Get Us Out of the UN – by Gary Allen – audio and transcript

The article was written by Gary Allen. The voice reading the article in the recording is not Gary Allen’s.


Get Us Out of the U.N.

Audio transcript from a 44-minute reading of an article written by Gary Allen. The date is circa 1972. Audio can be found on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0qSeFrQffQ.

Books mentioned in the talk:

  1. Freedom from War – 7277 booklet
  2. The Naked Capitalist, by W. Cleon Skousen
  3. The Council on Foreign Relations, A Record of Twenty-Five Years, 1921-1946

TRANSCRIPT:

Today all Americans are being bombarded with pleadings from all directions for more participation by the United States in the United Nations, from the World Court to UNESCO. But from none of these quarters is anyone telling the true story about the organization itself, it’s forerunner, it’s founding, it’s leadership, or its actions. It is the purpose of this program to do so.

On October 25, 1971 the United States of America suffered a severe kick in the teeth when the United Nations general assembly voted 76 to 35 to oust the legal government of China and replace it with representatives of Mao Tse Tung. The New York Times reported that after the voting, “for long minutes the packed hall rang with applause and cheers for the winners. There was rhythmic clapping.” The word “gleeful” was generally used to describe those who had voted to oust the peaceful government of America’s staunchest ally Chiang Kai Shek, and seat in his place the world’s premier war mongers.

Our ambassador to the United Nations, George Bush, maintained that we had seen the hatred of America as it really exists in the United Nations. “The mood of the general assembly that night was ugly. It was something harsh.”, said Bush, noting that he had been roundly hissed as he rose to speak.

Walter Trohan of the Chicago Tribune observed, “The expulsion of Nationalist China demonstrated clearly, if further demonstration were necessary, that we have few if any friends anywhere. Those nations we saved in World War II and those nations we helped on their feet after the war voted against the retention of Nationalist China in the United Nations.”

Even the nations whose very creation we supported and financed joined in the chorus of anti-Americanism. Four of six common-market nations voted against us—Belgium, France, The Netherlands, and Italy. Of the other two—West Germany is not a U.N. member and Luxembourg bravely abstained. Also voting against us in this important test were our NATO allies, Britain, Canada, Iceland, Portugal, Turkey, Norway, and Denmark.

As high officials in the Nixon administration maneuvered to blame the defeat on a variety of causes, it has become more and more obvious that the vote was fixed from the start. One remembers that, according to Human Events for September 25, 1971, “President Nixon handed Peking a handsome gift last week making his offering only 5 days prior to the opening of the general assembly of the United Nations. In his extemporaneous press conference the president announced a fresh “Sell out Taiwan” doctrine—stressed that the United States would not only welcome Peking into the U.N., but that we also wanted it to sit on the all-important Security Council. He further demonstrated that the U.S. favored the eviction of Taiwan from the Security Council—this without Red China having relinquished a single concession to the United States.”

Mr. Nixon had already greased the skids with his announcement that he would journey to Peking to pay homage to the oriental despot Mao Tse Tung. But, for the sake of appearances, the United States delegate to the U.N., Ambassador Bush, made a clumsy effort to resist the Albanian resolution to oust the Nationalist government. And, while Mr. Bush was pushing one policy for the television cameras, the real Nixon policy was being spelled out privately as the New York Times reported October 26, 1971, the president was “flashing one political signal while the United States seemed to be pursuing another in the United Nations”.

The next day in the Los Angeles Times, the syndicated liberal columnist Robert Elegant observed, “The long arm of coincidence can stretch only so far. It was hardly coincidence that placed Dr. Henry Kissinger, the president’s guru for foreign affairs, in Peking at the precise moment the United Nations was voting to admit Communist China and expel Taiwan. The adroit orchestration of Kissinger’s visit, American maneuvering at the United Nations, and Peking’s ritual denunciation of that maneuvering revealed a high level of practical cooperation. Such understanding is the necessary basis of joint action to attain common purposes. The United States appeared to be striving to save Taiwan’s seat in the General Assembly while admitting Peking to the Security Council. That appearance was almost, but not quite, believable. After all, Washington knew Peking would not accept half a loaf. Once the president announced his intentions of visiting China it was a forgone conclusion that Peking would get in and Taiwan be expelled. The administration simply could not imperil the visit and the burgeoning Sino-American relationship by excluding Peking. Actually, Washington’s ostentatiously warmer attitude towards Communist China ensured her admission. Wavering nations knew that voting for Peking would not really offend the United States.”

