UNITED NATIONS AND WORLD GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA
All American advocates of _supra_-national government, or world
government, claim their principal motive is to achieve world peace. Yet,
these are generally the same Americans whose eager interventionism
helped push America into the two world wars of this century.
The propaganda for involving America in the bloodshed and hatreds of
Europe--in World War I and World War II--was the same as that now being
used to push us into world government. In World War I, we rushed our
soldiers across the wide seas to die in the cause of making the world
safe for democracy--of eliminating evil in the world so that there would
not be any more war! This was precisely what the world-government
interventionists wanted us to do. The so-called American isolationists
were _not_ pacifists who recommended refusal to take up arms in defense
of their own country: most of them were patriots who would have been
among the foremost to fight in defense of America. Being intelligent
citizens of a peaceful and civilized nation, they wanted to keep it that
way.
The world-government interventionists used the extraordinary arguments
of a man who, though living in an orderly and law-abiding neighborhood,
says that he must go carousing around in adjoining communities and get
involved in every street fight and barroom brawl he can find in order to
avoid violence! Such a man not only becomes a party to lawless violence
which he claims to deplore, but also creates hatreds and resentments
which will ultimately bring to the sane citizens of his own peaceful
neighborhood the evils which they had managed to keep out.
This is what Woodrow Wilson's intervention in World War I did to the
United States. It sacrificed the lives of 250,000 American men--not to
mention the hundreds of thousands crippled and otherwise wrecked by war.
But this sacrifice of American youth did not make the world safe for
anything. It helped make the world a breeding place for communism,
fascism, naziism, and other varieties of socialism; and it planted the
seeds for a second world war more destructive than the first.
But the world-government interventionists--when their bloody crusade
proved worse than a tragic failure--did not admit error. They tried to
place all the blame on the isolationists who had tried to keep us from
making the ghastly mistake.
* * * * *
If we had stayed out of World War I, the European powers would have
arrived, as they have been doing for thousands of years, at some kind of
negotiated peace which would have saved not only hundreds of thousands
of American lives, but millions of European lives as well. By entering
World War I, we merely converted it into total war, prolonged it, and
made it more savage.
The destruction and slaughter of World War I created power vacuums and
imbalances and economic chaos, which inevitably led to World War II.
Again, the world-government advocates, who claimed to want peace,
insisted that we go to war. They also intensified their efforts to
entangle America, irretrievably, in political and economic union with
European nations so that there would never again be any _possibility_ of
the United States staying out of the endless wars and turmoil of the old
world.
It is, perhaps, fruitless to question the motives of people leading the
campaign to push America into world government. All organizations which
have been active in this movement--World Fellowship, Inc., Federal
Union, Inc., Atlantic Union Committee, United World Federalists, and so
on--have had a sprinkling of communist-fronters among their directors
and members. But they have also had the official support of many
prominent and respected Americans: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John
Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Estes Kefauver, John Sparkman, Adlai Stevenson,
Dean Acheson, John Foster Dulles, Christian Herter, cabinet officers;
senators and congressmen; Supreme Court justices; prominent churchmen,
businessmen, financiers, entertainers, judges, union officials;
newspaper and magazine editors; famous columnists and radio-television
commentators.
* * * * *
Although the cry of "peace" is the perennial clarion call of all
world-government advocates, many of them have, in recent years, added
the claim that their recommendations (for converting America into a
province of world government) are means of "fighting communism." Indeed,
some of the most vigorous advocates of one-worldism have wide
reputations as anti-communists--Walter Judd, a Republican Congressman
from Minnesota, for example. Even Clarence Streit (leader of the
now-defunct Federal Union, Inc., and father of that organization's very
active and influential tax-exempt successor, Atlantic Union Committee)
has ugly things to say about communism.
The fact is that every step the United States takes toward political and
economic entanglements with the rest of the world is a step toward
realization of _the_ end objective of communism: creating a one-world
socialist political and economic system in which we will be one of the
subjugated provinces.
Because of the wealth we have created as a free and independent nation,
we would be the most heavily taxed province in any conceivable
supra-national government--whether in a "limited, federal union of the
western democracies," which is what the Atlantic Union Committee people
say they want; or in a total one-world system, which is what _all_
advocates of international union really have as their final goal.
Because of our population, however, we would have minority
representation in any supra-national government now being planned.
Americans would be subjected to laws enacted by an international
parliament in which we would have little influence; taxing us,
regulating our economic activities, controlling our schools, and
dictating our social and cultural relations with each other and with the
rest of the world.
