviet Union.He is immediately replaced with anotherU.N .-protected spy.

16

can Customs officials. Would thatsuggest wholesale, unimpeded im­portation of heroin into this coun­try , in addition to countless spyingactivities? The most obvious andpractical solution to the drug andspying dangers to our country is toget the US. out of the UnitedNations and the UN out of theUnited States.

Before the admission of Red China tothe U.N., J. Edgar Hoover testified con ­cerning the consequence of such a devel­opment :

Communist China represents oneof the gravest longrange securitythreats and the FBI is continuing todevote its close attention to cover­age of possible Chinese Communistagents and sympathizers in theUnited States. There is every likeli­hood that Chinese Communist in­telligence activities in this countrywill increase in the next few years,particularly if Communist China isrecognized by the United Nationsand is thereby able to have a diplo­matic mission in this country.

And Red China has wasted no time inmoving its spies into the U.N. headquar­ters . As Human Events reported in itsissue for November 20, 1971 :

Red China's 22-man United Na­tions delegation received a tumul­tuous reception upon its arrival inNew York last week, with the pressseeming to tumble over itself withcompliments for the "high quality"ofMao's diplomatic representatives.But even as the new delegation wasbeing hailed by variousgroups in thiscountry, evidence is accumulatingthat Red China intends to employthe UN as a major tool for pro­moting Maoist-style espionage andsubversion.

AMERICAN OPINION

China's Deputy Foreign Minister,Chiao Kuan-hua, hea d of the first Pekingdelegat ion to the U.N., is a top inte lli­gence operative for Peking. Chiao's dep u­ty, Huang Hua, is described by Americanintelligence sources as "a gifted saboteurand espionage artist."

The radical Chicago Sun-Times, dis­playing typical " Liberal" nonchalance to ­ward the Comm unists' use of the U.N. asa base for spying, said it was assumed RedChina would include spies in its delega­tion, "but Peking, moving into the inter­national diplomatic spotl ight for the firsttime, had not been expected to get intothe game so soon" - especially with menof such flagrant reputations for espionage ·as Chiao Kuan-hua and Huang Hua.

Never in recorded history has a nationperm itt ed an avowed enemy open ly topur sue its policies of conquest , on itshome territory , within so vast a diplo­matic sanct uary - a sanct uary supposed lydedicated to peace. At least Steubensho uld be employe d to remo del the glasspalace on the East River in the shape of aTrojan Horse .

On the surface, however, the U.N.often appears to be ludicrous, a sort ofMad Hatter's dream. More than half ofthe nations in the U.N. have fewer peoplethan New York City. A fifth of all U.N.members have populations under 2 mil­lion . These are the microstates. Their percapita gross national product is as low as$50 annually . Yet each of these nationshas a vote equal to ours , with the resultthat "nations" such as Qatar, Bahrein ,Bhutan , and Oman now hold the balanceof power in the General Assembly . Thishas been caused by the fragmentation ofthe former French and Brit ish empiresinto a veritable plethora of tinhorn na­tio ns.

All of which resulted from a deliberatepolicy of the Insiders of internationalfinance , who know that in most casesthey can buy the poli tical leaders of thenew ministates, each of which has a voteequal to ours. "Liberal" pro pagandists,

JANUAR Y, 1972

however,beg us not to be upset by this.As jo urnalist William Ryan recen tly pu tit , "attempts to dow ngrade the votingstatus of present smaller members cou ld,in the view of seasoned diplomats, domuch damage." Ah, those seasoned diplo­mats!

While America has only I of the 168votes in the General Assembly , it paysapproximately one-third of the U.N.'sbills. Periodically the United States alsobuys U.N. bonds to keep the TrojanHorse from sinking int o a quagmire of redink . These bonds are guaranteed to berepaid the day after the Confederate wardebt is amortized in full. The Communistbloc is th e major debtor in the WorldOrganization, being a grand total of$ 118,753,898 in arrears, and accountingfor tw o-thirds of th e U.N.'s total debt.