Mr. Elegant cheered this sellout of our best ally in favor of our worst enemy, describing it as “creative hypocrisy”. He said it was necessary to obtain “the created purpose of gaining the U.N.’s seats for the Peoples Republic which actually administers the vast mainland and some 750 million Chinese.” To his credit, Mr. Elegant uses the word “administers” rather than resorting to the more commonly used word, “represents”. And Robert Elegant assures us, as have so many others, that Peking’s admission will not only strengthen the U.N. peacekeeping capacity but will, at the least, open the door to U.N. activities like arms limitation and nuclear test ban talks. Meanwhile, according to Elegant, Mr. Nixon’s creative hypocrisy will validate his credentials as a statesman.

The ambassador from Pakistan who voted to admit Red China and expel Free China, saluted our president’s hypocrisy by declaring, “I would like to acknowledge that President Nixon’s new policy contributed to the victory.”

Ambassador James Shen of Nationalist China praised Mr. Bush’s efforts in behalf of Free China, but added sardonically, “There seems to be a lack of coordination with the White House.”

Columnist Willard Edwards wrote that Shen “hoped it wasn’t deliberate”. Well anybody has the right to hope.

Part of this charade called for Mr. Nixon to be outraged appropriately with the consequences of his own acts. After all, millions of Americans had watched via television as the U.N. humbled our country and cheered the defeat. But, the presidential press secretary, Ronald Ziegler, assured newsmen that the defeat in the General Assembly “will not affect our policy”, and that Mr. Nixon has “no intention to retaliate”.

And Ambassador Bush vouched for the fact that the Nixon administration, which even refused to use its veto in the Security Council to block the seating of the Maoists, will continue to support the virulently anti-American U.N. no matter what. As Ambassador Bush put it on November 1, 1971, “We are prepared to face this reality and act in accordance with it, even though it may cause us some grief, some argument, some criticism. Quite obviously it is going to take on what some have said is a bipolar institution and triangulate the power. Certainly with Peking coming into the Security Council seat we are going to have, at a minimum, a triangulation of power. I think you’ll see Peking doing what many have predicted—championing the third-world developing nations, or attempting to. President Nixon has always supported the U.N. and will continue. We have no plans to do anything else.”

When Ambassador Bush was running for the Senate from Texas in 1964 he took quite a different attitude. At that time he maintained, “If Red China should be admitted to the United Nations, then the United Nations is hopeless and we should withdraw.” And, of course, Mr. Nixon built much of his political reputation on his own fervent opposition to the admission of Red China to the U.N.

During this 1968 quest for the presidency, on the 19th of April Mr. Nixon proclaimed: “I would not recognize Red China now and I would not agree to admitting it to the United Nations, and I wouldn’t go along with those well-intentioned people that said ‘Trade with them because that may change them’, because doing it now would only encourage them—the hardliners in Peking and the hardline policy they’re following. And it would have an immense effect in discouraging great numbers of non-communist elements in free Asia that are now just beginning to develop their own confidence.” Richard Nixon no longer even refers to Communist China as Red China, but by Mao’s ludicrous title, The People’s Republic of China. After all, only 10 days after taking office he had directed Henry Kissinger, his national security assistant, to lay plans for embracing Peking.

In the wake of what has been described as a diplomatic Pearl Harbor, many Americans are, for the first time, willing to take a second look at the United Nations. In order to understand the U.N. and the threat it poses to American liberty, one must go back to its dusty antecedents and examine the plan and the planners.