* * * * *
America was founded, populated, and developed by people seeking escape
from oppressive governments in Europe. Now our own leaders ask us to
give up the freedom and independence which our forebears won for us with
blood and toil and valorous devotion to high ideals, to become subjects
in a governmental system that would inevitably be more tyrannical than
any which our forefathers rebelled against or any that presently exist.
If the world government included the despotic and oligarchic and
militaristic, and feudalistic and primitive systems of Asia, the Middle
East, Africa, and Latin America, it would necessarily become the
bloodiest and most oppressive tyranny the world has ever known.
Nowadays, when two or more nations amalgamate their economic, political,
and social systems they necessarily take the lowest common denominator
of freedom rather than the highest. In fact, they must take something
lower than the lowest: the union government will be more restrictive
than the government of any of the nations which formed the union.
This will be true of _any_ _supra_-national government that the United
States might get into: the union will not extend American freedom to
other nations; it will extend to all nations in the union the most
restrictive controls of the most oppressive government which enters the
union, and make even those controls worse than they were before the
union was formed--because the American principle of federalism has been
discarded by the "liberals" who manage our national affairs; and
American federalism is the only political principle ever to exist in the
history of the world that can make individual human freedom possible in
a federation of states.
Hard core American communists know (and some admit) that any move toward
American membership in any kind of supra-national government is a move
toward the Soviet objective of a one-world socialist dictatorship; but
all other American advocates of international union claim their schemes
are intended to repeat and extend the marvelous achievement of 13
American states which, by forming a political union, created a free and
powerful nation.
All United States advocates of any kind of world government point to the
founding of America: 13 sovereign states, each one proud and
nationalistic, all with special interests that were divergent from or in
conflict with the interests of the others; yet, they managed to
surrender enough sovereignty to join a federal union which gave the
united strength of all, while retaining the individuality and freedom of
each.
* * * * *
The 13 American states, in forming a federal union, did not take the
lowest common denominator of freedom; they took the highest, and
elevated that.
The American principle of federalism (indeed, the whole American
constitutional system) grew out of the philosophical doctrine (or,
rather, statement of faith) which Jefferson wrote into the Declaration
of Independence:
"_...all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights..._"
Men get their rights from God, not from government. Government, a
man-made creature, has nothing except what it takes from God-created
men. Government can give the people nothing that it has not first taken
away from them. Hence, if man is to remain free, he must have a
government which will play a very limited and negative role in his
private affairs.
The United States is the only nation, ever, whose institutions and
organic law were founded on this principle. The United Nations'
Declaration of Human Rights; the Constitution of the Soviet Union; and
the written and unwritten constitutions of every other nation in the
world are all built on a political principle exactly opposite in meaning
to the basic principle of Americanism. That is, the Constitution of the
Soviet Union, and of every UN agency, and of all other nations, specify
a large number of rights and privileges which citizens should have, if
possible, and which _government_ will grant them _if_ government can,
and _if_ government thinks proper.
Contrast this with the American Constitution and Bill of Rights which do
not contain one statement or inference that the federal government has
any responsibility, or power, to grant the people rights, privileges, or
benefits of any kind. The total emphasis in these American documents is
on telling the federal government _what it cannot do_ to and for the
people--on ordering the federal government to stay out of the private
affairs of citizens and to leave their God-given rights alone.
* * * * *
This negative, restricted role of the federal government, and this
assumption that God and not government is the source of man's rights
and privileges, are clearly stated in the Preamble to our Constitution.
The Preamble says that this Constitution is being _ordained_ and
established, not to _grant_ liberties to the people, but to _secure_ the
liberties which the people already had (before the government was ever
formed) as _blessings_.
The essence of the American constitutional system, which made freedom in
a federal union possible, is clearly stated in the first sentence of the
first Article of our Constitution and in the last Article (the Tenth
Amendment) of our Bill of Rights.
The first Article of our Constitution begins with the phrase, "All
legislative Powers _herein_ granted...." That obviously meant the
federal government had no powers which were not granted to it by the
Constitution. The Tenth Amendment restates the same thing with emphasis:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
Clearly and emphatically, our Constitution says that the federal
government cannot legally do anything which is not authorized by a
specific grant of power in the Constitution.
This is the one constitutional concept that made the American
governmental system different from all others; it is the one which left
our people so free and unmolested by their own government that they
converted the backward, American continent into the land of freedom, the
most fruitful and powerful nation in history.
And this was the constitutional proviso which created the American
principle of federalism. The Constitution made no grant, or even
inferred a grant, of power to the federal government for meddling, to
any extent, or for any purpose whatever, in the private cultural,
economic, social, educational, religious, or political affairs of
individual citizens--or in the legitimate governmental activities of
the individual states which became members of the federal union. Hence,
states could join the federal union without sacrificing the freedom of
their citizens.
