The UN is NOT our friend
UN Is NOT Your Friend
William Norman Grigg
the mask of peace, brotherhood, and universal understanding, the United
Nations promotes terror and tyranny in order to achieve its real objective:
if any Americans gave thought to the fact that the September 11th attack upon
our nation occurred on the date designated by the United Nations as the
"International Day of Peace." Those who were aware of this tragic
coincidence were probably inspired to reflect bitterly upon the uselessness of
the UN as a means of achieving the peace that all decent people seek.
But behind this obvious irony lies a very telling illustration of the true
nature of the United Nations. Just days prior to the terrorist attack, UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan was in Durban, South Africa, to attend a world
conference on racism. That event drew delegates and radical activists from
around the world who were united by their hatred of the United States of
America. Also prominent were terrorists such as Yasser Arafat, anti-American
tyrants like Cubaís Communist ruler Fidel Castro, and representatives of
other Communist and Arab despotisms who joined in the orgy of America-bashing.
The conference was hosted by South African President Thabo Mbeki, a former
leader of the African National Congress (ANC), a Communist-dominated terrorist
group. During the 1980s, Mbekiís ANC comrades perfected a terrorist tactic
known as "necklacing," a particularly gruesome method of executing
anti-Communist blacks. ANC thugs would bind a victimís hands behind his back
with barbed wire, force him to drink gasoline, and then place gasoline-soaked
tires around his neck and feet. The tires would then be set on fire, causing
the victim to die a protracted, torturous death as the melting rubber slowly
ate into his flesh. The victimís agony was compounded as his killers would
mock and taunt him.
Thousands of innocent black South Africans died in this fashion at the hands
of Mbekiís ANC comrades. Since coming to power, the ANC has all but
destroyed South Africa, turning that once-prosperous nation into a land
blighted by rampant crime, racial violence, and official corruption.
Productive South Africans of all ethnic backgrounds have fled their homeland
or retreated into "gated communities" to protect their families and
property. Yet Annan referred to ANC-dominated South Africa as "a beacon
of enlightenment and hope, not only for a troubled continent, but for the
entire world." He even offered a bouquet to Mbekiís terrorist
associates: "We salute the heroic movement that you represent."
During an April 2000 summit in Havana, Annan offered similarly glowing praise
for Fidel Castroís Communist Cuba. The secretary-general expressed gratitude
"for the chance to visit Cuba again...." Praising the Castro
regimeís supposed accomplishments in education, health, and welfare, Annan
declared that Castroís regime has "set an example we can all learn
from." Annan, with his glowing praise, failed to acknowledge Castroís
use of state-sponsored terror against Cuban civilians to deter, through fear,
the possibility of political opposition. The simple fact that Cuban refugees
risk their lives in attempts to flee Cuba for America is testimony to the
oppressive reality of Castroís "workerís paradise."
Clearly, Annan is very comfortable in the company of terrorists, both
subversives who have seized power through terror, and tyrants who rule through
terror. But this is to be expected, since UN Headquarters in New York City
would more accurately be called "Terror Central."
Long Island State University Professor of Criminology Harvey Kushner, a noted
terrorism analyst, points out that in much the same way that Afghanistanís
Taliban regime shelters international terrorist chieftain Osama bin Laden, the
UN Headquarters offers a useful staging base for terrorists of all varieties.
"The UN provides cover almost the same way the Taliban does,"
comments Kushner. "It serves as the laboratory, the linchpin for
legitimizing incendiary rhetoric" against the West in general and America
Recalling that during the September 11th attacks one television commentator
reported with relief that the UN Headquarters building had not been hit,
Canadian commentator Mark Steyn responded: "Well, thereís a surprise!
Why would the guys who took out the World Trade Center and the Pentagon want
to target the UN? The UN is dominated by their apologists, and in some cases
the friends of the friends of the fellows who did this...."
Once again, just days before terrorists attacked our nation, Annan was
communing with our nationís enemies. Ten days later, though, he struck a
remarkably different pose in a column in the New York Times. "The
terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11 aimed at one nation
but wounded an entire world," he wrote. "Rarely, if ever, has the
world been as united as it was on that terrible day." Annanís abrupt
change in tone was inspired by his transparent desire to capitalize on the
injury done to our country by channeling public demands for justice into a
UN-led crusade against terrorism.
"The international community is defined not only by what it is for, but
by what it is against," declared Annan. "The United Nations must
have the courage to recognize that just as there are common aims, there are
common enemies. To defeat them, all nations must join forces.... The United
Nations is uniquely positioned to advance this effort. It provides the forum
necessary for building a universal coalition and can ensure global legitimacy
for the long-term response to terrorism."