A world government under a parliament of man has been an ideal of dreamers and schemers since ancient times. The dreamers invasion perpetual world peace—a utopia in which the lion will sup with the lamb instead of dining on its carcass. The schemer bedazzles the dreamer with visions of permanently eliminating war, pestilence, famine, and want. He plays the idealists as Heifetz plays the violin.

Among the most important of such schemers have been powerful international financiers and cartelists. Their goal was described by Montagu Norman, former head of the Bank of England, who said they seek to assure that “the hegemony of world finance should reign supreme over everyone, everywhere, as one whole supranational control mechanism.” This hegemony, or domination, can only be established through a world government controlled from behind the scenes by the Insiders of international finance.

The leading representatives in America of this worldwide clique were the firms of J.P. Morgan & Co. and Kuhn, Loab, & Co. Members of these international banking concerns were primarily responsible for creating the Federal Reserve System in 1913 which gave them hegemony over America’s banking system and, thereby, essential control over our economy. Next these same men, largely through their control over key newspapers and through Colonel Edward Mandell House, their frontman who was the Henry Kissinger of the Wilson administration, these same men worked mightily to push America into World War I. From the ashes of the War to End All Wars the insiders of international finance hoped to create a world government—the League of Nations—which would serve as a conduit for extending their hegemony over all world commerce and finance.

Following the armistice of November 11, 1918, Woodrow Wilson journeyed to Paris accompanied by House, Thomas LaMont—a partner of J.P. Morgan & Co., and Paul Warburg, a partner of Kuhn Loeb & Co.. Paul Warburg was known as the father of the Federal Reserve System and one of its original directors. His brother, Max, also attended the Peace Conference in Paris, but as a representative of Germany. It was Max who headed M.N. Warburg & Co.—one of the world’s largest international banks—and arranged for Lenin to be transported from Switzerland to Russia to lead the Bolshevik Revolution.

While Wilson and House bargained in Paris, disillusion was rapidly setting in back on Main Street U.S.A.. As the Peace Conference dragged on it became more and more obvious to Americans that the war had not been a moral crusade at all, but had resulted from the machinations of venal politicians whose speciality was secret treaties hidden behind secret treaties, all for the benefit of insiders of international finance. The American people quickly became skeptical about any involvement with such intriguers in a League of Nations. Facing a furious electorate the Senate dared not ratify the treaty and the U.S. did not join the League. Without America the League of Nations was like a cotton plantation without cotton.

But, the Peace Conference was far from a total disaster for the conspirators. They quickly established organizations in the major Wester countries to propagandize for internationalism and idealized the concept of one-world government. At the same time they made every effort to encourage government policies aimed at furthering these objectives. The instrument they created to promote these goals in the United States is called The Council on Foreign Relations. And the man most responsible for its creation was President Wilson’s alter ego, Colonel Edward Mandell House. Joining House in founding the CFR were such international financiers as [Jacob] Schiff, [Thomas] Lamont, [Paul] Warburg, [Otto] Kahn, [John D.] Rockefeller and [Bernard] Buruch. The very men who had been so anxious to collar the United States into the League of Nations. Stripped of it’s claptrap, the charter of the Council on Foreign Relations reveals its purpose to be abolition of the United States in favor of a one-world superstate.

And President Nixon has appointed more than 100 members of the Council on Foreign Relations to key posts in his administration. Henry Kissinger, for example, came to the Nixon administration from a staff at the CFR. In 1947, in “A Record of 25 Years” [“The Council on Foreign Relations, A Record of Twenty-Five Years, 1921-1946”], published privately by the Council on Foreign Relations, it is revealed how the CFR achieved a hammerlock on American foreign policy. It states, “In 1939 Hamilton Fish Armstrong, editor of Foreign Affairs—the CFR official publication—and Walter H. Mallory, executive director of the Council, paid a visit to the Department of State to offer such aid on the part of the Council as might be useful and appropriate in view of the war.”