Modern "liberalism" which has been continuously in control of the
federal government (and of most opinion-forming institutions and media
throughout our society) since Franklin D. Roosevelt's first
inauguration, March 4, 1933, has, by ignoring constitutional restraints,
changed our _Federal_ government with _limited_ powers into a _Central_
government with _limitless_ power over the individual states and their
people.
Modern "liberalism" has abandoned American constitutional government and
replaced it with democratic centralism, which, in _fundamental theory,
is identical_ with the democratic centralism of the Soviet Union, and of
every other major nation existing today.
It was possible to enlarge the size of the old American federal union
without diminishing freedom for the people. When you enlarge the land
area and population controlled by democratic centralism you must
necessarily diminish freedom for the people, because the problems of
centralized government increase with the size of population and area
which it controls.
* * * * *
Look at what has happened to America since our _federal_ government was
converted into a centralized absolutism. The central government in
Washington arrogated to itself the unconstitutional power and
responsibility of regulating the relationships between private employers
and their employees, enacting laws which established "collective
bargaining" as "national policy," and which, to that end, gave
international unions a virtual monopoly over large segments of the labor
market.
It follows that a minor labor dispute between two unions on the
waterfront of New York is no longer a concern only of the people and
police in that neighborhood. A handful of union members who have no
grievance whatever against their employers but who are in a
jurisdictional struggle with another union, can shut down the greatest
railroad systems in the world, throw thousands out of work, and paralyze
vital transportation for business firms and millions of citizens all
over the nation.
Harry Bridges on the West Coast can order a political demonstration
having nothing to do with "labor" matters, and paralyze the economy of
half the nation.
Imagine what it will be like if we join a world government. Then a dock
strike in London will cripple, not just the British Isles but the whole
world.
Now, the central government in Washington sends troops into local
communities to enforce, at bayonet point, the illegal edicts of a
Washington judicial oligarchy concerning the operation of local schools.
If we join world government, the edict and the troops will come
(depending on what nations are in the international union, of course)
from India and Japan and the Congo.
* * * * *
There was a time when Americans, learning of suffering and want in a
distant land, could respond to their Christian promptings and native
kindliness by making voluntary contributions for relief to their fellow
human beings abroad. Our central government's foreign aid programs have
already taken much of that freedom away from American citizens--taxing
them so heavily for what government wants to give away, that private
citizens can't spend their own money the way they would like to.
What will it be like if we join a world government that embraces the
real have-not nations of the earth? The impoverished subcontinent of
India, because of population, would have more representatives in the
international parliament than we would have. They, with the support of
representatives from Latin America and Africa, could easily vote to lay
a tax on "surplus" incomes for the benefit of all illiterate and hungry
people everywhere; and outvoted Americans would be the only people in
the world with incomes high enough to meet the international definition
of "surplus."
We read with horror of Soviet slaughter in Hungary when the Soviets
suppress a local rebellion against their partial world-government. What
kind of horror would we feel after we join a world government and see
troops from Europe and Africa and the Middle East machinegunning people
on the streets of United States cities in order to suppress a rebellion
of young Americans who somehow heard about the magnificent
constitutional system and glorious freedom their fathers used to have
and who are trying to make a public demonstration of protest against the
international tyranny being imposed upon them?
A genuine world government might eliminate the armed conflict (between
nations) which we now call war; but it would cause an endless series of
bloody uprisings and bloody suppressions, and would cause more human
misery than total war itself.
* * * * *
In 1936, the Communist International formally presented its three-stage
plan for achieving world government--_Stage 1:_ socialize the economies
of all nations, particularly the Western "capitalistic democracies"
(most particularly, the United States); _Stage 2:_ bring about federal
unions of various groupings of these socialized nations; _Stage 3:_
amalgamate all of the federal unions into one world-wide union of
socialist states. The following passage is from the official program of
the 1936 Communist International:
"...dictatorship can be established only by 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 this system of federal unions would
expand ... at length forming the World Union of Socialist Soviet
Republics."
In 1939 (three years after this communist program was outlined) Clarence
K. Streit (a Rhodes scholar who was foreign correspondent for _The New
York Times_, covering League of Nations activities from 1929-1939) wrote
_Union Now_, a book advocating a gradual approach through regional
unions to final world union--an approach identical with that of the
communists, except that Streit did not say his scheme was intended to
achieve world dictatorship, and did not characterize the end result of
his scheme as a "World Union of Socialist Soviet Republics."