The fact th at the U.S. must carry avastly disproportionate share of theU.N.'s financial load , even as the Redsshirk theirs, qu ite nat urally makes Ameri­cans angry. But it is pro bably the leastimportant complaint abo ut the U.N. Thereal threat it poses to our nation lies inthe fact that so many " responsible"Americans, many of them in high pol iti­cal office, are committed to a program toconvert the U.N. into an internationalsuperstate - the longti me goal of theInsiders who man ipulate the CommunistConspiracy .

If the Insiders of international financeand industry intend to own and controlthe resources of the entire planet , then itfollows th at there must be a governmentempowered to protect thei r pro perty andempire. So the Conspirators work toesta blish their world superstate, boththrough thei r eminently respectablefron ts like the Council on Forei gn Rela­tions (which open ly proclaims that itsgoal is a " new world orde r") and thro ughthe Communists who forthrig htly main­tain :

. . . dictato rship can be estab­lished only by a victory ofsocialism

17

in diffe rent countries or groups ofcountries, after which the prole­tariat republics would unite on fed­eral lines with those already inexistence, and this system of fed­eral unions would expand . . . atlength fo rming the World Union ofSocialist Soviet Republics .

This is why Red China had to beadmitted to the United Nations. As JamesReston , resident savant of the New YorkTimes and apparent spokesman for theEstab lishment Insiders, has expressed it :

. . . the President's forthcomingtalks with Chou En-lai are only thebeginning of a long process inwhich disagreements on specificquestions are unavoidable, but theclear objective of which is thecreation of mutual respect leadingto a better world order.

. .. it is clear that no reallyeffective new world order can becreated without the help of theChinese Communists . . . .

The most vocal organ ization workingto convince Americans to accept such a"new world order" is the United WorldFederalists , a group whose membershipis heavily interlocked with that of theCouncil on Foreign Relations. Theopenly exp ressed purpose of World Fed­eralists is to convert the D.N. into aworld government encompassing bothCommunist and non-Communist states.Speak ing for the Insiders, financierJames Warburg , whose father was pri­marily responsible for creation of theFederal Reserve System, and whose rela­tives financed the Communist Revolu­tion in Russia, told a Senate Committeeon February 17, 1950 : "We shall haveworld government whether you like it ornot , if not by consent by conquest."

According to the United World Fe d­eralists, "the United Nations offers thebest available basis for world peace if it

18

can be given adequate power to make, in­terpret and enforce world law. We believethis can be achieved by amendments tothe United Nations Charter." The amend­ments which they recommend includetu rning over all military weapons to aU.N. army, giving the U.N. authority totax , removing the veto from the executivebranch, requiring universal membershipwithout the right of secession, and em­powering a court system with jurisdictionover all nations and ind ividuals .

President Nixon is, of course, far tooclever actually to join the World Federal­ists , but he has actively supported theirlegislative program since his early days inCongress . In the October 1948 issue ofthe United World Federalist publicationWorld Government News, on Page 14,there appears the following announce­ment:

Richard Nixon: Introducedworld government resolution (HCR68) 1947, and ABC (World Govern­men t) resolution 1948.

K Of special interest to the U.W.F.throughout its history has been its cam­paign to repeal the Connally Reservation ,whereby the United States has reserved toitself the power to decide what mattersare essentially within the domestic juris­diction of the U.S., and the refore maynot be brought under the jurisd iction ofthe World Court. The Federalists wantrepeal of the Connally Reservation , whichwould mean that the United States wouldaccept "as binding the ruling of theInternational Court of Justice [WorldCourt] on disarmament, on interpreta­tion of the U.N. Charter and laws, and ofinternational treaties ."

The abolit ion of the Connally Reserva­tion would leave us at the mercy of theAfro-Asian and Iron Curtain blocs thatdominate the U.N. It would be tanta­mou nt to surrendering American sover­eignty to our enemies, and wou ld thus bea gross violat ion of the Presidentia l oath

AMERICAN OPINION

to "preserve, protect and defend theConstitution of the United States ."