As a result of this meeting, the State Department authorized the CFR to form groups of experts to proceed with research under 4 general heads: Security and armaments problems, Economic and financial problems, Political problems, and Territorial problems. Then, according to the CFR, the Rockefeller Foundation was approached for a grant of funds to put the plan into operation. However, by February of 1941, the State Department took over the whole operation, absorbing the CFR’s top operators into post-war planning activities. And remember, this was 10 months before Pearl Harbor.

During World War II was it was increasingly taken for granted that as soon as the fighting was ended, a new international organization would be formed and that it would be called the United Nations. Planning for creation of that organization was taken over by members of the CFR, lock, stock, and barrel of borscht. The man termed “the architect of the United Nations charter” by Time Magazine in its issue for May 18, 1953, was Russian-born Leo Pasvolsky, CFR, Chief of the Division of Special Research in the State Department. Born of communist parents, Pasvolsky was raised a radical and infiltrated into our government in 1934. He rapidly rose to the key position from which he worked to affect the transfer of U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations. Working side-by-side with Pasvolsky and formulating the U.N. Charter was Alger Hiss, who was at the same time a member of the Communists’ Harold Ware Cell in Washington, a Soviet espionage agent, and a member of The Council on Foreign Relations. Hiss played key roles at Yalta and Dumbarton Oaks where agreements were worked out with the Soviets on the content of the U.N. Charter. According to lengthy testimony before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee it was Alger Hiss who sat at FDR’s side as his top specialist on international organization.

In 1950, the State Department issued an official report entitled, “Post War Foreign Policy Preparation 1939-1945”, which named the man who did the planning and shaped the policies that led to the new world organization. That list and similar official records reveal these men to have been, in addition to Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Virginias Frank Coe, Dean Acheson, Noel Field, Laurence Duggan, Henry Julian Wadleigh, John Carter Vincent, David Weintraub, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Harold Glasser, Victor Perlo, Irving Kaplan, Solomon Adler, Abraham George Silverman, William Allan, and William Taylor.

The State Department could hardly have anticipated what a disastrous confession this would prove to be. For, since then, with the single exception of Dean Acheson who is in the CFR, who had himself been hired by Joseph Stalin to serve as Soviet Russia’s legal counsel in the United States, every one of those 17 men has been identified in sworn testimony as a Communist agent.

Working in tandem with the 17 or so Soviet spies at San Francisco were 43 members of the Council on Foreign Relations. And that’s out of an American staff of less than 200. Some of the more interesting CFR members in the delegation had strong international banking ties. They included John Foster Dulles—the J. Henry Schroeder bank, the bank that financed Hitler; Edward R. Stettinius—The J.P. Morgan & Co.; Nelson Rockefeller whose family controls Chase Manhattan Bank and First National Citibank; and John J. McCloy, chairman of the board of Chase Manhattan.

At the conclusion of the San Francisco conference it was Alger Hiss who was entrusted with taking the Charter to Washington for presentation to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Only 5 days of testimony about the Charter were heard by the Committee. A few raised their voices against this permanent entangling alliance. But their voices were a whisper in the wilderness. So universal was the managed acclaim for the U.N. Charter, sight unseen, that it was ratified by the Senate on July 28, virtually without debate, and few had bothered to read it. The vote was 89 to 2. The 2 Senators who voted against the charter *had* read it.

Cleon Skousen, former assistance to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, notes in his book The Naked Capitalist, “Anyone familiar with the Communist Constitution of Russia will recognize in the United Nations Charter a similar format. It is characterized by a fervent declaration of democratic principles which are sound and desirable. This is then followed by a constitutional restriction or procedural limitation which completely nullifies the principles just announced.”

Attempting to explain away the incredible appeasement of the Soviets at Dumbarton Oaks, Yalta, and at the San Francisco conference, liberal folklore has it that Stalin and company had to be cajoled into joining the U.N.. The truth is that the Bolsheviks couldn’t have been kept out unless the door were barred with a steel plank. A former Czechoslovakian intelligence officer, Colonel Jan Bukar has testified before the House Committee on Un-American activities that he heard a General Bondarenko deliver a lecture at the Frunze Military Academy in Moscow in which the Soviet General declared, “From the rostrum of the United Nations we shall convince the colonial and semi-colonial people to liberate themselves and to spread the Communist theory over all the world. We recognize the U.N. has no authority over the Soviet Union but the United Nations serves to deflect the capitalists and warmongers in the Western World.”