* * * * *
In 1940, Clarence K. Streit (together with Percival F. Brundage, later a
Director of the Budget for Eisenhower; and Melvin Ryder, publisher of
the _Army Times_) formed Federal Union, Inc., to work for the goals
outlined in Streit's book, _Union Now_, published the year before.
In 1941, Streit published another book: _Union Now With Britain_. He
claims that the union he advocated would be a step toward "formation of
free world government." But the arguments of his book make it very clear
that in joining a union with other nations, the United States would not
bring to the union old American constitutional concepts of
free-enterprise and individual freedom under limited government, but
would rather amalgamate with the socialistic-communistic systems that
exist in the other nations which became members of the union.
The following passages are from page 192 of Streit's _Union Now With
Britain_:
"Democrats cannot ... quarrel with Soviet Russia or any other
nation because of its economic collectivism, for democracy itself
introduced the idea of collective machinery into politics. It is a
profound mistake to identify democracy and Union necessarily or
entirely with either capitalist or socialist society, with either
the method of individual or collective enterprise. There is room
for both of these methods in democracy....
"Democracy not only allows mankind to choose freely between
capitalism and collectivism, but it includes marxist governments,
parties and press...."
When the year 1941 ended, America was in World War II; and all American
advocates of world-peace-through-world-law-and-world-government
jubilantly struck while the iron was hot--using the hysteria and
confusion of the early days of our involvement in the great catastrophe
as a means of pushing us into one or another of the schemes for union
with other nations.
Clarence Streit states it this way, in his most recent book (_Freedom's
Frontier Atlantic Union Now_, 1961):
"Japan Pearl Harbored us into the war we had sought to avoid by
disunion.... Now, we Americans had the white heat of war to help
leaders form the nuclear Atlantic Union."
* * * * *
On January 5, 1942 (when we had been at war less than a month), Clarence
Streit's Federal Union, Inc., bought advertising space in major
newspapers for a petition urging Congress to adopt a joint resolution
favoring immediate union of the United States with several specified
foreign nations. Such people as Harold L. Ickes (Roosevelt cabinet
officer), Owen J. Roberts (Supreme Court Justice), and John Foster
Dulles (later Eisenhower's Secretary of State) signed this newspaper ad
petitioning Congress to drag America into world government. In fact,
these notables (especially John Foster Dulles) had actually written the
Joint Resolution which Federal Union wanted Congress to adopt.
The world government resolution (urged upon Congress in January, 1942)
provided among other things that in the federal union of nations to be
formed, the "union" government would have the right: (1) to impose a
common citizenship; (2) to tax citizens directly; (3) to make and
enforce all laws; (4) to coin and borrow money; (5) to have a monopoly
on all armed forces; and (6) to _admit new members_.
The following is from a Federal Union, Inc., ad published in _The
Washington Evening Star_, January 5, 1942, urging upon the people and
Congress of America an immediate plunge into world government:
"....Resolved:
"That the President of the United States submit to Congress a
program for forming a powerful union of free peoples to win the
war, the peace, the future;
"That this program unite our people, on the broad lines of our
Constitution, with the people of Canada, the United Kingdom, Eire,
Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, together
with such other free peoples, both in the Old World and the New as
may be found ready and able to unite on this federal basis....
"We gain from the fact that all the Soviet republics are already
united in one government, as are also all the Chinese-speaking
people, once so divided. Surely, we and they must agree that union
now of the democracies wherever possible is equally to the general
advantage....
"Let us begin now a world United States....
"The surest way to shorten and to win this war is also the surest
way to guarantee to ourselves, and our friends and foes, that this
war will end in a union of the free. The surest way to do all this
is for us to start that union now."
* * * * *
World Fellowship, Inc., was also busy putting pressure on Congress in
January, 1942. World Fellowship, Inc., is one of the oldest world
government organizations. It was founded in 1918 as the "League of
Neighbors."
In 1924, the League of Neighbors united with the Union of East and West
(which had been founded in India). In 1933, this combined organization
reorganized and changed its name to World Fellowship of Faiths. In late
1941, it changed its name again and incorporated--and has operated since
that time as World Fellowship, Inc.
Dr. Willard Uphaus, a notorious communist-fronter, has been Executive
Director of World Fellowship, Inc., since February, 1953. Here is a
Joint Resolution which World Fellowship, Inc., urged Congress to adopt
on or before January 30, 1942--as a _birthday present_ to President
Franklin D. Roosevelt.