Yet Richard Nixon has for many yearsadvocated the repeal of that ConnallyReservation. Incredulous patriots whowrote Nixon about his advocacy of itsrepeal were "sent a copy of a letter datedApril 14, 1960, from Richard Nixon toEugene Pulliam, publisher of the PhoenixRepublic and Gazette , in which Nixonflatly stated that he favored such repeal ,declaring : "I believe . . . that the inter­vening years have shown that our so­called 'self-judging reservation' is nolonger necessary."

President Nixon , whose warm endorse­ments of their program are widely distrib­uted by the World Federalists, actuallygoes far beyond seeking repeal of theConnally Reservation, and openly advo­cates "world rule through world law" ­the official slogan of the United WorldFederalists - in which the World Court isto be made the Supreme Court of theWorld.*

A world government naturally necessi­tates a world tax system. The U.N. has al­ready requested a worldwide sales taxwhich would , coincidentally , fall on itemspurchased in greatest abundance by Ameri­cans . But Americans would not now sit stillfor being taxed directly by the U.N. , andsuch propositions as the global sales taxwill have to wait until we are locked into aworld superstate from which we have noright of secession . In the meantime , theNixon Administration is preparing

' See the New York Times, April 14, 1959.

t The U.N . Ch arter is a treaty , and the SupremeCour t has ruled th at a treaty supersedes theguarantees and safeguards of o ur Cons tit u tio n.In 1953 , the Bricker Amendment , which pro­vided th at no treaty could tak e precedence overthese Const itu ti onal safeguards, was defeated inthe Senate by one vote - thanks to behind-the­scenes pressure from Vice President RichardNix on . It may well be th at we are even nowte chnically at the mercy of the U.N. , althoughthere is as yet no way for the body to enforceits will. Certainly U.S . foreign policy hasslavishly followed U.N. guidelines.

JANUARY, 1972

schemes to ship as much tax money out theback door to the U.N. as possible.

The Department of State Bulletin forOctober 5, 1970, contains Mr. Nixon 'smessage entitled " Foreign Assistance ForThe 'Seventies,' " in which the Presidentstates: "The future of American youth isdirectly related to the future of theUnited Nations," and recommends thatforeign aid be greatly expanded andchanneled through the U.N. and its sub­sidiary organizations, the InternationalMonetary Fund and the World Bank. Ithas long been a goal of the internation­alist Insiders to channel American foreignaid through the U.N. The next step willbe to have the General Assembly deter­mine the amount of foreign aid that wewill be required to pay, and to whom.

On December 17, 1968 , President­elect Nixon told reporters followin g avisit to the U.N.: "[It is] our intention inthese days ahead to do everything that wecan to strengthen this organization .. .. "The ultimate move to strengthen the U.N.is to give it a monopoly on militarypower. Up until that time , the U.S. canstill get out of the U.N., regardless of howanyone may interpret the Charter .] Theobject is to disarm the United States infavor of a U.N. Army.

On June 23, 1961 , John J . McCloy,Special Advisor to the President on Dis­armament , sent to the White House thedraft of a bill to create a U.S. Disarma­ment Agency . Mr. McCloy was at thetime Chairman of the Board of theCouncil on Foreign Relations. In hisletter of tr ansmittal to the President , herevealed that the fundamental purpose ofthe Disarmament Agency would be tobring about world government. In Sep­tember 1961, Congress passed the ArmsControl and Disarmament Act, conferringon the director of the new DisarmamentAgency broad authority, under the gen­eral supervision of the President and theSecretary of State, to do just aboutanything the director might believe to bein the interest of " peace."

19

Many Congressmen supported creatio nof this Disarmament Agency because theywere afraid of being accused of opposingpeace. Not all, however, withered under"Liberal" pressure . Congressman JohnAshbrook of Ohio referred to it as "TheSurre nder Agency," and declared: "Thetestimony is replete with evidence whichindicates this Agency may well be theback door for the one -worlders to ac­complish their goal . . .. " The late Con­gressman James Utt commented that itwas "almost word -for-word duplicationof a disarmament proposal advanced byKhrushchev in 1959."