Since the beginning, the Communists have controlled the U.N. staff. The Secretary General has traditionally been for trade as the epitome of neutralism—the ideal non-Communist. But Trygve Lie, the first U.N. Secretary General as a dedicated socialist and a high-ranking member of the Democratic Labor Party of Norway, a spur of the Communist Internationale.

After the resignation of Dr. Lie, Dag Hammarskjöld was elected to fill the office. He too was a self-declared socialist and openly approved the goals of world communism. Hammarskjöld even refused to support a very timid resolution condemning Red China’s invasion and genocide in Tibet.

After Dag Hammarskjöld was killed in a plane crash in 1961, the Soviets pressed demands for leadership to be shared by a 3-man troika. Then, suddenly, they turned off their troika talk and backed Burmese Marxist, U Thant as Hammarskjöld successor. According to Thant, “Socialism ought to be the wave of the future for rich and poor alike.” A dedicated apostle of world government, Secretary General Thant was a consistent supporter of the Communists who deplored America’s “suspicion of Communists motives.”

Thant, both a Marxist and a Leninist, was openly running the U.N. to support Communist purposes. The following is the complete text of an Associated Press report as it appeared in the Los Angeles Times for April 7, 1970: U.N. Secretary General U Thant praised Vladimir I. Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union, as a political leader whose ideals were reflected in the U.N. Charter. Thant released Monday the text of a statement sent to a symposium on Lenin in Tempere Finland, sponsored by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (that’s UNESCO). He states, ‘Lenin was a man with a mind of great clarity and incisiveness, and his ideas have had a profound influence on the course of contemporary history.’ Thant’s statement said. He goes on to state, ‘Lenin’s ideals of peace and peaceful coexistence among states have won widespread international acceptance, and they are in line with the aims of the U.N. Charter.’ “ Clearly, the Soviets got their troika when they got Thant.

Ultimate control of the United Nations is in the hands of the members of the permanent staff of the Secretariat, where resolutions and edicts of the General Assembly and Security Council are either neutralized or given teeth with which to bite. The United Nations has approximately 6000 employees in the Secretariat. About 1/4 of these hold supervisory and policy-making positions classified as professional. As U.S. News & World Report observed as early as December 12, 1952, “An informed estimate suggests that as many as 1/2 of the 1350 administrative executives in the U.N., are either Communists or people who are willing to do what they want.”

The situation is so serious that when a New York federal grand jury stumbled across evidence of Communist penetration into the American staff of the U.N. it so alarmed the grand jury that it conducted a full-scale inquiry into the matter. Enough evidence was presented to enable the grand jury to release the following statement: “This jury must, as a duty to the people of the United States, advise the court that startling evidence has disclosed infiltration into the U.N. of an overwhelmingly large group of disloyal U.S. citizens, many of whom are closely associated with the International Communist movement. This group numbers scores of individuals, most of whom have long records of federal employment and at the same time have been connected with persons and organizations subversive to this country.”

Given the completion of the U.N. staff, the headquarters of the U.N. could hardly be located in a worse place from the standpoint of American security. When the Rockefeller family donated the land on the East River for construction of the House That Hiss Built, the Soviets were delighted. One of their delegates, Mr. [Georgi F.] Saskin, even served on the site selection committee. And, the Manhattan-based U.N. has provided the Communists with the best possible center for subversive operation.

The nationally-syndicated columnist, Henry J. Taylor, wrote “FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover has reported that 865 Soviet bloc personnel, and more than 1200 dependents, all with diplomatic immunity against arrest, and most of them accredited to the United Nations and not to the United States, are stationed here. His bureau estimates that about 80% of the Soviet bloc personnel are intelligence officers and not diplomats at all. Nothing could be a heavier, easier, and quicker blow to Red espionage than to put the U.N. headquarters elsewhere.”