"Now, therefore, be it
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America, in Congress assembled, That the Congress of the
United States of America does hereby solemnly declare that all
peoples of the earth should now be united in a commonwealth of
nations to be known as the United Nations of the World, and to that
end it hereby gives to the President of the United States of
America all the needed authority and powers of every kind and
description, without limitations of any kind that are necessary in
his sole and absolute discretion to set up and create the
Federation of the World, a world peace government under the title
of the 'United Nations of the World,' including its constitution
and personnel and all other matters needed or appertaining thereto
to the end that all nations of the world may by voluntary action
become a part thereof under the same terms and conditions.
"There is hereby authorised to be appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of 100 million
dollars or so much thereof as may be necessary, to be expended by
the President in his sole and absolute discretion, to effectuate
the purposes of this joint resolution, and in addition, the sum of
1 billion dollars for the immediate use of the United Nations of
the World under its constitution as set up and created by the
President of the United States of America as provided in this joint
resolution...."
Congress rejected the world-government resolutions urged upon it in 1942
by Federal Union, Inc., and by World Fellowship, Inc.
* * * * *
But the formation of the United Nations in 1945 was a tremendous step in
the direction these two organizations were travelling. The "world peace"
aspects of the United Nations were emphasized to enlist support of the
American public. Few Americans noticed that the UN Charter really
creates a worldwide social, cultural, economic, educational, and
political alliance--and commits each member nation to a program of total
socialism for itself and to the support of total socialism for all other
nations.
The United Nations is, to be sure, a weaker alliance than world
government advocates want; but the UN was the starting point and
framework for world government.
The massive UN propaganda during the first few years after the formation
of the UN (1945) was so effective in brainwashing the American people,
that the United World Federalists, beginning with the State Assembly of
California, managed to get 27 state legislatures to pass resolutions
demanding that Congress call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose
of amending our Constitution in order to "expedite and insure"
participation of the United States in a world government. When the
American people found out what was going on, all of these "resolutions"
were repealed--most of them before the end of 1950.
But 1949 was a great year for American world government advocates.
* * * * *
On April 4, 1949, Dean Acheson's "brainchild," the North Atlantic
Treaty, was ratified by the United States. President Truman signed the
proclamation putting NATO in force on August 24, 1949. Most Americans
were happy with this organization. It was supposedly a military alliance
to protect the free world against communism. But few Americans bothered
to read the brief, 14-article treaty. If they had, Article 2 would have
sounded rather strange and out of place in a military alliance. Here is
Article 2 of the NATO Treaty:
"The parties will contribute toward the future development of
peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening
their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding
of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by
promoting conditions of stability and _well being_. They will seek
to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and
will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them."
Here in this "military" treaty, which re-affirms the participants'
"faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United
Nations," is the legal basis for a union, an Atlantic Union, a
_supra_-national government, all under the United Nations.
* * * * *
Immediately upon the formation of NATO, Clarence K. Streit created (in
1949) the Atlantic Union Committee, Inc. Strait's old Federal Union was
permitted to become virtually defunct (although it technically still
exists, as publisher of Streit's books, and so on). Streit got federal
tax exemption for the Atlantic Union Committee by writing into its
charter a proviso that the organisation would not "attempt to influence
legislation by propaganda or otherwise."
Yet, the charter of AUC states its purposes as follows:
"To promote support for congressional action requesting the
President of the United States to invite the other democracies
which sponsored the North Atlantic Treaty to name delegates,
representing their principal political parties, to meet with
delegates of the United States in a federal convention to explore
how far their peoples, and the peoples of such other democracies as
the convention may invite to send delegates, can apply among them,
within the framework of the United Nations, the principles of free
federal union."
An Atlantic Union Committee Resolution, providing for the calling of an
international convention to "explore" steps toward a limited world
government, was actually introduced in the Congress in 1949--with the
support of a frightful number of "liberals" then in the Congress.
The Resolution did not come to a vote in the 81st Congress (1949-1950).
Estes Kefauver (Democrat, Tennessee) gravitated to the leadership in
pushing for the Resolution in subsequent Congresses; and he had the
support of the top leadership of both parties, Republican and Democrat,
north and south--including people like Richard Nixon, William Fulbright,
Lister Hill, Hubert Humphrey, Mike Mansfield, Kenneth Keating, Jacob
Javits, Christian Herter, and so on.
From 1949 to 1959, the Atlantic Union Resolution was introduced in each
Congress--except the one Republican-controlled Congress (83rd--1953).