The UN long ago defined itself as an ally of terrorism and an enemy of the
American way of life. But that will not prevent Annan and other advocates of
world government from seeking to exploit public fear and outrage over global
terrorism in their effort to create global tyranny - a UN-dominated new world
New World Order Vision
The phrase "new world order" came to the attention of most
Americans on an earlier September 11th - to be precise, September 11, 1990,
during an address by the first President George Bush to a joint session of
Congress regarding Saddam Husseinís invasion of Kuwait. In that speech,
after briefly describing four aims of an envisioned war against Iraq, the
president made the following infamous statement: "Out of these troubled
times, our fifth objective - a new world order - can emerge.... We are now in
sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders."
President Bush (the elder) reiterated the same objective in a nationwide
television address on January 16, 1991: "When we are successful, and we
will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a
credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise
and vision of the U.N.ís founders."
It should be understood that the UNís founders were not decent, principled
men like those who won our national independence and created our
constitutional republic. The architects of the UN were men who advocated
"peace" through world tyranny. They included State Department
official Alger Hiss, who served as secretary-general of the UNís 1945
founding conference in San Francisco. Hiss also collaborated with Soviet
official V.M. Molotov in the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks conference, during which the
UN Charter was drafted. The Hiss-Molotov team was a match made somewhere other
than in heaven, since Hiss himself was a Soviet agent and a traitor to this
The UN founders reverently invoked by President Bush included 15 other
American officials in the State and Treasury Departments who were later
identified as Soviet agents. Their paymaster, Soviet tyrant Josef Stalin,
endorsed the UN shortly after its founding as "a serious instrument for
preservation of peace and international security."
The UN is indeed a testament to the "vision" that inspired such
wretched men - and this fact should be seen as an indictment of the
organization, rather than an endorsement. The UNís founders included many
figures from a New York-based private organization called the Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR), which in the words of the late Washington Post
ombudsman Richard Hardwood is "the nearest thing we have to a ruling
establishment in the United States." The CFR, which has dominated the
Executive Branch of our federal government for decades, was created by
globalists following the Senateís rejection of the League of Nations
Covenant following World War I. In 1939, two years before Pearl Harbor thrust
America into World War II, the CFR began laying the groundwork for the UN,
which, like the League of Nations, was intended to be a framework for world
Knowing the background of the United Nations is essential to understanding the
true threat the organization represents. While the UN is a haven for foreign
thugs, tyrants, and terrorists, it is inaccurate to look upon the organization
as a foreign entity seeking to invade and conquer the United States. Instead,
the UN should be viewed as a vehicle through which corrupt, power-seeking
elites in this country and elsewhere intend to acquire power over the entire
world. The CFR is the most visible part of this international Power Elite, and
by studying the published materials and public actions of the CFR we can
understand the tactics that are being used to undermine our national
In the April 1974 issue of the CFR journal Foreign Affairs, diplomat
and academic Richard Gardner pointed out that while "instant world
government" may be impossible to achieve, it would be possible to build
"Ďthe house of world orderí Ö from the bottom up rather than the
top down." According to Gardner, "an end run around national
sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the
old-fashioned frontal assault."
In the decades since Gardner published his essay, our nationís leaders have
followed his prescription by entangling us in an ever-growing web of
international treaties, conventions, and organizations. At the same time, the
UN has extended its reach to include such issues as environmental protection,
education, child welfare, law enforcement, national and civilian disarmament,
even religion. And beginning in the early 1990s, U.S. involvement in UN
"peacekeeping" missions has radically expanded, with thousands of
American servicemen currently deployed under UN authority in Korea, the
Balkans, and elsewhere.
Shocking Us into World Government
The method described by Gardner is sometimes called "patient
gradualism." By slowly sapping our countryís sovereignty, globalists
can achieve the objective of empowering the UN to act as a world government
without attracting a great deal of public opposition. But there is an
alternative approach: Using sudden crises, such as wars, disasters, terrorism,
or similar threats, to scare the public into accepting a new world order.
In 1962, CFR member Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology published a report entitled A
World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations.
This document, which was commissioned and paid for by the U.S. State
Department, outlines a global political system in which the UN has the means
to impose its will upon the entire world. While the report acknowledges that
creation of such a new world order may take decades or more to build, it also
points out that there is "an alternative road" that could bring
about results much more quickly
The alternative approach to world government "relies on a grave crisis or
war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient
for the purpose," wrote Bloomfield. "According to this version, the
order we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a series of
sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks."
America has never undergone a shock as sudden, nasty, or traumatic as the
attack of September 11th - and the CFR, like UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan,
quickly moved to capitalize upon the atrocity. Three days after the attack,
the Washington Program for the Council on Foreign Relations convened a meeting
in Washington organized around the U.S. Commission on National Security in the
21st Century. The Commission, which was a joint creation of former President
Bill Clinton (CFR) and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (CFR), was co-chaired by
former senators Gary Hart (CFR) and Warren Rudman (CFR). Given the
commissionís origins it should come as no surprise that it insisted that the
terrorist attack on our nation is an illustration of the need for a "new
"There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this
disaster to carry out what his father - a phrase his father used I think only
once, and it hasnít been used since - and that is a new world order,"
declared Rudman. In fact, the phrase, which has been used by globalists for
decades to describe a UN-dominated world government, was used on numerous
occasions by the first President Bush (see page 10).