Before the admission of Red China to the U.N., J. Edgar Hoover testified concerning the consequence of such a development. He states, “Communist China represents one of the gravest long-range security threats, and the FBI is continuing to devote its close attention to coverage of possible Chinese Communist agents and their sympathizers in the United States. There is every likelihood that Chinese Communist intelligence activities in this country will increase in the next few years particularly if Communist China is recognized by the United Nations and is thereby able to have a diplomatic mission in this country.” And Red China has wasted no time in moving its spies into the U.N. headquarters.

China’s deputy foreign minister, Chiao Kuan‐hua, head of the first Peking delegation to the U.N. is a top intelligence operative for Peking. Chiao’s deputy, Huang Hua is described by American Intelligence sources as, “a gifted saboteur and espionage artist.” The radical Chicago Sun Times, displaying typical liberal nonchalance towards the Communist use of the U.N. as a base for spying, said it was assumed Red China would include spies in its delegation, “But Peking, moving into the international diplomatic spotlight for the first time had not been expected to get into the game so soon.” Especially with men of such flagrant reputations for espionage as Chiao Kuan‐hua and Huang Hua. Never in recorded history has a nation permitted an avowed enemy openly to pursue its policies of conquest on its home territory within so vast a diplomatic sanctuary—a sanctuary supposedly dedicated to peace. At least Steuben should be employed to remodel the glass palace on the East River in the shape of a trojan horse.

If the insiders of international finance and industry intend to own and control the resources of the entire planet, then it follows that there must be a government in power to protect their property and empire. So, the conspirators work to establish their world superstate, both through their eminently respectable fronts, like the Council on Foreign Relations which openly proclaims that its goal is a New World Order, and through the Communists who forthrightly maintain dictatorship can be established only be a victory of socialism in different countries, or groups of countries after which the proletariat republics would unite on federal lines with those already in existence and the system of federal unions would expand at length, forming the world union of Soviet socialist republics.

Now, this is why Red China has to be admitted to the United Nations. As James Reston, resident savant of the New York Times, and apparent spokesman for the establishment insiders, expressed it, “The President’s forthcoming talks with Zhou Enlai [Chinese Premier] are only the beginning of a long process in which disagreements on specific questions are unavoidable. But, the clear objective of which is the creation of mutual respect leading to a better world order. It is clear that no really effective new world order can be created without the help of the Chinese Communists.”

The most vocal organization working to convince Americans to accept such a New World Order is the United World Federalists, a group whose membership is heavily interlocked with that of the Council on Foreign Relations. The openly expressed purpose of World Federalists is to convert the U.N. Into a world government encompassing both Communists and non-Communist states. Speaking for the insiders, financier James Warburg whose father was primarily responsible for creation of the Federal Reserve System, and whose relatives financed the Communist Revolution in Russia, James Warburg told a Senate Committee on February 17, 1950 “We shall have world government whether you like it or not. If not by consent, by conquest.”

According to the United World Federalists, “The United Nations offers the best available basis for world peace if it can be given adequate power to make, interpret, and enforce world law. We believe this can be achieved by amendments to the United Nations Charter.” The amendments which they recommend include turning over all military weapons to a U.N. army, giving the U.N. authority to tax, removing the veto from the executive branch, requiring universal membership without the right of secession, and empowering a court system with jurisdiction over all nations and individuals.

President Nixon is of course far too clever actually to join the World Federalists, but he has actively supported their legislative programs since his early days in Congress. Clear back in the October 1948 issue of United World Federalist publication, World Government News, on page 14 there appears the following announcement: Richard Nixon introduced world government resolution HCR68, 1947, and ABC World Government Resolution 1948.

A special interest to the United World Federalists throughout its history has been its campaign to repeal the Connally Reservation whereby the United States has reserved to itself the power to decide what matters are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the U.S. and therefore may not be brought under the jurisdiction of the World Court. The Federalists want repeal of the Connally Reservation which would mean that the United States would accept, “as binding the ruling of the International Court of Justice (World Court) on disarmament, on interpretation of the U.N. Charter and laws, and of international treaties.”