* * * * *
In 1959, Atlantic Union advocates, having got nowhere in ten years of
trying to push their Resolution through Congress, changed tactics. In
1959, Streit's Atlantic Union Committee published a pamphlet entitled,
_Our One Best Hope--For Us--For The United Nations--For All Mankind_,
recommending an "action" program to "strengthen the UN." This "action"
program asks the U.S. Congress to pass a Resolution calling for an
international convention which would accomplish certain "fundamental
objectives," to wit:
"That only reasonably experienced democracies be asked to
participate; and that the number asked to participate should be
small enough to enhance the chance for early agreement, yet large
enough to create, if united, a preponderance of power on the side
of freedom.
"That the delegates be officially appointed but that they be
uninstructed by their governments so that they shall be free to act
in accordance with their own individual consciences.
"That, whatever the phraseology, it should not be such as to
preclude any proposal which, in the wisdom of the convention, is
the most practical step.
"That the findings of the delegates could be only recommendations,
later to be accepted or rejected by their legislatures and their
fellow citizens."
* * * * *
The NATO Citizens Commission Law of 1960 fully carries out the purposes
and intent of the new Atlantic Union strategy fabricated in 1959 to
replace the old Resolution which had failed for ten years.
The roll-call vote on this law (published in the February 27, 1961,
issue of _The Dan Smoot Report_) shows what a powerful array of United
States Congressmen and Senators are for this step toward world
government.
The debates in House and Senate (Senate: _Congressional Record_, June
15, 1960, pp. 11724 _ff_; House: _Congressional Record_, August 24,
1960, pp. 16261 _ff_) show something even more significant.
While denying that the NATO Citizens Commission Law had any relation to
the old Atlantic Union Resolution which Congress had refused for ten
years to consider, "liberals" in both Senate and House used language
right out of the Atlantic Union Committee pamphlet of 1959 (_Our Best
Hope ..._) to "prove" that this NATO Citizens Commission proposal was
not dangerous: They argued, for example, that Commission members would
be free to act in accordance with their own individual consciences; that
the meetings of the Commission would be purely exploratory, and that
Commission findings would be "only recommendations," not binding on the
U.S. government.
Congressional "liberals" supporting the NATO Citizens Commission also
tried to establish the respectability of the Commission by arguing that
it was merely being created to explore means of implementing Article 2
of the NATO Treaty. Are these "liberal" congressmen and senators so
ignorant that they do not know the whole Atlantic Union movement is
built under the canopy of "implementing Article 2 of this NATO Treaty?"
Or, are they too stupid to understand this? Or, are they so dishonest
that they distort the facts, thinking that the public is too confused or
ignorant to discover the truth?
Although the liberals in Congress loudly denied that the NATO Citizens
Commission Law of 1960 had anything to do with Atlantic Union, Clarence
Streit knew better--or was more honest. As soon as the law was passed,
Streit began a hasty revision of his old _Union Now_. Early in 1961,
Harper & Brothers published the revision, under the title _Freedom's
Frontier Atlantic Union Now_.
In this new book, Streit expresses jubilation about the NATO Citizens
Commission Law; and, on the second page of the first chapter, he says:
"One change in the picture, which has seemed too slight or too
recent to be noted yet by the general public, seems to me so
significant as to give in itself reason enough for new faith in
freedom's future, and for this new effort to advance it. On
September 7, 1960, President Eisenhower signed an act of Congress
authorizing a United States Citizens Commission on NATO to
organize and participate in a Convention of Citizens of North
Atlantic Democracies with a view to exploring fully and
recommending concretely how to unite their peoples better."
_The Atlantic Union News_ (published by the Atlantic Union Committee,
Inc.) in the September, 1960, issue presents an exultant article under
the headline "AUC Victorious: Resolution Signed by President Becomes
Public Law 86-719."
The article says:
"Members of the Atlantic Union Committee could certainly be
forgiven if by now they had decided that the Resolution for an
Atlantic Exploratory Convention would never pass both Houses of
Congress. However, it has just done so. It was signed into law by
the President September 7, 1960. The incredible size of this
victory is hard, even for us in Washington, to comprehend...."
Who actually runs Clarence Streit's Atlantic Union Committee which
finally succeeded in ordering the Congress and the President of the
United States to take this sinister step toward world government? The
Council on Foreign Relations! The three top officials of the Atlantic
Union Committee are members of the CFR: Elmo Roper, President; William
L. Clayton, Vice President; and Lithgow Osborne, Secretary.
As of December, 1960, there were 871 members of the Atlantic Union
Committee. Of these, 107 were also members of the Council on Foreign
Relations. The December, 1960, membership list of the AUC is in Appendix
II of this volume. Each Council on Foreign Relations member is
designated on that list with CFR in parentheses after his name.