This formal disarmament proposal waslater published in a nineteen-page reportentitled Freedom From War: The UnitedStates Program For General And Com­plete Disarmament In A Peaceful World(State Department Publication 7277). Itcalls for transferring control of U.S.nuclear weapons to the United Nations,restricting the American military to therole of an internal police force, andestablishing an all-powerful U.N. Army.This U.S. disarmament plan further pro­vides: "The Parties to the Treaty wouldprogressively strengthen the United Na­tions Peace Force ... until it had suffi­cient armed forces and armaments so thatno state could challenge it."

The Disarmament Agency's Dr. Lin­coln P. Bloomfield (C.F.R.) has written:

Short of a major catastrophe,the difficulties in obtaining wide­spread public approval and explicitSenate ratification of a genuineworld government are obvious . . . .without disarmament such a system[of world government] is probablyunobtainab le . . . . If it [world gov­ernme nt] came about as a series ofunnerving trips to or over the brink,it could come about at any time.

Thus the threat of the Soviets drop­ping nuclear bombs on us is built up sothat we can be blackmailed into accepting

20

world government through national dis­armament in favor of a U.N. "peace"force. The Insiders have no intention ofdestroying that which they intend to ownand control. If there truly were a militarythreat from an independent Russia, thecrowd at the C.F.R. would be leading theparade for American independence andarms superiority; they would not bepromoting disarmament.

The original plan of the Conspiratorsfor the disarmament of the United States,and the transfer of our weaponry to theU.N., called for its completion by 1972.But American Conservatives, led by TheJohn Birch Society, gave the plan suchexposure in the early Sixties that thetimetable had to be altered. Conservativesordered and distributed to their alarmedfriends so many copies of the StateDepartment Publication 7277 , that theDepartment was forced to let it go out ofprint. An article in the Communist WorldMarxist Review emphasized the need forpatience , advising the Comrades: "Com­munists do not adhere to the 'all ornothing' principle . Anything that bringsdisarmament nearer is a step for­ward . . . ." It was back to "patient gradu­alism."

Americans were not yet suffic ientlyfed up with protracted no-win wars , norwere they sufficiently frightened by nu­clear propaganda, to swallow disarma­ment in favor of a U.N. Army . A GallupPoll in 1961 determined that eighty-onepercent of Americans said they wou ldrather fight an all-out nuclear war thanlive under Comm unist rule . More timewas needed for anti -military and defeatistpropaganda. The Vietnam War has pro ­vided the excuse for an enormous escala­tion of such propaganda. Creation of themood for acceptance by America of theprogram outlined by the State Depart­ment in 1961 has obviously been a highpriority of the International Comm unistConspiracy.

Meanwhile , disarmament talks havebeen going on with the Russians for

AMERICAN OPINION

nearly eight years . During that time wehave negotiated with them the NuclearTest-Ban Treaty (with no inspection, ofcourse), the Outer Space Treaty, theNon-Proliferation Treaty, and the Sea­beds Treaty . All of these were stepstoward SAL.T. - and S.A.L.T. isanother step toward complete disarma­ment and world government. The objec ­tives laid down by the Insiders in StateDepartment Document 7277 have notchanged. In 1968 an Arms Control andDisarmament Agency publication calledArms Control And National Security ex­plained what has been happening:

Since 1959 the agreed ultimategoal of the negotiations has beengeneral and complete disarmament,i.e., the total elimination of allarmed forces and armaments exceptthose needed to maintain internalorder within states and to furnishthe United Nations with peaceforces. U.S. and Soviet plans forgeneral and complete disarmamentwere proposed in 1962 and they arestill "on the table." Some basicdifferences between the two plansare brought out by the key issue oftiming and verification of reductionofnuclear delivery vehicles . . . .

Under the Charter of the U.N., thisInternational Peace Force, with its (our)nuclear weapons, would be under thecommand of the Under Secretary-Generalfor Political and Security Council Affairs,who has control over all U.N. militaryaffairs. Except for one two-year term,when it was occupied by a YugoslavCommunist, this post has by agreementalways been held by a Soviet national.Trygve Lie, Secretary-General of theUnited Nations from 1946 to 1953,writes in his autobiography In The CauseOfPeace:

Mr. Vyshinsky did not delay hisapproach. He was the first to inform

JANUARY, 1972

me of an understanding which theBig Five had reached in London onthe appointment ofaSoviet nationalas Assistant Secretary-General forPolitical and Security Council Af­fairs . . . . Mr. Stettinius [under theinfluence of Alger Hiss1 confirmedto me that he had agreed with theSoviet Delegation in the matter.