The abolition of the Connally Reservation would leave us at the mercy of the Afro-Asian and Iron Curtain blocs that dominate the U.N.. It would be tantamount to surrendering American sovereignty to our enemies and would thus be a gross violation of the presidential oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet, Richard Nixon has for many years advocated the repeal of that Connally Reservation.

Incredulous patriots who wrote Nixon about his advocacy of its repeal were sent a copy of a letter, dated April 14, 1960, from Richard Nixon to Eugene Pulliam, publisher of the Phoenix Republic and Gazette, in which Nixon flatly stated that he favored such repeal declaring, “I believe that the intervening years have shown that our so-called self-judging Reservation is no longer necessary”.

President Nixon actually goes far beyond seeking repeal of the Connally Reservation and openly advocates world rule through world law, the official slogan of the United World Federalists in which the World Court is to be made the supreme court of the world. And in this connection we would like to refer to the genocide treaty and President Nixon’s call for ratification of that section of the United Nations Charter.

A world government naturally necessitates a world tax system. The U.N. has already requested a worldwide sales tax which would, coincidentally, fall on items purchased in greatest abundance by Americans. But Americans would not now sit still for being taxed directly by the U.N., and such proposition as the global sales tax will have to wait until we are locked into a world superstate from which we have no right of secession.

In the mean time, the Nixon administration is preparing schemes to ship as much tax money out of the back door to the U.N. as possible. The Department of State bulletin for October 5, 1970 contains Mr. Nixon’s message entitled “Foreign Assistance for the 70s” in which the President states, “The future of American youth is directly related to the future of the United Nations.” and recommends that foreign aid be greatly expanded and channelled through the U.N. and its subsidiary organizations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It has long been a goal of the internationalist insiders to channel American foreign aid through the U.N.. The next step will be to have the General Assembly determine the amount of foreign aid that we will be required to pay, and to whom.

On December 17, 1968, conveniently after his election, president-elect Nixon told reporters following a visit to the U.N., “It is our intention in these days ahead to do everything that we can to strengthen this organization.” The ultimate move to strengthen the U.N. is to give it a monopoly on military power. Up until that time, the U.S. can still get out of the U.N. regardless of how anyone may interpret the Charter. But, the U.N. Charter is a treaty, and the Supreme Court has ruled that a treaty superseded the guarantees and safeguards of our Constitution.

In 1953, the Bricker Amendment, which provided that no treaty could take precedence over these Constitutional safeguards was defeated in the Senate by 1 vote, thanks to behind-the-scenes pressure from Vice President Richard Nixon. It may well be that we are even now technically at the mercy of the U.N., although there is as yet no way for the body to enforce its will. Certainly, U.S. foreign policy has slavishly followed U.N. guidelines.

The object is to disarm the United States in favor of a U.N. army. On June 23, 1961, John J. McCloy, special advisor to the President on disarmament, sent to the White House the draft of a bill to create a U.S. disarmament agency. Mr. McCloy was, at the time, Chairman of the Board of the Council on Foreign Relations. In his letter of transmittal to the President, he revealed that the fundamental purpose of the disarmament agency would be to bring about world government. In September 1961, Congress passed the Arms Control and Disarmament Act conferring on the director of the new disarmament agency broad authority under the general supervision of the President and the Secretary of State to do just about anything the directory might believe to be in the interests of peace.

Many congressmen supported creation of this disarmament agency because they were afraid of being accused of opposing peace. Not all, however, withered under liberal pressure. Congressman John Ashbrook of Ohio referred to it as “The surrender agency” and declared “the testimony is replete with evidence which indicates this agency may well be the back door for the one-worlders to accomplish their goal.”

The late Congressman James Utt commented that it was, “almost word for word duplication of a disarmament proposal advanced by Khrushchev in 1959.”