* * * * *
The NATO Citizens Commission Law of 1960 provided that the Speaker of
the House and the Vice President should select 20 persons to serve on
the Commission. In March, 1961, Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson appointed
the following persons as members of the Commission:
Donald G. Agger; Will L. Clayton; Charles William Engelhard, Jr.;
George J. Feldman; Morris Forgash; Christian A. Herter; Dr. Francis
S. Hutchins; Eric Johnston; William F. Knowland; Hugh Moore; Ralph
D. Pittman, Ben Regan; David Rockefeller; Elmo B. Roper (Jr.); Mrs.
Edith S. Sampson; Adolph W. Schmidt; Oliver C. Schroeder; Burr S.
Swezey, Sr.; Alex Warden; and Douglas Wynn.
Of the 20 members of the NATO Citizens Commission, 7 are members of the
Council on Foreign Relations: Clayton, Herter, Johnston, Moore,
Rockefeller, Roper, Schmidt. Roper is President and Clayton is Vice
President of the Atlantic Union Committee. The others are generally
second-level affiliates of the CFR.
* * * * *
The United World Federalists does not have as much power and influence
as Clarence Streit's Atlantic Union, but is clearly the second most
influential organization working for world government.
The specific objective of the United World Federalists is rapid
transformation (through expansion of the jurisdiction of the World
Court, establishment of an international "police force," and so on) of
the United Nations into an all-powerful world government.
The aim of the UWF organization, as expressed in its own literature (the
most revealing piece of which is a pamphlet called _Beliefs, Purposes
and Policies_) is:
"To create a world federal government with authority to enact,
interpret, and enforce world law adequate to maintain peace."
The world federal government would be,
"based upon the following principles and include the following
powers....
"Membership open to all nations without the right of secession....
World law should be enforceable directly upon individuals.... The
world government should have direct taxing power independent of
national taxation."
The UWF scheme provides for a world police force and the prohibition of
"possession by any nation of armaments and forces beyond an approved
level required for internal policing."
The UWF proposes to work toward its world government scheme,
"By making use of the amendment process of the United Nations to
transform it into such a world federal government;
"By participating in world constituent assemblies, whether of
private individuals, parliamentary or other groups seeking to
produce draft constitutions for consideration and possible adoption
by the United Nations or by national governments...."
Norman Cousins and James P. Warburg (both prominent Council on Foreign
Relations members) formed the United World Federalists in February,
1947, at Ashville, North Carolina, by amalgamating three small
organizations (World Federalists, Student Federalists, and Americans
United For World Government).
Cousins is still honorary president of UWF. Walter Reuther (a
"second-level" affiliate of the CFR), Cousins, and Warburg actually run
the UWF at the top. Other Council on Foreign Relations members who are
officials in the UWF include Harry A. Bullis, Arthur H. Bunker, Cass
Canfield, Mark F. Ethridge, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Harold K.
Guinzburg, Isador Lubin, Cord Meyer, Jr., Lewis Mumford, Harry Scherman,
Raymond Gram Swing, Paul C. Smith, Walter Wanger, James D. Zellerbach.
* * * * *
The Institute for International Order, 11 West 42nd Street, New York 36,
New York, is another organization working for world government. It was
founded on November 17, 1948, at Washington, D.C., as the Association
for Education in World Government. On May 17, 1952, it changed its name
to Institute for International Government. On May 7, 1954, it changed
names again, to the present Institute for International Order.
The purpose of this organization has remained constant, through all the
name changing, since it was originally founded in 1948: to strengthen
the United Nations into a genuine world government. And it is a part of
the interlocking apparatus which constitutes our invisible government.
The Institute for International Order gets 75% of its income from
foundations which members of the Council on Foreign Relations control;
and the following CFR members are officers of the Institute: Earl D.
Osborn (President), Henry B. Cabot (Vice President), Edward W. Barrett,
Paul G. Hoffman, and Irving Salomon.
In 1948, the State Department created the U.S. Committee for the UN
(mentioned in Chapter VIII, in connection with the Advertising Council)
as a semi-official organization to propagandize for the UN in the United
States, with emphasis on promoting "UN Day" each year.
The Council on Foreign Relations dominates the U.S. Committee for the
UN. Such persons as Stanley C. Allyn, Ralph Bunche, Gardner Cowles, H.
J. Heinz, II, Eric Johnston, Milton Katz, Stanley Marcus, Hugh Moore,
John Nason, Earl D. Osborn, Jack I. Straus, and Walter Wheeler, Jr.--all
Council on Foreign Relations members--are members of the U.S. Committee
for the United Nations.