In an editorial published the day after the terrorist attacks, Beijingís
government-line China Daily newspaper indicated that the Communist
Chinese regime is on the same page as the CFR. The attack upon America,
declared the editorial, "makes it more urgent that the international
community move to wage all-out war on terrorism by, in the final analysis,
establishing a new world order that can ensure lasting peace." And
indeed, one topic discussed during the CFRís post-attack forum in Washington
was for closer cooperation with "some of these countries we have Ö held
at armís length," including Russia, Communist China, Syria, and other
regimes that sponsor anti-American terrorism.
Many other prominent figures have insisted that the United States must
surrender its sovereignty to the United Nations in order to protect its
citizens from terrorism. Writing in the September 24th New York Times,
Robert Wright, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, declared
that only by abandoning our national independence can we prevent a terrorist
attack involving biological or nuclear weapons. According to Wright, "the
extreme devotion of Ö conservatives to national sovereignty" has
thwarted UN efforts to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction,
since those efforts require "giving the world more control over your own
"Clinging to American sovereignty at all costs isnít just wrong. Itís
impossible," contends Wright. "If governments donít respond with
new forms of international organization, civilization as weíve come to know
it could truly be over. So the question isnít whether to surrender national
sovereignty. The question is how - carefully or systematically, or chaotically
Cora Weiss (CFR), head of the UN-connected Hague Appeal for Peace, also
maintains that the terrorist strike must result in new efforts to empower the
UN. "We urge the United States to support the international criminal
court, to respect and work with and through the United Nations, especially the
anti-terrorism conventions which we have so far refused to join," stated
Weiss. And Lawrence J. Korb, director of studies at the CFR, urged that, in
the wake of the attack, the United States "work cooperatively, not
unilaterally, on areas like global warming, arms control, and the
international criminal court."
This is just a small sample of the calls for UN leadership in the fight
against terrorism - and the pressure campaign appears to be paying off.
According to a September 22nd Associated Press report, an opinion poll taken
after the September 11th terrorist attack found that "nine of 10
Americans want the United Nations to play a major role in pulling countries
together to fight against terrorism...."
From Terror to Tyranny
From the globalistsí perspective, a UN-administered world government
offers Americaís only hope for peace and security. As weíve seen, turning
to the UN for help in battling terrorism makes about as much sense as
enlisting the Mafia to fight organized crime. But there is another important
question to consider: What kind of people would seek the power to control the
In his September 20th address to the nation, President Bush assailed Al Qaeda,
Osama bin Ladenís international terror network, as a global menace: "[I]ts
goal is remaking the world - and imposing its radical beliefs on people
everywhere." While the Power Elite behind the UN does not necessarily
share bin Ladenís vision of a new world, it unmistakably seeks to remake the
world through force - in this case, a world government that would be free of
the checks and balances written into our constitutional system.
The fundamental principle of our constitutional system is that individual
rights come from God. To protect those rights, governments are given specific
and limited powers that are exercised by officials who are accountable to the
governed. To create such a political system, our Founding Fathers recognized
the need to withdraw from a globe-spanning empire. They later wrote a
Constitution that specifically enumerated the powers of government, and by
listing those powers the Framers limited them.
Under the UNís concept of government, it is individual "rights,"
rather than government powers, that are enumerated. This means that those
"rights" are actually government-granted privileges that can be
revoked at any time. In Article 29 of the UNís "Universal Declaration
of Human Rights" we read that none of the "rights" supposedly
granted therein can be used in a fashion "contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations." Under the UNís formula, the powers
of government are completely unaccountable and can be expanded at whim - and
individual "rights" are just as easily dispensed with.
The UNís founding documents offer a formula for total government on a
planetary scale which, if implemented, would lead to what Professor R.J.
Rummel of the University of Hawaii, calls "democide" - systematic
mass-murder by governments. In his study Death by Government, Rummel
documented that during the 20th century nearly 170,000,000 people were
murdered by their own governments. Governments exist to protect their subjects
from the violence of the lawless. Nevertheless, observes Rummel, the
uncomfortable truth about governments is "that some of them murder
millions in cold blood. This is where absolute power reigns."
Absolute power is the objective of every criminal, terrorist, or tyrant - and
it is the goal of the globalists behind the UN. If they obtain what they seek,
the result would be a reign of terror beyond our imagination. This message
must be sent loud and clear to all who cherish human freedom: The UN is not