Former U.N. Secretary-General Liethen observed:

The preservation of internationalpeace and security was the Organi­zation's highest responsibility, andit was to entrusting the direction ofthe Secretariat department mostconcerned with this to a Sovietnational that the Americans hadagreed. What did the Americanswant for themselves? To my sur­prise, they did not ask for a depart­ment concerned with comparablesubstantive affairs, like the eco­nomic or the social. Rather, Mr.Stettinius proposed that an Amer­ican citizen be appointed AssistantSecretary-General for Administra­tive and Financial Services.

Despite the fact that this agreementwas to be binding for only five years, aRussian continues to occupy that keyU.N. military office today. Mr. Nixon hasnot been so rude as to suggest that theoffice be given to anyone other than aCommunist.

If everything else concerning the U.N.were favorable to the United States, thevery fact that its military affairs arealways in the hands of a Communistshould be more than sufficient reason toget us out. But "Liberal" apologists forthe U.N. are not bothered one iota byCommunist control of the Organization'smilitary. They explain, if you can believethis, that while the Soviets hold someposts by custom and tradition, the U.S.holds others. It just happens to be the

21

custom, thanks to Comrade Hiss, that theCommunists control the military while anAmerican controls mosquito abatementprojects. Fair's fair , you know!

Is that U.N. Army a possibility in thenear future? United Press Internationalhas reported that, early in October 1971,Communist Poland offered the U.N. astandby force from its army for possibleuse in " peacekeeping operations." Po­land is the second Soviet bloc nation tooffer its troops for "peacekeeping," theother offer having been made two yearsago by Czecho-Slovakia. Add to this thefact that Richard Nixon has long ad­vocated ' just such a military force ­which, as we have pointed out , wouldserve under the command of a Russiannational at the United Nations. As theLos Angeles Examiner reported onOctober 28, ,1950:

A strong effort to obtain ap­proval of his resolution calling forestablishment of a United Nationspolice force will be made by Con­gressman Richard Nixon when Con­gress reconvenes November 27th,the California Senatorial nomineesaid today .. . . Nixon 's resolutionsuggests that a UN police authoritybe set up on a permanent basis, toconsist of land, sea and air forces. Itwould 'swing into action againstaggression under decision of a sim­ple majority vote of the policeauthority.

Establishment spokesman James Res­ton declared in his New York Times'column of May 21, 1971 : "Nixon wouldobvious ly like to preside over the creationof a newworld order, and believes he hasan opportunity to do so in the last 20

22

months of his first term." If Mr. Nixongets what he wants , his "new worldorder" could well include a nuclear­equipped U.N. Army controlled by aSoviet national. "

Given such dan~ers, why do we retainmembership in the .United Nations? Cer­tainly the U.N. has not brought peace to 'the world . Durin g: the first twenty-fiveyears of its existence, noted the "Liberal"Houston Chronicle for September 25,1971 , there have been seventy-five wars!Since the inception of the U.N., over one 'billion people have been enslaved by theCommunists. This is a peace organiza ­tion? The fact is that the existence of theU.N. makes war neither more nor lesslikely. But our continued participation init could well guarantee our eventualenslavement. The U.N. is not harmless . Itis not a guarantor of peace . It is a TrojanHorse and a death trap. It is a threat toour national security .

We are not unaware that the petpropagandists of the Establishment In­siders will shriek and scream that thiswarning is biased and unfair. They willbeg you to pay no attention to doom­sayers and then predict doom if Americaabandons the U.N. They will implore younot to pay attention to the growingdanger, not to worry about it, not tocome to conclusions which favor thenational interests of your country. Havefaith , they will say. Have faith andBelieve!

But more and more Americans arecoming out from under the ether oftwenty-five , years of U.N. propaganda.They are reaching the only possible con­clusion that an American can draw whenpresented with the facts. That conclusionis that it is time to Get US out of theU.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.••

AMERICAN OPINION