Walter Wheeler, Jr., (last name in the list above) is President of
Pitney-Bowes, maker of postage meter machines. In 1961, Mr. Wheeler
tried to stop all Pitney-Bowes customers from using, on their meter
machines, the American patriotic slogan, "This is a republic, not a
democracy: let's keep it that way." Mr. Wheeler said this slogan was
controversial. But Mr. Wheeler supported a campaign to get the slogan of
international socialism, _UN We Believe_, used on Pitney-Bowes postage
meter machines--probably the most controversial slogan ever to appear in
American advertising, as we shall see presently.
The American Association for the United Nations--AAUN--is another
tax-exempt, "semi-private" organization set up (not directly by the CFR,
but by the State Department which the Council runs) as a propaganda
agency for the UN. It serves as an outlet for UN pamphlets and, with
chapters in most key cities throughout the United States, as an
organizer of meetings, lecture-series, and other programs which
propagandize about the ineffable goodness and greatness of the United
Nations as the maker and keeper of world peace.
The Council on Foreign Relations dominates the AAUN. Some of the leading
CFR members who run the AAUN are: Ralph J. Bunche, Cass Canfield,
Benjamin V. Cohen, John Cowles, Clark M. Eichelberger, Ernest A. Gross,
Paul G. Hoffman, Palmer Hoyt, Herbert Lehman, Oscar de Lima, Irving
Salomon, James T. Shotwell, Sumner Welles, Quincy Wright.
* * * * *
In 1958, the United States Committee for the UN created an Industry
Participation Division for the specific purpose of getting the UN emblem
and _UN We Believe_ slogan displayed on the commercial vehicles,
stationery, business forms, office buildings, flag poles, and
advertising layouts of American business firms. The first major firm to
plunge conspicuously into this pro-UN propaganda drive was United Air
Lines.
W. A. Patterson, President of United, is an official of the Committee
For Economic Development, a major Council on Foreign Relations
propaganda affiliate, and has served on the Business-Education Committee
of the CED. Mr. Patterson had the _UN We Believe_ emblem painted in a
conspicuous place on every plane in the United Air Lines fleet. There
was a massive protest from Americans who know that the UN is part of the
great scheme to destroy America as a free and independent republic. Mr.
Patterson had the UN emblems removed from his planes.
* * * * *
In 1961, the American Association for the United Nations and the U. S.
Committee for the UN (both enjoying federal tax exemption, as
"educational" in the "public interest") created another tax-exempt
organization to plaster the UN emblem all over the American landscape.
The new organization is called UN We Believe. Here is an article from
the May-June, 1961, issue of _Weldwood News_, a house organ of United
States Plywood Corporation (New York 36, New York):
"A. W. (Al) Teichmeier, USP director of merchandising, is the
Company's closest physical link to the United Nations--he's
President of UN We Believe.
"UN We Believe, under joint auspices of the American Association
for the UN and the U. S. Committee for the UN, is a non-profit,
year-round program geared to convince industry, organizations and
individuals how important public support can mean in preserving
world peace.
"USP uses the seal ... (UN emblem and _UN We Believe_ slogan) on
its postage meters for all New York mailings. Among some other
active companies in the program are CIT, General Telephone, Texaco,
American Sugar Refining, P. Lorillard Co., and KLM Dutch Airlines."
Plywood companies (small ones, producing hardwood plywood, if not big
ones like USP) have been grievously hurt by the trade and foreign-aid
policies which the UN, international-socialist crowd is responsible for.
Lenin is said to have remarked that when it comes time for communists to
hang all capitalists, the capitalists will bid against each other for
contracts to sell the rope.
The article from _Weldwood News_, quoted above, was quoted in the July
17, 1961, issue of _The Dan Smoot Report_. The companies mentioned
received some mail, criticizing them for supporting UN We Believe. The
Texaco Company denied that it had ever been active in UN We Believe and
said that the editor of _Weldwood News_ had apologized for the error in
publishing the reference to Texaco and had expressed regret for "the
embarrassment caused" Texaco.
While denying support for UN We Believe, however, Mr. Augustus C. Long,
Chairman of the Board of Texaco (and a member of the Business Advisory
Council) gave unqualified endorsement of the Council on Foreign
Relations. In a letter dated August 17, 1961, Mr. Long said:
"The Council on Foreign Relations is one of the most effective
organizations in this country devoted to spreading information on
international problems. The officers and directors of the Council
are men of reputation and stature. We believe that the Council
through its study groups makes an outstanding contribution to
public information concerning foreign policy issues."