Given that on Sept. 5, 2000, the United Nations will convene a “Millennium Summit” at UN headquarters in New York, that this is being billed as the largest gathering of heads of state in history, and that the UN is seeking to strengthen its role in the world, it is entirely proper that we examine the history and background of the UN. This way we can shed some light on the means and motivations of today’s UN and make an informed choice in terms of whether participation in such endeavors are in the interest of liberty. To do otherwise would be foolish and irresponsible.
The UN was originally sold to the United States and the world as a neutral meeting ground where conflict between nations could be resolved thus averting war. Each nation would send a permanent delegation to debate international issues, and, in the failure of diplomacy, a security council made up of the allied victors of WWII would be able to marshal economic and even military force to contain a war. The UN was supposed to enhance peace, and, therefore, national sovereignty. Much of the rhetoric at the time of the founding in 1945 echoed these sentiments, and, in a world recovering from the trauma of war, holocaust, and nuclear devastation, this was a welcome and laudatory idea. The public marketing campaign was, unfortunately, far from the truth.The first Secretary General of the UN at its founding conference in San Francisco, June 26, 1945 , was non other than notorious Soviet espionage agent Alger Hiss. His appointment for the post had been approved by the hero of the left, Soviet tyrant Joseph Stalin, at the Yalta Conference, where Hiss had served as “international organization specialist”. Most of the rest of the American delegation to the founding conference were also Communists or in some way involved in assisting the Stalinists in the Kremlin with their “progressive” agenda. These people were no friends of liberty and their idea of “peace” was world socialism. It should be particularly galling to the American taxpayer that they were drawing more than ample salaries for their treason.
These would include Harry Dexter White, assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Laughlin Currie, Special Assistant to President Franklin Roosevelt, Lawrence Duggan, Noel Field, Harold Glasser, Irving Kaplan, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Victor Perlo, and Julian Wadleigh. In addition, American Soviet agents and pro-Communist operatives who would play key roles in planning the UN structure and program would include Solomon Adler, Frank Coe, Abraham G. Silverman, William H. Taylor, William L. Ullman, John Carter Vincent and David Weintraub. All of these men simultaneously held key posts in the US government.
Of course, the other major player at the founding convention and at the behind the scenes planning sessions was the openly Communist Soviet Union itself. It was agreed that the Undersecretary-General for political and security council affairs, in many ways the most important position in the UN with direct control over military operations, would always be a Soviet. The UN was, and essentially remains lousy with Communists. Senator James O. Eastland testified to a Senate Committee, 1952:
“I am appalled at the extensive evidence indicating that there is today in the UN among the American employees there, the greatest concentration of Communists that this committee has ever encountered…These people occupy high positions. They have very high salaries and almost all of these people have, in the past, been employees in the US government in high and sensitive positions”
The Communists saw the UN as a Trojan horse for Communist dominated, one world government. Left-wing ideology requires world conquest, by any means necessary, in order to achieve it’s utopian goal. They support a UN as a means to this satanic end. In 1915, Lenin proposed a “United States of the World”. In 1936, the Communist International proclaimed:
“Dictatorship can be established only by a victory of socialism in different countries…after which the proletariat republics would unite on federal lines with those already in existence, and this system of federal unions would expand…at length forming the World Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”.
For the left, the UN offers an opportunity to fulfill the very tenets of their faith, what they believe they exist on earth to accomplish. That accomplishment is a single, solitary, socialist, world government. It’s what every leftist savors in the very marrow of their bones. The mere mention of this results in a wistful, far-away look in their eyes that can only be described as Fascist. They are looking into the great and glorious future where man is “transformed” with themselves as using the levers of international government to effect this transformation.
This “vision” is the exact opposite of the American vision of individual sovereignty and responsibility emanating from God, the creator of the universe. Americans understand liberty which means that we grant limited responsibility to government and then insure that the government operates within strict laws codified in a Constitution. Government is created to serve us, not vise -versa. We expect the same of a UN which, by American understanding, would exist as a neutral organization that would enhance the sovereignty of nations by acting as an honest broker. With its Communist background, however, we must stand guard against the real agenda of the UN.