This formal disarmament proposal was later published in a 19-page report entitled “Freedom from War – The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World”, State Department publication 7277. It calls for transferring control of U.S. nuclear weapons to the United Nations, restricting the American military to the role of an internal police force, and establishing an all-powerful United Nations army.

The original plan of the conspirators for the disarmament of the United States, and the transfer of our weaponry to the United Nations, called for its completion by 1972, but American conservatives, led by the John Birch Society, gave the plan such exposure in the early 60s that the timetable had to be altered. Conservatives ordered and distributed to their alarmed friends so many copies of the State Department publication 7277 [http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html] that the Department was forced to let it go out of print.

Article in the Communist World Marxist Review emphasized the need for patience, advising the comrades, “Communists do not adhere to the all or nothing principle. Anything that brings disarmament nearer is a step forward.” It was back to patient gradualism. Americans were not yet sufficiently fed up with protracted no-win wars, nor were they sufficiently frightened by nuclear propaganda to swallow disarmament in favor of a U.N. army. The Vietnam War has provided the excuse for an enormous escalation of such propaganda.

Disarmament talks have been going on with the Russian for nearly 8 years. During that time we have negotiated with them the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty [1963], with no inspection of course, the Outer Space Treaty [1967], the Non-Proliferation Treaty [1968], and the Seabeds Treaty [1971]. All of these were steps towards the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. And SALT, as it is known, is another step towards complete disarmament, and of world government.

The objectives laid down by the insiders in State Department document 7277 have not changed. Under the Charter of the United Nations, the International Peace Force with its—that’s *our*—nuclear weapons would be under the command of the Undersecretary General for Political and Security Council Affairs who has control over all U.N. military affairs. Except for one 2-year term, when it was occupied by a Yugoslav Communist, this post has, by agreement, always been held by a Soviet national.

Despite the fact that this agreement was to be binding for only 5 years, a Russian continues to occupy that key U.N. military office today. Mr. Nixon has not been so rude as to suggest that the office be given to anyone other than a Communist.

If everything else concerning the United Nations were favorable to the United States the very fact that its military affairs are always in the hands of a Communist should be more than sufficient reason to get us out. Is that U.N. army a possibility in the near future? United Press International has reported that early in October, 1971, Communist Poland offered the United Nations a standby force from its army for possible use in peacekeeping operations. Poland is the second Soviet bloc nation to offer its troops for peacekeeping—the other offer having been made 2 years ago by Czechoslovakia. Add to this the fact that Richard Nixon has long advocated just such a military force, which as we have pointed out, would serve under the command of a Russian national at the United Nations.

As the Los Angeles Examiner reported on October 28, 1950, “A strong effort to obtain approval of his resolution calling for establishment of a United Nations police force will be made by Congressman Richard Nixon when Congress reconvenes November 27, the California Senatorial Nominee said today. Nixon’s resolution suggests that a U.N. police authority be set up on a permanent basis to consist of land, sea, and air forces. It would swing into action against aggression under decision of a simple majority vote of the police authority.”

Given such dangers, why do we retain membership in the United Nations? One might also ask how the citizens were duped into electing such a man as Richard Nixon as President. Certainly the United Nations has not brought peace to the world. During the first 25 years of its existence there have been 75 wars. Since the inception of the United Nations, over 1 billion people have been enslaved by the Communists. This is a peace organization? The fact is that the existence of the United Nations makes war neither more nor less likely. But our continued participation in it could well guarantee our eventual enslavement.

The United Nations is not harmless. It is not a guarantor of peace. It is a trojan horse and a death trap. It is a threat to our national security. We are not unaware that the pet propagandists of the establishment insiders will shriek and scream that this warning is biased and unfair. They will beg you to pay not attention to doom sayers and then predict doom if America abandons the United Nations. They will implore you not to pay attention to the growing danger, not to worry about it, not to come to conclusion which favor the national interests of your country. Have faith they wills say. Have faith and believe.

But more and more Americans are coming out from under the ether of 25 years of United Nations propaganda. They are reaching the only possible conclusion that an American can draw when presented with the facts. That conclusion is, that it is time to get the U.S. out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the United States.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *